CRSQ 2010 Volume 46, Number 3.Pdf

CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY

Q UARTERLY VolumeQ 46 Winter 2010 Number 3

• THE DEMISE

OF THE DINOSAURS

• THE ORIGIN OF

GRAND CANYON — PART I

• THE HUXLEY-WILBERFORCE

DEBATE MYTH

• THE DEMARCATION PROBLEM

• LUNAR RECESSION Q Volume 46 Creation Research Number 3 Society Quarterly Winter 2010

Articles Departments

Genesis and the Demise of the Dinosaurs ...... 159 Editorial: And the Creation Weeps ...... 155 Joel D. Klenck Book Reviews How To Be An Intellectually Fulﬁ lled Atheist Some Implications of the Demise (Or Not) by William A. Dembski of the Demarcation Problem ...... 167 and Jonathan Wells ...... 158 Tom Hogan God’s Universe by Owen Gingerich ...... 176 Nature’s I.Q.: Extraordinary Animal Behaviors The Huxley-Wilberforce Debate Myth ...... 177 that Defy Evolution by Balazs Hornyanszky Jerry Bergman and Istvan Tasi ...... 184 The Grand Canyon, Evolution and Intelligent Design by Richard S. Beal, Jr...... 216 The Origin of Grand Canyon Part I: Uniformitarianism Fails to Explain A Science and Religion Primer edited by Grand Canyon ...... 185 Heidi Campbell and Heather Looy ...... 222 Michael J. Oard Notes from the Panorama of Science Irreducible Complexity Not Refuted ...... 218 Modern Geohistory: An Assault on Christianity, Desert Plant Literature Demonstrates Not an Innovative Compromise ...... 201 God’s Creation ...... 223 John K. Reed CRS Conference Abstracts ...... 229

Minutes of the 2009 Creation Research Society Board of Directors Meeting ...... 237

Instructions to Authors ...... 241

Membership/Subscription Application and Renewal Form ...... 243

Order Blank for Past Issues ...... 244

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

Cover design by Michael Erkel: Michael Erkel and Associates, 1171 Carter Street, Crozet, Virginia 22932 CRSQ Editorial Staff Kevin L. Anderson, Editor Design services by Cindy Blandon, [email protected]. Bill Barrick, Biblical Studies Editor Jerry Bergman, Biology Editor The Creation Research Society Quarterly is published Don B. DeYoung, Book Review Editor by the Creation Research Society, 6801 N. Highway Eugene F. Chafﬁ n, Physics Editor 89, Chino Valley, AZ 86323, and it is indexed in the George F. Howe, Assistant Biology Editor Christian Periodical Index and the Zoological Record. Robert Mullin, Assistant Managing Editor Dave Phillipps, Paleontology Editor Send papers on all subjects to the Editor: John K. Reed, Geology Editor [email protected] or to Ronald G. Samec, Astronomy Editor Kevin L. Anderson, Van Andel Creation Research Theodore Siek, Biochemistry Editor Center, 6801 N. Highway 89, Chino Valley, AZ 86323. Jarl Waggoner, Managing Editor

Send book reviews to the Book Review Editor: Don B. DeYoung, 200 Seminary Dr., Winona Lake, IN 46590. CRS Board of Directors Don B. DeYoung, President Authors’ opinions expressed in the Quarterly are not Eugene F. Chafﬁ n,Vice-President necessarily those of anyone else associated with the Glen W. Wolfrom, Membership Secretary Creation Research Society. Danny Faulkner, Treasurer Mark Armitage, Financial Secretary Copyright © 2010 by Creation Research Society. All Gary H. Locklair, Recording Secretary rights to the articles published in the Creation Research Theodore Aufdemberge Society Quarterly are reserved to the Creation Research D. Russell Humphreys Society. Permission to reprint material in any form, in- David A. Kaufmann cluding the Internet, must be obtained from the Editor. Jean K. Lightner Michael J. Oard ISSN 0092-9166 John K. Reed David Rodabaugh Printed in the United States of America Ronald G. Samec

Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY CONFERENCE Abstract Submission Deadline: April 30, 2010 Submit abstracts to [email protected] (see instructions for abstract format at July 23 & 24, 2010 www.creationresearch.org) Registration: Campus of the CRS Member $35 ($55 after May 15) Non-member $70 ($90 after May 15) University of South Carolina Lancaster Register on-line at www.creationresearch.org (Lancaster, SC) or mail to: Creation Research Society, 6801 N Hwy 89, Chino Valley, AZ 86323

In conjunction with the conference: The Second Henry M. Morris Memorial Lecture Dr. Duane Gish will be speaking on “The Death of Darwinism” July 23, 2010, at 8:00 p.m. On the campus of the University of South Carolina Lancaster

And the Creation Weeps

On the evening of October 25, 1994, A search of related news articles such evil and suffering? If God is the a young mother placed her two small finds the following headlines: “Mother creator of the universe, then evil must children (ages 1 and 3) into the back Throws Infant Against Wall for Cry- exist only because He created it. Or, seat of her burgundy 1990 Mazda Pro- ing, Breaks Spine”; “Mother Throws perhaps evil exists because God is not tege, and drove to nearby John D. Long Newborn into Trash”; Mother Throws truly sovereign and His power is limited. Lake (South Carolina). Once there, she Baby Down Flight of Stairs, Five Perhaps it proves there is no loving god, positioned the car on the lake’s boat Times”; “Mother Throws 2-Month Old or that such a god is indifferent or has ramp, put the car in neutral with the Against Car During Argument”; “Moth- disappeared. Obviously, as this reasoning headlights still on, released the brake, er Throws 6-Month Old onto Concrete, goes, if God exists, and if He is loving exited, and let the vehicle roll into the Crushes Skull”; “Mother Throws Baby and all-powerful, then He would surely lake, her two small children still strapped into Latrine.” not allow all the evil in the world. into their car seats. At the subsequent Again the world asks why a loving Perhaps more than any other facet murder trial of Susan Smith, prosecutors God would allow such terrible things to of human affairs, the continued occur- described how the two boys (Michael happen. And the creation weeps. rence of suffering and evil has caused and Alexander) would have struggled In fact, certain words and phrases the most doubt and questioning of who for up to six agonizing minutes before (and the fateful image they project) have and what God is. Many critics challenge the car finally filled with water, ending become part of our vocabulary: Son of that the very reality of evil proves there their agony and their lives. Six minutes Sam, Kennedy assassination, 9/11, Col- is no loving God (e.g., Harris, 2004). In that they would hardly have understood umbine, Virginia Tech, Jonestown, Ted his Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas what was happening as their little bod- Bundy, “going postal,” Helter Skelter, admits that the existence of evil is the ies struggled against their restraints. A Boston Strangler. best argument against the existence of rescue diver who found the car several Andrew Kehoe, the largest single the Christian God. Certainly, one has days later said the little hand pressing mass murderer in American history, only to see the suffering of a small child against the window was heartbreaking. blew up a school building, killing to wonder why a loving God would ever Susan Smith’s motive for killing her sons dozens of little children. His motive? allow such a terrible thing. has remained clouded, but based on Greed and anger. Ironically, found in the letter found in her car, the popular the fence of Kehoe’s farm was a wooden suggestion has been that she was trying stenciled sign that read “criminals are The Real Question to win back her rich boyfriend who did made. not born” (http://en.wikipedia. While such questions are neither sim- not want her children. org/wiki/File:Kehoe_sign.jpg). ple nor trivial, answers can be found. The world pauses and asks, how The questions of “why?” resonate God provides some very clear insights could a loving God have allowed this to throughout all of human history. If throughout the Bible. For instance, the happen? And the creation weeps. God is sovereign, why would He allow book of Job provides an example of the Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 156 Creation Research Society Quarterly suffering of an innocent man. However, does not know or even hold claim to even in its damaged condition. Instead, as with Job’s friends, many people view answers for “why?” The knowledge and the real question is why God allowed His personal catastrophe and disaster as wisdom within the creation is limited; originally beautiful creation (Gen. 1:31) God’s punishment of a sinner. Nowhere as a result, so are its answers. to be damaged. To answer that question, in the account, though, did God em- So, how can we find the answers to we have to seek the “who” rather than brace this philosophy; He even chastised the “universals”? Instead of asking the the “why” of creation. Job’s friends for this attitude (Job 42:7–8). “why” of creation, we first need to ask When asked whose sin had caused a par- the “who” of creation. God answered ticular man’s blindness, Jesus answered Job’s questions of “why” with a lesson True Love that the blindness was not the fault of in creation (Job 38–41), causing Job to Many confuse their concept of a sover- him or his parents (John 9:1–4). What acknowledge that as a created being his eign, all-powerful God with the sugges- is more, the Bible is very clear that God knowledge of the creation and the Cre- tion that it must be His will for suffering cannot cause evil (James 1:13–18). How- ator was limited. As with Job, we also are and evil to exist. Still others confuse ever, bad things do happen to “good” limited in our understanding and can- their concept of a loving God with the people, and innocent victims are not not comprehend the answers to “why?” assumption that He must be powerless shielded from the consequences of a because we do not yet comprehend the to stop evil, or that somehow He fails to sinful world (Matt. 5:44–45). answer to “who?” anticipate its occurrence (e.g., he was It is also interesting to note that God When we view the creation, we not aware of an impending murder, thus never directly answered Job’s repeated can either focus upon the flaws and was unable to prevent it). However, just questioning of why this had happened. blemishes or recognize that these are as God warned Job, we find ourselves Some suggest that God avoided the ques- aberrations within a beautifully made confused about these concepts because tion because even He has no answer, or universe. Consider, for example, the we do not really understand who God He is too removed from human affairs famous Cologne Cathedral in Cologne, is. to have a concern. On the contrary, God Germany. During World War II, the When God created the universe, informed Job (and therefore us) that he magnificent structure was heavily dam- only humans were made in His image was asking the wrong question. Job was aged by aerial bombing. Anyone visiting (Gen. 1:26–27). Thus, the pinnacle of asking the “why” of creation. Just like the cathedral soon after the war would His creation was humans, who were ca- Job, every generation has asked the “why” have noted the pulverized sections of pable of giving and receiving His love. A of creation. Why am I here? Why did the walls and roof and the cracked and loving God could desire nothing less for this happen? Why is there misery? Why broken pieces of the magnificent stained His creation (1 Cor. 12:31–13:13). Any- is there evil? glass windows. However, even though a thing less would be a creation lacking Philosophers call such “why” ques- visitor may never have seen the cathe- the greatest of all gifts (1 Cor. 13:13). tions the universals. Throughout the dral before, no one would have asked However, true love is always a mat- millennia they have pondered them, why it was designed and built that way. ter of free will. It is not possible to force discussed them, debated them, argued Instead, even in its damaged condition, someone to love you. When Amnon fell them. Invariably, though, they have visitors would have noted that the walls, in love with Tamar—or so he thought failed to answer them because they have roof, and windows had originally been (2 Sam. 13)—he determined to force sought their answers only from human beautifully designed and painstakingly Tamar to return his love. In the moment wisdom and intellect. Like many phi- constructed. force was used, Amnon’s love turned losophers, we too seek our answers for Such it is with God’s creation. When to hate. What he had failed to realize the “why” of creation only from within scientists look at a cancer cell, they do was that the tenderness of love is only the creation itself. Some even hope for not ask why it was originally made that possible as a voluntary choice. Force is visits by space-traveling aliens, whom way. Instead, the researcher considers driven by lust, not by love. Thus, for us they think may hold some special insight. all the complex and marvelous work- to love God, we must have the ability to But the creation, for all its beauty and ings of a normal cell and contemplates choose to love Him. Despite His om- vastness, has no answers to offer. In fact, what went wrong to cause it to become nipotence, God will not force us or “pro- the writer of Ecclesiastes warns that cancerous. gram” us to love Him. True love must be searching for answers in this world will Thus, the question is not why God a choice; it cannot arise from coercion. only prove to be a search in vain. Despite created an “ugly” universe. Like the ca- Neither will God overwhelm us with popular, so-called scientific claims, the thedral or the cancer cell, the beauty and His power and majesty, since true love creation is not its own creator. Thus, it marvel of the creation is too apparent, does not result from fear or trepidation. Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 157

Instead, the Bible uses the example of child—Thump, he gets tripped? When comparative use of marriage provides marriage to describe God’s relationship a distressed mom attempts to throw her some insight. When a couple marries, with His people (e.g., Jer. 3:14–20; Eph. infant child, her arms suddenly become they vow for better or worse. Would you 5:22–33; 2 Cor. 11:2). Just as a man wins paralyzed? marry if you knew your spouse would the love of a woman by patiently wooing It really does not stop there, though. become an invalid? Couples also vow her, God patiently seeks our love (John Does pain and suffering result only from “till death do us part.” Would you marry 3:16; 2 Peter 3:9) and our return to Him these types of violent actions? From the love of your life if you knew he or (Isa. 44:21–23; Jer. 3:7–12; Joel 2:12–13; God’s vantage point, He also sees the she would soon die? Zech. 1:3; John 3:17). dire consequences of the far more com- The famous Christian writer C. S. However, freedom to choose to love mon actions of greed, gossiping, lying, Lewis married late in life and lost his God also means freedom to reject Him cheating, envy, and lust (Rom. 1:29–30). wife after only four years of marriage. In (Prov. 1:24–30; 1 Peter 4:3). Rejection of To truly stop evil, He would have to his book, A Grief Observed, Lewis notes God results from a desire to disobey and stop these actions also. What is more, that even if he had known she would die ignore His will for us. God is angry with evil thoughts lead to evil actions (Matt. so soon, he still would have married her those who reject His truth and desire 5:28; Matt. 15:18–19; James 1:13–15), 100 times over. He proceeds to observe only evil (Rom. 1:18–21). But since they so God would even have to control that one day of love with his wife gave have made the choice to do evil, God our thoughts. Such a god becomes him something he could never get any- will not prevent them from following more like an Orwellian “big brother” where else on earth. Even in his pain, he their hearts’ evil desires (Rom. 1:24–32). than a loving Father, monitoring and realized that one day of such love is bet- In fact, because everyone must have the preventing all unacceptable behavior ter than an entire lifetime without; thus freedom to choose, God will not prevent and thinking. Humans are reduced to it was worth the price of pain later. anyone from choosing to sin. nothing more than mind-controlled The “who” of creation is a God of While making a choice to sin is automatons. love. He would rather have one day currently referred to as “freedom of But consider further: even if God of true love with His creation than an expression,” such an attitude ignores allowed the murderer to act and simply eternity of our mindless servitude. The God’s warning that these actions have protected the victim (e.g., blocked the love of one soul is worth the price of all consequences (Prov. 1:24–32; Gal. bullet, shielded the bomb blast, etc.), the temporary tribulations of this world. 6:7–8). For humans, beginning with He would still be preventing our sinful The love of one soul is worth the price Adam and Eve, the consequence of actions from having consequences. As a of Himself (John 3:16–17). sin is death, both physical and spiritual result, these actions would be rendered In The Problem of Pain, Lewis (1962) (Rom. 6:23; 8:10). For the creation, the irrelevant to human affairs. We would observes that the major reason we can- consequence of human sin is separa- no longer be truly free to choose to not reconcile human suffering with a tion from the source of love, joy, and sin. Ultimately, a murderer would no loving God is because we often attach life—the Creator (Gen. 1:14–19; Rom. longer attempt to kill, not because of a too trivial a meaning to the word “love” 8:20–22). Thus, hatred, suffering, and changed heart, but simply because that and judge God’s wisdom by human death now ﬁll the void caused by our choice is no longer available. There standards. As an example, he suggests separation from God. Just as darkness is is no freedom of choice if there is no that an artist may expend little energy the absence of light, death and suffering ability to act upon the choice. (I do not or passion in the painting of a simple is the absence of God (John 1:1–9). The control the weather, so I cannot choose sketch. In contrast, Lewis (1962, p. 42) effects of this absence can be seen each to make it rain.) Therefore, once the concludes: night on the evening news. freedom to choose to reject God is lost, Over the great picture of his life—the Evil is a choice. People choose to do so is the freedom to choose to love God. work which he loves ... he will take evil (Gen. 6:5; Prov. 21:10; Matt. 15:19; The freedom of one choice must always endless trouble ... One can imagine a James 1:14–15), despite the horror of accompany the other. sentient picture, after being rubbed the consequences. However, were God and scraped and recommenced for to protect us from the consequences of the tenth time, wishing that it were our own sin, He also would be eliminat- The Cost of Love a thumb-nail sketch whose making ing our freedom of choice. What does Should God have made the world, know- was over in a minute. In the same this give us? When a murderer reaches ing that people would reject His over- way, it is natural for us to wish that for a gun—Zap, he gets shocked? tures of love, choose to do evil, and ruin God had designed for us a less glori- When a child molester approaches a His beautiful creation? Again the Bible’s ous and less arduous destiny; but Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 158 Creation Research Society Quarterly

then we are wishing not for more God knows the ultimate glory and joy plete answers to our questions of “why.” but for less. that awaits us, and these are far beyond Only the “who” of creation can restore a God does not promise health or our meager understanding (1 Cor. 2:9). broken mother to her children. And the wealth, but He does promise to make After just ﬁ ve minutes in heaven our creation will rejoice forever. all things work for good if we love Him worst nightmares will have already been (Rom. 8:28). God does not ignore hu- forgotten (Rom. 8:18–21; 1 Peter 5:10). Kevin Anderson, Ph.D. man pain and suffering (1 Peter 5:7); Why? Because we will be with the “who” Editor there are examples of healing through- of creation. Creation Research Society Quarterly out the Bible. He is fully aware of our Serving a life sentence in prison, Su- needs and pains (Matt. 6:8; 7:10–11; san Smith now claims to be a Christian. 10:29–31). But when the apostle Paul If so, she has the promise of being able pleaded for God to ease his physical to spend all eternity loving and being References suffering, God refused (2 Cor. 12:8–9). loved by Michael and Alexander, no Lewis, C.S. 1962. The Problem of Pain. The Perhaps by so doing, God was making more carrying the horrible pain of what Macmillan Co., New York, NY. the point for all subsequent generations she did. Only a loving God can do that. Harris, S. 2004. The End of Faith. W.W. that our focus needs to be upon things What an awesome God we serve. Only Norton, New York, NY. beyond the temporary (2 Cor. 4:16–18). the “who” of creation can give us com-

Book Review

How To Be by William A. Dembski An Intellectually and Jonathan Wells Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Fulﬁ lled Atheist Wilmington, DE, 2008, 149 (Or Not) pages, $12.00.

The title of this book (IFA) may seem to when they are using it, imagining that about the authors, each holding two be misleading, but the text packs a pow- it is merely an illusion…. Biologists use earned doctorates. erful wallop. IFA constitutes an expan- the assumption of design with such suc- IFA should be understandable by sion of “The Origin of Life” chapter in cess as a working tool precisely because college and university students trained an earlier 2008 book, The Design of Life, design in biology is not an illusion but in biology and biochemistry, as well as by also authored by Dembski and Wells. real” (p. 114). those with similar high school training. Using what arguably is the most The 25 chapters in IFA are relatively IFA belongs on the shelves of libraries impregnable of biologically-supported short, some only two pages. They are fol- used by these students. Intelligent Design, Dembski and Wells lowed by a one-page Epilogue: Atheism veritably clinch their case. They write, as a Speculative Faith, and 19 pages of Wayne Frair, Ph.D. “conditioned by a materialist outlook helpful references and notes. IFA does 1114 Fellowship Road that denies design, many scientists ﬁ nd not have an index. There is a single page Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 it difﬁ cult to acknowledge design even Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 159 Genesis and the Demise of the Dinosaurs

Joel D. Klenck*

Abstract he taxonomic divisions presented primarily by God in the Bible Tdiffer in part from the Linnaean classification system, which is familiar to modern biology. An evaluation was completed of the usage of the Hebrew terms for each division during the Creation week, after the Fall, during the Flood, and later in Biblical history. The analysis suggests that dinosaurs declined significantly after the Fall and before the Noachian Deluge. Conversely, after the Fall, mammals increased markedly. This conclusion runs contrary to other creationist theories that suggest that most dinosaurs died during or after the Flood. The Bible suggests these trends may have occurred for theological reasons: the danger that dinosaurs posed to the existence of mankind, their sus- ceptibility to demonic influence, and their capabilities under infernal control.

Introduction The prevailing theory held by many Oard and Froede, 2008). Many regard Watts, 1984). Both authors cite Biblical creationists is that the majority of the the period between the Fall and the passages which describe the impact dinosaurs perished during the Flood and Flood as having a minimal impact on the of the Fall, namely that God cursed subsequent glaciations (Ham 2006; Mor- extirpation and fossilization of terrestrial the serpent (Genesis 3:14–15) and the ris 1989; Oard 1990, 1993). This theory animal kinds and its impact on geo- ground (Genesis 3:17), creation groaned coincides with the majority belief that logical strata (Reed et al., 1996; Froede, (Romans 8:22), sin and death entered the Noachian Deluge and its attendant 1995; Walker, 1994; Reed et al., 2006). the world (Genesis 3:19, 4:8; 1 Corin- events caused “most of the geological Others postulate that pre-Flood deposits thians 15:22; Romans 5:12–14), all flesh formations of the earth” (Gish, 2006, were either degraded or removed by the became corrupted and the earth was p. 49). The debate concerning the Flood (Austin and Wise, 1994, p. 584; filled with violence (Genesis 6:10–13), pre-Flood/Flood boundary follows this Morris, 1994, p. 106; Walker, 1994, p. and carnivory began (Genesis 1:29–30; premise with researchers placing this 584). Still, there are a persistent few who 9:3–4). God’s curse of the ground dur- horizon in strata at the beginning of object to the minimalization of the Fall ing the antediluvian period is repeatedly Phanerozoic or Proterozoic eras—before and maximalization of the Flood, espe- mentioned by Cain when he is judged the Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic cially in regard to the curses God made (Genesis 4:10–12), in the statement by (Austin, 1994; Hoesch, 2007; Austin and on the ground, serpent, and on Adam’s Lamech after Noah is born (Genesis Wise, 1994; Wise and Snelling, 2005; descendants after the Fall (Gentet, 2000; 5:28–29); and by God after the Flood: “Never again will I curse the ground…” (Genesis 8:20–22). Furthermore, flood geologists cite examples today where * Joel D. Klenck, PhD, 2030 North Adams Street, Suite 905, Arlington, VA 22201, natural disasters, such as the recent [email protected] eruption of Mount Saint Helens, caused Accepted for publication August 13, 2009 the rapid buildup of stratigraphy. They Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 160 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Table I. Animal kinds attributed by God to ohf, or bird. apply these observations to the effects of volcanism during the Noachian Deluge ohf, 5775 ,עוף ,Morris and Austin, 2003). Conversely, Bird) no mention is made of similar events English after the Fall and before the Flood. Since He- Pronun- English modern natural disasters can cause the Book Chapter Verse brew ciation Translation ,(hatorim Turtledoves (6), turtledove (3 התרים rapid formation of stratigraphy, in an era Lev 1 14 when God does not curse the ground, it is [8449] turtles (3), turtle (3). hiyanah Dove (14), pigeons (9), doves היינה likely these same catastrophes were more Lev 1 14 pronounced after the Fall and before the [3123] (5), doves’ (2), pigeon (1). ,(ha’nesher Eagle (19), eagles (5 הנשר Flood, when God cursed the earth, and Lev 11 13 this curse was readily noticed by the an- [5404] eagle’s (1), eagles’ (1). ,(ha’perem Ossifrage (2 הפרם tediluvian patriarchs. Watts (1984, p. 21) Lev 11 13 notes that the pre-Flood world should be [6538] black vulture (1). ,(ha’ozniyah Osprey (2 העזניה considered as “a possible era of fossiliza- Lev 11 13 tion.” Gentet (2000, p. 19) places “the [5822] bearded vulture (1). ,(ha’da’ah Vulture (1), red kite (1 הדאה North American Mesozoic strata with its Lev 11 14 dinosaur fossils, tracks, nests, etc. as pre- [1676] kite (1). ha’ayah Aiah (6), kite (2), black kite האיה Flood.” The analysis below lends support Lev 11 14 to the minority view that most dinosaurs [344] (1), vulture’s (1), falcon (1). .(kol erev Raven (6), ravens (4 כל-ערב perished in the period after the Fall and Lev 11 15 before the Flood. [6158] ha’ya’anah Owl (9), ostriches (5), ostrich בת Lev 11 16 היענה Major Taxonomic [3283 & 3284] (1), eagle owl (1). ,(ha’tach’mas Nighthawk (2 התחמס Classifications of Terrestrial Lev 11 16 Animals in the Bible [8464] screech owl (1), great owl (1). ,(ha’shachaf Cuckow (2), gull (1 השחף Lev 11 16 Klenck (2009) provided an analysis of [7828] bat (1). the major taxonomic groups of terrestrial .(ha’netz [5322] Hawk (3), small hawk (1 הנץ Lev 11 16 animals as deﬁned by God in the Bible, הכוס especially in Genesis, Leviticus, and Lev 11 17 ha’kos [3559] Little owl (2), owl (1). ,(ha’shalach Cormorant (2 השלך Deuteronomy. The major terrestrial Lev 11 17 animal groups are shown below, with [7994] Egyptian vulture (1). ,(ha’yan’shuf Great owl (2), owl (1 הינשוף the animal kinds assigned to each group, Lev 11 17 their Hebrew spelling, English pronun- [3244] eared owl (1). .(ha’tinshemet Swan (2), white owl (1 התנשמת ciation, Strong’s Concordance number Lev 11 18 and translation(s). [8580] ,(ha’ka’at Pelican (3), cormorant (2 הקאת with wing Lev 11 18 [עוף] Every bird .1 (Gen 1:21) [6893] desert owl (1). ,(ha’racham Gier eagle (2), owl vulture (1 הרחם Lev 11 18 5775 עוף .(osprey (1), carrion-vulture (1 [7360] -הארץ] The beasts of the earth .2 ,(ha’chasidah Stork (5), heron (1 החסידה Gen 1:25) Lev 11 19) [חית .(ostrich (1 [2624] 2416 חית (ha’anafah Heron (2 האנפה Lev 11 19 776 ארץ [Gen 1:25) [601) [הבהמה] The cattle .3 .(ha’dukiphat Lapwing (2), hoopoe (1 הדוכיפת Lev 11 19 929 בהמה 4. Every thing that creepeth [1744] .(ha’atalef Bat (2), bats (1 העטלף Gen 1:25) Lev 11 19) [רמש] [5847] 7430 רמש ,(ha’ra’ah Glede (1), red kite (1 הראה Gen 1:27) Deut 14 13) [אדם] Man .5 .(hawk (1 [7201] 120 אדם Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 161

exhibits שרץ העוף creeper) are used to birds since the phrase) רמש swarmer) and) השדה] Every beast of the field .6 is the genitive as shown by העוף Gen 2:19) interchangeably, and their descriptions clearly) [ חית which is ,שרץ and describes ה creep literarily from nouns to different the article 2416 חית ,verb tenses. The terrestrial animals that in the construct state (Weingreen, 1959 7704 שדה comprise this group make it the most pp. 43–47). Hence, the swarmer is being -de העוף Birds, or ohf, were the first group diverse of the major classifications. Le- described as flying. Ha’ohf or of terrestrial animals that God formed viticus 11:21–22 mentions remes that fly scribes the swarmer and is not the object עוף השרץ during the fifth day of creation (Table I). and lists four “clean” creepers, which are of description. If the verse read This taxon comprised most likely both translated as species of locusts, crickets, then the text could be translated as “bird flying and flightless birds, due to the or both. Leviticus 11:42 notes that this which is swarming” or “swarming bird,” possible attribution of ya’anah to ostrich. group comprises animals that crawl on which would indicate that insects are Most translations of Lamentations 4:3 their belly and have many feet. part of ohf. However, the passage clearly is in the construct שרץ translate ya’anah as ostrich, which has In Leviticus 11:20–23 the word ohf indicates that ,and hence העוף continued into Modern Hebrew. The also is used with sheretz. However, ohf state and is described by description of both flying and flightless can be translated as bird, flying, or flieth. is correctly translated in every Hebrew is literally swarmer the translation of the text as “swarming thing שרץ העוף ,birds as ohf generally corresponds to the Here Linnaean class Aves. In addition, the flying or swarming thing which flies. Only which flies” or “flying swarmer.” bat, or atalef, is included in the group those unfamiliar with Hebrew grammar Leviticus 11:29 broadens the taxo- ohf. The translation of atalef as a bat is would state that Leviticus 11:20–23 refers nomic group of remes / sheretz to uniform throughout the Bible, and in Modern Hebrew, the word atalef continues to be translated as bat. Table II. The animal kinds attributed by God to remes or sheretz (creepers or On the sixth day of creation week, swarmers). God created the terrestrial creepers and remes or sheretz, 7430 or 8313 ,רמש או שרץ ,swarmers. The Genesis accounts use the Creeper or swarmer word remes as the primary designator English of these creeping animals; however, in Pronun- Genesis 7:22, sheretz is used. God first Book Chapter Verse Hebrew ciation English Translation .(ha’salam Bald locust (1), katydid (1 הסלעם uses these words to describe marine Lev 11 22 animals, which He created on the fifth [5556] ,(ha’hargol Long horned grasshopper (1 ההרגל day (Genesis 1:21–22). These verses Lev 11 22 show the interchangeability of remes and [2728] cricket (1), locust (1), beetle (1). sheretz and how the root word transitions ,(ha’chagav Grasshopper (1), locust (1 החגב from nouns to verbs to describe this Lev 11 22 taxon of creepers / swarmers. In Genesis [2284] short horned grasshopper (1). .(ha’heled Weasel (1), mole (1), rat (1 החלד Lev 11 29 שרצו המים the taxon is described as ,1:22 [or “that is creeping which [2467 הרמשת אשר ,(ha’akbar Mice (4), mouse (2), jerboa (1 העכבר swarmed the waters.” Romeset is an Lev 11 29 active participle and shertzu is a plural [5909] jumping rat (1). ha’tzav Lizard (1), tortoise (1), great הצב third-person perfect verb. This phrase Lev 11 29 in Genesis 1:21 reflects the creative [6632] lizard (1). .(ha’anakah Ferret (1), gecko (1 האנקה directive by God in Genesis 1:20: “God Lev 11 29 said let swarm the waters swarmers” or [604] ha’kuach Chameleon (1), monitor lizard הכח Here, sheretz is an im- Lev 11 29 .ישרצו המים שרץ perfect verb and a noun. To reiterate in [3581] (1), any kind of lizard (1). ,(ha’leta’ah Lizard (1), wall lizard (1 הלטאה less wooden English, God declares “let Lev 11 29 the waters swarm with swarmers” in 1:20, [3911] gecko (1). ,(ha’chumet Snail (1), skink (1 החמט and in 1:21 God creates each “living Lev 11 29 soul that is creeping which swarmed the [2546] sand lizard (1). .(ha’tinshamet Mole (1), chameleon (1 התנשמת waters.” Both the mechanics of 1:21 and Lev 11 29 [8580] שרץ the context of 1:20–21 exhibit how Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 162 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Table III. The animal kinds attributed to behemah, which includes medium to God created the behemah on the large mammals. sixth day, a word commonly translated as “cattle.” However, a comparison of Bibli- behemah, 929 cal passages shows that God includes a ,בהמה ”,Cattle“ English wide array of terrestrial animals in this Pronun- group including the camel, rock badger, Book Chapter Verse Hebrew ciation English Translation hare, swine, sheep, goat, oxen, deer, and ha’gamal Camels (45), camel (5), ibex (Table III). Zechariah 14:15 notes הגמל Lev 11 4 [1581] camels’ (3), camel’s (1). that horses, mules, camels, and donkeys ha’shafan Shaphan (30), conies (2), coney belong to this group. Deuteronomy השפן Lev 11 5 [8227] (1), cony (1), rock badger (1). 28:26 and 1 Samuel 17:44 notes that -ha’arnevet Hare (2), rabbit (1). behemah comprise non-avian carnivo הארנבת Lev 11 6 [768] rous animals that consume the remains ha’chazir Swine’s (4), swine (2), boar (1), of humans. Proverbs 30:30 notes that the החזיר Lev 11 7 [2386] pig (1) lion is from the behemah. To reiterate, shur Ox (54), bullock (11), oxen (8), while God associates small mammals שור Deut 14 4 [7794] cow (2), bullocks (1), bull (1). with remes (Leviticus 11:29), He at- kesavim Sheep (8), lamb (3), lambs (1), tributes mammals that are equal to or כשבים Deut 14 4 [3775] ram-lamb (1), young sheep (1). larger in size than hares to the behemah ezim Goats (40), goats’ (10), kid (7), group (Leviticus 11:3–7; Deuteronomy עזים Deut 14 4 [5795] goat (5) 14:4–5). ayal Hart (9), harts (2), deer (1), Of all the created animal groups, the איל Deut 14 5 [354] young stag (1). beasts of the earth are the most enig- tzevi Roe (8), roebuck (4), gazelle (3), matic with regard to Scripture. Although צבי Deut 14 5 [6643] roes (3), roebucks (1). mentioned during the Creation week, yach’mur Fallow deer (2), roebuck (1), very few references after Creation are יחמור Deut 14 5 [3180] roe deer (1). associated with this taxonomic classifica- zamer Mouflon (1), chamois (1), tion. These mostly comprise prophetic זמר Deut 14 5 [2169] mountain sheep (1), gazelle (1). passages without associations with spe- layish Old lion (2), lion (1). cific animals. Thallon (1984) adroitly ליש Prov 30 30 [3918] suggests that beasts of the earth were -adam Man (390), men (109), a large taxonomic grouping that com אדם Ec 3 18 [120] Adam (20), man’s (16) prised the beasts of the field, a smaller array of created kinds. Hence, specific -ha’sus Horses (97), horse (35), horse הסוס Zec 14 15 animals associated with beasts of the [5483] back (2), on horseback (2) field also belong to the more inclusive ,(ha’pfered Mules (8), mule (6 הפרד Zec 14 15 category of beasts of the earth. [6505] mules’ (1). Another association is found in Job ,(ha’gamal Camels (45), camel (5 הגמל Zec 14 15 40:15–24, which describes the “Behe- [1581] camels’ (3), camel’s (1). moth.” Behemoth should not be con- ,(ha’chamor Donkey (55), donkeys (39 החמור Zec 14 15 fused with behemah. The former refers [2543] donkey’s (1), male donkey (1). to a specific animal kind and the latter, .(ha’kelevim Dogs (16), dog (14), dog’s (2 כלבים Jer 15 3 a taxonomic group (Leviticus 11:3–7; [3611] 11:26–27; Deuteronomy 14:4–5). In addition to the differences in Hebrew include small mammals such as heled translated as lizards and turtles, to this spelling there is the pronounced diver- and akbar, the weasel and mouse, re- group. Hence, remes / sheretz is the gence in the description of Behemoth spectively. Also, chumet, which is com- broadest taxonomic group created by compared to other animal kinds which monly translated as snail also belongs God, comprising insects, arachnids, God associates with the behemah taxon. to remes. Furthermore, God assigns snails, small reptiles, and small mam- The description of Behemoth resembles tzav, anakah, and leta’ah, which are mals (Table II). that of a large herbivorous sauropod, Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 163

Table IV. The animal kinds attributed to the beasts of the field or chayat nachash is mostly associated with snakes, ha’sadeh. specifically vipers or sh’feefone (Genesis 49:17; Psalms 140:3; Isaiah 14:29). That -chayat ha’sadeh, 2416 & 7704 nachash usually refers to snakes is evi ,חית השדה ,Beast of the field English denced by other Biblical references that Book Chapter Verse Hebrew Pronunciation English Translation cite their venomous qualities (Numbers ,nachash Serpent (25), serpents (4), 21:6; Psalms 58:4); habitat on rocks נחש Gen 3 1 [5175] serpent’s (2) in walls, and in the desert (Proverbs ;tannin Dragons (16), dragon (6), 30:19; Ecclesiastes 10:8; Amos 5:19 תנין Is 43 20 [8577] serpent (2), serpents (1). Deuteronomy 8:15); aptitude for biting (Numbers 21:9; Proverbs 23:32); abil- such as an Apatosaurus, in that its tail is field. Biblical passages note that these ity to be charmed (Ecclesiastes 10:11; described as hanging “like a cedar” (Job animals prefer desolate land, carnivory, Jeremiah 8:17); and their mode of travel 40:17) and its enormity blocks the flow and are associated with hell (2 Samuel by crawling on the ground and licking of rivers (Job 40:22). Furthermore, the 21:10; Ezekiel 31:13, 39:17; Jeremiah the dust (Micah 7:17). However, Isaiah Behemoth is associated with the beasts 12:9). Beasts of the field are noted in 43:20 associates beasts of the field with of the field (Job 40:20) and is described prophetic passages but are not associ- tannin. In several Biblical passages, tan- as “the first in the ways of God” (Job ated with specific animal kinds, with two nin is portrayed as a terrestrial animal 40:19). In Genesis 1:25–26, God first noted exceptions (Table IV). Genesis and is translated as dragon, serpent, or created the beasts of the earth. Since Job 3:1 describes the serpent or nachash, as monster (Psalm 91:13; Isaiah 34:13; 40:19 describes Behemoth as first in the being the wisest of all the beasts of the 35:7; Jeremiah 49:33; 51:37). In Genesis ways of God and Genesis 1:25 notes that field. After the Fall, God cursed the ser- 1:22 tannin denotes a sea monster. The God first created the beasts of the earth pent stating that it would in the future association between nachash and tannin on the sixth day of creation, it appears move on its belly and eat dust all the is further clarified in Isaiah 27:1. In this that the Behemoth should be associated days of its life (Genesis 3:14). The verse verse, both nachash (serpent) and tannin with the beasts of the earth. suggests that before the Fall, the serpent (dragon or monster) are used to describe The last major taxonomic group must have stood upright and was not Leviathan, which in Job 41 depicts a very created by God was the beasts of the near the ground. After the Fall, the term large animal with terrible teeth (v. 14),

Table V. Comparison between major terrestrial faunal groupings from Scripture and Linnaean classiﬁcations.

Major Taxa Deﬁned Common by God Translation Proposed Linnaean Classiﬁcations Behemah Cattle Class: Mammalia larger than or equal to the size of hares. Remes / Sheretz Creeper / Swarmer Class: Mammalia smaller in size than hares. Phylum: Arthropoda (insects, spiders, lice) Class: Gastropoda (land snails and slugs) Reptilia Order Squamata, Suborders Lacertilia (lizards) Class: Reptilia, Orders Sphenodontia and Testudines (turtles and tortoises) Ohf Bird Class: Aves Mammalian Order: Chiroptera (bats) Chayat Ha’Aretz Beast of the Earth Supraorder: Dinosauria, Order: Ornithischia Supraorder: Dinosauria, Order: Saurischia, Suborder: Sauropodomorpha Chayat Ha’Sadeh Beast of the Field Supraorder: Dinosauria, Order: Saurischia, Suborder: Theropoda Reptilia Order Crocodilia (crocodiles and alligators) Reptilia Order Squamata, Suborders Serpentes and Amphisbaenia (snakes and worm lizards)

Table VI. A numerical comparison of mentions of behemah, beasts of the earth, and beasts of the ﬁeld from Genesis through Deuteronomy.

Beasts of % Beasts the Earth of the Earth Books in the Bible Behemah % Behemah & Field & Field

From Creation to the Fall (Genesis 1:1 to 3:24) 5 41.7% 7 58.3%

After the Fall and throughout the Flood (Genesis 4:1 to 9:29) 13 81.3% 3 18.8%

After the Flood to Joshua (Genesis 10:1 through Deuteronomy) 85 96.6% 3 3.4%

scales (v. 15), moving in the deep sea (v. Demise of the Beasts beasts of the earth or field are 31), whose exterior cannot be penetrated of the Earth and Field not mentioned. by spears, arrows, or swords (v. 26–29). There is a trend in the Biblical citation 2. Genesis 6:18–20. God orders Hence, the totality of Biblical passages of major terrestrial taxonomic groups. Noah to take the following suggests that nachash can describe both From Creation to the Fall (Genesis groups onto the ark: Noah’s fam- smaller snakes and much larger dragons 1:1–3:24), there is much mention of ily, behemah, remes, and birds. or monsters with reptilian attributes. the beasts of the earth and field. After Again, the text does not mention Furthermore, that God describes small the Fall and throughout the rest of the beasts of the earth or field. reptiles such as lizards and turtles as the Pentateuch (Genesis 10 through 3. Genesis 7:2–3. God commands being part of remes, strongly indicates Deuteronomy), the beasts of the earth Noah to put seven of every clean that the beasts of the field comprised and field are largely absent from any behemah and bird and two of larger reptiles. To sum, the beasts of narrative (Table VI). every unclean behemah on the the field taxon included dragons and The decline of Biblical references ark. Again, the beasts of the earth legged serpents, and incorporated large to the beasts of the earth and field after and field are excluded. carnivorous reptiles that moved above the Fall is striking in several respects. 4. Genesis 7:7–8, 13–14. When the ground. These descriptions of beasts At Creation and in Eden prior to the Noah enters the ark, he enters of the field suggest a correlation with Fall, the beasts of the earth and field the ark with his family, behemah, sauropods, especially theropods. are given primacy by God. On Day 6, remes, and birds. The beasts of Table V compares the major terres- God first created the beasts of the earth, the earth or field are not men- trial faunal groupings created by God before any other animal group (Genesis tioned. with the more familiar Linnaean clas- 1:25). In Eden, God first mentions the 5. Genesis 7:21, 23. When all ter- sification scheme. When God created beasts of the field and brings these kinds restrial life is destroyed by the ohf, these comprised all birds and bats. to Adam to be named (Genesis 2:19). Flood, the following animal ,groups are mentioned: birds [ערום] God created behemah, which included The serpent was more cunning ,the beasts of the field sheretz (creepers), behemah [מכל] mammals with sizes equal to or larger than all than hares. God created remes, a broad (Genesis 3:1). and men. Here, God notes that died, but again no [חיה] group that included small mammals, Despite the early prominence of animals small reptiles, terrestrial snails and slugs, the beasts of the earth and field, they mention is made of the beasts of and the entirety of the Linnaean phylum are hardly mentioned after the Fall, as the earth or field. Arthropoda: insects, arachnids, milli- shown by the following texts. 6. Genesis 8:16–19. When Noah pedes, and similar fauna. Finally, God 1. Genesis 6:7. When God con- and the animals leave the ark, created the beasts of the earth and field: templates the destruction of all the following groups are men- the river-stopping behemoth, legged terrestrial animals before the tioned: birds, remes, behemah, serpents, and dragons, which included Flood, He plans to destroy men, and Noah’s family. Neither the the supraorder Dinosauria. behemah, remes, and birds. The beasts of the field nor the beasts Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 165

of the earth are included in the today (Cooper, 1995). Assuming their most beasts of the field and earth to go debarkation description. earthly existence, the concern is that the extinct, with the exception of the kinds 7. Genesis 9:2, 9–10. Only after notoriety given to the hunters of these that crawled on the ground and ate the the Flood, when God states rare creatures, after the Fall, makes drag- dust of the earth. The latter would con- that all animals will fear man ons appear more numerous than they tinue to survive as viable populations. and establishes a covenant with actually were. Furthermore, mentions of Again, in lieu of the marked decline of Noah, is there mention of the terrestrial dragons and Behemoth in the mentions of beasts of the field and earth beasts of earth. However, in Bible are dwarfed by references to other after the Fall, the latter method seems these passages the grouping is taxonomic groups. For example, in the more likely. mentioned with the prefix col Old Testament, sheep are mentioned .which in 145 verses ,[כל–חית הארץ] ”or “all might infer a general statement Possible Causes for the about all the terrestrial animals Decline of the Beasts of the on earth. No mention is made The Impact of the Fall Earth and Field after the Fall about the beasts of the field. That the Fall had a tremendous negative Genesis 3 provides an indication as to After the Pentateuch, beasts of the impact on flora and fauna is attested why God allowed the destruction of the earth and field are noted in mostly to in other Biblical passages. After the beasts of the field and earth after the Fall. prophetic texts associated with the de- Fall, God cursed the ground (Genesis If Satan could possess the serpent, he and struction of the enemies of God, divine 3:17). God allowed thistles and thorns his minions would presumably be able punishment, and hell. These passages to spread throughout the earth (Genesis to possess other beasts of the field and discuss spiritual and symbolic animals 3:18). Sin and death entered the world earth. After the Fall, with sin permeat- and rarely mention the beasts of the (Genesis 3:19; 4:8; I Corinthians 15:22; ing the earth, the ability of evil spirits to earth or field as actual earthly animals. Romans 5:12, 14). Romans 8:22 de- possess beasts of the field and earth may Also, after the Fall, the phrases “beast scribes all creation as groaning because have been augmented. The only other of the earth” and “beast of the field” of the Fall. Genesis 6:10–13 states that time in the Bible where evil spirits pos- change. Before the Fall, beasts of the all flesh became corrupted, and the sessed animals occurred when Jesus cast earth and field appear as chayat ha’aretz earth was filled with violence. Finally, a legion of demons into a herd of pigs, an and chayat ha’sadeh. After the Fall, the after the Fall, carnivory began (Genesis animal kind belonging to the behemah phrase at times changes to behemat 1:29–30; 9:3–4). (Mark 5:8–13). After He did so, the pigs ha’aretz (Deuteronomy 28:26, Jeremiah God also cursed the serpent. The panicked, ran into the sea, and died. 15:3; 16:4) and behemat ha’sadeh (1 serpent is described as the wisest of the Conversely, when Satan possessed the Samuel 17:44), again reflecting the rise beasts of the field (Genesis 3:1). God serpent, a kind belonging to the beasts of the taxon associated with mammalian cursed the serpent with future-tense of the field, its abilities were seemingly fauna. verbs: “You shall go on your belly, and augmented as it proceeded to communi- Ham (2006, pp. 135, 143) notes pas- you shall eat dust all the days of your life” cate with and tempt Eve (Genesis 3:1–5). sages about terrestrial dragons after the (Genesis 3:14). These verbs strongly sug- Furthermore, it is possible that the beasts Fall (Psalm 91:13; Isaiah 34:13; 35:7; Jer- gest that, before God cursed the serpent, of the field had better communication emiah 49:33; 51:37; Ezekiel 29:3; 32:2; it was not crawling on its belly or eating ability and were perhaps more intelligent Malachi 1:8 [sic—Micah]). However, the dust of the earth. than other taxonomic groups, especially some of these references could be trans- There are two ways to interpret in their ability to collaboratively hunt in lated as crocodile (Ezekiel 29:3). The this curse. God may have: (1) cursed packs (Diegert and Williamson, 1998; mention of Behemoth, the river-block- only this serpent, which Satan had Carpenter, 1998). Lastly, it is obvious ing sauropod in Job 40:15, occurs only possessed, or (2) this curse extended to the physical danger that the beasts of in this passage. Also, legends concerning all the beasts of the field and earth. In the field and earth would have posed for the slaying of dragons or dinosaur-like light of the sharp proportional decline men, whether or not they were possessed, creatures after the Flood are relatively of references to these taxa after the Fall, given the size, speed, and protective few in number but widely promulgated. I suggest the latter. armor of Dinosauria species, if God had Saint George slew one dragon and Beo- There are two methods by which allowed them to thrive intact, as they did wulf dispatched one Grendel, yet the God could have exacted His curse. (1) at creation and before the Fall. iconography and retelling of these two He could have changed the individual To sum, it is suggested that God events permeate Western culture even serpent, or (2) He could have allowed dispatched the beasts of the field and Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 166 Creation Research Society Quarterly

earth because they could be more read- pact of this event on animal kinds. The Klenck, J. 2009. Major terrestrial animal tax- ily possessed by evil spirits, these pos- totality of Biblical evidence suggests that onomic classifications as defined by God. sessions would augment their abilities, the Fall, as well as the Flood, severely af- Journal of Creation 23(2):118–123. and because their physical size, speed, fected animal and human life on earth. Morris, J.D. 1989. How Do the Dinosaurs cunning, and communication ability Fit In? Institute for Creation Research, would have jeopardized the survival of El Cajon, CA. Adam and his descendants. References Morris, J.D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master CRSQ: Creation Research Society Quar- Books, Green Forest, AR. terly Morris, J.D., and S.A. Austin. 2003. Foot- Summary Austin, S.A. 1994. A creationist view of Grand prints in the Ash: The Explosive Story of From the Biblical passages, several Canyon strata. In Austin, S.A. (editor), Mount St. Helens. New Leaf Publishing conclusions can be made. Comparing Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastro- Group, Houston, TX. the proportion of Biblical references be- phe, pp. 57–82. Institute for Creation Oard, M.J. 1990. An Ice Age Caused the tween the beasts of the earth / field and Research, Santee, CA. Genesis Flood. Institute for Creation the behemah, we see a marked decrease Austin, S.A., and K.P. Wise. 1994. The Research, El Cajon, CA. of references to the former after Genesis pre-Flood/Flood boundary: as defined Oard, M.J. 1993. Life in the Great Ice Age. 3. It is significant that the proportional in Grand Canyon, Arizona and eastern Master Books, Green Forest, AR. decline in references to the beasts of Mojave Desert, California. In Walsh, Oard, M.J., and C.R. Froede, Jr. 2008. the earth and field occurs before and R.E. (editor), Proceedings of the Third Where is the pre-Flood/Flood boundary? not after the Flood. Conversely, the pro- International Conference on Creation- CRSQ 45(1):24–39. portional increase in references about ism, technical symposium sessions, pp. Reed, J.K., C.B. Bennett, and C.R. Froede, the behemah, the taxon comprising 37–47. Creation Science Fellowship, Jr. 1996. The role of geologic energy mammals with sizes equal to or larger Pittsburgh, PA. in interpreting the stratigraphic record. than hares, occurs before the Flood. Carpenter, K. 1998. Evidence of predatory CRSQ 33(2):97–101. Although some beasts of the earth and behavior by theropod dinosaurs. Gaia Reed, J.K., P. Klevberg, and C.R. Froede, Jr. field survived the Fall and Flood, they 15:135–144. 2006. Interpreting the rock record with- continued to exist on earth in markedly Cooper, B. 1995. After the Flood. New Wine out the uniformitarian geologic column. diminished numbers, were rarely men- Press, Chichester, UK. In Reed, J.K., and M.J. Oard (editors), tioned, and were largely inconsequential Diegert, C.F., and T.E. Williamson. 1998. The Geological Column: Perspectives to human and other animal populations. A digital acoustic model of the lam- in Diluvial Geology, pp. 123–146. Cre- Their continued earthly existence today beosaurine hadrosaur Parasaurolophus ation Research Society Books, Chino is questionable since Biblical authors, tubicen. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontol- Valley, AZ. mostly prophets, refer to these animals ogy 18(3):3. Thallon, J. 1984. The question box. Creation in spiritual and symbolic terms, often as Froede, C.R., Jr. 1995. A proposal for a Ex Nihilo 6(3):35–36. instruments of God’s judgment, not as creationist geological timescale. CRSQ Walker, T. 1994. A Biblical geological model. earthly animals. 32:90–94. In Walsh, R.E. (editor), Proceedings of The rapid decline of references to Gentet, R. 2000. The CCC model and its the Third International Conference on the beasts of the earth and field in Bibli- geologic implications. CRSQ 37:10– Creationism, technical symposium ses- cal passages, after the Fall and before the 21. sions, pp. 581–592. Creation Science Flood, supports the notion of a decline Gish, D.T. 2006. Evolution: The Fossils Still Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. of these taxonomic groups during this Say NO! Institute for Creation Research, Watts, D.C. 1984. Fossils and the Fall. Bibli- antediluvian period. This textual support El Cajon, CA. cal Creation 7(18):20–21. is in addition to other Biblical passages Ham, K. 2006. What Really Happened to Weingreen, J. 1959. A Practical Grammar which describe the impact of the Fall, the Dinosaurs? In Ham, K. (editor), The for Classical Hebrew, second edition. namely that God cursed the serpent and New Answers Book, pp. 149–177. Master Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. the ground, creation groaned, sin and Books, Green Forest, AR. (See pages 43–47 for a description of the death entered the world, and carnivory Hoesch, W.A. 2007. Geological provincial- absolute and construct states.) began. ism. Back to Genesis 222:c. Accessible Wise, K.P., and A.A. Snelling. 2005. A note We have a tendency to focus on at http://www.icr.org/article/3342 on on the pre-Flood/Flood boundary in the the effects of the Fall on Adam and his July 25, 2009. Grand Canyon. Origins 58:7–29. descendants and not recognize the im- Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 167 Some Implications of the Demise of the Demarcation Problem

Tom Hogan*

Abstract wo court cases, McLean v. Arkansas (“Arkansas”) in 1980 and TKitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District et al. (“Dover”) in 2005, showed how decisive philosophy can be when wielding the demarcation argument, as both creation science and intelligent design were denied victories because they were judged to be unscientiﬁc based on demarcation arguments. However, since the Arkansas decision and before Dover, the demarcation problem has generally come to be viewed by philosophers of science as intractable (i.e., “unsolvable”). The corollary of the intractability of the demarcation problem is that anything and everything can claim to be science without fear of being proved otherwise and that, therefore, the term “science” has no meaning. This has some clear implications for the creation project, including the renewed prospect for success in the courts and powerful answers to anti-creationist rhetoric.

Introduction cial opinion. Demarcation arguments was generally accepted by philosophers Reed et al. (2004) noted that forensic attempt to distinguish between science at the time of Dover (Meyer, 1994). arguments alone cannot win the battle and nonscience; demarcation is used by The philosophical strategy used by the against naturalism, and that philosophi- creationists, who argue that the theory of defense in Dover was sound, but the cal arguments are needed as well. Cre- common ancestry is not science because defense made several tactical errors that ationists should note that the court cases it has not been observed or documented prevented the court from discerning the Arkansas, in 1980, and Dover, in 2005, in the fossil record, and by evolutionists, status of the demarcation problem. One showed how decisive philosophy can be who argue that creation isn’t science of the foremost experts on the problem, when wielding demarcation arguments; because only arguments based on meth- Larry Laudan, published an article the philosophical testimony was more odological or metaphysical naturalism about demarcation (Laudan, 1983) that influential in the judicial decisions are “science.” is widely regarded by philosophers as than the scientific testimony and was The intractability (i.e., “unsolv- definitive (Fales, 2005; Koperski, 2008; quoted verbatim at length in the judi- ability”) of the demarcation problem Meyer, 1994; Monton, 2006). Robert Pennock, a philosopher who was an expert witness for the plaintiffs, testified about Laudan’s work on the demarcation problem. Pennock answered the * Tom Hogan, MS, 24350 West 55th Street, Shawnee, KS, [email protected] question equivocally, thereby giving two Accepted for publication September 9, 2009 false impressions: Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 168 Creation Research Society Quarterly

(1) That demarcation is not intrac- when Newton was able to describe the begging the question. The demarcation table and was used by most phi- behavior of gravity without finding its plan must identify the methodological losophers to distinguish science cause. Eighteenth-century philosophers or epistemic criteria sufficiently clearly from non-science, and of science maintained demonstrability to give the desired result. (2) That Larry Laudan would have as the essential criterion for defining In dealing with the second and third considered intelligent design to “science.” questions, Laudan shows that sufficient be nonscience because Laudan Laudan notes that the view that all conditions are used to make sure that would have used demarcation to theories may be fundamentally flawed— things thought to be “scientific” are not do so, which was contrary to fact, a view called fallibilism—became excluded by the demarcation criteria since Laudan had shown the er- prominent in the nineteenth century. and that a failure to meet necessary con- ror of that strategy (Laudan is an Laudan found that foundationally orga- ditions is used to exclude things that are anti-creationist who thinks that nized progress of scientific theories was in fact “scientific.” Both types of condi- creation science is bad science; no longer a certainty, as many theories tions are essential for any demarcation cf., Laudan, 1983). were overturned or seriously amended plan and must be precisely specified in This paper will review and assess during that period. These theories had order to be useful. Laudan’s (1983) paper, “The Demise been developed gradually and system- In answering the last question, Lau- of the Demarcation Problem,” and will atically, with newer theories built on dan uses historical examples of demarca- discuss some implications that follow the earlier ones. With the rejection of tion attempts. He evaluates the motiva- from it that may impact future creation- some of the more foundational, earlier tions of Aristotle, the logical positivists ist/intelligent design court cases and the theories, the whole progressive view of (e.g., Carnap), and Karl Popper in their creation/evolution debate. science was in jeopardy. Science was efforts to determine demarcation cri- no longer apodictically certain, but was teria. Laudan states that Aristotle used a work in progress. demarcation to attack the followers of Revisiting Laudan’s Philosophers then began to rely Hippocrates, the logical positivists did “The Demise of the upon methodology—such as methods the same against the metaphysicians, Demarcation Problem” of reasoning and researching observable and Popper aimed at discrediting Marx Following the 1980 Arkansas case, Lau- entities—for their demarcation criteria. and Freud through demarcation. Lau- dan reviewed the history of the demarca- However, this is not what scientists were dan recognizes the power of labeling tion problem in 1983. (All references to actually doing. Nevertheless, despite the and categorizing—stressing that phi- Laudan in this section refer to his 1983 philosophic failure in demarcation, rhet- losophers should be careful to do this paper unless otherwise indicated.) oric was used against what was perceived correctly. Laudan notes that the motives According to Laudan, science was as superstition under the pretense that of philosophers should not corrupt their initially defined as those disciplines effective demarcation criteria existed. philosophical reasoning when apply- in which there was apodictic (demon- After examining historical attempts ing demarcation. He might have been strable) certainty. It was knowledge, at defining demarcation criteria, Laudan thinking of Michael Ruse’s testimony not mere opinion. In contrast, “craft,” lays out questions that he believes must in Arkansas as an example of motives which seeks methods to accomplish a be considered in demarcation: corrupting correct reasoning. specific purpose, is also demonstrable, 1. How shall we determine if the In the final section of his paper, and philosophers of science needed a demarcation criteria are ad- Laudan turned to modern demarcation way to distinguish science from craft. equate? attempts, beginning with the logical The earliest philosophers (e.g., Aristotle) 2. What are the necessary and suf- positivists. Logical positivists insisted used first causes as their demarcation ficient conditions for demarca- that scientific statements must be ex- criteria. First causes were thought to tion? haustively verifiable. However, many be those events that were independent 3. What rationale for calling things scientific conclusions cannot be exhaus- of other causes, such as natural laws. “scientific” or “unscientific” is tively tested (e.g., all universal physical Laudan (1983) used astronomy as an precise enough to be useful? laws), while many other ostensibly example of something that could be 4. What is our motivation for ap- nonscientific laws are testable (e.g., the both science and craft, depending on plying demarcation? statement that the earth is flat). Popper’s whether it searched for first causes. Sev- Laudan concludes that the question sophisticated falsificationism lacks enteenth-century scientists discarded the of adequacy must allow for current sci- discrimination—many things that are first causes idea as essential for science entific practice, although I believe he is ostensibly “unscientific” (e.g., the flat- Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 169

earth hypothesis) are falsifiable, while cannot specify what is not science. This obtaining advantageous court decisions some scientific propositions (e.g., that startling development has a number of for creationists and intelligent design atoms exist) are not falsifiable. major implications for creationists and advocates may result. If it can be shown Laudan considers whether “scienti- intelligent design (ID) advocates. One that secularists cannot adequately and ficity” might have the property of degree of the most important is that the basis conclusively define “science,” then their and whether theories might be com- for the defeat of ID and creation in options for prevailing in other cases will pared based on their testability. He notes Arkansas and Dover was philosophical rest on naked judicial fiat. that there are technical difficulties with malpractice. Let us be very clear—as far as this approach, and only Popper’s theory philosophy of science is concerned, de- is articulated well enough to evaluate marcation is dead and long buried these “testability.” Furthermore, it can only be Philosophical Malpractice twenty-odd years since Laudan’s 1983 used when one theory implies another After Ruse testified against creation sci- paper was published, notwithstanding competing theory and is, therefore, use- ence in Arkansas in 1980, Laudan (1982) the philosophical malpractice by Ruse less for demarcation. Another concern is responded, essentially accusing Ruse of and Pennock at the bar. No adequate that Popper sees testability as a semantic philosophical malpractice. Intelligent reply to Laudan has been published. notion, while demarcation relies on design philosopher Stephen Meyer epistemic principles. Again, if anything (1994) also found fault with Ruse’s work. is falsifiable, according to Popper, it is Ruse (1982) answered Laudan, arguing Heterogeneity of Science scientific, even if it is falsified, including that the overwhelming need to defeat and Laudan’s Proposed the flat-earth theory or the statement “creationism” can excuse any philo- Legal Review of Science that the moon is made of Limburger sophical errors. Philip Quinn (1984) re- As part of his overall argument, Laudan cheese. sponded to Ruse’s defense by caustically (1983) also made two other important, Next, Laudan looks at some current inquiring whether it was proper behavior but ultimately problematic points. First, (as of 1983) candidates for demarcation for a philosopher to perjure himself in a that science is wildly heterogeneous, and strategies. These include fruitfulness secular setting as long as he washed his second, that some a posteriori demarca- and progressive development, whether hands in academia. tion is possible between good and bad a theory has been well tested, accuracy Robert Pennock likewise committed science based on evidential arguments. of predictions, pragmatism, and coher- philosophical malpractice in Dover and In the second statement, Laudan im- ence. He asks (and I paraphrase), “Can was taken to task by Fales (2005), Mon- plicitly suggested that the courts should ostensibly ‘unscientific’ things be well ton (2006), and Koperski (2008). Plant- judge between good and bad science. tested, including literary theory, car- inga (2006) likewise attacked Pennock’s His first statement is absurd, and his pentry, and football strategy?” (Laudan, idea that methodological naturalism as a second statement holds the potential for 1983, p. 325). Laudan observes that shaping principle in science can be used disastrous consequences. some disciplines that are speculative as a demarcation criterion. If the courts were given the power and investigate first principles may not In both Arkansas and Dover, heavy to judge between good and bad science, be well tested when compared with dis- reliance was placed on the categoriza- they would be taking on the responsibil- ciplines that are not speculative and are tion of creation and intelligent design as ity of professional peer review—which well tested. He also shows that many os- nonscience, based on demarcation cri- is likely to stultify science. Science has tensibly “unscientific” disciplines make teria. The judicial decisions were based thrived for centuries on the principle cognitive progress and many ostensibly on the philosophical error that valid of peer review. Since law and science “scientific” disciplines do not make much demarcation criteria have been found are different disciplines, applying dif- progress by comparison. The conclusion and that one of them—methodological ferent methods, review by lawyer rather of Laudan’s survey paper is that the cur- naturalism—excludes the supernatural than review by peers would eliminate rent-as-of-1983 status of the demarcation from science. the cooperative and piecemeal nature problem in the philosophy of science is This makes Laudan’s assessment of scientific discovery that has proven that it is intractable (i.e., unsolvable). that demarcation is intractable vitally fruitful over many centuries. There is Laudan’s conclusion is still gener- important to both creationists and propo- no reason to think that judges would ally uncontroversial in philosophy of nents of intelligent design. If the current be more competent than scientists in science (Fales, 2005; Koperski, 2008; inability to define clear demarcation reviewing scientific work. If legal review Meyer, 1994; Monton, 2006). His criteria were properly communicated in were to be applied to creation and ID, conclusion means that philosophy court, increased prospects of success in it could have the effect of stifling open Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 170 Creation Research Society Quarterly

inquiry; scientists and professors might reasons flow from their technological to happen, “science” would have no real forever be under the threat of legal ac- contributions. meaning? Yet we know that due to our tion for their communications. Political In order to show that Laudan’s state- current knowledge about the status of considerations would drive science, as ment, “science is wildly heterogeneous,” the demarcation problem, we cannot was seen with the ideas of Lysenko in is absurd, we must revisit the demar- prevent this scenario from occurring. the Soviet Union (Bergman, 2009; Fey- cation (of science from nonscience) Thus, even without the list of “sciences” erabend, 1975). This situation would be problem. Laudan (1983) concluded that being expanded absurdly, we see that the undesirable for both science and law. philosophy of science has so far been un- definition of “science” is so vague as to Laudan’s acceptance of the hetero- able to define a list of properties that will be meaningless. geneous status quo in the definition of always separate science and nonscience. If “science” cannot be defined in a “science” ignores the damage it does to This means that philosophy of science way to give it meaning, then Laudan’s disciplines that have built their reputa- cannot clearly distinguish science from (1983) statement about the “heteroge- tions on technological achievements— nonscience. This vagueness means that neity of science” is clearly meaningless, e.g., physics, chemistry, and biology. philosophy of science will be unable to since it relies upon “science” having When the technological contributions prevent anything from claiming to be meaning. In fact, “philosophy of science” and epistemic credibility of some “science” since philosophy of science and “history of science” also would be disciplines are diluted by association has shown that demarcation criteria do meaningless phrases. Hence, Laudan’s with disciplines that have not produced not exist that can be used to prevent (1983) statement about the “heteroge- many technological achievements, anything from claiming to be “science” neity of science,” being meaningless, is such as economics, political science, (e.g., astrology, carpentry, and art could absurd. sociology, psychology, meteorology, and claim to be “science,” which is coun- paleontology, the reputation of the tech- terintuitive; we shall examine astrology nologically-prolific disciplines suffers and art later in this paper). If this is true, Why Laudan’s Failure from the association. We see this in the then “science” ceases to have a clear or to Find Demarcation Criteria complaints of physicists and chemists even useful meaning. Was Predictable when climatologists and experts from If the demarcation problem is intrac- Laudan examined demarcation criteria the “social sciences” claim to speak for table, then we must consider whether against examples of science from his- science; physics and chemistry have a “science” therefore has any meaning. tory. Laudan essentially granted history cornucopia of technological benefits to This is a very counterintuitive question, the privilege of defining “science.” This their credit, but climatology and the “so- because we think of specific disciplines created inevitable problems for phi- cial sciences” not so much. Conversely, such as physics, chemistry, etc. as “sci- losophy, because the history of science many disciplines have enhanced their ence.” However, philosophy deals with had no governing criteria for demarca- reputations simply by claiming to be knowledge; our intuition about what tion; rather, the reputation of “science” “science,” but without gaining their cred- is “science” may merely be opinion. likely led to many disciplines riding the ibility by making significant technologi- Without demarcation criteria, how can coattails of “science” by claiming to be cal contributions. Hence the historical philosophy of science rationally support “sciences.” Thus, where originally there increase in “science’s” heterogeneity any definition of “science”? were only physics, chemistry, biology, and the accompanying dilution of its Laudan (1983) has shown that no and geology, we see in history that many reputation. demarcation criteria exist to prevent any other disciplines later claimed to be “sci- Asserting that a discipline’s reputa- craft, art, or philosophy from claiming to ences,” including: tion can be enhanced by technological be “science.” Suppose that sewing and • the “social sciences” of psychol- fruit does not rely on a claim that demar- football coaching wanted to designate ogy, sociology, and political cation criteria exist. Such claims ignore themselves as sciences alongside art, science, Laudan (1983). This paper makes no astrology, and carpentry. How should • economics, claim that physics, chemistry, and biol- we stop them? We have seen that no • engineering, ogy are “science” or that technological demarcation criteria exist to do so. What • medical science, and, lately, contributions by a discipline constitute meaning does “science” have if the list • history. demarcation criteria; this paper merely of things that are acknowledged as “sci- This conflation, which occurred asserts that there are certain ethical ence” includes diverse human interests historically, was independent of any reasons for these disciplines to be jeal- that may have no common properties? plan to maintain meaning for “science” ous of their reputations; those ethical Aren’t we forced to admit that if this were through common criteria. Thus, it was Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 171

to be expected that Laudan’s historical definition, then that definition not also exclude things that we consider tests of demarcation criteria would be is meaningless. to be scientific. unsuccessful. Rather than try to prove this theorem Let’s consider another example. at this point, let us assume its validity and Suppose an artist were to assert that art use it to prove that the word “science” is is science. He might argue that art uses Laudan’s Implicit meaningless. geometry, as does astronomy, because it Acceptance of Scientism Suppose we take a field that intui- studies perspective and form. The artist Since Laudan accepted the heterogene- tively is removed as far as possible from asserts that he is very empirical—he ity of “science,” he also necessarily ac- science, such as astrology, and attempt studies his subjects carefully, examining cepted the claims of various disciplines to find actual demarcation criteria to form, shadow, color, and lighting. He to be “sciences.” The aim of such claims exclude it from science. Laudan (1983) says that he performs experiments. He is to enhance the disciplines’ reputations. showed that any potential demarcation experiments with pen studies before We see from the failure of demarca- criteria that we might use to exclude committing to paint and experiments tion criteria that there is no necessary astrology from science will fail, because with mixing different colors of paint reason for such a claim based on a set the same criteria also would eliminate before committing the paint to the of common criteria from a definition of other fields that we would intuitively canvas. “science.” Rather, the more likely reason call “science.” Bear in mind that with It might be asked, “What knowledge for these claims is due to the reputation demarcation, we are applying criteria is gained from art?” The artist would enhancements that they gain from the based on a set of properties in order to reply that he investigates human con- assumption that science has epistemic dismiss something as nonscience so that ceptions of beauty, form, nature, and power; by successfully claiming to be empirical tests are unnecessary. If we the human experience. His studies “science,” a discipline is able to claim this cannot exclude something like astrol- sometimes overlap with biology, geology, same epistemic power, and its reputa- ogy as nonscience, how can we exclude psychology, and sociology, which intuition is enhanced. The original aim of anything? If we cannot exclude anything tively are regarded as sciences. Thus, we scientism was to rely only on “science” as nonscience, then the definition of see that even art cannot be excluded by for epistemic truth. A weaker version science is meaningless. demarcation criteria. of scientism claims that “science” pro- What are the potential demarcation We’ve seen that philosophy has duces the strongest claims for epistemic criteria that we might apply to astrology? problems trying to define “science.” Do truth, rather than exclusive claims. In Does astrology make risky predictions? nonphilosophers do any better? practice, this weaker version is almost Certainly. Is it falsifiable? Sure. Does indistinguishable from the stronger ver- it have a specified causal mechanism? Problems with the Definitions sion, since “science” is advancing into No, but neither does gravity. Does its of “Science” Outside Philosophy many areas of human life, including knowledge progress? Astrologers think Let’s start our examination of attempts explanations about religion and sexual so. Does it investigate phenomena? Yes, by nonphilosophers to define “science” attraction. By accepting the historical it investigates the relationships between by considering the idea that “science” status quo (heterogeneity) for his defi- astronomical bodies and their effects on might be defined as a list of disciplines: nition of “science,” Laudan therefore people’s lives. Is astrology quantifiable? physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Whose implicitly must accept scientism. In some ways. The degrees of angle of list are we to use? The list of the National the planets and stars from the sun can Academy of Sciences (NAS), which be measured. Some properties in biology includes economics, sociology, psychol- Meaninglessness, cannot be measured, such as properties ogy, and engineering? The list of the Demarcation Criteria, and like “cat-ness.” Are there anomalies in National Science Foundation? The list the Definition of “Science” astrology? Sure, but there are also many that physicists might create? The list that anomalies in other things we think of as creationists might create? The list that Meaninglessness Theorem science, including the placebo effect, evolutionists might create? What is the 1. For any definition of something, evidence for variation in the fine-struc- rationale for which items to include in we should be able to find at least ture constant, and cold fusion, which the list? Will that list be universally ac- one thing that does not fit that was recently reproduced by a number ceptable? Will that list even be useful in definition. of researchers (Brooks, 2007). Thus, we the future, when new disciplines arise? 2. If a definition cannot find any- see that no demarcation criteria exist What justification can then be given thing that is excluded by the that can be applied to astrology that do for refusing to accept applications for Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 172 Creation Research Society Quarterly

entry from current disciplines that are facts (data). An ultimate purpose of of “science,” which necessarily decreases not on the list, seeing as we’ve just seen science is to discern the order that the reputation of “science.” philosophy’s failure to validate any de- exists between and amongst the vari- Science is the pursuit of knowledge marcation strategy? Is the determination ous facts (Gottlieb, 1997). and understanding of the natural to be based simply on ad hoc rationale The investigation of natural and social world following a system- and brute force? phenomena through observation, atic methodology based on evidence A couple of textbooks define “science” theoretical explanation, and experi- (The Science Council, 2009). in terms of the “scientific method.” (Dick- mentation, or the knowledge pro- The preceding definition conflicts son, 1995; Thompson and Turk, 1998). duced by such investigation (Pickett with some definitions since it includes Let’s next consider the idea that we 2005, p. 554). knowledge from the social world and can look at definitions from various dis- Science is a discipline that asks omits engineering. ciplines for a definition of “science.” and answers questions about the Science is the systematic enterprise Science is the concerted human ef- working of the physical world (Trefil of gathering knowledge about the fort to understand, or to understand and Hazen, 2004, p. 2). universe and organizing and con- better, the history of the natural Notice that these definitions also densing that knowledge into testable world and how the natural world limit the definition of “science” to laws and theories (American Physi- works, with observable physical nature, which conflicts with the defini- cal Society Council,1999). evidence as the basis of that under- tion implicit from the NAS list. They This ambiguous definition lacks any standing (Railsback, 2009a). also conflict with the following, broader explicit reference to historical study This definition relies on the claim definitions: (though the authors may have assumed that one can use “science” to understand Science consists simply of the for- it) and conflicts with the definition im- “history.” This definition forces a confla- mulation and testing of hypotheses plicit from the NAS list. This definition tion of disciplines. Furthermore, it limits based on observational evidence; also assumes the existence of laws, which the domain of “science” to the natural experiments are important where ap- are absent from most other definitions of world, which conflicts with the list from plicable, but their function is merely “science” that we have considered. NAS, which includes disciplines that to simplify observation by imposing Thus, from the examples above, we don’t primarily study the natural world controlled conditions (Dott and Bat- see that nonphilosophers are unable to in whole or in part (e.g., engineering, ten, as quoted in Railsback, 2009b). agree about a definition of “science.” economics, and much of sociology). I stress that my use of the term Ernst Mayr considers the question, Let’s continue looking at various “science” is not limited to the natural “What is science?” historically, and notes definitions: sciences, but includes investigations that it cannot be reduced to a precise 1. the systematic observation of aimed at acquiring accurate knowl- definition. He even states that science, natural events and conditions in edge of factual matters relating to any during one period, was extrapolated order to discover facts about them aspect of the world by using rational from Christian theology (Mayr, 1997). and to formulate laws and principles empirical methods analogous to Richard Feynman was asked to speak based on these facts. 2. the organized those employed in the natural sci- about the question “What is science?” body of knowledge that is derived ences (Sokal, 2008). Essentially, he stated that the total ex- from such observations and that The preceding definitions allow perience of man (i.e., “science”) cannot can be verified or tested by further for disciplines in the NAS list such as be reduced to a definition, that we (so- investigation. 3. any specific branch engineering, sociology, psychology, and ciety) should not be blindly submissive of this general body of knowledge, economics. Sokal actually endorses to experts, and that attempts to reduce such as biology, physics, geology, or rationalism and scientism in his defini- experience to a definition have resulted astronomy (Morris, 1996). tion of “science.” The preceding defini- in intellectual tyranny (Feynman, 1968). Science is an intellectual activ- tions reject the idea that experimental Reducing this further, Feynman is argu- ity carried on by humans that is controls are essential to “science.” If ing that the term “science” is meaning- designed to discover information the epistemic claims resulting from less except for rhetorical purposes. about the natural world in which reliance on experimental controls are humans live and to discover the ways stronger than those which do not rely The Role of Philosophy in which this information can be on experimental controls, then this in Demarcation organized into meaningful patterns. definition seems to reduce the strength Since many people believe that they can A primary aim of science is to collect of the epistemic justification for claims and do define science, even if intuitively, Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 173 the question of authority in demarca- horses as well as more particularly about and knowledge resulted in ontological tion will inevitably arise. Who is fit to the horse’s anatomy and physiology, and (what exists?) and epistemological (what judge what is “science” and what is not, he is like the race judge who can tell do we know and how do we know it?) except scientists—those who actually the jockey when he has strayed out of confusion and inevitably led to the cur- do science? bounds during a race. rent failure of the demarcation project At least four reasons exist that cause and the confusion of what is meant by us to question this intuition. First, de- “science.” marcation is an epistemological ques- Epistemological Particularism In order to avoid perpetuating this tion. Epistemological questions are It could be asserted that this argument confusion, philosophy must de-conflate within the domain of philosophy. To for the meaninglessness of the term “sci- “science” and begin the ontological deny this is to deny philosophy one of ence” might not be valid if one rejects scheme again. There is an opportunity its most basic functions. epistemological methodism. Epistemo- for creationist philosophers to get in Second, the definition of “science” logical methodism asks the question, on the ground floor of a new ontology is in question, which is an ontological How do we know? prior to asking the project (as some have—e.g., Klevberg, question, and that is also within the question, What do we know? Episte- 1999; Kofahl, 2002; Reed and Froede, domain of philosophy. mological particularism, by contrast, 1996). The conflation implicit in our Third, if the definition of “science” is reverses the order of the questions. As an conceptions of “science” includes ideas in question, then the definition of “scien- epistemological particularist, Moreland about: tist” is equally in question, and who is an (1994) notes no inconsistency between • How to investigate nature authority cannot be established with cer- his assertion that clear cases of science • Testing tainty. The statement that scientists are can be recognized and his acceptance • Experimentation fit to judge what is “science” is merely of the intractability of the demarcation • Theories begging the question. Are sociologists, problem, which would be a problem for • A set of specific disciplines political scientists, psychologists, and the epistemological methodist. However, • A body of knowledge economists allowed to participate in the he has not made it clear what function • Professional societies definition of “science?” If philosophy the word “science” serves in his system The foundational ideas must be cannot show that astrology, art, and of particularism or how that particular- defined and organized into a coherent carpentry are not science, then why not ism should be distinguished from mere ontological and epistemological scheme. allow astrologers, artists, and carpenters opinion Adler (1965) provides an example of to determine what is “science?” We such a project. can determine who gets to vote on the With the demise of demarcation, the definition only if we already assume Conclusion notion that “the only meaningful state- which disciplines are part of “science.” We are left with the conclusion that the ments are scientific statements”—sci- Thus, the statement that “scientists” word “science” currently is meaningless entism—has received another proverbial determine what is “science” is really in the context of philosophy of science “nail in the coffin.” Scientism can also be question begging. and that its meaning is undetermined recognized by the claim that “Science Fourth, “science” is composed of due to contradictory opinion in other has the ultimate say in all questions it ad- many specialties with many methodolo- contexts, with the accompanying confu- dresses, including historical questions.” gies. Do any of the specialists understand sion and controversy accompanying this Not only has scientism been shown to enough about the broad scope of “sci- vagueness. One of the uses of philosophy be self-refuting, but the “science” edi- ence” to be able to define it? That is is to help define things in order to avoid fice it has sought to build also has been where philosophy excels. confusion and controversy; however, it is shown to be evanescent, if philosophy An individual scientist is a specialist not currently able to help us by defining of science is correct in saying that the who knows a particular field. He may be the term “science.” term “science” is meaningless. We must compared to a jockey who rides a thor- Aspects of what we have called “sci- be vigilant to the presence of scientism oughbred, which is a specialized breed ence” were once known as “natural and be diligent to expose it, for it is still of horse. The jockey knows a great deal philosophy” and involved a conflation a threat to clear thinking. about how to get the particular horse to of methods of investigation in certain Scientism often creeps up in unex- perform. The philosopher has at least disciplines (e.g., physics, chemistry, and pected places, such as assertions that sci- two roles: he is like an equine veterinar- biology) and knowledge specific to those ence has disproved religion. The proper ian who knows more generally about all disciplines. This conflation of method attitude against scientism is exemplified Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 174 Creation Research Society Quarterly

by Feyerabend’s (1975) applause for the bridges to the ID community without papers in order to overcome the second “fundamentalists in California who suc- minimizing our creationist distinc- objection and attain our goal of the open ceeded in having a dogmatic formula- tives. Steven Meyer seems to be very engagement of our ideas. This will likely tion of the theory of evolution removed approachable and might be persuaded require the assistance of some sociology from the textbooks and an account of of the appropriateness of skepticism re- of science researchers. Genesis included.” Feyerabend’s point is garding the age of the earth if creationist Until the problems with the term that dogmatic scientism stifles freedom. philosophers can develop an adequate “science” are acknowledged by those He also cautions that dogmatic funda- philosophical defense of skepticism who rely on ad hoc and vague defini- mentalism could stifle imagination and about the age of the earth. tions of “science,” there will be conflicts that free thought should be heeded by As another consequence, creation with others who have different defini- creationists. His ideas highlight for us science will no longer be able to ratio- tions of “science”; the term “science” the need to understand the relationship nally uphold a distinction between “ori- will be a communications obstacle. As between science, freedom, and Chris- gins science” and “operations science” ad hoc definitions for “science” collide, tian doctrine and theology. if the word “science” cannot be defined people will be forced to accept the The most critical implication of this by philosophy of science, since any such conclusion of philosophers of science paper for creation science is that exist- distinction involves philosophy of sci- that “science” has not been adequately ing court cases were decided on criteria ence. Instead, creationists will need to defined. Those in academia and non- that have been shown by secular phi- make epistemic distinctions between dif- governmental organizations who are losophers to be incorrect. Furthermore, ferent methods of investigation and offer ideologues and possess power and influ- the legal strategy of the anti-creationists epistemic analysis of and justification for ence due to the illusion that “science” has been severely undercut. They are different methods of investigation. has useful meaning will not submit left without a definition of “science” The impact is widespread. How will easily to the ideas that the common and any potential demarcation strate- educators organize their disciplines perception of “science” is an illusion gies that might exclude creation. This and curricula, given the problems with and that their ideologies limit human information must be communicated the word “science” as discussed above? freedom of expression. Many people to creationist attorneys, and we must Surely, they cannot ignore philosophy have gained political power and profes- have creationist philosophers prepared of science indefinitely. Also, many theo- sional influence due to the conflation to answer the faulty demarcation-based logians have built careers by seeking to of disciplines that are called “science” arguments previously presented in court. accommodate “science.” If “science” is (e.g., the National Science Foundation Otherwise we shall see more legal set- meaningless, then what is the point of and the National Academy of Sciences), backs based on the pretense that effec- accommodating it? It would seem that and their ideological corruption and tive demarcation criteria exist. they must rethink their work. tyranny must be exposed in order for It would seem to follow that the sci- Opponents in the creation/evolution people to work in their disciplines and ence and popular science news media debate will no longer be able to ratio- investigate freely without the suppres- also must be educated that the demarca- nally use demarcation-based strategies. sion of the communication of their ideas tion criteria that they have assumed to Rhetoric based on the reputation of by the tyranny of ideology. exist are invalid. Biblical and scientific “science” will no longer be rational. The creation science must develop strategies opinion of a large group of “scientists” Acknowledgments. I would like to to engage and persuade the media. We will have no rhetorical force, rationally thank Timothy, a forum participant in must appeal to academic freedom and speaking, if there is no such thing as The Galilean Library, and Bryan Go- freedom of investigation. If we are to “science” as commonly defined. Cre- odrich for their invaluable questions and persuade the media, we must reference ationists have long sought to have their discussions concerning the conflated sources that the media considers reliable, arguments engaged openly. The anti- nature of the word “science.” I would such as noncreationist philosophers creationists have sought to avoid engage- like to thank Paul Newall, proprietor of (e.g., Bradley Monton) and evolutionary ment by appealing to demarcation and The Galilean Library, for introducing scientists such as Allen MacNeill. Per- preventing the publication of articles by me to the works of Paul Feyerabend, haps we also should engage reporters like creationists in secular journals. With the whose work was key in my thinking Susan Mazur, who has shown that she demise of demarcation, the first objec- about the demarcation problem. I is sympathetic to fresh, unconventional tion is removed. Creationists will need to would also like to thank the anonymous approaches by her reporting about the conclusively show systematic prejudice reviewers for their invaluable questions Altenberg 16 conference. We must build by secular journals against creationist and suggestions. Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 175

Glossary Feynman, R. 1968. What is science? http:// cal_Naturalism_2.pdf (as of March 7, Demarcation: Distinguishing between www.fotuva.org/feynman/what_is_sci- 2009). things in a category and things that are ence.html (as of July 11, 2009). Moreland, J. 1994. Scientific creationism, not, for example, between science and Gottlieb, S. 1997. What is science? Ex- science, and conceptual problems. nonscience. Often, a list of properties cerpted from an address at the Har- Perspectives on Science & Christian that belong to things in a category are binger symposium, religion & sci- Faith 46:2–13. http://afterall.net/pa- specified, as well as a list of proper- ence—the Best of Enemies, the Worst pers/490578 (as of March 7, 2009). ties that may not belong to things in a of Friends. http://www.theharbinger. Morris, C. (editor). 1996. Academic Press category. The category properties must org/articles/rel_sci/gottlieb.html (as of Dictionary of Science Technology. CD- only include items that belong in the July 19, 2009). Rom v. 1.0, Academic Press Inc., New category, while they must not include Klevberg P. 1999. The philosophy of se- York, NY, as cited in Railsback, 2009b. any items that do not belong in the quence stratigraphy, part I—philosophic Pickett J. (editor). 2005. The American category. background. CRSQ 36(2):72–80. Heritage Science Dictionary. Houghton- Kofahl, R. 2002. The crucial importance of Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. epistemology and correctly defining sci- Plantinga, A. 2006. Whether ID is sci- References ence for the cause of creation and intel- ence isn’t semantics. Science and CRSQ: Creation Research Society Quar- ligent design. CRSQ 38(4):193–198. Theology News. http://www.discov- terly Koperski, J. 2008. Two bad ways to attack ery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php? Adler, M. 1965. The Conditions of Philoso- intelligent design and two good ones. command=view&id=3331 (as of March phy. Atheneum, New York, NY. Zygon 43(2):433–449. http://www6.svsu. 7, 2009). American Physical Society Council. 1999. edu/~koperski/Two%20Bad%20Ways%2 Quinn, P. 1984. The philosopher of sci- Ethics & Values / Education, 99.6, 0to%20Attack%20Intelligent%20Design ence as expert witness. In Cushing, J., “what is science?” http://www.aps. %20and%20Two%20Good%20Ones.pdf C. Delaney, and G. Gutting (editors), org/policy/statements/99_6.cfm (as of (as of March 7, 2009). Science and Reality: Recent Work in July 11, 2009). Laudan, L. 1982. Science at the bar: causes the Philosophy of Science, University Bergman, J. 1983. What is science? CRSQ for concern. Science, Technology, and of Notre Dame Press, South Bend, IN. 20(1):39–42. Human Values 7(41):16–19, reprinted Reprinted in Ruse, M. (editor). 1996. But Bergman, J. 2009. Lysenkoism: the tragedy in Ruse, M. (editor). 1996. But Is It Sci- Is It Science? pp. 367–385. Prometheus of government-enforced Darwinism: the ence? pp. 351–355. Prometheus Books, Books, Buffalo, NY. effect of Darwinism on Soviet Commu- Buffalo, NY. Railsback, B. 2009a. What is science? nism. CRSQ 44(3):285–290. Laudan, L. 1983. The demise of the demar- http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/ Brooks, M. 2007. 13 things that do not cation problem. In Cohen, R.S. and L. 1122science2.html (as of July 11, make sense. http://www.newscientist. Laudan (editors), Physics, Philosophy, 2009). com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things- and Psychoanalysis, Reidel, Dordrecht, Railsback, B. 2009b. Some definitions that-do-not-make-sense.html?page=5 (as Holland. Reprinted in Ruse, M., and R. of science. http://www.gly.uga.edu/ of March 7, 2009). Pennock (editors). 2009. But Is It Sci- railsback/1122sciencedefns.html (as of Dickson T. 1995. Introduction to Chemistry. ence? pp. 312–330. Prometheus Books, July 11, 2009). John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. New York, NY. Reed, J.K., and C.R. Froede, Jr. 1996. A Dott, R.H. Jr., and H.L. Batten. 1976. Evolu- Mayr, E. 1997. This Is Biology. The Belknap Biblical Christian framework for earth tion of the Earth, 2nd Edition. MacGraw- Press of Harvard University Press, Cam- history research: introduction to the Hill, New York, NY, as cited by Railsback, bridge, MA. series. CRSQ 32(4):228–229. 2009b. Meyer, S. 1994. The use and abuse of philos- Reed, J.K., P. Klevberg, C.B. Bennett, A.J. Fales, E. 2005. Animadversions on Kitz- ophy of science: a response to Moreland. Akridge, C.R. Froede, Jr., and T.L. Lott. miller V. Dover: correct ruling, wrong Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith 2004. Beyond scientific creationism. reasoning. http://www.scottsdalecc. 46:19–21. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/ CRSQ 41:216–230. edu/ricker/pests/essays/fales.pdf (as of PSCF/1994/PSCF3-94Meyer.html (as Ruse, M. 1982. Pro Judice. Science, Tech- March 7, 2009). of March 7, 2009). nology & Human Values 7(4):19–23. Feyerabend, P. 1975. How to defend society Monton, B. 2006. Is intelligent design Reprinted in Ruse, M. (editor). 1996. But against science. http://www.galilean-li- science? Dissecting the Dover deci- Is It Science? pp. 356–362. Prometheus brary.org/manuscript.php?postid=43842 sion. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/ Books, Buffalo, NY. (as of March 7, 2009). archive/00002583/01/Methodologi- Sokal, A. 2008. What is science and why Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 176 Creation Research Society Quarterly

should we care? http://www.sensea- sciencecouncil.org/DefiningScience. lege Publishing, Fort Worth,TX. boutscience.org.uk/PDF/AlanSokalLec- php Trefil, J., and R. Hazen. 2004. Physics ture2008.pdf (as of August 8, 2009) Thompson G., and J. Turk. 1998. Introduc- Matters. John Wiley & Sons, New The Science Council [of the United King- tion to Physical Geology. Saunders Col- York, NY. dom] 2009. What is science? http://www.

Book Review

by Owen Gingerich God’s Universe Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2006, 139 pages, $17.00.

Some outspoken testimonies of faith are (p. 73). He appears to be asking for far “fossils of extinct creatures show…a tolerated in the secular science world. more than the ID movement promises. universe that makes itself…the powerful Examples include Francis Collins, John Gingerich accepts intelligent design transcendence that brought the universe Polkinghorne, and Owen Gingerich. with “lower case i and lower case d” but into being…has self-imposed limita- All three promote a theistic evolution rejects the overall movement (p. 68). tions” (p. 116). worldview. Author Owen Gingerich is A major topic in the lectures con- The book includes a sarcastic rewrit- a science historian, now retired from a cerns alien life. Gingerich believes ing of Genesis 1 by astronomer George productive career at Harvard University. that average galaxies are populated by Gamow (p. 53), and Gingerich rightly This book summarizes a series of lec- scores of earth-like planets (p. 14). Life challenges such an approach to Scrip- tures relating science and faith. probably exists “out there,” and if so, ture. Owen Gingerich does not ﬁ t the Gingerich is not impressed with God had a hand in it. Regarding fossil Creation Research Society young-earth the intelligent design (ID) movement, extinctions, a process theology or open position. However, he has spent several although he is gracious in his critique. theology viewpoint is expressed. This decades on the front lines of Christianity He faults ID for not offering a fully is the defective view that God is not and carries his own share of scars. comprehensive explanation of nature: omniscient. That is, things are set up in ID “does not explain the temporal or such a way that God does not know the Don B. DeYoung geographical distribution of species” future or how things will turn out. Thus, [email protected]

Jerry Bergman*

Abstract he history of the now famous debate between Samuel Wilberforce, TBishop of Oxford, and Thomas Huxley, a disciple of Darwin, is reviewed. The debate, which occurred at Oxford University (June 30, 1860), is widely regarded as a critical coup for science in the putative war of religion against science. The myth is that Huxley made a fool of Wilberforce and carried the day. The actual debate was very different than this common version. In fact, the debate involved several individuals, of which Huxley was not even considered one of the primary advocates of Darwinism.

Introduction One of the most widely publicized ac- “The Lord hath delivered him into whether “it was through his grand- counts in the history of the conflict be- mine hands.” Those are the words father or his grandmother that he tween science and religion is the debate that Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s confi- claimed descent from a monkey.” between Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of dant and staunchest ally, purportedly Huxley supposedly whispered an Oxford, and the man called “Darwin’s murmured to a colleague as he rose aside to Sir Benjamin Brodie, “the Bulldog,” Thomas Henry Huxley. The to turn Bishop Samuel Wilberforce’s Lord hath delivered him unto my debate occurred at a meeting of the Brit- own words to his advantage and re- hand,” and then responded, “If then ish Association in Oxford in June of 1860 but the bishop’s critique of Darwin’s the question is put to me whether I (Howell, 2003; Gauld, 1992). Kenneth theory at their legendary 1860 Ox- would rather have a miserable ape Howell (2003, p. 41) called the debate ford debate. for a grandfather or a man highly one of the most “celebrated episodes” This putative version of the debate endowed by nature and possessed in the history of the science-religion is repeated ad infinitum in sources that of great means of influence and conflict in the English-speaking world. range from scientific books to popular yet employs these faculties and that Others called it the “first battle” in the historical accounts of the biological influence for the mere purpose of long war of religion against science (Liv- origins conflict. The most common tell- introducing ridicule into a grave ingstone, 2009, p. 152). Gould (1991, ing of the account was summarized by scientific discussion, I unhesitatingly p. 386) called it one of the “half-dozen Thompson (2000, p. 210) as follows: affirm my preference for the ape.” Or greatest legends of science.” Carroll Bishop Wilberforce is supposed words to that effect. (2007, p. 1427) wrote: to have asked Huxley sarcastically This episode is often placed in the first chapter of books written against Darwin skeptics in order to hook the reader. For example, historian William Irving in his best-selling Apes, Angels, * Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., Biology Department, Northwest State College, & Victorians, begins his study of the [email protected] religious opposition to Darwinism Accepted for publication September 8, 2009 with the Oxford debate, an event he Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 178 Creation Research Society Quarterly

calls the “intellectual holocaust” that story that would have to be invented formally birthed evolution. It is even were it not true. Actually, it probably used as “the introductory anecdote in was invented—at least in part. One many histories of evolution” (Smout, answer to the question why this 1998, p. 33). Allen Powell (2006), who celebrated exchange occurred at added quotes that indicate the account all is that it didn’t—or at least that was taken from a stenographic report, the legend is deeply misleading. wrote in a Herald-Mail op-ed piece that Scholars who have tried to piece the creation-evolution debate together what really happened have today in the United States is similar been frustrated by the paucity of con- to the situation in England when temporary comment and its lack of the British Association for the Ad- unanimity (Brooke, 2001, p. 128). vancement of Science met on June Historian J. R. Lucas, in a study of 27, 1860 to debate Darwin’s ideas. the event, concluded that the debate The highlight of the meeting pitted is a legend without much factual basis. Bishop Samuel Wilberforce against Lucas explained that the common claim a certified genius, Thomas Huxley. Oxford Bishop Samuel Wilberforce that Huxley’s simple scientific sincerity Wilberforce chortled to friends that at the time that he debated Huxley. humbled the obscurantist bishop and his real desire was to ‘smash Dar- He was then about 55 years old. From scored a decisive victory, both for the in- win.’ During the debate, the Bishop The Life of the Right Reverend Samuel dependence of science from the church looked at Huxley with a demeaning Wilberforce, D. D. by Reginald Wilber- and the primacy of science in Britain smile and asked, “Mr. Huxley, I force. John Murray, London. Reginald and in the West, is false. Thompson beg to know was it through your was Samuel’s son, and Murray was (2000, p. 212), quoting from a contem- grandfather or your grandmother Darwin’s publisher. porary source, claimed that Huxley in that you claim to have descended this pre-electronic amplification era did from a monkey?” Huxley then made not even speak loud enough to be heard his now-famous reply. “I assert that by many there, nor did he “command a man has no reason to be ashamed religion, and biology had won” and the audience.” to having an ape for his grandfather. “Christianity shifted to accommodating The account is often given in If there were an ancestor whom I rather than fighting Darwinian thought” quotes—indicating that it was taken should feel shame in recalling, it (Wrangham, 1979, p. 450). Livingstone directly from a stenographic report by would rather be a man, a man who, (2009) opined that the debate is the a meeting attendee—such as in a New not content with a success in his embodiment of the worldview war and York Times special section on evolu- own sphere of activity, plunged into science won, and Gauld (1992) con- tion (June 26, 2007, p. F8). In fact, no scientific questions with which he cluded that the purpose of quoting the verbatim account was taken by anyone, has no real acquaintances only to Wilberforce account was to “provide an although summary reports of the whole obscure them by aimless rhetoric example of the triumph of Darwinism meeting were published (Thompson, and distract the attention of his over uninformed religious prejudice” (p. 2000, p. 210). No one knows exactly hearers from the real point at issue 406). In the story, Huxley is usually “the what was said, and the first published by eloquent digressions and skilled archangel Michael of enlightenment, record of the debate account most appeals to religious prejudice” knowledge, and the disinterested pursuit familiar to readers today appeared in This, or very similar accounts, have of truth” and Wilberforce is the “dark MacMillan’s magazine a full 30 years been repeated authoritatively in thou- defender of the failing forces of authority, after the debate occurred. sands of sources for the last century and bigotry and superstition” (Gilley, 1981, One reason for this long delay a half, rarely with accurate information p. 325). was because the Wilberforce-Huxley about the details of the debate (Gauld, exchange “went virtually unnoticed at 1992; Livingstone, 2009). A Google the time,” and, in fact, major contradic- search found 214 examples of how this An Evaluation of the Event tions exist in the earliest discussions of debated is currently presented. It is often The eminent science historian, John the debate (Lindberg and Numbers, claimed that this exchange was “the end Headley Brooke, wrote that this debate 1987). For example, botanist Joseph of an era—biology had dared challenge is a Hooker claims that it was he, not Huxley, Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 179 who responded most effectively to the Samuel Wilberforce was no country not an unexpected choice “in view of his bishop. A writer covering the meeting preacher but the son of the distinguished lifelong interest in natural history,” his for the Athenaeum magazine did not parliamentarian, William Wilberforce, vice presidency of the British Associa- even mention Huxley’s alleged riposte who brought the end of the slave trade tion, and his service on the Geological to Wilberforce (Lindberg and Numbers, in England. Wilberforce inherited many Society council (as quoted in Browne, 1987, p. 146). of his famous father’s traits and was 2002, p. 112). It is well established that Wilberforce widely respected in his day. It was only Although Wilberforce’s critics claim and Huxley did exchange words “but the because he took umbrage at what he his arguments were all, or largely, theo- words became memorable only with the called Darwin’s “flimsy speculation” that logical, in fact thirty-one pages of his passage of time, as victorious Darwinians many modern historians, and especially article document his conclusion that begin reconstructing the history of their Darwinist apologists, picture him as a Darwin’s arguments were scientifically struggle for recognition” (Lindberg and narrow-minded ignoramus. wrong and were not science but phi- Numbers, 1987, p. 146). A major false Portrayed as antagonists, as is com- losophy. Wilberforce devoted only three conclusion is that Huxley scored a demon in the creation-evolution contro- pages to argue that Darwinism was cisive victory over his creationist opposi- versy today, in fact the two men were on anti-Christian and would be dangerous tion at the debate, but “contemporary amicable terms of mutual respect after to the Christian worldview. His review records indicate otherwise: Wilberforce’s the episode. Samuel Wilberforce was was candid “about evolution’s dangers,” supporters included not only the major- nicknamed Soapy Sam because, when noting that evolution is “absolutely ity of clerics and laypeople in atten- he was accused of inappropriate behav- incompatible not only with single ex- dance, but ‘the most eminent naturalists’ ior, investigations always cleared him, pressions in the word of God but with as well” (Lindberg and Numbers, 1987, i.e., he came out clean. His opponents the whole representation of that moral p. 147). A letter by Balfour Stewart, a used the expression to signify their claim and spiritual condition of man which distinguished scientist, written after the that he was “too slippery” to catch in an is its proper subject matter” (Quoted in debate concluded that the “Bishop had impropriety (Browne, 2002, p. 113). Browne, 2002, p. 114). won the debate” (Gould, 1991, p. 389). Ever since the debate, Darwin sup- The underlying conflict between Furthermore, Wilberforce convinced porters have capitalized on the contro- Wilberforce and Darwin was “who had at least one evolutionist, Henry Baker versy in articles, pamphlets, and journals the correct explanation for the origin Tristram, to switch sides (Livingstone, that attempt to show that religion is of humans and all life—Genesis or 2009, p. 156). not only foolish but also repressive to Darwin.” His review also was in part Another major myth is that “Huxley’s scientific progress. Howell (2003) noted “directed towards those areas of Darwin’s mild-mannered scientific detachment that what is “striking is the growth of theory for which the evidence of that was contrasted with Wilberforce’s military metaphors to describe this event time appeared to be weak, absent or bombastic imposition of uninformed throughout the late nineteenth century negative” (Gauld, 1992, p. 409). In an authoritarianism” (Howell, 2003, p. 44). and into the twentieth” (p. 44). analysis of Wilberforce’s review, Young Accounts of the debate typically portray and Largent (2007, pp. 99-100) con- Samuel Wilberforce as a misinformed cluded that he theologian entering into a foray in which Wilberforce’s Review understood Darwin’s argument and he had no knowledge or training. In fact, The editor of the Quarterly Review, provided an accurate account of Wilberforce was well informed about Whitwell Elwin, first read Darwin’s Ori- certain evidence for his readers … the origins controversy. For example, gin of Species in manuscript form from Where Darwin seemed determined he wrote a strident review against The a copy that Darwin’s publisher, John to account for change, Wilberforce Origin of Species for the prestigious Murray, sent to him. Elwin disagreed noted that most of nature exhibited scholarly journal Quarterly Review. The strongly with Darwin’s conclusions and, remarkable stability. In domestic review was so effective that Charles Dar- since the Origin’s publication he “had breeding, few species retained the win himself acknowledged it. Although been searching for someone who would hard-won characteristics breed- the debate is most always pictured as a deliver it a crushing blow. He found ers sought when individuals were victory of Huxley’s rationalist science his reviewer in Samuel Wilberforce” allowed to breed without human against Wilberforce’s theological dog- (Browne, 2002, p. 112). John Murray guidance. Over thousands of years matism, Wilberforce was a professor of himself suggested Samuel, whose fa- of human history, examples of the mathematics and a well-known scholar ther was an occasional Quarterly writer. kind of change Darwin described in his own right. Meacham wrote that Wilberforce was seemed nonexistent… as paleon- Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 180 Creation Research Society Quarterly

tologists generally argued, the lack Even Daubeny, a professor of botany at stood up on the platform, contradict- of progressive recent evidence, for Oxford who introduced the topic, “came ing Wilberforce. Huxley is commonly Wilberforce, undermined the notion down on the side of the angels.” The credited with proclaiming that he would of evolution.” topic drew a number of people in atten- rather be a monkey than a bishop. Furthermore, a number of eminent dance—variously estimated at between It was evidently only after Wilber- scientists, including Adam Sedgwick, 400 and 1,000 (Browne, 2002, p. 121). force’s lecture that the riposte came Cambridge anatomy professor William The real conflict was less Wilber- (Jensen, 1988). Then, one by one, Jo- Clark, and other men of science “ulti- force against Huxley than Wilberforce seph Hooker, John Henslow, and John mately grounded their work in doctrines against John William Draper. Draper, Lubbock rose to defend Darwin, a man of divine order and the created plan. the first speaker, was an English-born who could not defend himself because They deplored the way that Darwin’s and London University educated man he was too ill to attend the debate (Irving, book” drew conclusions that they con- who was a bitter ex-Catholic historian. 1955, p. 3). Huxley claimed, for example, sidered unwarranted (Browne, 2002, p. He was “well known for his denunciation that the brains of men and apes do not 117). Furthermore, the conflict was be- of organized religion” and argued that differ much, a judgment made on the tween both the “Darwinian evolutionists “human progress depended on science basis of superficial external morphology. and the liberal churchman” who were vanquishing theology” (Browne, 2002, This claim was irresponsible given the joined together against the traditional p. 121). Desmond and Moore (1991, p. fact that little was known then about how view of a creator God (Livingstone, 494) claimed that Draper was the “star the brain functions, and even today it is 2009, p. 159). attraction, because he was applying still considered largely a black box. For Darwin’s theory to society,” an approach this reason it was difficult for anyone called social Darwinism or eugenics. to make an informed response at the The Debate Wilberforce was asked to respond debate. One event that triggered the debate to Draper’s pro-Darwin paper, not Although no transcript of the talk was the presentation of a paper by Dr. Huxley’s (White, 2001, p. 99). After a exists, “many people felt that the Bishop Charles Daubeny of Oxford “on the final few questions and comments by the had been ill treated—that Huxley was causes of sexuality in plants, with special audience, Wilberforce spoke for around much too vulgar in his reply” (Browne, reference to Mr. Darwin’s work on The 30 minutes, using the “same scientific 2002, p. 123). Huxley’s version was “sub- Origin of Species” (Irving, 1955, p. 4). arguments that he had used in his evalu- stantially different” than Hookers (Des- The common impression is that the ation of Darwin’s book published in The mond and Moore, 1991, p. 496). One debate was Huxley against Wilberforce, Quarterly Review” (Phelps and Cohen, witness claimed that Huxley “turned when, in fact, the meeting involved 1973, p. 57). Wilberforce argued that white with rage,” barely managing to lively debate among many scientists. Darwin’s science facts did not warrant keep his temper (White, 2001, p. 101). Actually, Huxley did not even plan to acceptance of his theory: the chasm Phelps and Cohen (1973) quote attend because he knew a large number between humanity and animals was both several different accounts that illustrate of those attending were anti-Darwinian obvious and very distinct, and there was the range of versions of the event (e.g., “intellectuals who had a strong interest no tendency on the part of lower organ- see Philips and Cohen, 1973, pp. 60-62). in science” and could effectively chal- isms to become either self-conscious or Lucas (1979) summarized all previously lenge him (Howell, 2003, p. 43; Phelps intelligent (Browne, 2002, p. 121). known versions of the Huxley-Wilber- and Cohen, 1973, p. 56). It was Robert It was during this speech that Hux- force account, including two written Chambers, an evolutionist who pre- ley allegedly made his now infamous by reporters for British periodicals who ceded Darwin, who goaded Huxley by comments. As Browne states, “No one personally attended the debate. Lucas accusing him of deserting the cause. could afterwards remember exactly systematically discredited most of the After the presentation, the greatest what Wilberforce did say. One witness, details in the standard account, even anatomist of his time, Sir Richard Owen, possibly no more reliable then the rest, concluding that it was not Huxley, rose and pointed out what he felt were recorded that Wilberforce expressed the but Joseph Hooker who was the main some scientific problems with Darwin’s ‘disquietude’ he should feel if a ‘veritable defender of evolution, and that Wil- theory. For example, Owen asserted ape’ were shown to him as his ancestress” berforce focused his attack not on the that “there was no anatomical evidence (Browne, 2002, p. 122). It was then that religious implications of evolution as for evolution, and that the brain of a Huxley allegedly whispered to a man on commonly concluded, but rather on its gorilla was very different from the brain the bench beside him the “Lord hath de- scientific problems (Thompson, 2000, p. of humankind” (Browne, 2002, p. 119). livered him into mine hands” and then 212). Gould (1991, p. 392) concluded Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 181

from a detailed study of the event that and scientific evidence, theologians will age between the Bible and science was Huxley’s “oratory was faulty,” he was have to dismiss their pride and accept the part of his goal to reduce the influence “ill at ease,” and projected so poorly that theory with humility (Smout, 1998, pp. of Christianity because he believed that “many in the audience” could not even 36-37). In summary, Wilberforce did not “the Bible has been the greatest block in hear what he said. attack evolution because it contradicted the way of progress” (Numbers, 2009, p. Lucas added that Wilberforce’s criti- his religious beliefs but rather because, 2). The fact is that each side was “con- cisms were so effective that, in letters to in his judgment, “it failed to qualify as vinced that its claims about the natural friends, Darwin himself praised Wilber- science” (Smout, 1998, p. 37). world were credible and trustworthy” force’s evaluation and acknowledged Darwin understood Wilberforce’s and that its view was the “only valid the weak spots that Wilberforce noted, claims, not as dogmatic objections based account of reality” (Browne, 2002, p. inspiring Darwin to deal with these on creation science, but rather as an 124). How important the debate was in problems. Lucas concluded that Wil- invitation to “explain more clearly and shifting popular and scientific opinion to berforce did in fact ask Huxley whether prove more carefully several important an “evolutionary viewpoint is as unclear it was his grandfather or grandmother aspects of his theory” (Smout, 1998, as what was actually said” (Thompson, who had descended from apes, but this p. 37). Cambridge University research 2000, p. 210). statement was taken by some observers fellow Richard Wrangham wrote that Smout (1998) noted that “the fa- as a lapse in Wilberforce’s normally good several of the “Bishop’s sermons and es- mous debate between T. H. Huxley manners, though not for the reason often says show he was far from ignorant, and and Samuel Wilberforce” shows how supposed. The reason Wilberforce asked he was known to his peers as an ardent “convictions of truth are created through this was because it “offended Victorian naturalist” (1979, p. 450). The debate particular rhetorical strategies” (p. 33). notions of femininity by applying bes- was not lost to history because, in order He adds that this story now has “attained tiality to a grandmother rather than a to win public support, every potential the status of a cultural myth” and has grandfather” (Smout, 1998, p. 36). triumph of Darwinism was even been “a topic for British Broadcast- The Bishop’s talk must have been talked up by the evangelical Dar- ing Corporation specials about Darwin somewhat effective because, as a result winians. Feeling themselves belea- and the progress of science” (Smout, of his presentation and the debate that guered, they needed visible gains. 1998, p. 33). The putative debate is followed, Henry Tristram, who had pub- Thus it was that a witty bit of repartee “regularly retold … with an evolution- lished one of the first articles that used on Saturday 30 June 1860, at a sec- ist cast as the hero and a creationist as natural selection as an explanation for a tion meeting of the British Associa- the villain … who must be overcome biological phenomenon, “changed his tion for the Advancement of Science, if civilization itself is to be kept from mind about Darwin” (Browne, 2002, p. was destined to be blown out of destruction” (Smout, 1998, p. 33). 123). Tristram exclaimed to Alfred New- all proportion to become the best In most contemporary accounts, ton, who was sitting next to him, that he known ‘victory’ of the nineteenth there is a deliberate effort to demean had converted to the anti-Darwinian century, save Waterloo (Desmond Wilberforce. An example of these put- view. He commented that he objected to and Moore, 1991, p. 492). downs is the claim that Wilberforce a “guardian of the nation’s soul shouted (who was a math professor before he down by a mob hailing ‘the God Darwin became a bishop) worked in Oxford, and his prophet Huxley’” (Browne, 2002, History Embellishes the Story England, a rural area where “the build- p. 123). Furthermore, Wilberforce him- As the years passed, accounts of the ing, and minds [are] as empty and self felt very positive about the results of meeting became more sensationalized, dreamy as the spires and quiet country the debate, and Darwin and Wilberforce dichotomizing the controversy into ratio- air” (Irving, 1955, p. 3). In contrast, remained on good terms after it occurred nality versus obscurantism, the triumph Huxley’s laboratory was in downtown (Gould, 1991). In fact, a majority of the of reason over rhetoric, science verses London, “which was as crowded and audience was in support of Wilberforce church, and old versus new. The writ- busy as Professor Huxley’s own intellect” (Thompson, 2000). ings of Andrew White were especially (Irving, 1955, p. 3). Wilberforce indicates in his pub- important in spreading the conclusion Irving also argued that Wilberforce’s lished review that he believed it was that Wilberforce’s rhetoric was the “final rhetorical skills were due to “his intel- inappropriate to attack Darwinism on effort of theology” to “annihilate the kind lectual inferiority, political opportunism, the basis of theology. Wilberforce also ar- of scientific progress evident in Darwin’s religious immorality, and political dan- gued that if Darwinism can be adequate- Origin of Species” (Howell, 2003, p. 46). ger” (as quoted in Smout, 1998, p. 34). ly defended on the basis of empirical White’s motive in casting a warfare im- Irving also claimed that Wilberforce’s Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 182 Creation Research Society Quarterly

“chief qualification for pronouncing on tounding popularity” is because natu- “The Lord hath delivered him into mine a scientific theory derived, like nearly ev- ralistic Victorian scientists wanted to hands” (Browne, 1978, p. 362). Hooker, erything else that was solid in his career, bring the solution to social problems who wrote the account, admitted that it from the undergraduate remoteness of a into their own realm of authority and re- was impossible to be accurate some 30 first in mathematics” (Irving, 1955, p. 6). move it from the church’s realm (Smout, years after the event and that he wrote He added that “the Bishop did not really 1998, p. 36). Historian James R. Moore an account that “suited his purposes know what he was talking about” and actually argues that the debate was the (and probably, by then, displaced the was obviously “ignorant of the sciences “Trojan horse of naturalism entering the actual event in his memory)” (Gould, involved” (Irving, 1955, pp. 6–7). Smout fortress of the church” (Moore, 1982, 1991, p. 398). Hooker openly stated that (1998) concluded that Irving implies p. 194). It has been “Exhibit A” in the his goal was to vivify and vivisect the not only that “Wilberforce is a master idea perpetuated by White and others bishop (Browne, 1978, p. 361). Yet this of deception who prefers performance that “over the ages there had been noth- version was published as an eyewitness to substance and style to truth” but that ing but conflict between scientists and account! Wilberforce “poses an immediate dan- Christians, with the latter always the Much later, when Leonard Huxley ger to the state” (p. 34). Smout (1998) villains of the drama” (Coleson, 1981, wrote a book about his father, he para- documents other examples of the use of p. 9). As Smout (1998, p. 38) concludes, phrased Francis Darwin’s account of rhetoric, as opposed to fact, penned for the debate is a “compelling example the Wilberforce event and pictured it as the purpose of demeaning Wilberforce. of some terminology battles that oc- a clash between science and the church As noted, the historical account cur throughout the creation/evolution (Livingstone, 2009, p. 155). Gould shows Wilberforce concluded that controversy: … some evolutionists have (1991, p. 398) concluded that the result Darwinism was based on inadequate attempted to depict this controversy as was that two “dutiful sons presented the evidence, a conclusion widely accepted a straightforward effort by religious dog- official version as constructed by a com- by science historians today (Livingstone, matists to obstruct scientific truth.” mittee of two—the chief participants 2009; Gale, 1982). Smout (1998) con- For example, Irving (1955, p. 8) Huxley and Hooker—from memories cluded that the Huxley and Wilberforce claims not only that Huxley was victori- colored by thirty years of battle.” Thus debate was a “bid for power made in ous but also that science could provide a they “forged a legend” that remains the name of truth by a small group of more solid and tangible means than reli- today, and an account openly writ- scientists who feel that their superior gion to achieve goodness in society. This ten for the purpose of “vivifying and rationality entitles them to control what narrative is similar to the subsequent vivisecting” the bishop cannot be Irving calls ‘human life itself’” (p. 35). debates between the two sides, which trusted (Browne, 1978, 362). For these continue today. Even if the putative reasons Browne (1978) concluded that account were completely true, Huxley’s it is “fruitless” to continue to attempt Why the Account Is Popular words are hardly earth shattering, nor do to reconstruct the actual events that Smout (1998) concludes that the popu- they display a profoundness of thought transpired at the Huxley-Wilberforce larized story of the debate was passed that deserve the status of being some debate at Oxford. on to us today because it was useful to of the most widely quoted words in the discredit Darwin skeptics. It discredits history of debates about the conflict of Wilberforce Commonly creationists because Wilberforce’s re- science and religion. Demonized and Huxley Glorified sponse was judged as “disgraceful,” yet Huxley was not a dispassionate scholar Huxley’s attacks against Wilberforce How the Official Version as is often claimed, but a man who was were far worse. For example, in 1873, Came into Existence “spoiling for a fight” and, although his Wilberforce was thrown from a horse Of much interest in this case is the fact mind was “razor-sharp,” his “shaking and tragically died from his injuries. that the “official” version of the Huxley- temper” could “reduce his effective- Huxley wrote that for the first time “re- Wilberforce debate was “successfully ness, and Owen had bettered him on ality and his brains came into contact promoted” by Huxley himself (Gould, occasions” in the past (Desmond and and the result was fatal,” a cruel com- 1991, p. 398). This version was first Moore, 1991, p. 494). Eyewitnesses ment that was far more vicious than published in Francis Darwin’s 1892 reported that Huxley “was ‘white with any alleged snipe of Wilberforce toward edition of his biography of his father anger,’ too wrought up to ‘speak effec- Huxley (Clark, 1968, p. 117). Charles Darwin. In it, Francis Darwin tively,’ His hot-head had stymied him One reason for the common “mythi- included an account contributed by again” (Desmond and Moore, 1991, p. cal interpretation” of the event’s “as- Huxley that contained the famous lines 497). Furthermore, Huxley did not deal Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 183

with the substance of Wilberforce’s talk This inaccurate legend has been The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist. but resorted to character assassination used to discredit not only Darwin crit- Warner, New York, NY. to demean Wilberforce (Desmond and ics but also Christianity in general. The Gale, B. 1982. Evolution Without Evidence: Moore, 1991, p. 495). It is a pity we story has been widely repeated, not only Charles Darwin and the Origin of Spe- do not have a corresponding personal by atheists and anti-Christian scientists, cies. University of New Mexico Press, account of the debate from the more but also by Christians and even in books Albuquerque, NM. sober-minded Wilberforce to balance used at Bible colleges as textbooks Gauld, C. 1992. Wilberforce, Huxley and the Hooker/Huxley account mentioned (Coleson, 1981, p. 8). In spite of recent the use of history in teaching about above. research showing its inaccuracy, “the evolution. American Biology Teacher As noted the falseness of the popu- story continues to have symbolic cur- 54(7):406–410. larized version is common knowledge rency within the scientific world” (Liv- Gould, S.J. 1991. Bully for Brontosaurus. among the small group of scholars who ingstone, 2009, p. 154). If the account is Norton, New York, NY. have studied the event (Gould, 1991, p. used at all, it should be used to illustrate Gilley, S. 1981. The Huxley-Wilberforce 390). The account is so useful, though, the “contention which Darwin’s theory debate: a reconsideration. In Robbins, that even though thoroughly exposed aroused at the time” and to “develop an K. (editor), Religion and Humanism, pp. as largely legend, it is still being used, awareness of its deficiencies in the eyes 325–340. Blackwell, New York, NY. although often prefaced by expressions of his critics” (Gauld, 1992, p. 409). Howell, K.J. 2003. Did the bulldog bite the such as “it was reported,” and “ac- bishop? An Anglican bishop, an agnostic cording to legend,” or “the story goes” Acknowledgments. I wish to thank scientist, and a Roman pontiff. Logos: A (Carlisle and Smith, 2006, p. 162) to Clifford Lillo, MS; John UpChurch; Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture dispel accusations of presenting false or Eric Blievernicht; and Jody Allen, RN, 6(3):41–67. undocumented information as true. The for their review of an earlier draft of Irving, W. 1955. Apes, Angels, & Victorians: story lives on because it can be used to this article. The Story of Darwin, Huxley and Evolu- support the false but common arche- tion. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. types of truth-seeking science versus Jensen, J.V. 1988. Return to the Wilber- dogmatic, repressive religion, reaction References force—Huxley debate. British Journal for versus enlightenment, dogma versus Brooke, J.H. 2001. The Wilberforce-Huxley the History of Science 21:161–179. truth, and darkness versus light (Gould, debate: why did it happen? Science and Lindberg, D.C., and R. Numbers. 1987. 1991, p. 399). The fact is, Huxley’s Christian Belief 13(2):127–142. Beyond war and peace. A reappraisal “extreme anticlericalism led him to an Browne, J. 1978. “The Charles Darwin—Jo- of the encounter between Christianity uncompromising view of organized re- seph Hooker correspondence: An analy- and science. Perspectives on Science and ligion as the enemy of science” (Gould, sis of manuscript resources and their use Christian Faith 39(3):140–149. 1991, p. 399). in biography.” Journal of the Society for Livingstone, D.N. 2009. That Huxley de- the Bibliography of National History feated Wilberforce in their debate over 8:352–366. evolution and religion. In Numbers, Summary Browne, J. 2002. The Power of Place. Charles R.L. (editor), Galileo Goes to Jail, pp. Professor Coleson (1981, p. 8) con- Darwin. Alfred A Knopf, New York, 152–160. Harvard University Press, cluded that the Huxley-Wilberforce NY. Cambridge, MA. debate is “one of the most celebrated Carlisle, C., and W.T. Smith. 2006. Under- Lucas, J.R. 1979. Wilberforce and Huxley: episodes of the conflict of science and standing Intelligent Design. Penguin, a legendary encounter. The Historical religion in the English speaking world” New York, NY. Journal 22:313–330. and also “one of the most damaging Carroll, S.B. 2007. God as genetic engineer. Meacham, S.1970. Lord Bishop: The Life of pseudo-scientific myths to gain wide Science 316:1427–1428. Samuel Wilberforce 1805–1873. Harvard credence in the West in the last century Clark, R.W. 1968. The Huxleys. McGraw- University Press, Cambridge, MA. or two.” A more accurate summary of Hill, New York, NY. Moore, J.R. 1982. 1859 and all that: remak- the clash is “legends depicted a bloody Coleson, E. 1981. The bishop and “Darwin’s ing the story of evolution – and – religion. clash, with Wilberforce scotched if not bulldog.” CSSH Quarterly 3(4):8–13. In Chapman, R.G., and C.T. Deval slain. But the first play-by-play account Desmond, A. 1997. Huxley: From Devils (editors), Charles Darwin, 1809–1882: received by Darwin painted a very dif- Disciple to Evolutionist High Priest. Ad- A Centennial Commemorative, pp. 167– ferent picture” (Desmond and Moore, dison-Wesley, Reading, MA. 194. Nova Pacifica, Wellington, NZ. 1991, p. 494). Desmond, A., and J. Moore. 1991. Darwin: Numbers, R.L. 2009. Galileo Goes to Jail. Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 184 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Smout, K.D. 1998. The Creation Evolution and Reference Guide. Greenwood Press, MA. Controversy: A Battle for Cultural Power. Westport, CT. Phelps, L., and E. Cohen. 1973. The Wil- Praeger, Westport, CT. White, M. 2001. Rivals: Conﬂ ict as the Fuel berforce-Huxley debate. Western Speech Thompson, K. St. 2000. Huxley, Wilberforce of Science. Secker & Warburg, London, 37(1):56–64. and the Oxford Museum. American UK. Powell, A. 2006. Here is where you ﬁ nd the Scientist 88(3):210–213. Wrangham, R. 1979. The Bishop of Oxford: mountains. The Herald-Mail (Hager- Young, C., and M. Largent. 2007. Evolu- not so soapy. New Scientist 83(1167):450– stown, MD), November 19. tion and Creationism: A Documentary 451.

Book Review Nature’s I.Q.: by Balazs Hornyanszky Extraordinary and Istvan Tasi

Animal Torchlight Publishing Inc., Behaviors that Badger, CA, 2009, 159 pages, Defy Evolution $25.00.

This is a beautiful and disappointing language, symbiosis, reproduction, and of aquatic animals, then those of plants. book. There are more than 300 color intelligence. One is reborn again and again as … photos of animals, beautifully laid out. The authors as listed above are re- insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and Many photos are unusual, such as an spectively a bioengineer and a cultural mammals” through millions of years (pp. ant carrying a computer chip (cover), a anthropologist. Both reside in Hungary, 141, 145). This reverse evolution fi nally grass snake playing dead to appear less where the book was fi rst published. Why, gets the soul back to where it started in appetizing (p. 31), and a frog with fake, then, is this “classy” book a disappoint- paradise. If it “does not take advantage protective eye marks on its rump (p. ment? The clue is the publisher, which of opportunities” (p. 141), the soul gets 30). Throughout, the book challenges produces works from India promot- knocked back down to a lower level. Also naturalistic evolution. The writing is ing Hinduism and the ancient Vedic included in this muddled worldview are on a popular level but will not appeal culture that preceded it. The fi nal ten advanced beings on other planets. All to noncreationists. Evolution is de- pages of this book are dedicated to the this confusion appears at the end of a scribed as nonsense (p. 14), having zero revealed knowledge of swami leaders, beautiful nature book. probability (p. 19), impossible (p. 38), Vedic scriptures, and reincarnation. In inconceivable (p. 89), and illogical (p. this worldview, people come originally Don DeYoung 95). Discussion topics include animal from paradise. The soul “takes on bodies [email protected]

Michael J. Oard*

Abstract his is the first of a five-part series on the origin of Grand Canyon. TIt will address numerous uniformitarian problems. Despite nearly 150 years of study, uniformitarian scientists remain mystified as to its origin. Part of their difficulty stems from the necessity of explaining both the canyon and its geological context within the surrounding Colorado Plateau. Data gathered at present do not support any uniformitarian hypothesis. The three most credible uniformitarian hypotheses all can be shown to create intractable problems. These are: (1) the old antecedent stream hypothesis, (2) the stream piracy hypothesis, and (3) the revived lake spillover hypothesis. None are viable. Thus, any reasonable earth scientist should be open to exploring the possibility of a recent catastrophic origin.

Introduction Grand Canyon is considered a showcase (Pederson et al., 2008, p. 1,634b, that the former believe in a few large for uniformitarian geology and against brackets added). catastrophes sprinkled throughout the Flood paradigm (Strahler, 1987). It Therefore, it is important for unifor- earth history, such as meteorite impacts. also lies within the frontlines of compet- mitarian scientists to develop a viable They also admit that the present is not ing ideas on its origin: theory for the origin of Grand Canyon necessarily the key to the past but that The famous landscape of the Grand (Figure 1). geology must always believe natural Canyon lies along the front lines I am aware that most mainstream processes operated in the past. I believe of competing scientific and non- scientists consider themselves “actual- this philosophical point of view (i.e., scientific [i.e., creationary] views ists” and not uniformitarians. Actualism naturalism) can be used as an excuse of Earth’s antiquity and evolution is similar to uniformitarianism, except when deductions from the rocks and fossils are contradicted by present processes. But since few people understand the distinction between actualism and uniformitarianism, I will continue using the term “uniformitarianism,” especially since this latter doctrine was the philo- * Michael J. Oard, Bozeman, Montana, [email protected] sophical principle used in geology to Accepted for publication April 7, 2009 throw out the Flood. Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 186 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Figure 1. The Grand Canyon and the surrounding area with the main plateaus and prominent topographic features. The low point of about 5,750 ft (1,753 m) of the northern Kaibab Plateau and the low point a little above 6,000 ft (1,829 m) on the eastern Coconino Plateau marked by arrows. Map background provided by Ray Sterner and ﬁgure drawn by Peter Klevberg.

Uniformitarian Scientists ers in 1869. However, their hypotheses frustratingly difficult to synthesize Mystified have come and gone—none fit the data. and communicate to the public One would think that uniformitarian Despite great advances in knowledge, (Pederson et al., 2008, p. 1,634b). geologists would easily be able to figure the origin of Grand Canyon is still a ma- In a popular book on the geology of out how Grand Canyon originated—if jor mystery of geomorphology, the study Grand Canyon, Greer Price (1999, p. 7) uniformitarianism is the correct starting of the surface features of the earth. admits: “But while the principles of ero- point. They have spent an inordinate Regional geological knowledge of sion, like so much of geology, are simple, amount of effort to do so, ever since John the Grand Canyon is especially rich the detailed history of the Colorado Wesley Powell’s (1961) first courageous and detailed, but it is already prone River and its canyons remains elusive trip down the Green and Colorado Riv- to unnecessary controversy and is and difficult to grasp.” In another recent Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 187

just to the south. North of the Mogol- lon Rim, the land dips gently north. The Mogollon Rim is not the result of faulting but is an erosional escarpment (Holm, 2001; Patton et al., 1991; Wil- liams et al., 1999). The Mogollon Rim runs into the Grand Wash Fault in northwest Arizona. The Colorado Plateau is only slightly deformed into gentle folds with near- horizontal sedimentary rocks compared to the surrounding provinces. Since the area is so large, these gentle folds result in great, eroded upwarps, such as the San Rafael Swell and the Monument Upwarp. The upwarps are separated by deep basins filled with sedimentary rocks, such as the San Juan and Uinta Basins (Baars, 2000; Hunt, 1956; Rigby, 1976; 1977). Steeply inclined beds are Figure 2. The Colorado Plateau with its adjacent geomorphological provinces limited to a few great monoclines that of the southwest United States. Map background provided by Ray Sterner and border several uplifts. The exposure of figure drawn by Peter Klevberg. strata and the unique landforms make the Colorado Plateau home to eight national parks, many national monuments, and abundant state parks. book, Wayne Ranney (2005) repeatedly The Colorado Plateau has sharply The landscape is strongly stepped in notes how little is actually known about defined boundaries that separate it places, consisting of cliffs called escarp- the origin of Grand Canyon. from neighboring provinces (Graf et ments, separated by wide, gentle slopes— The canyon’s birth is shrouded in al., 1987). On the west it is separated all the result of differential erosion and hazy mystery, cloaked in intrigue, from the Basin and Range Province by not faulting (Patton et al., 1991). The and filled with enigmatic puzzles. faults and perimeter volcanic plateaus. Grand Staircase, located north of Grand And although the Grand Canyon is The Grand Wash Fault forms a vertical Canyon (Morales, 1990) and forming one of the world’s most recognizable cliff about 3,500 ft (1 km) high along the northwest edge of the Colorado landscapes, it is remarkable how the western edge of Grand Canyon. Plateau, is the most significant example little is known about the details of its The Grand Wash Fault becomes the (Figure 3). The height of the plateaus origin (Ranney, 2005, p. 11). Hurricane Fault in south central Utah, range from the lava-capped Aquarius separating the Colorado Plateau from Plateau on the northeast at about 11,400 the Basin and Range in Utah. The east- ft (3,475 m), to the Kanab and Uinkaret The Colorado Plateau ern boundary is the Rocky Mountains plateaus just north of Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon is cut through the and the northern boundary is the Uinta The Kaibab Limestone is exposed over high southwest edge of the Colorado Pla- Mountains. most of the area around Grand Canyon. teau, a roughly circular area (Figure 2) To the south, the boundary is formed In the Grand Staircase, the strata above that covers southeast Utah, southwestern by the Mogollon (pronounced: muggy- the Kaibab Limestone are about 10,000 Colorado, northwestern New Mexico, yohn) Rim that stretches from northwest ft (3,048 m) thick and dip gently to the and northern Arizona. The plateau has Arizona, east-southeast, into north cen- north (Baars, 2000; Rigby, 1977). an area of about 148,000 mi2 (383,000 tral New Mexico. The Mogollon Rim is The Colorado Plateau shows evi- km2). The altitude is nearly all above generally linear, although it is scalloped dence of significant erosion. Based on 5,000 ft (1,524 m) msl with precious little and rather ill defined in northwest Ari- geological clues, mainly the amount vegetation. The Colorado River drains zona. It is a spectacular escarpment up of measurable erosion on anticlines about 90% of the area. to 2,000 ft (610 m) above the streams or large uplifted areas, an average of Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 188 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Figure 3. The Grand Staircase north of Grand Canyon showing the ﬁve prominent cliffs formed by erosion. The slope of the sedimentary rocks is north to north-northeast at less than 3 degrees. Vertical exaggeration is 5:1. Drawing by Peter Klevberg.

Figure 4. 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 undifferenti- ated. Note that the total erosion is about 14,000 to 17,000 feet (4.2 to 5.1 km). Drawing by Peter Klevberg.

8,000 to 16,000 ft (2.5 to 4.9 km) of Green River Formation is a Flood de- The Grand Canyon erosion has occurred over the entire posit (Oard and Klevberg, 2008). This Grand Canyon is perhaps the most Colorado Plateau (Schmidt, 1989). Up tremendous erosion has created unique spectacular canyon readily observable to about 17,000 ft (5.2 km) of erosion landforms, creating perplexing courses anywhere in the world (Vail, 2003; Vail has occurred on the north limb of the for all the major rivers of the Colorado et al., 2008). The Grand Canyon section San Rafael Swell (Figure 4). The up- Plateau. Uniformitarian scientists place of the Colorado Plateau consists of rela- permost remaining formation beneath nearly all this erosion in the Cenozoic, tively small plateaus, which comprise this erosional surface is the Green River the last major era of the uniformitarian one large plateau (Austin, 1994a). North Formation, strongly suggesting that the geological timescale. of Grand Canyon, running from west to Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 189

Figure 5. East-west cross section showing faults and monoclines. Drawing by Peter Klevberg.

east, these small plateaus include the and has a vertical drop of about 3,000 Shivwits, Uinkaret, Kanab, and Kaibab ft (914 m). Faults are present through- Plateaus (Figure 1). South of the canyon out the region. From west to east, the are two plateaus: the Hualapai Plateau major faults include the Grand Wash in the extreme west and the Coconino Fault that forms the western boundary Plateau over the rest of the area. of Grand Canyon, the Hurricane Fault The small plateaus are generally that stretches northwest as far as Utah, bounded by faults on their western and the Toroweap Fault that merges with sides and monoclines on the eastern the Sevier Fault in Utah. boundaries (Figure 5). A monocline is a The elevations of the plateaus range Figure 6. A monocline in which the local or regional steepening in the dip of from about 5,000 to 9,000 ft (1,524 to beds bend downward. Monoclines sedimentary beds due to folding (Figure 2,743 m). Volcanism has spread late are often cored by faults in the sub- 6). The East Kaibab Monocline forms Cenozoic lavas over the plateau surfaces surface. the east boundary of the Kaibab Plateau in some areas, especially south of Grand Canyon. The San Francisco volcanic field is located near the Mogollon Rim, and other fields exist on the northwest rim of the Grand Canyon. Grand Canyon is 277 river-miles (446 km) long, if the 60 miles (97 km) of Marble Canyon are included. Its depth varies from 3,000 to 6,000 ft (914 to 1,829 m), and its average depth is 5,280 ft (1,610 m). The canyon’s width from rim to rim (Figure 7) ranges between 4 and 18 miles (6.4 to 29 km). The total amount of rock eroded from the canyon was 800–1,000 mi3 (3,335–4,168 km3) (Austin, 1994b; Potochnik, 2001; Ran- ney, 2005). There is no main fault paral- lel to the Grand Canyon that would have aided erosion, contrary to the opinion Figure 7. Grand Canyon (view north from Mather Point). The inner canyon is at of Burdick (1974). There are, of course, the bottom foreground. Bright Angel Canyon is to the lower right. minor faults, mostly perpendicular to Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 190 Creation Research Society Quarterly the Grand Canyon, which could have bab Plateau at an intermediate altitude yon and its several deep side canyons. aided erosion. (Austin, 1994a, p. 85). Marble Canyon is generally considered The highest plateau in the region The Grand Canyon cut through the the north to northeast extension of the is the Kaibab Plateau, located near the Kaibab Plateau at about the 8,000-foot Grand Canyon. Interestingly, Marble eastern Grand Canyon, which exceeds (2,438 m) level on what is now the North Platform slopes northeast and downward 9,000 ft (2,745 m) msl. This is impor- Rim and at the 7,300-foot (2,225 m) level toward Lee’s Ferry, where rafters put tant because before Grand Canyon was on what is now the South Rim. This is in to float the Colorado River. But the carved, this plateau would have blocked not the logical path for water to have Colorado River flows southwest—op- the Colorado River. Uniformitarians taken across the plateau. The lowest posite the slope of the top of the Marble believe the Kaibab Plateau is about 70 path across the plateau is a little more Platform. million years old. Evidence that the than 5,700 ft (1,737 m) well north of the Looking toward the northeast in plateau existed before the carving of highest point (see arrows on Figure 1). Figure 8, the 2,000-ft (610 m)-high Grand Canyon will be presented in Part Another reasonable path is south of the Vermillion and Echo Cliffs can be II. In every uniformitarian terrestrial current canyon, which is a little above seen. Vermillion Cliff is the lower part scenario, the Kaibab Plateau should 6,000 ft (1,829 m) msl. The river in the of the Grand Staircase, composed of a have diverted the Colorado River. eastern Grand Canyon is at 2,400 ft (732 series of cliffs and plateaus north of the Before Grand Canyon was carved, the m) above msl. Why was the Grand Can- Grand Canyon area. The sedimentary south side of the Kaibab Plateau sloped yon eroded at an intermediate altitude? rocks seen in Vermillion Cliff, as well gently downward toward the south and This is the major problem. as the Grand Staircase, at one time included the eastern Coconino Plateau Marble Platform, shown in the stretched south over the Grand Canyon south of Grand Canyon. But one mys- middle background of Figure 8, is the area before being eroded away. Up to 1.5 tery of the canyon’s origin is that the eastern extension of the lower part of the miles (2.4 km) of these sediments were Colorado River appears to have cut East Kaibab Monocline. Marble Plat- eroded in a sheet fashion prior to canyon right through the south side of the Kai- form is deeply incised by Marble Can- formation. This event is called the Great

Figure 8. Marble Platform from Point Imperial with the 2,000-foot (610 m) high Vermilion and Echo Cliffs in the background. The dissection of the Marble Platform by Marble Canyon seen in the middle. Photo courtesy of Tom Vail. Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 191

Denudation and is described in Part IV these options a priori, in spite of the Furthermore, at this point, the of this series. fact that a catastrophic origin is usually Marble Platform is over 3,000 ft (914 the first thought that comes to people’s m) higher than the Colorado River. minds when they first see the Grand This leads to another fundamental Uniformitarian Speculations Canyon (Powell, 2005; Ranney, 2005). question: which came first, the canyon Abound The local geology of the Colorado or the river? Information provided at Grand Canyon Plateau presents what is perhaps the Geologists have developed three National Park relates the origin of the most fundamental question that any explanations for the origin of the Grand canyon to erosion by the Colorado theory must address. That is: Why does Canyon: (1) the antecedent stream, (2) River over millions of years. The essence the Colorado River flow through the stream piracy, and (3) lake spillover of this hypothesis is uniformitarian- high plateaus on the southwest Colo- (Austin, 1994a; Douglas, 1999; Hunt, ism—present-day rates operating over rado Plateau rather than around them? 1976; Powell, 2005; Ranney, 2005; eons. This can be called the little-water- There was no fault system that forced Williams et al., 1991; 1992; Young and over-a-lot-of-time hypothesis. (The recent the canyon’s path, except possibly for Spamer, 2001). Early on, a few geolo- and speculative spillover hypothesis de- short segments such as the section of the gists thought it might be explained by scribed below would be considered a le- canyon southeast of the Shivwits Plateau superimposition—the hypothesis that gitimate actualistic example and excep- that may have been influenced by the rivers maintain their course while erod- tion to this description.) This axiomatic Hurricane Fault or an offshoot of this ing vertically down through underlying aspect is, in fact, the only thing about fault. It is no trivial matter that the river rocks (Figure 9), resulting in a river which uniformitarian geologists agree breaches the high Kaibab Plateau. flowing through ridges and mountains. regarding the origin of Grand Canyon A related problem is the fact that This idea was quickly discarded. (Ranney, 2005). On the actual details of Grand Canyon is not located at the Geomorphologically, the Grand the canyon’s origin, it seems that no two lowest point through the plateau but Canyon is a water gap. A water gap is geologists agree (Powell, 2005). at an intermediate altitude, as discussed defined as “a deep pass in a mountain However, even their foundational above. Ranney (2005) described the ridge, through which a stream flows; esp. premise of extended, low-energy erosion puzzle: a narrow gorge or ravine cut through by the Colorado River presents numer- Oddly enough, the Grand Canyon is resistant rocks by an antecedent stream” ous insoluble problems for uniformi- located in a place where it seemingly (Bates and Jackson, 1984, p. 559). This tarian scientists. Given the supposed shouldn’t be. Some twenty miles definition applies to any perpendicular open-ended nature of science, these east of Grand Canyon Village the cut through any topographical barrier, difficulties should open the door to al- Colorado River turns sharply ninety including a plateau (Douglas, 2005). ternative ideas—even those advocating degrees, from a southern course to a Many geologists examine the canyon a catastrophic option—the lot-of-water- western one and into the heart of the through the lens of sedimentary or struc- over-a-short-time hypothesis (Austin, uplifted Kaibab Plateau… It appears tural geology. As we will see, it is vital to 1994a; Vail, 2003; Williams et al., 1991). to cut right through this uplifted wall maintain a geomorphological focus. However, since uniformitarianism is a of rock, which lies three thousand Each of the three explanations for philosophical commitment before it is feet above the adjacent Marble the origin of Grand Canyon has flaws a scientific principle, geologists dismiss Platform to the east. (p. 20) that render it highly improbable. We

Figure 9. Block diagram of the superimposed stream hypothesis. The stream maintains its same course as most of the cover- mass (top layer) is eroded. Drawing by Bryan Miller. Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 192 Creation Research Society Quarterly

formitarianism were true. Antecedence applies mainly to large rivers, because only large rivers seem to have enough erosive power to keep up with uplift (Ahnert, 1998).

Serious Problems with Antecedence In spite of its superficial plausibility, and in spite of its congeniality with the uniformitarian paradigm, the mechanism of antecedence is now considered rare (Twidale, 1976). Geologists shy away from this hypothesis because it has encountered many difficulties since it was formulated (Oard, 2008). If geological evidence suggests that the barrier is “old- Figure 10. The antecedent stream hypothesis from a plaque near one of the Yakima er” than the river, clearly the hypothesis River water gaps, Washington. The stream is first established, then the ridge slowly cannot be applied. Furthermore, uplift uplifts while the stream is able to erode through the barrier. must be so slow that the river’s course is not deflected (Ranney, 2005). This requires a special conjunction of time and erosion. If the river is flowing through will now examine each of the three the same rate as the uplift of the rising an enclosed basin and the mountains main hypotheses and demonstrate landscape. Powell was convinced the rise too fast, a lake should form with those flaws. Colorado River was able to maintain its lake-bottom sediments, shorelines, etc. present course for tens of millions years These features are not found near Grand while the mountains and plateaus slowly Canyon. Powell’s Antecedent Stream uplifted across its path. Powell and other If a water gap through one barrier is Hypothesis early advocates of this hypothesis were difficult to achieve, aligned water gaps John Wesley Powell (1961), who was dogmatic in their insistence on this hy- through multiple ridges in a generally wedded to the uniformitarian paradigm, pothesis, despite the absence of evidence straight line is that much more improb- simply explained the Grand Canyon (Powell, 2005). Their conclusion was a able. It is notable that many water gaps (as well as the Green River water gap logical but arbitrary deduction based on first explained by the antecedent stream through the Uinta Mountains) as a result their uniformitarian model. hypothesis have been “reinterpreted” of an antecedent river that had existed The antecedent stream hypothesis as additional data are collected. Other for many tens of millions of years “before” is thought to account for perpendicu- mechanisms are now suggested, replac- the uplift of the Colorado Plateau. An lar gaps across great mountain ranges ing the antecedence hypothesis, indicat- antecedent stream is technically defined (water gaps) that were uplifted late in ing that there was little or no evidence as “a stream that was established before geological time. These include the for it all along. Twidale (2004) admitted local uplift began and incised its chan- Himalayas, the Alps, and the Cascade that in reality antecedence was difficult nel at the same rate the land was rising; Mountains of the northwest United to demonstrate. a stream that existed prior to the present States. In fact, most mountain ranges It is fair to state that though many topography” (Bates and Jackson, 1984, p. are believed to have been uplifted rivers of tectonically active regions 22). In other words, there was a river in late in the Cenozoic (Ollier and Pain, are probably of such an origin place before uplift of a landscape of low 2000), so this hypothesis should be [antecedence], but like warping in relief (Figure 10). Then a barrier, such widely applicable. Furthermore, since relation to river capture, it is difficult as a mountain range or plateau, rises in uniformitarians see vertical earth to prove. The ages of the river and the path of the stream, but does so at movements as generally quite slow, of the implied tectonism have to be such a slow rate that the stream or river rivers should be easily capable of rapid established, and this is rarely pos- maintains its course by eroding down at vertical incision (Small, 1978), if uni- sible. (p. 193) Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 193

Antecedence Does Not Work new age estimates of the Canyon that are that show that the Kaibab Plateau and its for the Grand Canyon much older than 6 million years (Oard, margins are geomorphologically young In the mid and late 1800s, antecedence 2009). Some scientists now believe that (Mayer, 2000). was asserted to be the mechanism for a proto Grand Canyon is about 55 mil- the origin of the Grand Canyon. It was lion years old (Flowers et al., 2008). This widely accepted for about 60 years—un- means that the Grand Canyon could The Stream Piracy Hypothesis til a more detailed examination forced have started eroding by 65 million years As a result of the failure of the anteced- its rejection (Austin, 1994a; Lucchitta, ago—a time when the last of the dino- ent stream hypothesis, many unifor- 1990; Morris and Austin, 2003). The saurs may have seen it, as an Internet mitarian scientists have embraced the problems were not limited to Grand science news service stated. stream piracy hypothesis. Its acceptance, Canyon; geologists have encountered How could everyone have gotten it however, is not based on large amounts many problems with the antecedence so wrong? New research indicates of supporting data. Rather, it seems one hypothesis in general (Austin, 1994a; that the Grand Canyon is perhaps major reason for its acceptance is simply Powell, 2005; Ranney, 2005; Williams 65 million years old, far older than that there is no other hypothesis, except et al., 1992). previously thought—and old enough the spillover hypothesis; and even the The fatal flaw of this hypothesis in that the last surviving dinosaurs revised version of that controversial idea regard to the Grand Canyon is that may have stomped along its rim (described below) has not convinced uniformitarian dating methods claim (Berardelli, 2008). many geologists. Thus, they cling to the that the Colorado River is much younger Clearly, the explanations of the stream piracy idea, which is also known than the plateaus that it bisects. Many origin of Grand Canyon cannot be pre- as “river capture.” years ago, geologists thought that the sented with any certainty if the relative canyon was 70 million years old; now ages of the river and its surroundings Serious Problems they accept an age of only 5–6 million cannot be established. It should be in- with Stream Piracy years. They base this conclusion upon teresting to see if the antecedent stream Summerfield (1991, p. 410) explained dates of the Muddy Creek Formation hypothesis makes a comeback, based on how stream piracy is supposed to work: and the overlying Hualapai Limestone. these new ages. “River capture occurs when one stream These strata are several thousand ft But simply increasing the age of the erodes more aggressively than an adja- (about 1,000 m) thick and are visible river does not solve all the problems. If cent stream and captures its discharge just west of the mouth of Grand Canyon. both the river and the Colorado Plateau by intersecting its channel.” The higher Since there is no evidence of the Colo- have existed for over seventy million rate of erosion by the capturing or pirat- rado River ever flowing through these years, their current elevations—and even ing stream is attributed to: (1) a steeper formations (Longwell, 1946), the river their very existence—are a puzzle. Over slope, (2) greater discharge, (3) less must be younger than 6 million years that time, erosion should have wiped resistant rocks, and (4) more precipita- old, assuming the uniformitarian dating away the entire Colorado Plateau! That tion feeding the pirating stream than system. Lucchitta (1990) concluded: is because measurable erosion rates the adjacent stream. Figure 11 shows a The establishment of through-flow- would denude all of North America schematic of how stream piracy is sup- ing drainage along the lower Colo- down to sea level in as little as 10 million posed to work. rado River in its Basin and Range years or a maximum of 50 million years The idea seems like a reasonable course occurred between four and (Roth, 1998; Oard, 2008). Granting the process given millions of years of de- six million years. No lower Colo- uniformitarian paradigm, there is no rea- nudation, yet in reality it is often more rado River existed before that date. son why erosion should have been less complicated. Many proposed examples (p. 328) active in the past. What’s more, there are of stream piracy have ignited disputes Although the eastern Grand Can- few signs of linear (river) erosion on the among geomorphologists (Small, 1978). yon is thought to be older, there is no plateaus surrounding Grand Canyon; Many assert that the mechanism has sedimentary evidence for the earlier the plateau top is a planation surface been applied too liberally (Small, 1978). existence of the Colorado River in Utah, caused by sheet erosion. That would re- Some researchers believe the process is Arizona, or Colorado (Meek and Doug- quire a far more energetic environment, rare and occurs only on a small scale lass, 2001). which in turn demonstrates that the (Bishop, 1995; Pederson, 2001). For Interestingly, the age of the western surface is probably much younger than instance, the origin of the transverse and central Grand Canyon has recently seventy million years. This conclusion drainage of the Zambezi River in Africa come under debate. There are several is supported by digital elevation models was once assumed to have been caused Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 194 Creation Research Society Quarterly

upstream in northern Louisiana, if the United States Army Corp of Engineers had not intervened. Such instances would be rare after the Flood.

Stream Piracy and the Grand Canyon The stream piracy hypothesis is problematic when applied to the Grand Canyon (Austin, 1994a; Williams et al., 1992). It asserts that a stream from the uplifted or uplifting Colorado Plateau plunged into the Lake Mead area, eroded headward between 100 to 200 miles (161 to 322 km), and then captured the ancient Colorado River. But evidence of this “ancient” Colorado River is lacking. Most supporters of this hypothesis think that the ancient Colorado River was flowing east of the Kaibab Plateau. However, two versions of this hypothesis (Hunt, 1976; Lucchitta, 1990) assume that the Kaibab Plateau had already been breached by the ancient Colorado River. One of the keys to this hypothesis is whether the capture occurred east or just west of the Kaibab Plateau. If it happened to the west, the Colorado River had already breached its highest point—thus the hypothesis ignores the most difficult problem. If the capture Figure 11. Schematic of stream piracy. Drawing by Peter Klevberg. was to the east of the Kaibab Plateau, the pirating stream would have had to erode eastward through the plateau, including the high Kaibab Plateau, which would by river piracy, but that deduction was must be apparent from this discussion take a much longer time than eroding largely speculative (Thomas and Shaw, that the phenomenon of river capture through a flat plateau. Eroding through 1992). Ironically, it has since been sug- cannot be ‘taken on trust.’” Otherwise topographical divides is much slower gested that this example of river piracy demonstrating stream piracy requires than away from divides because water was caused by a catastrophic flood, not researchers to show that the pirating flows downhill and there is less water by slow processes acting over millions stream was incised to a significantly volume available for erosion in the of years. This flood was believed to have lower level than its victim. But evidence headwaters. been caused by a breached paleolake. In of past erosion is often eliminated by In addition to the apparent impos- the case of the Zambezi, the spillover subsequent erosion. Even if the hypoth- sibility of headward erosion for up to hypothesis makes sense, since geological esis is plausible, it does not seem easy to 200 miles (322 km), there seems to be evidence of the paleolake and its breach- support with field evidence. a surprising lack of evidence for such ing exist. Theoretically, stream piracy can oc- an event on the western edge of the Small (1978, p. 229) stated that cur after the Flood when the divide be- Colorado Plateau. We should see many rarely is there direct evidence for stream tween two streams is low, for instance the other long canyons eroded eastward piracy; it is practically always an infer- Atchafalaya River would have captured from the western edge of the Colorado ence from more general features: “It much of the flow of the Mississippi River Plateau, but we do not. Given an arid Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 195 to semiarid climate, this scale of erosion stream that flowed from the east into the Kaibab Plateau and passed southwest seems unlikely. Lake Mead area rapidly eroded eastward through Peach Springs Canyon to Nee- Also, the slope of the Kaibab and 100–200 miles (161–322 km) in five to dles, CA (Hunt, 1976). This hypothesis eastern Coconino Plateaus in the six million years (Ranney, 2005) to inter- is also unlikely. Peach Springs Canyon, vicinity of Grand Canyon is generally sect the ancestral upper Colorado River, east of the Hualapai Plateau, is filled southwest, while the “precocious gully” forcing the river to divert west. The slope with deep deposits of gravel, volcanic (as dubbed by Hunt, a critic of the hy- of the Little Colorado River valley then ash, and other sediments with paleocur- pothesis) had to erode eastward, which was reversed to what we see today. Thus, rent indicators showing drainage toward is roughly perpendicular to the expected this version would postulate that the ter- the northeast (Lucchitta, 1972; Powell, surface flow of water. It is not surprising rain in eastern Arizona and New Mexico 2005; Young, 2001). that many other geologists see 200 miles was once much lower. However, there is Any of these versions of the hypoth- of headward erosion perpendicular to a problem. The top of Marble Platform esis sees the pirating stream eroding the topography as untenable (Dallegge now slopes northeast—the opposite of eastward from near Las Vegas, NV to et al., 2003; Young and Spamer, 2001). the claimed flow of the ancestral Colo- the location of the ancestral Colorado rado River. River (its pre-capture path is uncertain), Speculations on the Path of A second version of the stream piracy diverting it into the current Grand the “Ancient Colorado River” hypothesis suggests that the ancestral Canyon. Some of the many problems Another significant problem with the Colorado River, instead of flowing south- with the stream piracy hypothesis hypothesis is the mysterious “ancient east through the Little Colorado River are summarized in Table I (Austin, Colorado River.” There are differing Valley, somehow crossed the Kaibab Pla- 1994a; Hunt, 1976; Lucchitta, 1990; ideas on the path of the ancient Colo- teau and then turned northwest through Powell, 2005; Ranney, 2005; Spencer rado River and the precise location of its the Kanab Creek Valley into southern and Pearthree, 2001; Williams et al., capture by the “precocious gully.” Since Utah (Lucchitta, 1990). But, this idea 1992). the Kaibab Plateau is believed to have cannot explain the major problem for uplifted 70 million years ago, the ances- the origin of the canyon: How did the tral Colorado River east of the Kaibab Colorado River manage to breach the The Lake-Spillover Hypothesis Plateau theoretically must have existed Kaibab Plateau? Moreover, the slope of Geologist Eliot Blackwelder (1934) for at least 60 million years, but there is Kanab Creek, which starts on the high proposed that the Grand Canyon was not a trace of this river (Austin, 1994a). plateaus of south central Utah, also eroded by the spillover from a lake Within the uniformitarian paradigm, the would have had to reverse, something northeast of the Kaibab Plateau (Meek first trace of the ancestral Colorado River most geologists do not accept. and Douglass, 2001). His suggestion is only 10 million years ago in Colorado A third version speculates on an an- remained obscure for many years, but (Larson et al., 1975). The whereabouts cient path that somehow breached the has recently been revived (Douglass, of the Colorado River prior to 10 million years ago is enigmatic. Another date discrepancy exists. Table I. Problems with the Stream Piracy Hypothesis for the Origin of Grand Given the young dates from the western Canyon Grand Canyon, advocates of stream piracy must explain how the upstream 1 No evidence for ancestral upper Colorado River segment of the Colorado River east of the Kaibab Plateau is ten million years 2 Headward erosion by a small stream in a semiarid climate is not efficient old or more, while the downstream 3 Not enough time for headward erosion, even by uniformitarian timescale segment is only five to six (Young and 4 No evidence of other headward eroding streams cutting 100-200 miles into Spamer, 2001). plateau One version of the stream piracy hypothesis speculates that the Colorado 5 The “precocious gully” supposedly eroded east, but slope of plateau sur- River used to flow southwest through face is often to south Marble Canyon east of the Kaibab Pla- 6 No fault or sag to aid headward erosion teau and then turned southeast through 7 Problem of breaching Kaibab Plateau remains the valley of the Little Colorado River to 8 Stream capture is rare and usually on smaller scale exit into the Rio Grande River. Then a Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 196 Creation Research Society Quarterly

sediments are fine-grained (Dallegge et al., 2003). Recent work has reinterpreted these “lake” sediments as shallow water sediments formed in an ephemeral desert lake (Powell, 2005; Ranney, 2005). It is not clear how such a small volume of water could have eroded Grand Canyon. Another serious problem with the hypothesis is that the elevation of the top of Grand Canyon as it runs through the Kaibab upwarp is significantly higher than the spillover point(s) for these supposed lakes. The lowest point of the top of the Grand Canyon through the Kai- bab Plateau is 7,300 ft (2,225 m), while the lowest points through the Kaibab Plateau are around 6,000 ft (1,829 m), as discussed above. Again, the major problem is why the Grand Canyon was cut through the Kaibab Plateau at an intermediate altitude, when it should have cut through at points about 1,300 ft (396 m) lower. To get around this difficulty, a few geologists have interpreted caves in the Redwall Limestone in the Grand Canyon (Figure 12) as the remains of subterranean groundwater conduits from “Lake Hopi” which col- lapsed a preexisting cavern to form the Grand Canyon. This piping would have occurred as the water pressure built up against the barrier that held the lakes, until the pressure was sufficient for the water to be forced through cracks or Figure 12. Cave with spring in Redwall Formation just above Colorado River in tunnels. This mechanism of breaching is the Grand Canyon. similar to one version of the creationary dam-breach hypothesis examined in Part II of this series. Finally, if the lake ever did overtop 1999; Meek and Douglass, 2001; Perkins, there are also many problems with this the Kaibab Plateau, it would not have 2000; Scarborough, 2001; Spencer and hypothesis. followed the current path of the Grand Pearthree, 2001). The hypothesis pro- First, there is no evidence for the Canyon, because that path runs perpen- poses that a lake called Lake Hopi or proposed lakes (Meek and Douglass, dicular to the topography (Hunt and Lake Bidahochi developed in the region 2001). Geologists cite the Bidahochi Elders, 2001). Applying simple rules of the Little Colorado River area, with Formation in the northern and eastern of hydraulics, the water would have another lake possibly situated northeast Little Colorado River Valley, but only a run off to the southwest. That is com- of the Kaibab Plateau. Breaching of part of this deposit is considered lacus- pletely at odds with the canyon’s turn these lakes led to a catastrophic spillover, trine (Dallegge et al., 2001), and even to the northwest, once past the Kaibab which cut through the Kaibab Plateau that interpretation rests squarely on one Plateau. Some scientists have suggested to form the Grand Canyon. However, tenuous piece of evidence—that the the overspill followed a previous chan- Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 197

Table II. Five Major Problems with the Spillover Hypothesis for the Origin of nel cut during the period of northeast Grand Canyon water flow on the plateaus. In addition to the complete lack of field evidence 1 No evidence for a lake northeast of the Kaibab Plateau for this proposal, it would not explain the morphology of the western Grand 2 Only a minor portion of the Bidahochi Formation is claimed to be a lake Canyon. deposit The overspill hypothesis is admit- 3 Supposed lake sediments in Bidahochi Formation now seen as formed in tedly speculative, even by geologists who a small lake believe in it (Meek and Douglass, 2001). 4 Spillover points across Kaibab Plateau much lower than when Grand Powell (2005, p. 228) stated, “Thus, Canyon formed lake overflow and integration appears to be another speculative idea—an 5 Overspilling lake unlikely to have followed course of Grand Canyon educated geological guess—without direct evidence.” Table II summarizes five major problems with the spillover hypothesis. One might almost say that notoriously unreliable (Wells, 2006). offers a more realistic appraisal. He the major problem with this hypothesis The consensus by scientists for historical believes that plate tectonics is irrelevant is that it overlooks the fact that water events is especially unreliable, because it to understanding the Colorado Plateau. runs downhill. rests on the worldview of those interpret- “There is no need to discuss plate tec- ing the evidence. tonics principles when describing the At present, the antecedent stream interior of the continent, as there are no No Viable Uniformitarian theory has been abandoned, and the realistic direct relationships to be found” Hypothesis stream piracy and spillover hypotheses (Baars, 2000, p. x). Early geological pioneers thought it are now competing, although a few in- If deep time has been a paradigm for would be easy to determine the origin vestigators favor a combination of both nearly two centuries, and human reason of Grand Canyon. After all, it was sup- (Young and Spamer, 2001). has been hard at work for nearly 150 posedly a simple deduction from the Powell (2005, pp. 243–244) optimis- years to unravel the mystery of Grand uniformitarian principle, which they tically proclaimed that the 150 years of Canyon, then it appears that Powell’s “knew” was absolutely true. But, in a research is bringing geologists “closer” optimism is naïve. A reasonable person recent book, Powell (2005) lamented: to the solution: “Clearly geologists might wonder if it is not time to start Surprisingly, what had seemed to grow ever closer to finding the solution questioning the assumptions instead of the pioneers to be an easy geologi- to their grandest puzzle.” He likely looking for ephemeral data to support cal puzzle to solve proved just the believes this for reasons not related to the “just-so” stories that pass for geologi- opposite…. Powell and Dutton evidence—the axiomatic acceptance cal hypotheses today. would have been taken aback to of scientific “progress”: “Instead, we Grand Canyon is one of the most learn that, sixty-five years after the have to proceed by trial and error, get- geologically visible features on Earth Major’s [Powell] maiden voyage, the ting a lot wrong and a few things right, and one of the most heavily studied river’s age and history were still open slowly advancing science bit by bit” over nearly a century and a half, but questions. They would have been (Powell, 2005, p. 254). That is not the uniformitarian researchers are no closer astounded to find that the origin of only presuppositional baggage that he to understanding it than John Wesley the Grand Canyon was the subject brings to the canyon. He believes that Powell. They have no viable hypothesis of a conference held in 1964, which sheer human reason, working with the for the origin of Grand Canyon. R.J. reached consensus but not unanim- assumptions of deep time and plate Rice (1983, p. 292, emphasis added) ity, and that yet another convened in tectonics, will inevitably unveil the solu- admitted: “After a century of study, we the year 2000, with the same result. , tion to the problem. But will it? Deep seem, if anything, to be further than (pp. 4–5, 161, emphasis and brackets time was accepted when John Wesley ever from a full comprehension of how added) Powell braved the Colorado River. The the Grand Canyon has evolved.” The It is interesting that the 1964 “con- theory of plate tectonics has been with situation has not changed in twenty-two sensus” is no longer considered valid. us for over fifty years. more years, as Powell (2005) wrote in the One must be careful of scientific Donald Baars (2000), a longtime introduction to his book on the Grand consensus, which history shows to be researcher of the Colorado Plateau, Canyon. Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 198 Creation Research Society Quarterly

The story you are about to read has the foundation of their historical tale of References no definitive answer at the end, no “a- Earth’s past—uniformitarianism—is of CRSQ: Creation Research Society Quar- ha!” moment. We are frequently left no help at their most visible monument. terly with more questions than answers This is especially true since such an Ahnert, F. 1998. Introduction to Geomorphol- simply because the river continues admission would open the door to the ogy. Arnold, London, UK. to excavate away at the traces of its possibility of the Biblical Flood. Austin, S.A. 1994a. Geologic structure of early history, leaving us behind in be- Because, after one considers the Grand Canyon. In Austin, S.A. (editor), wilderment as we scratch our heads field evidence, a Flood explanation Grand Canyon – Monument to Catastro- in disbelief. There are few places makes more sense than anything the phism, pp. 9–19. Institute for Creation where one can go to learn how the uniformitarians have to offer, we will Research, Santee, CA Grand Canyon formed. There are no examine this possibility in other parts Austin, S.A. 1994b. How was Grand Canyon interpretive signs inside the park that of this series. At present, there are two eroded? In Austin, S.A. (editor), Grand speak to the idea of how the canyon creationary hypotheses for the origin Canyon – Monument to Catastroph- may have formed and most books say of the Grand Canyon. The first is the ism, pp. 83–110. Institute for Creation little more than the river carved the dam-breach hypothesis, caused by the Research, Santee, CA canyon (p. 16, emphasis added). post-Flood breaching of two or three Baars, D.L. 2000. The Colorado Plateau: lakes located east and northeast of Grand A Geologic History. University of New Canyon (Austin, 1994a; Brown, 2001; Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM. Conclusion 2008; Vail et al., 2008). This hypothesis Bates, R.L., and J.A. Jackson (editors). 1984. After decades of study by hundreds of was developed in the late 1980s and has Dictionary of Geological terms, 3rd edi- geologists spending millions of dollars, spawned three variations to date. How- tion. Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden uniformitarian interpretations of the ori- ever, as we will see in the next paper in City, NY. gin of Grand Canyon have failed. None this series, that idea is poorly supported Berardelli, P. 2008. Did dinosaurs gawk at will admit the failure, and few seem in- by the evidence. the Grand Canyon? http://sciencenow. clined to see a problem at all! Yet in spite The second catastrophic model is sciencemag.org/cgi/conent/full/2008/ of their repeated and continuing failure, the late-Flood runoff hypothesis. This 411/1?rss=1. uniformitarian geologists are quick to idea assumes that the canyon was carved Bishop, P. 1995. Drainage rearrangement circle the wagons when the one reason- by receding Floodwater during the by river capture, beheading and diver- able conclusion is suggested—that a new latest stages of the Flood, as the rising sion. Progress in Physical Geography paradigm is needed. continents forced the water into large 19(4):449–473. If the slow erosion by the preexist- channels. A few subscribers to creation Blackwelder, E. 1934. Origin of the Colo- ing river cannot be made to explain the theory seemed to favor this idea (Gish, rado River. GSA Bulletin 45:551–566. disparate data, then perhaps it is time 1989; Whitcomb and Morris, 1961) but Brown, W. 2001. In the Beginning: Com- to find another mechanism. The first never developed the hypothesis. How- pelling Evidence for Creation and the impression of most people is that the ever, it is an idea that corresponds well Flood, 7th edition. Center for Scientific canyon had a catastrophic origin. This to the available data as will be explained Creation, Phoenix, AZ. is supported by analogies of catastrophic in Parts III–V of this series. Brown, W. 2008. In the Beginning: Com- canyon formation at Mount St. Helens pelling Evidence for Creation and the (Morris and Austin, 2003). Physical Acknowledgements. I thank John Reed Flood, 8th edition. Center for Scientific evidence supports the idea—the Grand for reviewing an earlier manuscript Creation, Phoenix, AZ. Canyon has vertical walls and lacks talus and three anonymous reviewers who Burdick, C. 1974. Canyon of Canyons. Bible- (Vail et al., 2008). Given the failures of improved the manuscript. I also thank a Science Association, Caldwell, ID. uniformitarian geology, what is wrong critical reviewer for helping me see that Dallegge, T.A., M.H. Ort, W.C. McIntosh, with suggesting a catastrophic alterna- several aspects of this study were not well and M.E. Perkins. 2001. Age and depo- tive? Why not consider that the canyon supported and needed further documen- sitional basin morphology of the Bida- formed with a lot of water over a short tation. The research was made possible hochi Formation and implications for time? by a grant from the Creation Research the ancestral upper Colorado River. In There is only one real reason that Society. I also thank Peter Klevberg for Young, R.A. and E.E. Spamer (editors), such a possibility is automatically ex- his illustrations in many of the figures, Colorado River Origin and Evolution: cluded. The worldview commitments and to Ray Sterner for providing the map Proceedings of a Symposium Held at of modern geologists cannot admit that backgrounds. Grand Canyon National Park in June, Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 199

2000, pp. 47–51. Grand Canyon Associa- cal Survey, Washington, DC. Morris, J.D., and S.A. Austin, 2003. Foot- tion, Grand Canyon, AZ. Hunt, C.B. 1976. Grand Canyon and the prints in the Ash. Master Books, Green Dallegge, T.A., M.H. Ort, and W.C. McIn- Colorado River, their geologic history. Forest, AR. tosh. 2003. Mid-Pliocene chronostratig- In Breed, W.J., and E. Roat (editors), Oard, M.J. 2008. Flood by Design: Receding raphy, basin morphology and paleodrain- Geology of the Grand Canyon, pp. Water Shapes the Earth’s Surface. Master age relations derived from the Bidahochi 129–141. Museum of Northern Arizona, Books, Green Forest, AR. Formation, Hopi and Navajo Nations, Flagstaff, AZ. Oard, M.J. 2009. How old is Grand Canyon? Northeastern Arizona. The Mountain Larson, E.E., M. Ozima, and W.C. Bradley. Journal of Creation (in press). Geologist 40(3):55–82. 1975. Late Cenozoic basic volcanism in Oard, M.J. and P. Klevberg. 2008. Green Douglass, J., 1999. Late Cenozoic landscape northwestern Colorado and its implica- River Formation very likely did not form evolution study of the eastern Grand tions concerning tectonism and the in a postdiluvial lake. Answers Research Canyon region. M.A. thesis, Northern origin of the Colorado River system. In Journal 1:99–107. Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. Curtis, B.F. (editor), Cenozoic History Ollier C., and C. Pain. 2000. The Origin of Douglass, J.C. 2005. Criterion approach to of the Southern Rocky Mountains, pp. Mountains. Routledge, London, UK. transverse drainages. PhD thesis, Arizona 155–178. Geological Society of America Patton, P.C., N. Biggar, C.D. Condit, M.L. State University, Tucson, AZ. Memoir 144, Geological Society of Gillam, D.W. Love, M.N. Machette, Flowers, R.M., B.P. Wernicke, and K.A. America, Boulder, CO. L. Mayer, R.B. Morrision, and J.N. Farley. 2008. Unroofing, incision, and Longwell, C.R. 1946. How old is the Colo- Rosholt. 1991. Quaternary geology of uplift history of the southwestern Colo- rado River? American Journal of Science the Colorado Plateau. In Morrision, R.B. rado Plateau from apatite (U-Th)/He 244(12):817–835. (editor), Quaternary Nonglacial Geology: thermochronometry. GSA Bulletin Lucchitta, I. 1972. Early history of the Colo- Conterminous U.S., pp. 373–406. The 120:571–587. rado River in the Basin and Range Prov- Geology of North America, Volume Gish, D.T. 1989. More creationist research ince. GSA Bulletin 83:1,933–1,948. K-2, Geological Society of America, (14 years)—part II: biological research. Lucchitta, I. 1990. History of the Grand Boulder, CO. CRSQ 26:5–12. Canyon and of the Colorado River in Pederson, J.L. 2001. Searching for the pre- Graf, W.L., R. Hereford, J. Laity, and R.A. Arizona. In Beus, S.S. and M. Morales Grand Canyon Colorado River: the Young. 1987. Colorado Plateau. In (editors), Grand Canyon Geology, pp. Muddy Creek Formation north of Lake Graf, W.L. (editor), Geomorphic Systems 311–332. Oxford University Press, New Mead. In Young, R.A. and E.E. Spamer of North America, pp. 259–302. Geo- York, NY. (editors), Colorado River Origin and logical Society of America Centennial Mayer, L. 2000. Application of digital el- Evolution: Proceedings of a Symposium Special Volume 2, Geological Society evation models to macroscale tectonic Held at Grand Canyon National Park in of America, Boulder, CO, geomorphology. In Summerfield, M.A. June, 2000, pp. 71–75. Grand Canyon Holm, R.F. 2001. Cenozoic paleogeography (editor), Geomorphology and Global Association, Grand Canyon, AZ. of the central Mogollon Rim-southern Tectonics, pp. 15–27. John Wiley & Sons, Pederson, J., R. Young, I. Lucchitta, L.S. Colorado Plateau region, Arizona, New York, NY. Beard, and G. Billingsley. 2008. Com- revealed by tertiary gravel deposits, Meek, N., and J. Douglass. 2001. Lake over- ment on “Age and evolution of the Oligocene to Pleistocene lava flows, flow: an alternative hypothesis for Grand Grand Canyon revealed by U-Pb dating and incised streams. GSA Bulletin Canyon incision and development of of water table-type speleothems.” Science 113:1,467–1,485. the Colorado River. In Young, R.A., and 321:1,634b. Hunt, A.B., and W.A. Elders. 2001. Climate E.E. Spamer (editors), Colorado River Perkins, S. 2000. The making of a Grand change and the evolution of Grand Origin and Evolution: Proceedings of a Canyon: carving this beloved hole in Canyon and the Colorado River delta. In Symposium Held at Grand Canyon Na- the ground may not have been such Young, R.A., and E.E. Spamer (editors), tional Park in June, 2000, pp. 199–204. a long-term project. Science News Colorado River Origin and Evolution: Grand Canyon Association, Grand 158:218–220. Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Canyon, AZ. Potochnik, A.R. 2001. Paleogeomorphic Grand Canyon National Park in June, Morales, M. 1990. Mesozoic and Cenozoic evolution of the Salt River region: 2000, pp. 191–194. Grand Canyon As- strata of the Colorado Plateau near the implications for Cretaceous-Laramide sociation, Grand Canyon, AZ. Grand Canyon. In Beus, S.S., and M. inheritance for ancestral Colorado River Hunt, C.B. 1956. Cenozoic geology of the Morales (editors), Grand Canyon Geol- drainage. In Young, R.A. and E.E. Spa- Colorado Plateau. U.S. Geological Sur- ogy, pp. 247–260. Oxford University mer (editors), Colorado River Origin and vey Professional Paper 279, U.S. Geologi- Press, New York, NY. Evolution: Proceedings of a Symposium Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 200 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Held at Grand Canyon National Park in Earth Surface Processes and Landforms Wells, J. 2006. The Politically Incorrect June, 2000, pp. 17–22. Grand Canyon 14:93–105. Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Association, Grand Canyon, AZ. Small, R.J. 1978. The Study of Landforms: Design. Regnery Publishing, Washing- Powell, J.L. 2005. Grand Canyon: Solving A Textbook of Geomorphology, 2nd ton, DC. Earth’s Grandest Puzzle. PI Press, New edition. Cambridge University Press, Whitcomb, J.C., Jr., and H.M. Morris. 1961. York, NY. London, UK. The Genesis Flood. Baker Book House, Powell, J.W. 1961. Reprint. The Exploration Spencer, J.E., and P.A. Pearthree. 2001. Grand Rapids, MI. of the Colorado River and Its Canyons. Headward erosion versus closed-basin Williams, E.L., J.R. Meyer, and G.W. Wol- Dover Publishing, New York, NY. Origi- spillover as alternative causes of Neo- from. 1991. Erosion of Grand Canyon nal edition, 1895. gene capture of the ancestral Colorado part I—review of antecedent river Price, L.G. 1999. An Introduction to Grand River by the Gulf of California. In Young, hypothesis and the postulation of large Canyon Geology. Grand Canyon Asso- R.A. and E.E. Spamer (editors), Colo- quantities of rapidly flowing water as ciation, Grand Canyon, AZ. rado River Origin and Evolution: Pro- the primary agent of erosion. CRSQ Ranney, W. 2005. Carving Grand Canyon: ceedings of a Symposium Held at Grand 28:92–98. Evidence, Theories, and Mystery. Grand Canyon National Park in June, 2000, pp. Williams, E.L., J.R. Meyer, and G.W. Wol- Canyon Association, Grand Canyon, 215–219. Grand Canyon Association, from. 1992. Erosion of Grand Canyon AZ. Grand Canyon, AZ. part II—review of river capture, piping Rice, R.J. 1983. The canyon conundrum. Strahler, A.N. 1987. Science and Earth His- and ancestral river hypotheses and the The Geological Magazine 55:288–292. tory: The Evolution/Creation Controversy. possible formation of vast lakes. CRSQ Rigby, J.K. 1976. Northern Colorado Plateau. Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY. 28:138–145. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Summerfield, M.A. 1991. Global Geomor- Williams, E.L., G.F. Howe, and J.R. Meyer. Dubuque, IA. phology. Longman Scientific & Techni- 1999. An introduction to the geology Rigby, J.K. 1977. Southern Colorado Plateau. cal, New York, NY. of Verde Valley, a different perspective. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Thomas, D.S.G., and P.A. Shaw. 1992. CRSQ 36:81–88. Dubuque, IA. The Zambezi River: tectonics, climatic Young, R.A. 2001. The Laramide-Paleogene Roth, A.A. 1998. Origins—Linking Science change and drainage evolution—is there history of the western Grand Canyon and Scripture. Review and Herald Pub- really evidence for a catastrophic flood? region: setting the stage. In Young, R.A., lishing, Hagerstown, MD. a discussion. Palaeogeography, Palaeocli- and E.E. Spamer (editors), Colorado Scarborough, R. 2001. Neogene develop- matology, Palaeoecology 91:175–178. River Origin and Evolution: Proceedings ment of Little Colorado River Valley Twidale, C.R. 1976. Analysis of Landforms. of a Symposium Held at Grand Canyon and eastern Grand Canyon: field evi- John Wiley & Sons Australasia Pty Ltd, National Park in June, 2000, pp. 7–15. dence for an overtopping hypothesis. In New York, NY. Grand Canyon Association, Grand Can- Young, R.A., and E.E. Spamer (editors), Twidale, C.R. 2004. River patterns and yon, AZ. Colorado River Origin and Evolution: their meaning. Earth-Science Reviews Young, R.A., and E.E. Spamer (editors). Proceedings of a Symposium Held at 67:159–218. 2001. Colorado River Origin and Evolu- Grand Canyon National Park in June, Vail, T. 2003. Grand Canyon—A Different tion: Proceedings of a Symposium Held 2000, pp. 207–212. Grand Canyon As- View. Master Books, Green Forest, AR. at Grand Canyon National Park in June, sociation, Grand Canyon, AZ. Vail, T., M. Oard, D. Bokovoy, and J. Her- 2000. Grand Canyon Association, Grand Schmidt, K.-H. 1989. The significance of genrather. 2008. Your Guide to the Grand Canyon, AZ. scarp retreat for Cenozoic landform evo- Canyon: A Different Perspective. Master lution on the Colorado Plateau, U.S.A. Books, Green Forest, AR.

John K. Reed*

Abstract artin Rudwick, noted historian of earth sciences, proposes that Mgeohistory originated as an innovative compromise between two “unmodern” traditions: Biblical chronology and Aristotelian eternalism. According to his theory, Enlightenment intellectuals—particularly Georges Cuvier—found a third path that avoided the theological problems of Aristotle’s cosmology and the “empirical” problems of a short Biblical past. Although this analysis is interesting, it minimizes the fundamental anti-Christian spirit of the Enlightenment and fails to make a compelling case for any relevance of Aristotle’s temporal cosmology. Proposals for the eternality of matter arose not from Aristotle but because it is a logical metaphysical alternative to theistic creation. Rudwick fails to differentiate between Aristotle and the post-Christian materialism of the Enlightenment, which was quite dissimilar from Aristotle’s Metaphysics. More importantly, crucial relevant aspects of church history and orthodox theology compromise his theory. Thus, it should be rejected in favor of a historical interpretation of geohistory as part of an integrated secular attack on traditional Christianity—an explanation that better explains developments in Western culture, both then and now.

Introduction A seminal moment for modern creation time as a tapestry: the warp is man’s divine immanence. That is why Biblical science was the 1961 publication of The struggle in a fallen world and the woof history remains foundational to Christi- Genesis Flood (Whitcomb and Morris, is God’s providential provision for both anity, and the theological issue forces our 1961). Its focus on geology, rather than present and future salvation. Secular focus quite properly on the problem of evolution, emphasized the underlying geohistory did more than inflate the the extended geological timescale (e.g., conflict between secular geohistory quantity of time; following the lead of Reed, 2008a,b,c, d), even though there and the history of the Bible over that of Hume and Kant, it shredded the fabric of remains significant confusion over this biological evolution. Scripture presents Christianity by eliminating the threads of issue (Reed and Oard, 2006). Part of that confusion flows from an inaccurate historical understanding of the development of geohistory in the * John K. Reed, PhD, 915 Hunting Horn Way, Evans, GA 30809, [email protected] eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Accepted for publication September 15, 2009 Most people today believe the myth Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 202 Creation Research Society Quarterly began by Charles Lyell, which only larly interested in the development of The historical interpretation of a recently has been exposed as self-serv- deep time and geohistory. His book, The secular elite attacking orthodox Chris- ing propaganda (e.g., Gould, 1987). Great Devonian Controversy (Rudwick, tianity provides a better explanation for Lyell created a legend of geology focus- 1985), explores the social and scientific the events described so ably by Rudwick. ing on his British predecessors, James interplay among the leading geologists of Though the waters are muddied by the Hutton and John Playfair. Given the the early nineteenth century—providing social religiosity of many savants, inher- nineteenth-century belief that physical insight into how ideas about time and ent contradictions in human nature and science developed by the sequential ef- rocks evolved, uncovering a large cast of the social dominance of Christianity at forts of the giants: Copernicus, Galileo, characters in that enterprise, and expos- that time explains the dichotomy of their and Newton; Lyell’s attempt to create a ing the scientific and social factors that apparent “faith” and their antitheistic similar chain for geology with himself drove their work. Recently, he has pub- work. However, like today, Enlighten- as the final link strongly suggests that he lished a two-volume history of geology ment thought was driven by the minority saw himself as the “Newton” of earth sci- (Rudwick, 2005; 2008) that is destined of atheistic materialists, not by some lib- ence. His ploy worked, as evidenced by to become a classic in the field. eral version of Christianity. Geohistory the ongoing adulation of geologists. However, Rudwick, like all hu- was simply one facet—a crucial one—of But historians (and a few geolo- man historians, is influenced by his an aggressively secular new worldview. gists) have worked to correct the record. own philosophical bias. Though more The response of the church was not Gould (1987) identified some of the conscientious than most, his analysis innovative; it was largely compromise most glaring distortions. Mortenson has shortcomings that can be traced to after the fact. (2004; 2006; 2008) resurrected the work crucial misconceptions about church of the scriptural geologists—orthodox history and Christian theology. These Christian scholars who fought Lyellian- are especially evident in his proposed Rudwick’s Hypothesis ism apart from the continental secular theory of the origin of deep time. Al- Rudwick (2005) argues that modern catastrophists whom Lyell sought to tar though it quite properly rejects the geohistory, which is characterized by with the brush of “diluvialism.” Morten- simplistic (but still popular) view of a a lengthy but finite prehuman past, son (2006) also documented Lyell’s ani- repressive church struggling to keep a originated as an innovative compromise mus toward Christianity and his scheme lid on empirical discoveries, it fails to between two unacceptable “unmodern” to attack the credibility of its historical account for: (1) the anti-Christian fervor traditions—a short Biblical chronology foundations. But one scholar has domi- among Enlightenment intellectuals and Aristotelian eternalism (Figure 1). nated the discussion about deep time in (Stark, 2003), (2) the Christian con- He describes his concept as follows: recent decades—Dr. Martin J.S. Rud- sensus for a recent Creation and Flood Above all, it should be noted that in wick, arguably the foremost historian of prior to the eighteenth century, and (3) stretching the timescale to even a the earth sciences in our day. cultural developments in subsequent million years they were transcend- Dr. Rudwick built a stellar career at years contradicting his thesis. ing the stark alternatives available Cambridge and the University of Cali- fornia, San Diego. His books and articles demonstrate keen insights into the key figures of what he calls the “Republic of Letters”—the late Enlightenment intellectuals—which he gained by extensive research into their original writings. His work has done much to correct the simplistic myth of the “struggles” of Hutton, Playfair, and Lyell against a repressive church to bring the light of geology to the world. He replaces that tale with an interesting and realistic discussion of the complex web of people and ideas that Figure 1. Rudwick proposed an Enlightenment dilemma that set the stage for gave rise to geology, extending back well modern geohistory, with one horn as the traditional chronology of the Bible, and before Hutton and Lyell. the other as Aristotle’s eternal universe. This dilemma was supposedly resolved Rudwick has always been particu- by a lengthy but finite geohistory. Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 203

in earlier centuries, both of them Note Rudwick’s bias. As always, his profoundly unmodern in character. choice of words is significant. He diverts In contrast both to the short and attention from the conflict between finite timescale of traditional chro- orthodox and heterodox by implying nology and to the infinitely long that the Bible was merely one of several perspective of traditional eternalism, “traditional origin stories” rather than they were beginning to open up the the only pertinent “origin story” at the conceptual space for a third (and time. Every educated person at the time modern) option: the timescale might understood that Christianity was built on be unimaginably lengthy, yet not infi- history; thus, any attempt to rewrite that nite. This novel option was a crucial history (lengthy or eternal) would have precondition for the reconstruction profound effects on Christianity—as the of geohistory, as the rest of this book centuries since Cuvier have so amply will suggest. (Rudwick, 2005, p. 131, demonstrated. emphasis in original) But Rudwick applauds Cuvier for That there might have been a Figure 2. Cuvier was the most promi- his brilliant solution—an innovative lengthy prehuman world was not nent French naturalist of the early geohistory preceding Genesis, yet fi- anticipated in either of the rival nineteenth century. The father of com- nite and linked loosely enough to the conceptions of time and history parative anatomy and paleontology, he Bible to allow the church to save face. inherited from earlier generations. advocated a catastrophic geohistory In Cuvier’s proposal, geology did not The picture of cosmic history derived linked to Noah’s Flood by its final directly deny Christian history; “pre- from the Creation narratives in Gen- catastrophe. Modified from http:// history” simply ignored the first three esis … implied that the universe had commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: words of the text and left the subsequent had a human presence from the start, Georges_Cuvier_large.jpg. account intact, with an indeterminate apart from a brief prelude to set the earlier period of time to account for the stage for its primarily human story. strata and fossils. But the Aristotelian picture of an un- beyond the paleontological studies that Cuvier affirmed a catastrophic created eternity … likewise assumed had won his reputation as one of the flood but chained it to a vast prehuman that humans had always been part of leading savants in Europe and attempted past, punctuated by catastrophes. This the cosmic science: literally always, to define geology as a new science. enabled him to avoid the overt atheism from all eternity … Neither facili- According to Rudwick, the challenge of the “Terror” during the French Revo- tated thinking about what was in ef- was great—Cuvier had to pick his way lution, while reserving earth history as fect a third alternative. This was that through the political, social, and intellec- a scientific, not theological, discipline. cosmic history—or at least the more tual minefield of an atheistic eternalism Rudwick offers Lamarck and Chateau- accessible history of the earth and on one hand and a revived Catholicism briand as the Scylla and Charybdis of life—might have been very lengthy (Napoleon signed a concordat with Pope Cuvier’s voyage into modern geology. but not eternal and that human life Pius VII in 1801) on the other. In Cuvier’s view his own concep- might have appeared only at a late In this climate, although “geology” tion of geology was threatened on stage in the relatively recent past was among the natural sciences, two fronts. The Biblical literalism … Yet the third alternative became what it was doing was open to ques- represented by Chateaubriand’s increasingly plausible in the course tion, because it claimed to have resurgent Catholicism—like that of the eighteenth century, at least to authority to pronounce on the rela- of modern Protestant fundamental- savants who had seen or knew about tion of the human—and therefore ism—would make the practice of the relevant empirical observations. social—world to the world of nature. geology impossible, by denying it (Rudwick, 2005, p. 176) Specifically, of course, it appeared the lengthy timescale that the ob- In Rudwick’s theory, Georges Cu- to challenge more traditional origin servable features clearly demanded. vier (1769–1832) emerges as the hero, stories, particularly those embodied But the eternalism represented by navigating between the two “unmodern” in the Bible, and thereby raise Lamarck’s steady-state geotheory… extremes and charting a path for geology. questions about the authority of the would deprive geology of its claim to In a series of public lectures presented church in civil society. (Rudwick, reconstruct the history of the earth. in 1804, Cuvier (Figure 2) expanded far 2005, pp. 448–449) (Rudwick, 2005, p. 456) Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 204 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Rudwick’s theological weakness is tice the twentieth-century science intellectual discourse about geological seen in his emphasis on the quantity of of geochronology. The similarity of phenomena, seeing the issue as one of time as the primary factor in displacing terms points to shared concepts and scholarly give-and-take and evaluating Christian history. even methods. Both groups have evidence in the light of reason and The vast timescale invoked by been at the forefront of intellectual an evolving knowledge of the world naturalists such as Montlosier and life in their respective centuries. In and its past. Rudwick’s portrayal of a Desmarest was suspect, however, not fact, far from being diametrically gentlemanly exchange of ideas between only or even principally because it opposed, what Ussher and other relatively neutral parties minimizes the contradicted a traditionally-literal chronologers were trying to do was debate by: exegesis of Genesis. Much more the direct lineal ancestor of what • asserting a nonexistent herme- significantly, as in the case of Hut- earth scientists do in the modern neutical flexibility that allowed ton in Britain some years earlier … world. (Rudwick, 1999, p. 250) long ages it was widely suspected of being a Rudwick also deserves credit, along • crediting Christianity with the scientific cover for an eternalism that with others (e.g., Glover, 1984; Hooykaas, historical framework used in would subversively deny the divine 1972; 1999; Stark, 2003), for recognizing geohistory origin and grounding of the world the role of Christianity in building the • downplaying inherent theologi- altogether. (Rudwick, 2005, p. 451) framework of history and so discount- cal conflicts outside the span of He fails to grasp that the “tradition- ing the mythological “geology versus time ally-literal exegesis” of Genesis was Genesis” story. • arguing that the rejection of orthodoxy (Mortenson and Ury, 2008). It is often claimed that on this issue Genesis rested on empirical Denying it impugned the integrity of [geologic time] “the Progress of Sci- evidence special revelation and its Author. This ence” was retarded by the “repres- has been demonstrated repeatedly sive” influence of “the Church.” In The Real Threat of Genesis since by the triumph of Enlightenment fact, the historical situation was more Rudwick is correct in identifying the atheism in Western culture, something complex than that stereotype allows, short Biblical timescale as a barrier to that was not supposed to happen given and far more interesting. (Rudwick, unrestrained geohistorical theorizing. the “compromise” version of geohistory. 2005, pp. 115–116, brackets added) But his failure to grasp the nature of Naturalism dominates our culture to However, his superlative scholarship orthodox Christian doctrine creates a this day, especially by perpetuating the can easily blind readers to interpretive crucial error in his theory, as it down- Enlightenment tradition of the most errors. As Gordon Clark (1994) noted, plays real conflicts between Genesis and anti-Christian thinkers controlling the history and philosophy are integral. No secular earth history, such as the integ- intellectual levers of power (Bergman, historian can ignore his own philosophi- rity and authority of Scripture, the origin 2008). cal bent, especially when it is time to and nature of man, sin, and the founda- analyze the disparate facts he has uncov- tions of marriage and family. Doctrinal ered. Rudwick’s proposal for geohistory conflicts extend far deeper than the Critique of Rudwick’s Theory as an innovative compromise ignores mere span of time, and Rudwick should Any disagreement with Rudwick’s theory larger but intrinsically related theo- have more closely considered orthodox of deep time should not distract from logical issues and is unable to explain theological literature. There is a vast dif- the overall quality of his work. Histori- important facts. These failures can be ference between the church’s traditional ans and earth scientists both owe him seen by first assessing the dilemma that understanding of Genesis and various a debt of gratitude for clarifying the he creates to sets the stage for Cuvier’s aberrant textual devices used to make events surrounding the origin of geol- compromise. it palatable to modern naturalism. As ogy. For example, he debunks the myth An alternative explanation to Rud- a historian, Rudwick might have found of James Ussher as an ignorant fanatic, wick’s is the inherent conflict between firmer footing had he examined the showing that, to the contrary, Biblical naturalism and Christianity in the arena timing of now-prevalent compromise chronologers paved the way for geohis- of history. Given the origin of modern positions—they originated in response tory by emphasizing a theology of linear naturalism in the Enlightenment, to deep time, not in advance of it. progressive time. geohistory likely reflected the period’s However, Rudwick is fixed on the Ussher and his colleagues practised hostility to Genesis. In the following issue being merely one of duration by the seventeenth-century science of discussion, that view will be compared claiming that “it was on this middle chronology; modern geologists prac- to Rudwick’s, which narrows in on the ground, expanded through the cau- Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 205

tious but progressive extension of the cession of ages”… Likewise, Werner reason… Kant went beyond all previ- traditional short timescale, that the commented in print—casually and ous refutations by laying his ax at the origins of modern geochronology can just in passing—that the Geognostic root of the tree of the knowledge of be found, rather than on the unlimited pile of rock masses must have ac- God. He tried to demonstrate … that spaces of eternalism” (Rudwick, 2005, p. cumulated “in the immense time it is impossible to know God intellec- 119, footnote 77). But there is more to span…of our earth’s existence”; and tually or to prove His being … Kant history than time. Compared to modern in manuscript notes for his lectures attempted to establish his agnostic scientists, Enlightenment savants were on geognosy he estimated that the or metaphysical skepticism in three experts in philosophy. Given the intel- whole sequence might represent ways. First, he argued that human lectual milieu of continental rationalism, perhaps a million years. Lavoisier knowledge only extends to the world’s British empiricism, Hume’s skepticism, suggested that the “period” (in the phenomena and not to the noumenal and the resulting grandiose system of sense of frequency) of his hypotheti- realm of God. (Sproul et al., 1984, pp. Kant, it is no surprise that natural history cal oscillation of the sea level was 29–30, emphasis added) would follow the developing antitheistic perhaps “several hundreds of thou- We usually do not associate Kant path defined by these thinkers. Also, it is sands of years” and since he believed with the earth sciences, but, though difficult to accept Rudwick’s “cautious, there had already been several such indirect, his impact is greater than gener- but progressive extension” of the Bibli- cycles, his conception of the earth’s ally appreciated. Enlightenment science cal history when it was the early savants total timescale must certainly have followed the paradigm of Newtonian like Buffon, Hutton, and Lamarck who run into millions … And Kant’s physics. Early geologists thus searched advocated a full-blown materialistic well-known earlier conjecture that for hard deductive “laws” that would eternalism and a steady-state earth. “a series of millions of years and explain earth’s past. Newton was famous Another way in which Rudwick centuries have probably elapsed” in for his method of allowing only observed wrongly minimizes the worldview clash bringing the universe to its present causes as explanations—sometimes is an emphasis on “new empirical state was almost a commonplace called the vera causa (true cause) meth- evidence” in the 1700s that purportedly among cosmological theorists. (Rud- od. However, Newton was a Christian. demanded vast time. He fails to note that wick, 2005, p. 125) He understood that God can and does similar evidence was known (though not This pre-evidentiary disposition to re- work in nature and that the invariance of to the same level of detail) to previous ject the Bible is also revealed in a passing causes or “natural laws” was contingent savants, such as Steno (1638–1686), comment about the common attitude in the sense that God could work con- who maintained the Biblical chronol- towards Genesis at the time. It was “an- trary to those principles at His pleasure. ogy. This “compelling” new evidence cient Jewish history, often scorned and This almost-but-not-quite-absolute ten- included multiple episodes of volca- dismissed by savants hostile to religion” sion was unavoidable because God was nism, the erosion of river valleys, and (Rudwick, 2005, p. 276). the ultimate justification for Newton’s sedimentary strata. Ironically, modern Since historical interpretation is “invariant laws.” observation has shown that all of these driven by assumptions as well as obser- Kant, in proclaiming the separation are easily explained by catastrophic or vations, Rudwick should have searched of the phenomenal realm from the post-Flood processes. Thus, science more deeply for those factors. He would noumenal realm, supplied the crucial has since shown that this evidence—so not have needed to look far. The philo- idea that transformed contingent actu- crucial to geohistory—was wrongly sophical influences on the early natural- alism to an absolute actualism, and this interpreted by the savants. ists from the philosophers (especially) transformation emerged in the earth The time line also shows that Bibli- Kant were significant. sciences. On the surface, it may have cal history was abandoned by savants The pivotal figure contributing to seemed a small step to the scientists, before the empirical evidence could be the breakdown of classical apologet- but in treating actualism as absolute, it adequately assessed. ics was…Immanuel Kant. Though became an a priori argument against In the opening sentence of his Alpine Kant has been dead for a century Creation and providence. This was Travels (1779), Saussure claimed and a half, he still dominates the in- described by Glover (1984) as the step that it was universally accepted—he tellectual scene. He claimed that in from the methodological materialism of meant, of course, among savants the realm of the mind, he effected a Newtonian physics to the metaphysical and other educated readers—that Copernican revolution. In retrospect materialism of Enlightenment intel- the earth’s past revolutions or major the claim was a modest one. Kant lectuals. Ironically, when Kant removed changes had occupied “a long suc- banished God from the world of pure God from the equation (Figure 3), the Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 206 Creation Research Society Quarterly

scientists were too busy rejoicing in the expulsion of theology from their world to realize that any kind of actualism had just become logically impossible (since Newton and his predecessors had justified it theologically). Thus, with one small adjustment to “scientific method,” divine activity was denied a priori. This transformation included an intermediate step that subtly shifted attention away from the Reformed doctrines of providence (God upholds the universe moment to moment) and immanence (God is closely involved in creation), beliefs that saw the most mundane workings of nature as “won- ders” (Hooykaas, 1999). The first step in that shift was toward the idea of the “miraculous” (God intervenes in the natural order occasionally). That step, being more palatable to Christians, allowed the second, which was the total denial of God by arguments against “miracles.” Once a continuous providence was eliminated, “scientific” logic could next rid mankind of discontinuous “miracles.” This misdirection is still a favorite dodge of atheists today—natural history is defined as “science,” which in turn is defined as “actualistic”; thus any appeal to theism is “nonactualistic” and thus “nonscientific.” By this two-step process, atheism wormed its way into the foundations of modern science. Enlightenment naturalists thus had a built-in (supposedly) methodological bias against Creation, Figure 3. The worldview of the West changed radically during the Enlightenment; the Flood, and the Incarnation. The many attribute that change to Kant’s separation of what he called the “noume- influence of Kant on Europe’s intellec- nal” and “phenomenal” realms. In asserting the impossibility of intellectual tuals has been well documented but is knowledge of the former, he gave the scholarly of his day the excuse they needed underexplored by Rudwick in its influ- to divorce themselves from Christianity. However, the root of science had always ence on early geologists. been Christian theology; the two were separated in terms of day-to-day practice The belief that science could explain but joined like a tree and its roots. The roots remained out of sight, but supported the past caused this “scientific actual- the “trunk” of science by justifying necessary assumptions. Kant summed up the ism” to become a part of natural history, Enlightenment mind-set by widening that practical distinction into a divorce. ignoring traditional and logical distinc- Now “free” from theology, science became the vehicle through which Natural- tions between the two (Adler, 1965). ism defeated Christianity. This was further facilitated by the development of a Most scientists today still believe that “scientific” history that would displace Genesis. “actualism” demands metaphysical materialism. By presenting natural history as a “scientific” discipline, the savants Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 207

convinced many that their approach culture in earlier centuries. But its the naturalist “savants” of Enlighten- was superior to the Bible, ignoring the temporal aspect, with the universe ment Europe) posit a metaphysical obvious—that the study of unique past existing in uncreated eternity, had materialism; ultimate reality is matter. events was distinct from the study of been emphatically rejected, on the That position is not only far removed general principles of nature. The drive grounds that it was radically inconsis- from Aristotle’s but also was roundly for a “scientific history” has remained tent with the Christian (and Jewish) condemned by the philosopher. inherent in the earth sciences, and the conception of the created status of Those, then, who say the universe tangled mess created by actualism and the world and everything in it, from is one and posit one kind of thing its British equivalent, “uniformitarian- atoms to humans, in relation to a as matter, and as corporeal matism,” is just one manifestation of that transcendent Creator. The perceived ter which has spatial magnitude, fundamental error (Reed, in press). threat to orthodox beliefs lay not evidently go astray in many ways. So, although Rudwick is correct that so much in abandoning a literal For they posit the elements of bod- antipathy between orthodox Christian- interpretation of Genesis, but rather ies only, not of incorporeal things, ity and secular savants was a part of the in undermining the foundations of though there are also incorporeal Enlightenment landscape, the threat human society by questioning the things. (Metaphysics I–8, 988b, 23– of the emerging naturalism was much ultimate moral responsibility of hu- 26 in McKeon, 1941, p. 703) more comprehensive than the span of man beings to their divine Creator. This essential difference between time in Earth’s past. But an even weaker (Rudwick, 2005, pp. 117–118) these varieties of eternalism can be seen aspect of Rudwick’s theory is found in Rudwick undercuts his own case. in the geotheories of Buffon and Hutton. the other horn of his dilemma. While the church had always fought Both are better explained by the para- Greek cosmology, its victory had been digm of Christianity versus naturalism The Questionable won long before the Enlightenment. It is than by Rudwick’s theory. For example, Threat of Aristotle extremely difficult to see Aristotle’s eter- both men were driven by a desire to ex- Rudwick’s dilemma (Figure 1) evapo- nalism as presenting a significant threat tend Newtonian physics to earth history, rates if it only has one horn, and two facts to European thought at that time. Note discovering deductive scientific rules suggest that is the case: (1) Aristotle’s how Rudwick attempts to bolster his that governed the planet’s past. Their outdated cosmology was no longer rel- case by contending that jettisoning the mechanistic scientific approach was em- evant, and (2) eternalist geotheories by “literal” interpretation of Genesis was phatically not Aristotelian. If there was naturalists grew out of a post-Christian much less important than opposing the any return to Greek cosmology on their materialism, the logical outcome of a dire consequences of a human morality part, it was to that of Democritus. But nontheistic yet rational approach. based on Aristotle’s cosmos (despite the neither of these situations was really the Despite Rudwick’s assertions, there sophisticated approach of the Nicoma- case; Buffon and Hutton were operating can be little argument that the short chean Ethics). Ironically, it appears that in a Christian culture, and even though Biblical timescale was the consensus Rudwick is attempting to use Aristotle’s they were attempting to undermine of post-Reformation Europe, as it had “golden mean” to dismiss Aristotle! De- orthodox Christianity with matter and been throughout the history of the spite the continued approval of aspects “natural laws,” their fundamental mind- church (Mortenson and Ury, 2008). of Aristotle’s philosophy (cf., Glover, set was Christian, not Greek. Thus, Rudwick’s “threat” of Aristotelian 1984), his temporal cosmology had never Both men failed because in both we eternalism rests on shaky ground, as even been popular in Europe. Even Rudwick see the singular drawback of purely sci- he must admit. (2005, p. 118) must admit that “given entific history—the suicide of history. A The traditional short timescale this profoundly religious objection, it is rigid steady-state view of time eliminates was not challenged by “the Rise of not surprising that eternalist ideas per- history as a series of events on a time line. Science”, because it had been chal- sisted in European culture largely as an Since naturalism could not conquer lenged far earlier by a much more ‘underground’ alternative, visible more Christianity without a credible secular radical alternative, that of the eter- often when repudiated by the orthodox history, secularists quickly retreated to nalism associated with Aristotelian than in any direct advocacy.” a framework of linear time away from philosophy. The spatial aspect of Also, Rudwick fails to distinguish “Newtonian” history. They quickly dis- Aristotle’s conception of the cosmos, between the eternalism of Greek cos- covered that long indeterminate time with the earth fixed at the center of mology and that of modern secular provided a bonus; it pushed the issue a vast but finite universe, had been materialism. Modern atheists (which of origins conveniently into the back- thoroughly absorbed into European included a significant proportion of ground, avoiding a pitched theological Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 208 Creation Research Society Quarterly battle that the savants would probably which is reinforced in another aspect of they could accept an indeterminate, have lost, even considering the inherent his work that Rudwick and most mod- lengthy, yet finite history as a fallback theological weakness of the church of ern scholars regularly overlook. It is a position. The anti-Christian unity of their day. It is hard to imagine Buffon point of logic that few grasp—thanks to the elites is demonstrated in the muted surviving the caustic genius of Luther or Enlightenment apologists who insisted criticism of the profound contradiction Hutton standing firm against the method- on a false dichotomy between “science” in Buffon’s theory. ical brilliance of Calvin. Thus, though and “religion.” But if the affirmation Buffon’s earth was in a steady state of Rudwick portrays Buffon and Hutton as of Genesis is a religious position, then dynamic equilibrium, which might exemplars of an eternalistic cosmology, the rejection of Genesis must also be have been taken to be eternal; yet in both better illustrate a growing animosity religious. Whatever his personal views, fact he did not treat it as such. In a toward orthodox Christianity. his overt materialism opened the door separate essay, the first in his “Proofs,” he set out an even more ambitious Buffon: Smart Enough to Retreat theory, which de Luc and others Rudwick’s philosophical template blinds would have regarded as “cosmo- him to several interesting historical logical” in the proper sense of that questions about both Buffon and Hut- word. It offered an explanation of the ton. Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de origin of the earth and all the other Buffon (1707–1788) enjoyed a long and planets, and indeed—at least by productive career, paving the way for implication—of all other planetary other secular naturalists (Figure 4). He systems anywhere in the universe was politically connected and thus pro- ... At first sight, Buffon’s suggestion tected, and he was prolific. Despite a few breached the principles he had set pro forma nods to the Catholic Church, himself in his explanation of the his heretical work was published with earth: this putative event was sudden impunity. During his career, he set out and violent, and of course unparal- two geotheories. The first, proposed in leled in human experience. Yet it 1749, advocated a steady-state earth in a was impeccably natural in character, heavy-handed attempt to impose science Figure 4. Georges-Louis Leclerc, and fully conceivable as a physical on the past. Comte de Buffon. Modified from possibility: in short, a respectable As expected from an Enlightenment http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe- “hypothesis.” Still, there was a decid- philosopher of his generation, Buf- dia/commons/7/7f/Georges-Louis_ edly awkward disjunction between fon based his Geotheory firmly on Leclerc,_Comte_de_Buffon.jpg Buffon’s general explanation of the a repertoire of physical causes that earth, as a system that could well could be seen to have the relevant ef- have been eternal, and his hypoth- fects: as Newton had put it, imputed for other secular savants; as “expressed esis to account for its origin, as an causes had to be “true causes” [verae in Buffon’s famously eloquent prose, its “accident” of cosmological chance causae]. Specifically, this meant that persuasive naturalism had a profound at a specific moment in the remote Buffon’s method for explaining the impact on the way that savants thought past. (Rudwick, 2005, p. 141) earth was to be rigorously actualistic, about the earth in the middle decades of It is interesting that Rudwick labels based on “actual causes” or processes the century” (Rudwick, 2005, p. 140). a blatant contradiction an “awkward observably in action in the present Despite its implicit eternalism, Buf- disjunction.” But the important thing world. (Rudwick, 2005, p. 140, em- fon’s first geotheory does not fit Rud- to see is that despite this contradiction phasis in original) wick’s template. First, any comparison of between method and system, Buffon’s As Buffon discovered, applying New- it to Aristotle’s cosmology will find more geotheory was deemed “respectable.” ton’s methods without Newton’s God de- differences than similarities. Second, it Why? Because it was “impeccably stroyed history. His insight is evident in presented no “threat” to Enlightenment natural.” Or put more plainly, by playing his second geotheory (cira,1778), which savants. Many, being atheists, could have to the religious prejudices of his peers, featured linear progressive time. But cared less about theology. Time was sim- Buffon could get away with severe logi- he maintained a materialistic system; ply a weapon to attack the church. It is cal defects in his work. his shift from contingent to absolute true that eternal matter is a logical alter- This contradiction illustrates one of actualism logically suggests atheism, native to an eternal God, but if needed, the problems that haunt anyone attempt- Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 209

ing “scientific” history. Science demands theorizing—and thereby remedied amples … Third, Buffon’s traditions knowledge of initial conditions. Without its major shortcoming—when he were the human textual records of them, subsequent changes cannot pro- presented a quite different model events that provided evidence of vide scientific knowledge of the whole. of how the earth works … It was the past condition of the earth; but If one therefore wants a “scientific” earth constructed within the same genre of in practice those were relegated to a history, one must account for the initial geotheory: as before, it was a system minor position in his system, for the conditions—or Earth’s origin. Perhaps that reconstructed the past, inter- simple reason that he believed that it was this understanding that drove the preted the present, and predicted human records only witnessed to clumsy attempts by Buffon and Hutton. the future, with the whole sequence the most recent phase in a far longer Despite Kant’s argument to the contrary, operating under the same ahis- and largely prehuman sequence the traditional cosmological argument torical natural laws. Again as before, of changes. (Rudwick, 2005, pp. made materialistic eternalism the only Buffon’s work was divided between 142–143, emphasis in original) rational alternative to theistic creation an exposition of the system itself and Buffon believed that he could use (Figure 5). But as Lyell and Darwin were a long series of “notes justificatives”… the characteristics of present features to later to learn, antitheistic bias can deal Buffon distinguished three classes explain their history, absent assumptions with that problem if origins is simply set of evidence, which he called “facts,” and inferences. Thus his “facts” were aside rather than explicitly addressed. “monuments,” and “traditions.” His not; they were interpretations driven Buffon deserves credit for recognizing facts were major observable features by his anti-Christian predilections. His the flaws of his first cosmology and at- of the present earth … Buffon’s conclusion that there was a lengthy tempting to resolve them in his second. monuments were various natural prehuman history was nothing more Thirty years later, Buffon integrated vestiges or relics of the past, again than an assumption papered over with the two components of his geo- including fossils as prominent ex- erudite discussions of present-day physical phenomena and speculations on how they formed. As Solomon opined, there is nothing new under the sun. Buffon’s bias was illuminated by his claim to have utilized human records, while clearly ignoring the most relevant record of the ancient world, the Bible, and its eyewitness testimony of the past back to the beginning. Even apart from its divine origin the Bible is the premier historical document of mankind even today, and during Buffon’s time, that status was actually higher because other ancient documents remained undiscov- ered or unreadable. This dismissal of the Biblical record absent anything other than the belief that its testimony was preceded by a lengthy prehuman past was another tradition that Buffon passed along to his successors. Rudwick tries to avoid this rather obvious anti-Christian sentiment. He first Figure 5. The cosmological argument, modified from Sproul et al. (1984), shows suggests a tenuous link between Buffon only three logical alternatives to theistic creation. The first two blatantly violate and the Bible. logic. This leaves a choice of theistic creation or eternal matter. The latter would In the 1770s, Buffon defined seven be the initial default choice of scientific atheists, as illustrated by Buffon’s first successive ‘epochs’, or significant geotheory. But any discussion of ultimate origins is a minefield for atheism, and moments in the Earth’s history. In the savants soon found it preferable to ignore the topic and discredit the Bible doing this, he offered, in effect, an with a lengthy geohistory. updated and secularized version of Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 210 Creation Research Society Quarterly

the seven ‘days’ of the Creation story. Buffon is ludicrous. If his aberrant view Catholic believer. (Rudwick, 2005, By defining his last epoch as the first of Genesis were a respected position p. 149) appearance of human beings—and among theologians, why can’t Rudwick This is a fascinating historical ques- no longer as God’s Sabbath rest!—he even cite the monk’s name? More to the tion that Rudwick inexplicably avoids. made explicit what other naturalists point, why could he not cite theologians When a prominent intellectual pub- already suspected: that most of geo- recognized as orthodox, like Luther, lishes a theory that contradicts orthodox history had been pre-human history. Calvin, Aquinas, or Augustine? Christian belief, and perhaps includes (Rudwick, 1999, p. 252) And even Rudwick has to allow an a “sly parody” of the Bible, why would What Rudwick cannot admit is that anti-Christian attitude when he notes such a man profess Christian faith? Did making an old earth “explicit” is not the that Buffon’s seven epochs might have he fear the church? Did he fear the king? same thing as demonstrating the truth of been a “sly parody” of the Bible, rather Was he schizophrenic? If Rudwick had the proposition. Clearly, this weighs on than a serious attempt to accommodate spent as much effort investigating this Rudwick; he attempts to justify Buffon’s its history. At root is Rudwick’s failure question as he did trying to portray Buf- theological vacuity with an appeal to the to consider the Biblical mind-set of the fon as a “religious” person, he might day-age theory. church as a whole. He wants the rejec- have found a truly interesting line of Buffon’s second geotheory, with its tion of Genesis to be a minor issue, not historical inquiry. Instead, by referring strongly directional picture of the a major heresy. Attempting to minimize to other “leading philosophes,” it comes earth’s development, avoided the the Flood, he soldiers on: out as the lame excuse that “everyone’s suspicion of eternalism that had As for Noah’s Flood—which of doing it.” hung about the first; but instead its course had to be placed still later But that excuse triggers yet another explicitly vast spans of time invited than the seventh epoch—Buffon important historical question that Rud- comparison with the traditional short claimed disingenuously that since wick passes by. If “most leading philos- timescale of the world. Buffon it was acknowledged to have been ophes” were anti-Christian, might that simply adopted one of the standard a miracle it was futile to expect it not have influenced their approach solutions to this apparent problem: to have left any physical trace, and to natural history? Atheists claim that citing an earlier Benedictine scholar he consistently declined to attribute Christians are biased when they bring to support him, he claimed that any observable features to its action: their belief system to geology, but they the “Days” of the Creation story in diluvial theorizing, at least in its clas- deny any bias when they do the same. Genesis were not to be taken literally, sic form, was eliminated altogether. One would expect historians would try because that ancient text had been (Rudwick, 2005, p. 149) to understand the faith commitments adapted to the understanding of If Buffon’s dismissal of the Flood was driving men whose ideas changed the the ordinary people to whom it was “disingenuous,” then why praise him? world—Christian or not. Finally, Rud- originally addressed, not to savants At best, it was a cheap rhetorical trick. wick raises (but does not address) one in the age of Enlightenment. He Buffon’s theory is immediately falsified last question about Buffon worthy of maintained that his sequence of by historical accounts in the Bible: why investigation. epochs was broadly compatible with else did the disciples retrieve baskets Buffon’s models for the earth’s the events of the successive “days” of tangible food after the miraculous temporal development were highly of Creation, and indeed his delin- meals in Galilee? Feeling the weight of conjectural and could easily be eation of seven epochs was bound Buffon’s arrogance toward the church, dismissed as no better than a form to suggest a concordance with the Rudwick diverts quickly to the subject of science fiction. Yet although most Genesis story; if not a sly parody of of Buffon’s “personal” beliefs. of their details were later abandoned, it. (Rudwick, 2005, p. 148) Despite all this, Buffon’s own reli- both of Buffon’s geotheories were His two-pronged approach suggests gious position remained ambiguous. to remain powerful and fruitful that any link to Genesis—no matter how Although he had marginalized exemplars for the future. (Rudwick, ridiculous—atoned for Buffon’s clear the role of divine action in nature, 2005, p. 150) rejection of orthodox truth and that he was—like most other leading If Buffon’s models were so easily dis- Buffon maintained sufficient theologi- philosophes—probably a deist missed, then why were they “powerful” cal integrity by rejecting the bogeyman rather than an atheist; yet in terms and “fruitful” exemplars for the future? of Aristotle. But the problem was not of religious practice he apparently Blazing a trail for deists and atheists to Aristotle; it was Buffon. Furthermore, regarded himself, to the end, and attack Christianity comes to mind. Little citing an unnamed monk in defense of with whatever reservations as a else does. Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 211

context Hutton’s theory was no rebirth Which theory fits this veneration of Aristotle. First, any analysis must ac- better: Rudwick’s or the anti-Christian count for the cultural imprint of nearly efforts of Enlightenment intellectuals? two millennia of Christianity. Hutton’s The ongoing adoration of Hutton as the worldview was more Biblical than Py- foe of Christianity makes more sense. thagorean. Hutton is better seen as an Even today in the face of the “large body early post-Christian thinker, not a rever- of fine research,” the myth of Hutton’s sion to Greek paganism, especially since “defeat of the church” is still touted (e.g., “deism was not a genuine religious faith Repcheck, 2003). but a set of ideas congenial to the mind Like Buffon’s first theory, Hutton of the eighteenth century under the shel- attempted a Newtonian explanation of ter of which the new humanistic faith Earth’s past and likewise found that it developed” (Glover, 1984, p. 109). led to the death of history. But where Hutton was a renaissance man of Buffon retrenched, Hutton embraced geology, mathematics, medicine, agri- his ahistorical vision: “Hutton would Figure 6. James Hutton. Modified from culture, chemistry, and philosophy (Fig- be concerned not with quantifying a www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/hut- ure 6). His practical accomplishments, timescale but rather with the earth as ton/hutton.htm. friendships with the elite, and connec- a body existing indefinitely in stable tions within the “Republic of Letters” equilibrium” (Rudwick, 2005, p. 159). all testify to his Enlightenment status. A However, unlike Buffon, Hutton had Hutton: Back to no Future modern man who rejected the Bible, he a mania for deistic theology. So while Rudwick interprets Buffon’s materialistic was drawn to eternalistic geotheorizing. Buffon’s theories were praised despite flirtation with eternalism and his subse- But his was no peripatetic cosmology. It their errors, Hutton’s was a problem for quent retreat to lengthy linear time as a was a post-Christian theory of the earth his more philosophically minded peers, compromise between Aristotle and the that leaned on a heavy-handed Newto- who detested teleology for its service to Bible, setting the stage for Cuvier’s later nian approach to history—a methodol- Christianity. As a result, the real Hutton geohistory. But Buffon’s anti-Christian ogy foreign to Aristotle. Hutton waxed was divorced from the legendary Hutton bias, exhibited in both of his theories, is a eloquent about the various natural laws almost immediately. His successors kept better explanation. Perhaps James Hutton that governed the endless cycles of the his anti-Christian ideas of uniformity better supports Rudwick’s hypothesis. world and destroyed history in the pro- and deep time, but expurgated his teleol- When in the 1780s, the Scottish cess (Gould, 1987). ogy and ahistorical past, adding various philosopher James Hutton claimed This raises another question that myths to keep people away from his that the Earth had “no vestige of a Rudwick does not address. If modern own work. beginning, no prospect of an end”, it deep time was a rejection of eternalism, The hoary legend of Hutton’s un- was his blatant eternalism that drew then why has Hutton continued to be readable prose has served various criticism. His implicitly vast sense so revered? ideological purposes during the past of time was, by then, almost a com- James Hutton’s geotheory has not two centuries. Soon after Hutton’s monplace among naturalists, even suffered from historical neglect. death, Playfair, Illustrations (1802), if it was still unfamiliar to the wider On the contrary, it has received so used it as a reason for bowdlerizing public. (Rudwick, 1999, p. 252) much uncritical adulation that its the work by detaching it from its At first glance, Rudwick’s model place in the sciences of the earth of teleological framework and sup- seems to explain Hutton. After all, his the late eighteenth century has been pressing its teleology. He has been deistic metaphysic was more similar to seriously distorted. Anglophone followed by countless other scientific Aristotle’s “first mover” than Buffon’s geologists have treated Hutton as commentators ever since. (Rudwick, materialism. His geotheory was rife their iconic “founder” or “father”, 2005, p. 161) with teleology, a topic near and dear to with such pious veneration that his However, though modern geolo- Aristotle. Hutton’s god was perhaps more relation to his contemporaries has gists—like Playfair—remain “giddy” at immanent than the unmoved mover, been obscured and misunderstood, Hutton’s “abyss” of deep time, historians but not by much—Hutton clearly saw despite a large body of fine research have accepted Hutton at face value. Earth as a cycling machine with no need by modern historians. (Rudwick, So in every part of Hutton’s sys- for ongoing providence. However, in 2005, p. 158) tem—all the way from the dynamic Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 212 Creation Research Society Quarterly

equilibrium of continents and toppling Christianity from its cultural two ideas causes him to lose sight of the oceans to the enduring human pres- dominance? It is hard to escape the timelessness of truth—he almost slips ence that constituted its ultimate latter answer in light of Hume, Kant, into an intellectual relativism, where purpose—an assumption of eternal- Spinoza, Leibniz; the experiment with truth is suspended. Biblical history can ism was implicit, and indeed crystal atheism during the French Revolution; be an “unmodern” impediment to intel- clear to any informed reader…as he and the concerns of orthodox Christian lectual development only if it is not true; put it in his earliest summary, “with apologists at the time. Rudwick’s assessment boils down, at best, respect to human observations, this The worldview conflict has become to chronological snobbery. world has neither a beginning nor an more apparent since, and this is where One also might nitpick the timing. end.” (Rudwick, 2005, p. 170) Rudwick’s theory experiences perhaps Aristotle’s cosmology was developed The development of naturalism, with one of its greatest failures. Rudwick in the fourth century BC, more than Hutton as an early pioneer who could touted modern geohistory as an alter- a millennium after the revelation of not abandon theism, explains his work, native to atheistic eternalism and its the Pentateuch to Moses. If, as some the subsequent redaction by Playfair implicit morality. But Lyellian geohis- believe, Moses’ work was facilitated by and Lyell, and the otherwise inexpli- tory was quickly followed by Darwinian even older written or oral records, then cable veneration he receives to this day. evolution, which was even more quickly the age discrepancy would be even Later savants largely followed Buffon’s applied to humanity. This resulted in greater. Rudwick’s grouping the two is second theory—not because they shied bizarre social or psychological theories like classing modern astrophysics and away from eternalism, but because they by men like Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche, eleventh-century cosmology. Unlike wanted to capture history, not destroy it. which in turn led to disastrous social Aristotle, Moses claimed the imprimatur They wanted an atheistic history in its experiments in the twentieth century. In of divine revelation and supported that most literal sense, and Hutton—absent retrospect, it is impossible to differenti- claim with miraculous proofs. If God is modification—could not provide it. ate between reality and what Rudwick infinite, eternal, and unchanging, then claims was avoided by the “geohistory the truth content of His revelation to Other Problems in compromise.” As we look back over the Moses is also timeless. Aristotle made Rudwick’s Theory past two hundred years, we can see no revelatory claim for his Metaphysics. Several other problems plague Rudwick’s exactly the same social and moral conse- Thus, his ideas are products of a histori- explanation, all related to an incomplete quences springing from the “innovative cal era in a way the Pentateuch is not. appreciation for Christian theology and compromise” of a merely lengthy, yet Furthermore, Christianity rests on church history. Unfortunately, they are finite geohistory. That is because both history. An assault on Genesis is a thrust all understandable since they all have are inherently anti-Christian. Rudwick’s into the heart of the system, not a minor been propagated by Christians seeking inability to correctly assess the con- scrape. Since the term “modern” can compromise with the so-called scientific sequences of modern geohistory is a connote more than age, it appears that facets of naturalism. But why would a serious historical error. The real choice Rudwick uses those connotations to im- historian of Rudwick’s formidable skills faced by Europe in the late eighteenth ply more. Labeling Genesis as “unmod- not see that bias? Perhaps it is because he century was between orthodox Christi- ern” might suggest that its truth content is shares it. The sum of these errors is suffi- anity and militant naturalism. Whether deficient, given the common evolution- cient to show a deficient understanding of the latter included the more logical (in ary view of modern culture. If so, it is Christianity and to cast more doubt on his light of the cosmological argument) also a swipe at the orthodox theology of proposed origin of modern geohistory. eternally evolving matter or the geohis- revelation. God is truth (John 14:6) and torical option, the effect on culture was cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18). Therefore, Error 1: A False Dichotomy the same. Jesus’ wisdom in stating that Rudwick seems to suggest that either Rudwick pushes eternalism as a great men were either for or against Him has God did not reveal Himself to Moses or fear of the eighteenth century. But if proven superior to Rudwick’s theory. that such revelation can be “upgraded” we consider history from a metaphysical by subsequent human knowledge. Both perspective, rather than a temporal one, Error 2: “Unmodern” Christianity views are heterodox and undercut his eternalism is merely a sidebar. There Rudwick uses the age of Biblical revela- recognition of the importance of Chris- is a clear conflict between Christian- tion to portray it as an “unmodern” view tianity to history and science. ity and atheistic materialism. Were the similar to Greek paganism. But this Also, in the context of the day, during Enlightenment savants really more con- conclusion is problematic. His focus the eighteenth century, Christianity was cerned with the length of time or with on the time of the development of the as modern as it got. It was the backbone Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 213

of European culture. Cuvier was little places and all ages. Furthermore, mod- with many participants besides Ussher, more than a century removed from ern principles of Biblical interpretation he implies that it was unable to reach Owen, Bunyan, Newton, and Pascal were well developed as a result of the consensus due to a “wide range” of and only two and a half centuries from Reformation critique of the wayward dates, which he cites as from 3,616 BC Luther and Calvin. Applying Rudwick’s fourfold view of earlier theologians. Rud- to 6,984 BC. He fails to mention that measure, Cuvier, Lyell, and Darwin are wick’s “variations” are typically traced to this wide range is a function of method: equally “unmodern.” heterodox individuals who wished to use dates older than 6,000 BC were either Finally, there is little argument that some innovation of “interpretation” to secular accounts or outliers. Those clus- Enlightenment savants used science to deny clear Biblical truth. tering between 5,000 and 5,500 BC were attack Christianity, despite Christianity Despite these well-known facts, derived from the Septuagint translation. being the foundation of science (Stark, Rudwick joins modern compromising Chronologies derived from the original 2003). Thus the “modern” science Christians in insisting on a theological (and most reliable) Masoretic text have worshipped by the savants was linked to smorgasbord. a very tight range. For example, Batten Christianity. If it was “unmodern,” then There were of course some writers (2001) lists a range from 3,616 BC to so was its derivative science. Rudwick and preachers, both Protestant and 4,161 BC. And even that fails to show the cannot have it both ways. Catholic, who claimed that the greater general agreement among the meaning of specific Biblical texts majority of scholars. Jones (2005) lists Error 3: Christianity and Genesis was obvious and unambiguously 34 scholarly chronologers; the 29 relying At the root of Rudwick’s misunderstand- literal; and their readers and hearers on the Masoretic text provide a range for ing of Christianity is a perception that often agreed with them. But there the date of Creation of only 356 years, the historical truth of Genesis was were other scholars who, following from 3,836 BC to 4,192 BC. So while ancillary to the faith. Like many today, much older traditions, argued that Rudwick (2005) asserts that chronology he takes a “cafeteria” approach to revela- those texts might have many layers supplied uncertain results by present- tion. Also like many today, he has a litany of meaning, poetic and symbolic, ing a range of 3,368 years, Jones (2005) of excuses to justify rejecting Biblical allegorical and typological, which shows that scholars working with the history. He starts with attempting to in religious terms might be far more Masoretic Text produced results grouped dismiss the Bible by context. significant. For them, the new Bibli- a full order of magnitude closer together. Many historians now project the cal criticism could have a further Furthermore, of the 29 Masoretic dates literalism of modern fundamentalist liberating effect: it could clarify provided by Jones (2005), 25 of them are religion back into the intellectual what the original writers might have within 75 years of Ussher’s famous 4004 world of the eighteenth century, with intended and what their original BC date—an incredible testimony to gross anachronism. In fact, attitudes readers might have understood. the exactness of Biblical chronology as a to Biblical interpretation—among (Rudwick, 2005, p. 56) discipline that belies Rudwick’s dismissal those to whom such questions were It is a small, but perhaps significant of Biblical chronologers. matters of any concern—varied insight into the mind of Rudwick that Then Rudwick (2005, p. 116) tries widely according to time, place, re- he calls orthodox Christians “writers and to impugn the intelligence of “literalists” ligious tradition, and above all social preachers” and heterodox churchmen by claiming that “the short timescale location. (Rudwick, 2005, p. 56) “scholars.” His implication that “literal- was still taken for granted, throughout As Mortenson and Ury (2008) have ism” was an innovation that distorted the the eighteenth century and into the shown, this simply is not true. The bias Bible’s meaning is an insult to Biblical nineteenth, among less educated groups that leads to this incorrect assessment is scholars of all ages. In the context of the in society and in conservative religious evident too. Note how orthodoxy is recast Enlightenment attacks on Scripture, one circles (and it was of course revived in as “modern fundamentalist religion.” is hard pressed to explain the open hostil- the twentieth century among Ameri- This displays a shocking ignorance of ity of men like Kant, Voltaire, Rousseau, can fundamentalists).” Implying that church history. Orthodoxy is not a matter and Hume as simply resulting from Enlightenment deists and atheists were of “time, place, religious tradition,” or their desire to find “layers of meaning” more intelligent and educated than or- “social location.” Instead, it is measured in the Bible. thodox Christians merely because they by adherence to the truth claims of the Rudwick tries to illustrate the un- were deists and atheists is nothing more Bible, including those describing God’s certainty of Biblical history through than intellectual snobbery. He carries works of creation and providence. This Biblical chronology. Though he admits the same bias into the present, charac- has been affirmed by the church in all that chronology was a vibrant science terizing modern orthodox Christians as Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 214 Creation Research Society Quarterly

“American fundamentalists” (in spite of inspired, it had been widely recog- the vast timescale of the world, it the international and transdenomina- nized among scholars—ever since was not always because those claims tional appeal of creation science) when Patristic times—that the seven “days” contradicted the literal sense of Gen- he need not have mentioned them at all of creation were not necessarily to esis; religious authorities were, quite in the context of his discussion. be understood as ordinary days: for properly, more concerned with the- But Rudwick seems to sense the example the first three of them were ology and its practical implications weakness of his own position because said to have preceded the creation than with literalism of the crude kind he continues to search for other reasons of the sun itself, without which or- adopted by modern fundamentalists. to dismiss orthodoxy. He recites other dinary days were literally impossible; (Rudwick, 2005, p. 117) excuses refuted by creationists over and and in prophetic language “the day However, scholars such as Hall over again. First, comes the old “67th of the Lord” clearly did not denote (1999) have long noted that little atten- book” argument. a period of twenty-four hours but a tion was paid to the “literal” truth of Those who were religious believers time of decisive significance. (Rud- Genesis because it was so monolithically assumed that Nature, “the book of wick, 2005, p. 117) accepted by the church throughout its God’s works”, could not ultimately As a lengthy list of scholars have demon- history up until the Enlightenment. contradict Scripture, “the book of strated, the context of Genesis demands What Rudwick fails to grasp is that God’s word”; so if the natural evi- actual days. the truth and integrity of the Bible are dence seemed sound and persuasive, Furthermore, Mook (2008) demon- important theological positions in the they simply inferred that the short strates that the patristic scholars were church and always have been. He also timescale, in its application to the nothing if not united behind the short fails to note that the “practical implica- age of the world, must be based on timescale of the Bible, the historical tions” of abandoning Genesis would mistaken assumptions. (Rudwick, reality of the Flood, and the importance include abandoning other “minor” 2005, p. 116) of the Creation narrative. Hall (1999) concerns, like the trustworthiness of Yet the orthodox position of the likewise demonstrates that the posi- God, Creation ex nihilo, the Fall, sin, church throughout its history has always tion of the Reformed church until the and redemption, just to name a few. been that special revelation is superior to Enlightenment was monolithically the Ironically, many of these were essential and more reliable than general revelation. same. Thus, the Christian church for to the development of science (Glover, Those who piously affirm “nature” as the 1800 years held to the truth of six 24-hour 1984; Hooykaas, 1999; Stark, 2003). “67th” book of Scripture typically do so in creation days and a global flood. Once order to ignore the truth of the other 66. again, Rudwick’s scholarship about the Rudwick’s logic seems to imply that either church proves deficient. So, he tries Conclusion the Bible is wrong or that it does not out the “gap” theory: “Alternatively, the One of the reasons that Enlightenment speak to the age of the earth. “Science” initial act of creation out of ‘chaos’ was atheism succeeded was that its propo- is a better source of truth. But, of course, assumed to have been followed by an nents were masters of propaganda (Stark, he supplies no theological justification or unrecorded period of vast, but indefinite 2003). They knew how to frame issues even discussion of this position. Instead, duration, before the humanly more im- to their advantage and how to recast he moves on, demonstrating no more portant events of the rest of the narrative” uncomfortable questions in a manner than his mastery of modern excuses: (Rudwick, 2005, p. 117). that minimized their impact. Their use “The kind of analysis undertaken by chro- But (again) as numerous orthodox of science—a Christian invention—to nologers was far less important than the theologians have shown, the only gap is displace Christianity from both science imaginative impact of the Creation story that in Rudwick’s theology, which causes and history, and their creating new rules and the religious perspective it sustained” him to miss the major point—that God’s in philosophy that would assure the (Rudwick, 2005, p. 116). act of creation was not centered on the absence of God, the Bible, and theology But was it the “imaginative impact” importance of human beings but on His from their discussions were brilliant—in of Christianity that built Western culture own glory, a point that would have been a “Screwtape” kind of way. and science? People do not sacrifice familiar to European savants through An increasing number of Christian their lives for “imagination.” Truth Jonathan Edwards’s (1754) dissertation. scholars are beginning to see that the always trumps it. So he moves on to the But Rudwick remains firm: conflict of the Enlightenment was “day-age” theory. If, at certain times and places, some between Christianity and the emergent Even if the text of Genesis were guardians of orthodoxy grew alarmed worldview of naturalism. Yet it is pre- taken to be authoritative and divinely at the new scientific claims about cisely this religious clash that Rudwick Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 215

must minimize to promote his theory of dox Christianity has been traced through Batten, D. 2001. Old-earth or young-earth deep time as a compromise between the philosophers—Hobbs, Leibniz, Spinoza, belief: which belief is the recent aber- short timescale of the “literalist” inter- and Hume, finally culminating in Kant’s ration? Creation 24(1):254–27, at http:// preters of the Bible and the eternalism “Copernican revolution of the mind.” It creation.com/old-earth-or-young-earth- of Aristotle. The real dilemma that he would be a disservice to the savants in- belief (as of August 7, 2009). faces is that if there really was an inher- terested in what we call today “geology” Bergman, J. 2008. Slaughter of the Dis- ent spiritual conflict between orthodox to assume philosophical ignorance or sidents. Leafcutter Press, Southworth, Christianity and Enlightenment atheism disinterest on their part. The naturalists WA. beneath the proposition of modern secu- understood contemporary philosophy Clark, G. 1994. Historiography Secular and lar geohistory, then his historical analysis and followed its lead, launching their Religious. The Trinity Foundation, Jef- has failed to grasp a crucial historical own attack on Christianity at the point ferson, MD. element of the era. of their expertise—science and Earth’s Edwards, J. 1754. A Dissertation Concern- Furthermore, the presence of such ancient history. ing the End for Which God Created the a conflict would, of course, mar the Thus, Rudwick’s attempt to recast the World. http://www.jonathanedwards. “scientific” perspective and force a closer development of modern geohistory as an com/theology.htm look at the faith commitments of figures innovative compromise between Christi- Glover, W. 1984. Biblical Origins of Modern like Buffon, Hutton, Cuvier, and Lyell. anity and atheistic eternalism misses the Secular Culture. Mercer University Press, Closer investigation might find that Buf- point. Aristotle was not the issue. There Macon, GA. fon was a closet atheist; Lyell, a Unitar- was no “two-horned” dilemma; there Gould, S.J. 1987. Time’s Arrow Time’s Cycle: ian; Hutton, a deist; and Cuvier, a man was only the conflict between orthodox Myth and Metaphor is the Discovery of with no religious convictions (near his Christianity and the new worldview of Geological Time, Harvard University death, his daughter, Clémentine, prayed naturalism. Well-educated in Christian Press, Cambridge, MA. for his salvation; Outram, 1984). It might theology, the Enlightenment savants Hall, D.W. 1999. What was the view of the even demonstrate that all of these men could not have misunderstood the im- Westminster Assembly Divines on Cre- had a predisposition against orthodox portance of Genesis. The question of ation days? In Christianity and that bias affected their time was a direct attack on the integrity of Hall, D.W., and J.A. Pipa, Jr. (editors), Did work. Religious commitments are among Scripture. Once that wall was breached, God Create in Six Days? pp. 41–52. Tolle the strongest—as has been demonstrated only a hollow shell of pseudo-Christian- Lege Press, Greenville, SC. repeatedly in history—but for a modern ity would remain. Their purpose was Hooykaas, R. 1972. Religion and the Rise of secular academic, writing about such made clear in the writings of many, like Modern Science. Regent College Pub- commitments as if they really matter Voltaire, and the consequences are crys- lishing, Vancouver, Canada. would be professional suicide. Such an tal clear in retrospect—the decline from Hooykaas, R. 1999. Fact, Faith and Fiction in analysis certainly would diminish much a Christian Europe to its present sorry the Development of Science: The Gifford of what Rudwick finds interesting about state is a ringing testimony of the effects Lectures Given in the University of St the progression of secular prehuman of the Enlightenment assault. Andrews 1976. Kluwer Academic Pub., geohistory from the initial cosmology Thus, eternalism and an old Earth Norwell, MA. of Buffon to the cementing of Lyell’s were not opposing positions; they were Jones, F.N. 2005. Chronology of the Old version of the past in the geological merely two prongs of the same overall Testament. Master Books, Green For- timescale in the mid-nineteenth century strategy—to discredit the historical foun- est, AR. (Mortenson, 2006), hovering over the dation of orthodox Christianity. That McKeon, R. (editor). 1941. The Basic Works social and professional webs of events seems sufficiently clear in retrospect. of Aristotle. Random House Publishers, like some dark cloud. That is why Rudwick’s theory—given New York, NY. Yet, for those interested in real his- Rudwick’s formidable historical skills— Mook, J.R. 2008. The church fathers on Gen- torical truth, this battle of worldviews is so surprising. esis, the Flood, and the age of the earth. is the single most important aspect of In Mortenson, T., and T.H. Ury (editors), the period because it provides the most Coming to Grips with Genesis, pp. 23–51. accurate framework for explaining the References Master Books, Green Forest, AR. motivations behind the complex web of CRSQ: Creation Research Society Quar- Mortenson, T. 2004. The Great Turning personalities and events. In Europe, the terly Point: The Church’s Catastrophic Mis- growing animosity among the intellec- Adler, M.J. 1965. The Conditions of Philoso- take on Geology before Darwin. Master tual “Republic of Letters” toward ortho- phy. Atheneum Books, New York, NY. Books, Green Forest, AR. Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 216 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Mortenson, T. 2006. The historical de- part II: Unearthing the cornerstone. Rudwick, M.J.S. 1999. Geologists’ time: a velopment of the old-earth geological CRSQ 44:256–263. brief history. In Lippincott, K. (editor), time-scale. In Reed, J.K., and M.J. Oard Reed, J.K. 2008c. Toppling the timescale, The Story of Time, pp. 250–253. Merrell (editors), The Geologic Column: Perspec- part III: Madness in the methods. CRSQ Holbertin, London, UK. tives within Diluvial Geology, pp. 7–30. 45(1):5–17. Rudwick, M.J.S. 2005. Bursting the Limits of Creation Research Society Books, Chino Reed, J.K. 2008d. Toppling the timescale, Time: The Reconstruction of Geohistory

Valley, AZ. part IV: Assaying the golden (FeS2) in the Age of Revolution, University of Mortenson, T. 2008. “Deep time” and the spikes. CRSQ 45:81–89. Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. church’s historical compromise: histori- Reed, J.K. (In Press). Untangling unifor- Rudwick, M.J.S. 2008. Worlds Before Adam: cal background. In Mortenson, T., and mitarianism, level I: a quest for clarity. The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the T.H. Ury (editors), Coming to Grips Answers Research Journal. Age of Reform. University of Chicago with Genesis, pp. 79–104. Master Books, Reed, J.K., and M.J. Oard (editors). 2006. Press, Chicago, IL. Green Forest, AR. The Geological Time Scale: Perspectives Sproul, R.C., J. Gertsner, and A. Lindley. Mortenson, T., and T.H. Ury (editors). 2008. within Diluvial Geology. CRS Books, 1984.Classical Apologetics: A Rational Coming to Grips with Genesis. Master Chino Valley, AZ. Defense of the Christian Faith and a Books, Green Forest, AR. Repcheck, J. 2003. The Man Who Found Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics. Outram, D. 1984. Georges Cuvier: Vocation, Time: James Hutton and the Discovery of Academie Books, Grand Rapids, MI. Science, and Authority in Post-Revolu- the Earth’s Antiquity. Perseus Publishing, Stark, R. 2003. For the Glory of God, Prince- tionary France. Manchester University New York, NY. ton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Press, Dover, NH. Rudwick, M.J.S. 1985. The Great Devonian Whitcomb, J.C., and H.M. Morris. 1961. Reed, J.K. 2008a. Toppling the timescale, Controversy: The Shaping of Scientiﬁ c The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and part I: Evaluating the terrain. CRSQ Knowledge among Gentlemanly Spe- Reformed Publishing Company, Phila- 44:174–178. cialists. University of Chicago Press, delphia, PA. Reed, J.K. 2008b. Toppling the timescale, Chicago, IL.

Book Review The Grand Canyon, by Richard S. Beal, Jr.

Evolution Lighthouse eBooks, Savage, and Intelligent MN, 2007, 218 pages, $15.00. Design

The author of this book was trained in in graduate school, a Christian professor the subsequent text evolves into a rant zoology and entomology and retired convinced Beal to fi nd a personal syn- against the young-earth Flood model of from Northern Arizona University, thesis that released him from the chains origins. The author states, “I am fully where he was dean of the graduate col- that entangled his vision (p. 3). Further convinced there is a beautiful harmony lege. He claims to be “an evangelical reading of this treatise reveals that these between Biblical faith and valid science, Christian committed to the doctrine of chains were a literal interpretation of the including science that measures the age Biblical inerrancy” (p. 2). While he was early chapters of Genesis. Unfortunately, of the Grand Canyon rocks in hundreds Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 217 of millions instead of thousands of years” day does not depend on when the day destruction without already-existing or- (p. 10). This reviewer believes that the occurred in time but on its significance der and complexity to utilize the energy author either will not or cannot distin- (p. 53). Finally, dropping all attempts at flow. Designed conservation processes guish between scientific observations objectivity, Beal states, “The view of an such as “reproduce and fill the earth” op- and the origin interpretation forced initial creation in six literal days is less pose degeneration. This relationship of on these observations. For the author, well supported than any of the other conservation and degeneration is often evolutionary postulations and the an- interpretations” (p. 57). overlooked by naturalists. Space, matter, cient-earth hypothesis are the only real The author believes that the creation and energy were created (He spoke and science that should be considered. He accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 “were it was done, Psalm 33:9), along with thus embraces modern scientism. written by different hands” (p. 63). He created operational processes designed Beal examines various approaches continually casts doubt on any possible to continually stabilize the physical cre- to interpreting the early chapters of literal interpretation of the early chap- ation. The introduction of the concept Genesis, and he appears to prefer what ters of Genesis. “Genesis is simply not of the Creator as a henchman for man’s he calls “providential creationism” (the- concerned with how God brought man’s ideas of an evolutionary beginning and istic evolution), which has the Creator body into being [italics in original]. The development of the physical world is “responsible for every mutation and for second and third chapters are concerned purely an invention of theists who accept every slight modification of the environ- with the relationship of man to his naturalistic philosophy. ment, so that every step in the evolution- wife, with man’s need of obedience to All so-called evidences for evolution ary sequence is his personal choice” (pp. God, and with the awful consequences and an ancient-earth hypothesis have 167, 168). God had express designs for of putting one’s personal desires and been countered effectively in creationist life, and every least evolutionary step judgments above that of God’s” (p. 74). literature. Beal honestly admits that he was under His direction and conscious Beal embraces the double revelation ignores creationst arguments (p. 191). control. This is the correct definition of theory. Of course, the revelation of the Yet he claims that young-earth creation- intelligent design (p. 193). In this view, Creator’s attributes seen in the physical ist proposals are “astonishingly empty” the combination of evolutionism with world needs to be correctly interpreted (p. 192). A closed-minded attitude is theism is complete. within an evolutionary framework (pp. typical of this genre of naturalists. The The author reasons that the creation 74–90). The Flood as the origin of the author ridicules creationist speakers (pp. account of Genesis 1 does not specify fossil record is foolish because such 196–197). Are vicious attacks against the time or method of creation (p. 27). evidence demands an evolutionary young-earth Flood creationism by the- The account likely is referring to a explanation (pp. 90–128). Beal depre- ists who accept evolution obligatory so single Creator God to counter Egyptian ciates Steve Austin’s work in the Grand that they can maintain their professional polytheistic influences on the Israelites. Canyon (p. 103) since the age of the status in a hostile environment? Or has Also, to say that there would be no pos- earth has been proven to be measured the absorption of naturalistic philosophy sibility of change of the created kinds in millions of years by radioactive dating affected their views? Whatever the rea- would have been meaningless to the (pp. 129–136). son, a plethora of books with this same early Israelites (p. 32). If the account I will comment on only one of Beal’s theme is abundantly available. states anything modern, it is that God is misconceptions, the first and second “For if you believed Moses, you responsible for Mendelian genetics (p. laws of thermodynamics. He mistakenly would believe Me; for He wrote about 33). Man’s body could have been the thinks that if the earth is an open system, Me. But if you do not believe his writ- subject of a long creative process (p. 35). the degeneration effects of the second ings, how will you believe My words?” The days in Genesis 1 carry a secondary, law are avoided (pp. 142–150). However, (John 5:46–47 NKJV). not a primary, emphasis (p. 36). The days all natural systems are open systems, and represent themes or categories of cre- irreversible processes occur in them. Emmett L. Williams, Ph.D. ation (pp. 37 and 51–57). This thematic Entropy always increases as a result of ir- P. O. Box 2006 interpretation is actually the discredited reversible processes. Energy input alone Alpharetta, GA 30023 literary framework hypothesis. Each generally accomplishes nothing except

Irreducible Complexity Not Refuted

The concept called irreducible complex- the minimum number required leads as the base, which is still required as a ity (IC) has recently become a central to loss of function (Behe, 2005, p. 33). frame to which the parts must be fas- idea in the creation-evolution contro- Thus gradual evolution is impossible tened in order for the system to work. versy (Braun, 2005). To understand because, unless life already had the Other critics argue that simple contriv- why, it is necessary to review the current minimum numbers of parts required, ances, such as mere holes in the ground, scheme of evolution. The standard evo- it could not have reproduced, and thus also can catch mice. But holes in the lution theory postulates that multimo- evolutionary selection could not have ground cannot function as conventional lecular mechanisms, such as an organ of occurred. house mousetraps, nor are holes very motility, evolved by means of the Before Behe, the term IC was used by effective in retaining mice that could progressive accretion of ancillary Katz for structures in the natural world simply crawl out. Holes do not provide proteins onto some rudiment or that cannot be “reduced to smaller or a good illustration of the evolution of foundation that was functionally less intricate predecessor components,” mousetraps either; holes utilize a very useful but need not have been an and he cited the “human fi gure” as “an different design than a mousetrap, and organ of motility. This amplifi cation example of a pattern-assembly system did not serve as the technological fi rst took place, one gene at a time, under that is irreducibly complex” (Katz, 1986, step of mousetraps. Thus the argument the guidance of natural selection: p. 27). that a hole is a simpler mousetrap is both each modifi cation conferred at least Behe’s example was the common wrong and irrelevant. a small selective benefi t (Harold, household mousetrap, a machine that Since a cell is the most complex 2001, p. 204). will not function unless it has a certain known machine in the universe, I will The problem is that, although sci- minimum number of parts. If it has use a more realistic mechanical example entists can mentally “construct schemes fewer parts than this minimum, it does to explain IC, namely a television sys- that sound plausible” and can in prin- not simply catch mice less well—it does tem. The fi rst working television must ciple account “for the origins of crawling not catch them at all (Behe, 2005, p. 34). have had a functional camera, a way of motility, mitosis or the secretory path- The independent parts function prop- converting light variations into electri- way,” they “have no better alternative to erly only within the whole functional cal signals, a method of broadcasting offer the inquirer” (Harold, 2001, pp. unit, such that the “whole is greater the signals into the atmosphere, a re- 204–205). It is clear, though, that design than its parts.” ceiver system to pick up the signal, and exists in the natural world, and evolution Critics have tried to refute this ex- a method to convert the broadcast signal must account for it in order to replace ample by noting that if one discards the into an electron gun signal in a cathode creation as its origin (French, 1988). base of the mousetrap and fastens the re- ray tube so as to paint the picture on a Behe (1996) illustrated the enormous maining parts to the fl oor, the mousetrap fl uorescent screen. diffi culties in explaining the evolution of will still function. For example, Ruse The history of the television inven- the thousands of nanomachines and (2003, p. 315) concluded that: tion by Philo Farnsworth illustrates that complex systems required for living cells Behe’s example of a mousetrap this system would have been useless by gradualistic mechanisms through is somewhat unfortunate, for it is until every component was invented natural selection of variations caused by simply not the case that the trap and perfected, which Farnsworth spent mutations. Behe has documented that will work only with all fi ve pieces in much of his life doing (Stashower, a certain minimum number of parts is place. For a start, one could reduce 2002). A certain amount of complexity is required in order for both living organ- the number to four by removing the required before life can exist (Anderson, isms and nonliving things to function. base and fi xing the trap to the fl oor. 1989). Until life exists, the physiology He used the term IC to designate this This is really not a legitimate alterna- required to carry out repair, respiration, concept. Removal of one part beyond tive, though, since the fl oor now serves and reproduction, cannot occur. Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 219

IC involves an irreducible core, the and on the targeted inactivation of cell’s parts, and they must be properly part of the system in which the removal genes—“knockout” experiments … recycled. The tools that assemble a part, of one part causes the entire system to [The] harvest of results they have such as a jig that properly orients a set cease functioning. For a clock, all of the produced is … that these fi ndings of parts for assembly, must all be com- parts required for it to tell time make up were often completely unexpected patible with the parts that it has a role the irreducible core. The noncore parts and sometimes even contradicted in assembling and also with the proper could include the crystal, the second existing models. placement of these parts in the cell. hand, and the clock case. What the core Likewise, all of the components of a cell actually consists of, however, depends The Minimum Requirements (both the parts and the jigs) also must fi t on the demands put on the watch. If Necessary for Life together and be adequately assembled to the watch were used to accurately time The simplest forms of life are single- function as a unit. a footrace, the second hand would be celled organisms, but many life-forms part of the irreducible core required are parasites that must live off of other Criticism of the Concept of IC for that specifi ed function. If the watch life-forms because they have fewer then Ever since Behe popularized the term were to be used in wet environments, the required minimum number of parts IC in 1996, the concept has been ex- the crystal and waterproof case would to function independently. Viruses are tensively debated. Although critics have become part of the core. The basic func- simpler than the simplest known cell proposed systems where a part that was tion is thus related to the demands put and are actually too simple to satisfy the originally believed to be required can be on the system. minimum required to be alive. Viruses removed and the system will still func- are, in essence, machines that transfer tion, this does not negate the IC concept. Productive Use of the genes from a container (the virus pro- Often removing a part or two results in IC Concept in Research tein shell) into a cell. The virus can the unit not functioning as well. But The IC concept is used daily in molecu- reproduce only when its genes take over even if it works just as well, this simply lar biology labs throughout the world. the host cell’s reproductive machinery. means that the number of parts required An example is what is known as targeted Nonetheless, even viruses still require a was really less than fi rst assumed. The gene replacements, commonly referred minimum number of parts to carry out item is still irreducibly complex. It is to as knockout genes. This research their limited functions. also possible that a reduction in parts has technique removes or disables a gene, If a critical component of any one of no detectable loss of function in normal and then the results of its removal on the many systems required for human life environmental or physiological condi- the organism’s functions are evaluated is absent, such as the circulatory system, tions, but reduced functionality could (Old and Primrose, 1994). We know that the result is usually death—a fact that occur under extreme conditions. a gene is required if removal of the gene is a basic tenet of modern medicine disables the function of one or more (Glicksman, 2006). Scientifi c articles Criticism Based on Co-Option biological systems. about cell design documenting this The most common attempt to refute This research technique is used both biological irreducibility now run into IC involves a concept called co-option. to determine the function of a gene and the millions. For objective observers, this Co-option is said to occur when existing to determine if this gene is required in research makes the naturalistic evolution cell parts, such as proteins or glycopro- order for a certain biological structure theory of the origin of the living cell teins can be selected and assembled in a to exist. Another research technique is increasingly improbable. A nonparasite, unique way to produce a new structure. to remove select base pairs from a gene nonviral life-form requires many billions The bacterial fl agellum, for example, to determine which are critical and what of parts, all of which must be properly utilizes ten proteins that are also used in role each section plays in a specifi c gene. assembled in order for life to occur. the type III bacterial secretory system. Yet another technique is to use mutant The systems necessary to produce Miller concluded from this observation genes called “natural knockout genes” the parts needed to construct a cell that “irreducible complexity is nonsense” to determine the function of a gene or are like the assembly of parts into an (1999, p. 150). He argued that since ten a set of base pairs. Morange (2001, p. 4) automobile. They must be functional proteins are found in two very different noted that critically important informa- when assembled, requiring them to fi t bacterial devices, IC is nonsense because tion has: properly with the other parts, including one structure can be built from parts used been obtained from a vast number the attachment points. Furthermore, in the other structure. of studies of natural genetic muta- the parts must be appropriately fi nished Miller fails to note, however, that co- tions in both animals and humans, and maintained along with the rest of a option actually supports the IC concept. Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 220 Creation Research Society Quarterly

If co-option occurred, the cell in which the case of a mousetrap, even if all of wide variety of electrical mechanical the co-option took place must itself have the pieces are sitting neatly next to each contrivances. Common examples of been IC in order to live. This fact has other on the inventor’s workbench, they standard generic parts manufactured proven to be an insurmountable obstacle could not properly assemble themselves for a wide variety of uses include various for abiogenesis. What is more, loss of together into a functional unit by any fasteners (screws, bolts, cotter pins, and parts of the fl agellum does not make it a realistic evolutionary mechanism. They rivets) and the family of microswitches. secretory system, and adding more com- must fi rst come together simultaneously Many reasons exist for this practice, ponents to the type III secretory system as a functioning system in the mind of a including lower cost, design effi ciency, does not make it a fl agellum. They are designer. It is in the realm of mind that and reliability. Producing fi fty million not interchangeable systems. Co-option deep complexity fi rst exists and becomes of one type of microswitch compared does not refute the irreducible complex- integrated (Sanford, 2005). This mental to one million each of fi fty different ity concept but simply defers it. In the design must then be translated into the types greatly lowers the cost for each case of the bacterium, co-option shows behavior that manufactures the required unit. Also, utilization of a proven design that the bacterial cell has the capability parts that meet the required specifi ca- with a documented reliability record is of producing one of two different irre- tions and allows proper assembly of the preferred over a new design that may ducibly complex machines (a fl agellum machine. potentially be superior but lacks a reli- or a secretory system) from some of the All of these concepts can be better ability history. same parts. explained in a creation origins model. It is also far easier (and much more The fact that most of the parts in a Concerning changes observed, creation- practical) to design equipment by as- television transmission-receiver system ists suggest that alterations seen in some sembling existing parts, which is how could have been used in other electronic complex structures support the Genesis many electrical and mechanical de- devices does not negate the fact that a Fall. The Creator may have designed vices fi rst appeared on the market. The certain minimum number of parts are certain complex structures to continue early VCRs were a conglomeration of a required in order for the TV to function. to operate even if some of the original wide variety of standard parts that were And the existence of the same electronic parts subsequently become altered or obtained from many different sources. parts in other systems does not explain even missing. Thus, not only IC, but Design improvements have resulted in their origin, or the origin of the design also some reducible complexity of the combining different parts and requiring of a functioning TV system. original created structure could have fewer total parts until, today, a modern The design, selection, and assembly been part of God’s indescribable plan. VCR uses a fraction of the parts used in of existing parts requires an assembly the original (and also weighs a fraction plan to insure that the parts are designed Co-option Supports IC of the original weight). This suggests to fi t together properly, that they are Co-option in the mechanical and elec- that co-option in biology is likewise an assembled correctly, and that they func- trical worlds clearly implies intelligent example of excellence in design and not tion as a unit. Cellular proteins called design and does not negate the fact fortuitous evolution. “scaffold proteins” are required as sites that an object is irreducibly complex. The mechanisms that produce most on which to place the correct cell parts When designing a new product, the mutations are well understood, but, con- in the proper locations at the correct engineer often selects parts from the versely, mechanisms that can systemati- times. Each part must be manufactured millions that already exist to achieve the cally rearrange structural units in order to the required specifi cations and in the required function. Selection of the best to produce new functional structures are correct number for use at the correct components for a new application typi- unknown. It is conceivable that many time. The parts also must be moved to cally requires highly trained individu- mutations of assembly regulation genes the suitable assembly location in the als to help determine the appropriate could produce benefi cial effects, but it is order needed. The many complex en- parts required from the large number diffi cult to even imagine a “just-so story” zymes required to install the parts at the of parts available for a specifi c applica- that explains how a naturalistic evolution- correct place are also necessary. tion. These parts are then intelligently ary mechanism could cobble together Sanford (2005, p. 133) noted, “each modifi ed, often by engineers, to function different existing parts by co-option to part has no value except within the together as a unit. produce new functional structures (San- context of the whole functional unit, An examination of machines de- ford, 2005). Structures such as a bacterial and so irreducible systems have to come signed by humans reveals that co-option fl agellum contain thousands of proteins; together all at once, and cannot arise is extremely common—many mass- each one in turn contains hundreds or one piece at a time.” He added that, in produced standard parts are used in a thousands of parts; and each gene that Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 221

produces these parts has about 50,000 if a system existed that could produce peer-reviewed research papers and component parts (Sanford, 2005). new organs by selecting from the exist- has been rejected by the scientifi c The only plausible known mecha- ing parts, in most cases it would produce community at large (Kitzmiller et nism that could select existing parts to damaging or lethal macromutations. al. v. Dover Area School District et construct a new structure is a regula- Some Darwinists have proposed that al., p. 79). tory mechanism such as transposition this problem could be partially solved if The gradualistic co-option model (commonly called jumping genes). two complete sets of genes produced the of evolution is accepted because of But transposition only shuffl es existing same structure, such as in gene duplica- philosophical constraints, not because genetic information around and does tion, allowing one set to be modifi ed to of empirical evidence. As Harold (2001, not rearrange the complex guidance evolve a new specifi c structure and the p. 205) admitted, evolutionists “reject, system required to properly assemble corresponding gene to maintain the as a matter of principle,” not because of a complete new structure from many previous function. But if this condition evidence, “the substitution of intelligent different parts. Understanding how co- existed, the excess structures produced design for the dialogue of chance and option could function in life requires may frequently cause the functional necessity.” This philosophy prevents an understanding of life’s assembly problems for the cell. This illustrates scientists from researching all possible instruction system and how it func- the major problem that we have identi- avenues to explain the origin of life, tions. No known way exists to cause fi ed, namely, how could the original including IC. To fully understand real- individual parts to be reshuffl ed during arrangement have been produced ity, science must be free to explore all evolution to systematically produce a without intelligent design? Once again research avenues including research new functional assembly arrangement. the creation model proves to be a better on IC. Even if a new structure did originate this basis on which to understand the origin way, it would virtually always produce a of biological systems. Acknowledgements: Among those I harmful or nonfunctional result, not a No evidence exists for the evolution wish to thank for their review of earlier workable system that would aid survival. of any of the original parts that were sup- drafts of this manuscript are Jody Allen The only known feasible method is Hox posedly co-opted to explain the origin of RN, John UpChurch, and Clifford Lillo gene mutations, which have, so far, new structures. MS. And I appreciate George F. Howe, produced only negative results (May et Among these great innovations in PhD, for his invaluable editorial work al., 2004). design, the crucial inventions of on this manuscript. The co-option theory is also very nature, the earliest have left no problemative in an evolutionary model trace of their development in the References because a cell is a complex, highly in- fossil record. The organization of Anderson, K.L. 1989. Prebiotic formation of terconnected system consisting of many living material in a cell with a cell the fi rst cell. Creation Research Society billions of parts. For this reason, a single wall and a nucleus, the transmission Quarterly 26:55–60. change often affects many systems. Even of the blueprint of its design and Behe, M. 1996. Darwin’s Black Box. The if a mutation improves the function of its means of self-construction and Free Press, New York, NY. one part in a particular unit, it often the vary important device of sexual Behe, M. 2005. Molecules were designed will cause dysfunction in other systems. reproduction, all developed in min- by a creator. In Braun, E. (editor), Cre- This concept, called pleiotropy, is a ute organisms which have left little ationism Versus Evolution, pp. 32–41. major reason why a defect in a single evidence (French, 1988, p. 19). Greenhaven Press, New York, NY. gene can result in so many different The basic parts must fi rst exist in or- Bergman, J. (In press). The pleiotrophy body alterations, many of which are der for co-option to occur, and until their problem for evolution. Creation Research negative (Bergman, in press). Mutations existence is explained, it is premature to Society Quarterly. often result in a wide variety of different claim that co-option of existing parts can Braun, E. (editor). 2005. Creationism Ver- health symptoms, many of which have explain the origins of the systems that sus Evolution. Greenhaven Press, New no relationship with each other. use those parts. York, NY. Co-option does not change the fact Dembski, W., and J. Wells. 2007. The Design that “there are presently no detailed Conclusions of Life. The Foundation for Thought and Darwinian accounts of the evolution of The evidence presented here falsifi es Ethics, Dallas, TX. any biochemical or cellular system, only Judge Jones’s opinion that: French, M.J. 1988. Invention and Evolution: a variety of wishful speculations” (Har- Professor Behe’s claim for irreduc- Design in Nature and Engineering. Cam- old, 2001, p. 205, italics added). Even ible complexity has been refuted in bridge University Press, New York, NY. Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 222 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Glicksman, H. 2006. Irreducible Complex- Research Society Quarterly 41:231–241. Paley, W. 2005. Paley’s Natural Theology, ity. http://www.creationdigest.com/win- Menuge, A. 2004. Agents Under Fire: Ma- edited by Chad Arment. Coachwhip ter2006/Glicksman_Irreducible_Com- terialism and the Rationality of Science. Publications, Landisville, PA. plexity.html Rowman and Littlefield, New York, Ruse, M. 2003. Modern biologists and the Harold, F.M. 2001. The Way of the Cell: Mol- NY. argument from design. In Manson, N. ecules, Organisms and the Order of Life. Miller, K.R. 1999. Finding Darwin’s God: A (editor), God and Design: The Teleologi- Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Scientist’s Search for Common Ground cal Argument and Modern Science, pp. Katz, M.J. 1986. Templates and the Expla- Between God and Evolution. Harper 308–325. Rutledge, New York, NY. nation of Complex Patterns. Cambridge Collins, New York, NY. Sanford, J. 2005. Genetic Entropy and the University Press, New York, NY. Morange, M. 2001. The Misunderstood Gene. Mystery of the Genome. Ivan Press, Kitzmiller, Tammy et al. v. Dover Area Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Lima, NY. School District et al. 2005. In the MA. Stashower, D. 2002. The Boy Genius and the United States District Court for the Old, R.W., and S.B. Primrose. 1994. Prin- Mogul: The Untold Story of Television. Middle District of Pennsylvania. Case ciples of Gene Manipulation: An Intro- Broadway Books, New York, NY. No. 04cv2688. duction to Genetic Engineering. Fifth May, B., B. Thompson, and B. Harrub. 2004. Edition. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, Jerry Bergman Hox genes—evolution’s hoax. Creation MA. [email protected]

Book Review

edited by Heidi Campbell A Science and and Heather Looy Religion Primer Baker Publishing Group, Grand Rapids, 2009, 230 pages, $20.00.

The authors are professors—Campbell Bethel (Indiana), Calvin, Grove City, tortured (he wasn’t); he was imprisoned in communications at Texas A & M, Fuller Seminary, Messiah, Notre Dame, in the ‘dungeons of the Holy Offi ce’ (he and Looy in psychology at the King’s and Westmont. Authors Campbell and was never placed in a dungeon); he mut- University College, Ontario. Their goal Looy are to be complimented for bring- tered after abjuring, ‘And yet it moves!’ is a “respectful, intelligent conversation ing together the writing talents of so (a later invention); he was condemned between science and religion” (back many colleagues. ‘for demonstrating the earth’s motion’ cover), and they have succeeded. Four The book treats young-earth creation (he wasn’t and he didn’t)” (p. 111). introductory essays make clear the with respect; however, the hundreds This book is attractively printed; the Biblical roots of modern science and of references do not include a single writing and editing is crystal clear. The also challenge the “warfare metaphor” creationist writer. Regarding limited encyclopedia is a valuable reference between science and religion. The heart creationist research, it is correctly stated with topics including chaos theory, of the book is a compact encyclopedia that “the number of people doing the ecofeminism, intelligent design, Kepler, of terms from history, philosophy, sci- research is small, and it is diffi cult to fi nd miracles, Newton, William Paley, pro- ence, and theology. Seventy guest writers funding or journals willing to publish cess theology, quantum theory, and the defi ne and evaluate the terms, which the results” (p. 72). Later, the book cor- scientifi c method. range from altruism to the verifi cation rectly challenges the myth that Galileo’s principle. The contributors are from heliocentricism was a victim of religion: Don B. DeYoung such schools as Asbury, Azusa Pacifi c, “A mythology grew up: Galileo was [email protected] Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 223

Desert Plant Literature Demonstrates God’s Creation

The Creation Research Society reported features that clearly support the constructed so as to grow rapidly and Herbarium Is Growing Steadily activity of an intelligent Creator. While produce drought-resistant seeds quickly, The Creation Research Society has a in most cases the authors said nothing before seasonal rains have evaporated. growing herbarium plant collection about creation, the long-standing facts The tiny Mohave Desert star (Monop- discussed by Cockman (1988) and Howe speak for themselves. We will describe a tilion bellioides, sunfl ower family) was (1988; 2006). The specimens are mostly few of these telltale creation trademarks built on just such a plan (Figures 1 and from Arizona, Colorado, and California, evident in desert annual plants. 2). It possesses a physiological system with some from other states as well. The Internet is likewise laden with controlling the size of the population Recently we have added 15 new plants, information supporting intelligent de- and likewise of individual plants. The most of which are winter-fl owering an- sign. There are many beautiful fl ower number of seeds that germinate and the nuals from the eastern Mohave Desert. photographs online, as well, together size of the resulting plants are directly This is a desert with two separate plant with information on food and medicinal related to the amount of rain that previ- groups, each fl owering shortly after its uses, all of which speak of God’s provi- ously fell during that winter. MacMahon two rainfall periods—the winter rains and dence for mankind in native plants. We (1985, p. 380) described this sensitive the summer monsoon rains. We found focus here, however, on perspicuous control feature as follows: most of these 15 specimens near Mohave plant features for which no evolution- [Mohave desert star growth] depends County Route 15 (Alamo Lake Road) ary phylogenies exist and for which upon the amount of rainfall. If winter and Chicken Springs Road, between the there are no adequate neo-Darwinian rains are ample [they grow] in profu- towns of Yucca and Wikieup, AZ. explanations. sion, even obscuring the surface of the ground; but if rainfall is scant, Scientific Evidence for Creation The “Mohave Desert Star” the plant will be only a fraction of Was Present in the Books We Survives in a Dry Climate an inch tall, if it grows at all, with Used If you wanted to design a plant to survive one head [fl ower] disproportionately We studied desert plant books to help key on very little moisture, you would make large in comparison to the rest of and identify our specimens. In so doing, it small and set it just slightly above the plant. we noticed that many of the authors the level of the soil. It could then be In personal correspondence, Mar- garet Helder (June 15, 2009) described for us the “phenotypic plasticity” of certain plants, allowing them to fl ower even if they are far below the normal fl owering size. When growing conditions are un- favorable, the ability to reach a mature enough state to fl ower, even if the plant is extremely small, is a phenomenon called phenotypic plasticity. This is a design feature, which allows many weedy plants, in other habitats, to survive adverse conditions. Most plants must reach a certain mature size before they fl ower, but not the plants with this particular design feature. (Helder, personal correspondence, June 15, 2009) Figure 1. A display of Monoptilion belloides (the Mohave Desert star). They Plants like the desert star also show control the number and size of plants each year in relation to the amount of rain design in that only a fraction of the that has fallen. seed available will germinate in any Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 224 Creation Research Society Quarterly

design features are “quite widespread and well known,” having been evident for decades in the botanical literature. These long-understood phenomena are all strong support for a direct creation of plants. Meanwhile, growing close to ground level, desert star plants are in a group of species called “belly plants” because one can best see them by lying stomach- down. Their species name belloides, however, has nothing to do with such a prerequisite study posture but with their resemblance to plants in the genus Bel- lus (Jaeger, 1941, p. 270). Figure 2. A little Mohave Desert star plant, at the right (only 1–2” tall), has been pulled loose to show that the entire plant is shaded underneath one inﬂ orescence. The “Mistletoes” Have a These plants can thrive in deserts because they have been geared to grow rapidly Clever Seed Distribution System and produce drought-resistant seeds while moisture is still available in the desert It requires considerable skill to build soil. a parasitic plant with sticky seeds that can be unwittingly transported to new host trees by birds that then transfer the given year. About this, Helder (personal case only a fraction of the seeds will seeds to potential hosts by rubbing their correspondence, June 15, 2009) has germinate under each speciﬁ c set of beaks on the bark to remove the annoy- noted that conditions. This allows a reservoir of ingly mucilaginous little objects. This many weedy plants also exhibit seeds to remain in the soil awaiting a transport plan is present in the desert phenotypic plasticity in their require- variety of future conditions. mistletoe (Phoradendron californicum, ments for seed germination. In this She is quick to point out that these mistletoe family) (See Figure 3). The fruit is a berry…containing several seeds embedded in very sticky juice; the seeds are dispersed when birds (notably cedar waxwings and phainopeplas) eat the fruit and remove the sticky seeds from the bill by wiping them on tree branches where they can germinate (Wikipe- dia, 2009). Would it not then be providential to give the ironwood host trees their own defense system to prevent overinfesta- tion by the mistletoe? Without this system, the mistletoe might obliterate the ironwoods. Dodge and Janish (1985, p. 63) noted that this mistletoe becomes a real threat, causing “damage and even death to host trees such as acacias and ironwoods.” But the eminent desert Figure 3. Phoradendron californicum, the desert mistletoe, is a hemiparasite seen spokesman E.C. Jaeger (1941, p. 27) here in a host tree. The delicate balance between sticky parasite seeds, transport- wrote about a remarkably protective ing birds, and a defensive ironwood host tree is clear evidence favoring creation balance involving the ironwood’s own over naturalistic neo-Darwinian evolution. defense system. Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 225

[Of mistletoe seeds that germinate on of this stepwise interaction between needles of nearby trees where they may a host tree] the successful survivors bothered birds, sticky seeds, and a host grow, infesting new host trees (Mathi- are few, for most vigorous host plants tree’s fl ushing system, which is capable ason et al., 2009). Neo-Darwinism offers show remarkable resistance to the of thwarting infestation. no satisfactory explanation for the origin inroads of the young seedlings. In The dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium of these sticky “bullets” inside the dwarf the case of ironwood trees, many of campylopodium) grows on pine trees at mistletoe “fi ring system.” the seeds are actually pushed away higher altitudes than the deserts where from the limb surface by a gummy we worked. Its seeds are quite effectively Ocotillo Has Its Own Mechanisms substance exuded by the tree at dispersed by a very different scheme. Sap for Enduring Drought the point of injury. The exudate pressure inside its white berries reaches The ocotillo, also known as coachwhip eventually hardens and drops to the the point where the berries explode, (Fouqueria splendens, coachwhip fam- ground, carrying with it the young fl inging the small seeds for distances up ily—see Figure 4), copes with drought mistletoe plant. to 49 feet (Armstrong, 1999). Its seeds are in its own multifaceted manner, as No adequate evolutionary mecha- covered with viscin, a sticky substance Jaeger (1941, p. 147) nicely reported, nism exists to account for the origin that enables them to remain on the “Whenever rains really wet the soil, bright green leaves spring forth above the sharp, stout spines and hide the thorny stems in foliage.” Indeed, a new set of coachwhip leaves grows out every time adequate rain falls! Ocotillo is able to produce as many as six new leaf crops in one year (Dodge, 1993, #63; Epple and Epple, 1995, p. 86.) When the habitat dries out again, the coachwhip promptly loses its leaves. But even during the dry, leafl ess periods, there is an effi cient backup plan to nourish the plant. With very little water loss, the green bark of the ocotillo stems carries out photosynthesis in the absence of leaves. A shallow and wide-spreading root system is one more frugal Fouque- ria feature, “enabling quick utilization of shallow-penetrating rains” (Jaeger, 1941, p. 147). Because of its thorns, some people mistakenly call ocotillo the “coachwhip cactus.” But a careful look reveals that coachwhip thorns differ markedly from cactus spines, which attach to a furry pad. The Creator provided plants in many families with different types of thorns or spines, showing that similarity (homology) does not necessarily prove “kinship.” Similarity does not demonstrate a “common ancestry,” as Darwin mistakenly preached, but it certainly could have resulted from the work of the Figure 4. The ocotillo, Fouqueria splendens, has a cluster of bright red fl owers and same Designer, a “common Designer” fruit. Important to the creation cause is the fact that ocotillo has been equipped (Howe, 2009). to make a new crop of leaves whenever another generous rain occurs. Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 226 Creation Research Society Quarterly

The Survival of Larrea tridentata As reported by Epple and Epple Provides a Puzzle for Evolutionism (1995, p. 131), the petals on the fl owers By means of what plant physiologists of Larrea rotate 90 degrees after the blos- call “allelopathy,” Larrea tridentata soms have been pollinated (Figures 5 plants are able to conserve water. Al- and 6). We puzzled over what particular lelopathy is a chemical “bad neighbor function(s) this peculiar petal rotation policy” in which the leaves of Larrea after pollination may fulfi ll. While we secrete organic compounds that are found no role reported in the literature, toxic to other plants. Hence, other we predict that this rotation will be plants are prevented from growing shown to play a part in the fl ower/insect near it, and as a result the water from relationship. a wide surrounding area remains avail- The Larrea tridentata plants grow- able only to the Larrea (Kearney and ing in the North American deserts are Peebles, 1951). probably the same species as their South Larrea bushes have an amazing abil- American counterparts called Larrea ity to endure drought for long periods of divaricata, plants that exist thousands of time—they are outstanding xerophytes, miles away with no intervening popula- covering thousands of square miles tions between the two (Howe, 1996; in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Kearney and Peebles, 1951). All of this Figure 5. Flowers of Larrea tridenta Texas, and Mexico. When a prolonged poses serious questions concerning how have petals in a fl at plane before they drought ensues, they simply drop their Larrea plants got to these two widely are pollinated—see blossom beyond leaves and remain alive in a dormant disjunct localities. One is also puzzled white arrow tip. state (Andersen, n.d., p. 74). by the striking similarity between the two, since orthodox evolutionary ideology predicts that all disjunct populations ought to undergo extensive evolutionary diversifi cation. These two Larrea populations appear to have experienced little or no diversifi cation during the time they have been separated, a fact that negates evolutionary predictions.

“Mexican Goldpoppy” Is Another Plant with Explosive Fruits Last but not least, consider the fore- thought required to craft the fruits of Eschscholtzia mexicana, the Mexican goldpoppy. Upon ripening, these fruits explode with a snapping action, fl inging the seeds considerable distances from the parent plant (Coronado RC and D, 2002, #16). Such explosive splitting of pods to sow seeds is found in several other fl owering plant groups as well, all of them quite distant from, and “unre- Figure 6. After pollination, the petals of Larrea turn 90 degrees (see fl ower at lated” to, the poppy family. It would arrow tip). Finding no explanation of this phenomenon, we predict that it plays be asking very much for chance-based a function in the interaction of bees with the fl ower. The disjunct distribution evolution to produce exploding seed of Larrea in only two localities (the western United States and faraway South pods just once in nature, but it would America) with no intervening populations is a problem facing evolution, as dis- be exceedingly unlikely that they would cussed in the text. arise many times in distant taxonomic Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 227

fostering the CRS herbarium and funding expenses related to this study. We are likewise grateful to Mark Armitage, M. S., an electron microscopist, for his assistance with our photographs, and to Linn Carothers, Ph.D., who provided us with some of the mistletoe literature. Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., deserves credit for improving this paper during the editing process, and so does Margaret Helder, Ph.D. (a botanist), who supplied us with several concepts while critically reading the manuscript. We appreciate the way factual evidence favoring creation is so astoundingly visible in nature so that “he may run that readeth it” (Habak- kuk 2:2).

References CRSQ: Creation Research Society Quar- terly Andersen, B.A. n.d. Desert Plants of Utah. Cooperative Extension Service, Utah State University, Logan, UT. Armstrong, W.P. 1999. Parasitic fl owering plants. http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ plnov99.htm Cockman, J.S. 1988. Collecting plants for Creation Research Society herbarium. Figure 7. Stephen B. Austin, a taxonomist, keying out a desert plant specimen along CRSQ 24:187–193. the side of Alamo Lake Road, Mohave County, AZ. Austin has helped enlarge the Coronado RC and D Area. 2002. Winter herbarium collection with plants from Colorado and Arizona. Forbs of Southeastern Arizona. Coronado Resource Conservation and Develop- ment Area and Arizona Natural Resource lines of angiosperms! As noted earlier, We also oppose the arrogant attitude Conservation Districts, Willcox, AZ. similarity does not necessarily mean manifested by many evolutionists who Dodge, N.N. 1963. One Hundred Desert “common ancestry” but instead may believe that alternative origins explana- Wildfl owers in Natural Color. Southwest well indicate “the same Designer,” who tions deserve no serious investigation. Parks and Monuments Association, used particular features like this one at Such behavior is both unethical and Globe, AZ. various points throughout the creation unscientifi c. Dodge, N.N., and J.R. Janish. 1985. Flow- outline as He chose. We look forward to more herbarium ers of the Southwest Deserts. Southwest We have no quarrel with the concept trips to study plants from other life zones Parks and Monuments Association, that variation is observable in plants, and plan on working on more articles Tucson, AZ. variation that may have led to some about creation evidences for those Epple, A.O. and L.E. Epple. 1995. A Field speciation—with the realization that plants, unheralded evidences already Guide to the Plants of Arizona. Falcon differences between species is often present in the botanical literature. Press, Helena, MT. more subjective than genetic. We object Howe, G.F. 1988. Why collect plants? CRSQ instead to the Darwinian extrapolation Acknowledgments. We thank donors to 24:186. of these minor modifi cations, promot- the Creation Research Society Endow- Howe, G.F. 1996. Wood rats, plant fossils, ing them willy-nilly as proof for the ment Fund, interest from which helped plovers, and the origin of creosote bush macroevolution relatedness of all plants. to cover some of the costs involved in deserts. CRSQ 32:221–224. Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 228 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Howe, G.F. 2006. The Creation Research Arizona Flora. University of California edu/~bﬁ ero/tucsonecology/plants/oth- Society herbarium: a progress report. Berkeley Press, Berkeley, CA. ers_demi.htm 4/20/09. CRSQ 43:27–29. MacMahon, J.A. 1985. Deserts. Alfred A. Wikipedia. 2009. Phoradendron http:// Howe, G.F. 2009. Homology and what it Knopf, New York, NY. cc.nsnscache.com/cache.aspx?=phorad really indicates (De-sanctifying Darwin’s Mathiasen, R., J.S. Beatty, and J. Pronos. endron+californicum&d=7580098455 sacred cow). In Smith, E.N. (editor), 2009. Pinyon pine dwarf mistletoe. Forest 2160&…4/20/09. Sacred Cows in Science: No Objectivity Insect and Disease Leaﬂ et 174. U. S. De- Allowed. Leafcutter Press, Southworth, partment of Agriculture Forest Service. George F. Howe WA. (in press). http://na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/fidls/pin- [email protected] Jaeger, E.C. 1941. Desert Wild Flowers. Stan- yon_mistletoe/pinyon_mistletoe.htm ford University Press, Stanford, CA. Pima Community College. 2009. Desert Stephen B. Austin Kearney, T.H., and R.H. Peebles. 1951. Ecology of Tucson, AZ. http://wc.pima. [email protected]

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.

How Compatible Do Physicists Consider Science and Religion?

A very recent poll has been published by and so the majority of members can be a difference in proportions greater than the Institute of Physics (IOP) in their so- expected to be British; but the results are this by chance if they are really the same ciety newsletter (Crease, 2009). Various interesting to note, not only for them, proportion is approximately 80%). categories of members’ views on religion but also to the extent that this could From this it can be concluded that were surveyed. These consisted of four be reﬂ ective of other English-speaking for IOP members, there are just as many categories ranging from, “I am an athe- countries or more. who believe that science and religion are ist who sees no place at all for religion in It is interesting that these responses different perspectives of the same thing the universe,” which received 22.6%, to, imply that the majority felt that religion as there are those who believe there is “I am a religious person who thinks that and science can coexist (64%). Further- no God. This does assume that the 13% science and religion are different ways more, using the null hypothesis that the who did not respond would not take of looking at the same thing. My faith “atheist” and “Christian” proportions are positions skewing these proportions if enhances my appreciation of science,” the same, this gives a z-score of 0.254, they were to be given the opportunity which received 18%. With 13.1% ab- using the value given in Equation (1) to reconsider or otherwise change their staining, the other two categories were, from Brase and Brase (2003). answers. “I am a nonbeliever, but I think religion p –p z = 1 2 and science can coexist because they each p (1–p ) p (1–p ) (1) Robert B. Hayes, Ph.D., CHP, PE 1 1 + 2 2 deal with separate aspects of the universe” √ n n (30.3%) and “I am a religious person who thinks science and religion can coexist From this value of the z score, the References because they each deal with separate as- probability of getting a score up to this Brase, C.H., and C.P. Brase. 2003. Un- pects of the universe” (16%). For the 505 value from a 2-tailed test can be found derstandable Statistics Concepts and responses, this means that the margin of to be approximately 20%, meaning we Methods. Houghton Mifﬂ in Co., New error at the one standard deviation level can accept the null hypothesis that the York, NY. is about 2% on each of these proportions. two proportions are statistically indis- Crease R.P. 2009. Critical point religion The IOP is headquartered in England, tinguishable (the probability of getting explained. Physicsworld 22:18. Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 229

CRS Conference Abstracts July 10–11, 2009 • University of South Carolina Lancaster • Lancaster, SC

On July 10–11, 2009, the Creation Research Society held a conference at the University of South Carolina Lancaster campus. Below are abstracts of presentations given during this two-day conference. Voting members of CRS were allowed to author or coauthor abstracts. All submitted abstracts were accepted, as the conference was intended to provide a forum for the free discussion of a wide variety of ideas pertaining to the creation model of origins.

Coordinating Committee: Danny Faulkner, Ron Samec, Don DeYoung, and Kevin Anderson

The Ultimate Proof of Creation The methods and procedures of science Biblical proofs cannot stand on error. Al- presuppose a biblical worldview—one though relativity is universally accepted, Jason Lisle in which God upholds the universe in there are several problems that cause this a consistent and rational way that the author to reject it. Physicists have known The debate over origins is often framed human mind can discover. Even the of problems with relativity for nearly a as two competing scientific models. laws of logic (the universal standards century but have accepted the theory Proponents of creation insist that the by which people reason) are ultimately because “it works.” If a simpler model creation model better accounts for the contingent upon God as revealed in can explain the data and at same time evidence than evolution, but proponents His Word. Thus, evolutionists must eliminate the problems associated with of evolution disagree. Such disagree- unwittingly rely upon the truth of the relativity, then it should be considered. ment stems largely from the fact that Bible in order to argue against the truth The model I am presenting eliminates creationists and evolutionists have differ- of the Bible. The fact that they are able the Lorentz transformation, the twin ent presuppositions and thus disagree on to argue at all demonstrates that they paradox problem, the problem with the the “rules of interpretation” of evidence. are wrong. energy equation not being invariant to Creationists or evolutionists may offer coordinate transformations, and non- evidence that seems on the surface to conservation of photonic energy. And it challenge their opponent’s position. is much simpler than relativity. However, the opponent is always free Creation Models for In formulating an alternate scenario, to invoke an auxiliary hypothesis to ac- Cosmology Require a Sensible the relativistic equations are taken as a count for what appears to be contrary Energy Model over Relativity good approximation of observed data; evidence. How then can the debate over Joseph E. Brownd i.e., relativity appears to work. Therefore origins be rationally resolved? my model is compared to relativity to The solution becomes obvious once Relativity is central to the idea of explain- show the small differences and how they we drop the assumption that creation ing a young universe. There are a few produce the same results for general and evolution are on the “same level.” creationist models that use relativity in experiments. I will show that both the Unlike evolution, creation is not merely order to model a young universe. How- relativity theory and this author’s scenario a model. Rather, creation is the fact ever, from a creationist viewpoint, it is predict the same results for time dilation, that makes scientiﬁc models possible. critical that it is a valid theory. After all, the amount of light-bending in a gravity Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 230 Creation Research Society Quarterly

field, the change in frequency of light nonrandom patterns in various taxa, miracle of languages God injected at due to gravity, the advancement of peri- including a bias toward non-synonymous the Tower of Babel, Peleg’s genealogi- helion of Mercury, and aberration angles mutations (mustelids), a bias toward cal position provides us with a chrono- seen when observing distant stars. synonymous mutations (native Africans), logical context clue about when Babel a bias toward in-frame indels (cats and occurred. Because recent analysis has mustelids), and a bias toward the same clarified the chronological relevance SNP in different taxa (resulting in an of Genesis genealogy data, a linguistic The Moon’s Recession apparent selectable phenotype in some “division” interpretation would sharpen from the Earth: Still a Valid taxa but not in others). Loss of function the focus of Biblical history’s timeframe Young-Age Indicator mutations in MC1R are nonlethal and for the post-Flood demographic migra- Spike Psarris result in lighter color hair (red to yellow) tions following the Tower of Babel and skin. In humans it is also associated miracle. However, if the “division” Peleg The tidal evolution of the Earth-Moon with an increase risk of skin cancer; was named for was a geologic event system is examined. Creationists have however, average age of onset is after 50, (such as a geographic barriers-produced shown that tidal processes imply a maxi- so selection should be weak. Evaluation “division” of the earth’s continental mum age for the system that is far short of the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) landmasses, due to rising water levels of the 4.5 Gyr required by the standard revealed an unusual pattern of in-frame following the post-Flood Ice age), the evolutionary model. Evolutionists have indels known as variable number tan- geologic (i.e., geography-altering) “divi- countered that the creationist analysis is dem repeats (VNTR). This VNTR sion” interpretation would sharpen the invalid and, furthermore, that there are pattern is observed in DRD4 for most focus of creation science’s understand- additional lines of evidence to support mammals, except rodents, with the size ing of post-Flood geologic history, with an ancient age. Many of these rebuttals of the repeated segment often varying serious ramifications for interpreting have not been addressed by creation- between taxa. A null mutation in human the geologic record from a young-earth ists. This paper reviews the evolutionist DRD4 is not associated with any serious perspective. Either interpretation pro- arguments and shows why they do not impairment, at least in the heterozygous vides insights for future research about solve the problems that tides pose for state. Again, this suggests that selection post-Flood events. the long-age model. In addition, some cannot account for this pattern. The Proper philological study focuses recent developments are discussed that inadequacy of selection pressures to ac- on the two Hebrew verbs translated provide additional support for a young count for these nonrandom patterns of “divided” in Genesis 10:25 and 10:32, age of the system. mutations suggests that directed muta- with extra insights from the Greek tions may play a significant role in gen- equivalents used in the Septuagint erating genetic diversity. Further study in translation of Genesis. Philological this area, especially using epidemiologic analysis supports the conclusion that Lack of Sufficient Selection data to help quantify selection pressure, Peleg was named for something that Pressure to Explain will likely yield significant results that occurred after the worldwide Flood, Nonrandom Patterns of will build the creation model. of a geological nature, that had global Mutations Suggests Directed geographical significance. Lastly, alter- Mutations May Increase native explanations of what that could Genetic Diversity have been (geologically speaking) are Jean K. Lightner Rightly “Dividing” identified and analyzed from a young- the Word about Peleg earth creationist perspective. Nonrandom patterns of genetic mu- James J. S. Johnson and John Morris tations in humans and animals are typically explained by selection since Was Earth’s unusual “division” in Peleg’s the underlying mutations are consid- lifetime a linguistic event or a geological Volcanism, Fountains ered to be essentially random errors. Yet event? Is the “division” of languages, of the Great Deep, there are nonrandom patterns for which noted in Genesis 10:32, the same as the and 40 Days of Rain sufficient selection pressure appears “division” of the earth, noted in Genesis Hamilton Duncan absent. Evaluation of polymorphisms 10:25, for which Peleg was named? at the MC1R locus, coding a recep- If the “division” Peleg was named The Bible references the fountains of the tor influencing color, revealed many for was a linguistic event, namely the deep and forty days of rain as contribu- Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 231 tors to the global Flood. Magmas are ide- meteorology, paleontology, and bio- Trying to account for the dental enamel al candidates for fountains of the deep geographical distribution. Geologically, microstructure types observed through- since water is the primary gas released the evolutionary view of plate tectonics out the fossil record faces the same during virtually all volcanic eruptions. will be addressed. The study of con- theoretical and evidential problems. The geologic record preserves volcanism tinental fit, paleomagnetic data, and The sudden appearance in the pre- on a level not observed today, especially mountain building in a time period Eocene period of approximately 18 with the existence of verneshots, which consistent with Peleg, Plato’s notes on different orders (with highly disparate may have sent volatiles into suborbital Atlantis, and the latest satellite data on jaw and tooth forms) from a single hy- trajectories. Moreover, the emplace- plate movements that show the rates pothetical ancestor should provide an ment of large igneous provinces, along incompatible with the million-year drift incredible opportunity to find millions with the release of water from their hypothesis. The acceptance in 1994 by of intermediate jaw and dental forms magmas, significantly contributed to the the geologic community of catastrophic in this narrow fossil stratigraphic band. Flood. The possible cause of the Flood plate tectonics has further verified the There are none. and volcanism may have been from thesis of this study. To further complicate matters, concentrated, global decompression due The record of climates of the world the reproduction rates of the ani- to multiple bolide impacts. both prior to and post-Flood are in- mals represented in these orders var- tegrated into the scenario, which fits ies significantly, yet fully functional both the Biblical and the fossil record. jaws and teeth seem to appear at the The biogeographical distributions of same time. The fine anatomical struc- What Really Happened to fauna will favor the solutions of cre- tures present in both jaw and tooth Atlantis in the Days of Peleg? ationists Molen, Woodmorappe, and form in these orders cannot be pro- William M. Curtis III Northrup. The origin of the races and duced by the operation of any known their dispersion throughout the world HOX genes. The fact that there are The purpose of this monograph is to will be presented in a Biblical scenario over 200 genes controlling jaw and draw all history into agreement with consistent with the Genesis Flood and dental developmental cascades presents the one true history of the world given the history of the world ca. 2350 BC intractable problems for any gradual- to mankind in the Scripture as revealed to today. With all of this research and istic evolutionary population genetics by the Creator of the world. study, we shall be able to understand explanation (either with balancing Plato’s story of Atlantis will be seen what really happened to Atlantis in the selection or founder population mod- to fit into the Biblical revelation both days of Peleg. els). The fact that there are at least ten with regard to time and the historical interacting complex subsystems in the and scientific evidence in ways not maxillary-dental system that must be before understood. The evolutionist’s mutated simultaneously to effect useful position regarding the biogeographical Genetics, Developmental mutational changes precludes further problem with the various continents is a Biology, and Fossils Provide mathematical explanation. direct assault on the Biblical record and No Evidence for the Evolution Lastly, pleiotropy affects all known the Flood epoch. This study will show of Teeth and Jaws but Support cranio-maxillary syndromes, demon- that a proper view of the animals both the Creation Model of the strating the highly complex interaction entering and leaving the ark, the events Original Kinds of Genesis of the genetic control of the develop- at Babel, and the continents dividing Don Moeller mental cascades. The pre-Eocene pe- after the Flood in the days of Peleg will riod should have millions of examples solve all of the questions and unbiblical Evolutionary theory is dependent on of dental and jaw pathology (a known positions. physical evidence (fossils) and biolog- result of mutations in the maxillary- Starting with the Biblical supercon- ic mechanisms to provide a reasonable dental system) as a result of pleiotropic tinents of Cush and Havileh of Genesis explanation for character traits. The actions. None are found. Also, had 2, and moving to the precontinental maxillary-dental complex has no fos- millions of years actually transpired, drift pangea of Gondwanaland and sil evidence for any transitional form, there should be untold examples of Laurasia, the study moves from Bibli- and there is no reasonable genetic or predominantly pathologic mutations cal exegesis to science and history to developmental cascade model that can demonstrating their effects on the jaws develop a model of post-Flood events account for the effectual gradual mod- and teeth of transitional animals. None that fit the evidence from geology, ification of either the jaws or teeth. are found. Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 232 Creation Research Society Quarterly

Some Perspectives on Ecology: Truths and Solutions become petrified. It may be partially Neanderthals: from the Bible, or the Vacuous permineralized or coated with aragonite What Do They Mean Contradictions of Evolutionary and other minerals, as has been shown for the YEC Model? Humanism to occur in natural springs containing Anne Habermehl and Danny Faulkner Rick Lapworth carbonates, silicates, sulphates, and chlorides of a number of mineral salts. Young-earth creationists rightly con- A complete Christian apologetic in- Features that confirm it is likely to be sider that Neanderthals were human cludes the ecological implications and a human brain are (1) what appears to beings but are divided on questions applications of the truths in the Creation be a correct size brain stem pushed up such as where Neanderthals fit into account of Genesis chapters 1-6. Biblical into the forebrain area and lost below our history, why they looked as they ecology begins with: (1) the inherent the pontine level, (2) stone cerebellar did, why they disappeared, and what value and glory of all organisms, (2) their folia on the inferior surface where por- their significance is for the young-earth use to man, (3) man as image-bearer tions of the brain stem and cerebellum model. (God’s representative moral agent), are usually found, and (3) stone choroid In his book, Buried Alive, Jack and (4) man’s role as “garden keeper,” a plexus tissue emerging from the inferior Cuozzo examined Neanderthal skulls manager/steward of the earth’s resources location where the lateral aperatures of and found that Neanderthals were (who is borrowing them from their abso- the fourth ventricle are usually found. early post-Flood people who developed lute creator/owner, God), exercising wis- There is evidence of (4) frontal, tem- distinctive facial characteristics because dom (wise-dominion) through Biblical poral, parietal, and occipital lobes that they lived a very long time and disap- laws/mandates and inferred principles. have been compressed together under peared from history because people no All of this is set in the context of the high pressure. (5) The brainlike rock is longer lived long enough to develop overarching realities of the Curse/Fall highly convoluted with evident gyri and those characteristics. Neanderthals and grace/redemption. sulci. (6) It is the typical size and shape were therefore not a closely related In contrast to these coherent, viable, indicative of a human brain, e.g., it has tribe, even though many creationists and certain truths is the empty and con- an evident occipital pole. (7) X-rays show continue to believe otherwise. The tradictory rhetoric of evolution, material- five holes in the interior of this rock widely scattered locations of known ism, and humanism, which, for example, consistent with their being anterior and Neanderthal sites have implications for believe extinction is a highly-probable posterior horns of the lateral ventricles Flood models. outcome in the struggle for existence but and a third ventricle. The X-rays also Cuozzo’s study of Neanderthal want to protect species as “endangered.” reveal significant surface sulci. A geo- children has shown that they matured Yet, why should man (a mere higher logical assay of its mineral content will very slowly and therefore could have animal, but the most adapted at resource allow further conclusions to be made of lived well over 100 years before becom- acquisition) care at all about the status how it became petrified and conjectures ing fathers, if their lifespan was many of other predators that most likely are about how old it is. hundreds of years (LXX Gen. 11). This competitors over an ever dwindling set of has implications for timeline and sup- resources? Evolutionary theory gives no ports moving the Flood and Creation ontology, teleology, or moral rationale back farther than Usshur’s calcula- for ecological decisions. Only a world- Rapid Cosmological tion allows. Conclusions drawn from view based on the Bible and Creation Formation Processes Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA in truths can provide a vital and logical in a Young and creationist literature are faulty because approach to ecology. Initially Cold Universe the human genome has deteriorated Keith Davies over thousands of years; also, mtDNA changes continuously over the human Cosmological models that reject the hot lifetime. Analyses of big-bang scenario and instead assume a There is confusion about early Petrified Human Brain low-temperature origin to the universe post-Flood people because of so-called Suzanne Vincent and Larry Skelf were initially developed and system- “homo” species (such as erectus) that are atized in the 1940s. The early versions touted by many creationists as human. Preliminary analyses of a rock show a of these models dealt almost exclusively These are most likely complex, upright, number of features that are consistent with cosmological nucleosynthesis of the ancient apes, now extinct. with it being a human brain that has lighter elements in the first moments of Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 233 a creation era. Modern developments The pattern I refer to during the six involving the motions of individual of these “cold origin” models have now day Creation is that God, in every case galaxies within galaxy clusters. reached a degree of sophistication that (1) decides to do something, then He The assumption of this study is permits detailed quantitative analysis (2) does what He decided to do, and simply that if the galaxies are recently for the early cosmological nucleosyn- finally He (3) delights in what He did formed, then there is no need for the thesis of the heavier elements, the early after completion. This pattern effectively dark-matter hypothesis, because the formation of stars in a clearly defined prohibits the commonly accepted inter- galaxies have not yet reached dynamical but very brief creation era, and novel pretation that God created or made the equilibrium and the stellar velocity pro- explanations for the existence of the two great lights and the stars on day four. files are just as would be predicted if the cosmic background radiation. Rather God established existing celestial galaxies were all young. The goal of this The intent of this project is to bodies for signs, seasons, days, and years study is to determine the extent to which provide a review of current research on day four. He created the stellar heav- the central stellar velocity profiles of a activities and publications regarding this ens and planet earth in verse 1 before galaxy match the “Keplerian Decline” remarkable class of cosmological mod- any days were possible on our planet. profiles. This would permit an estimate els. The “cold origin” model is seen to of the degree of “dynamical equilibri- include a number of striking examples of um” achieved in a particular galaxy and convergence with the Genesis account hence determine its dynamical equilib- of the Creation week era. These ex- Matching the Age rium age. Initial findings regarding the amples include the existence of an early of a Galaxy with dynamical equilibrium age of the galaxy era of rapid radioactive decay that does Its Rotation Velocity Profile and two nearby galaxies are encourag- not involve the excessive production of Keith Davies ing from the standpoint of a creationist, radiogenic thermal energy, a brief pri- young-universe perspective. mordial nucleosynthesis era capable of In the past 50 years one of the biggest forming elements at levels of abundance surprises in modern astronomy was the that match currently observed ranges discovery that the velocity profiles of of element abundances, the ultrarapid stars in galaxies did not fully match the A Preliminary Hypothesis formation of planets and stars, and the expected velocity profile known as the for the Origin of sudden cosmological appearance of light “Keplerian Decline” distribution pat- the Carolina Sandhills from non-stellar sources within the first tern. “Keplerian Decline” is the familiar John H. Whitmore, Ray Strom, hours of a brief Creation era. pattern that is seen in the motion of the and Danny Faulkner planets of a solar system whereby, when a solar system has achieved dynamical The Carolina Sandhills are a tertiary equilibrium, the outer planets move body of unlithified surficial sand on the A New Approach much slower than the inner planets and upper coastal plain of the Carolinas, just to the Interpretation of have longer orbital periods. In observa- west of the Orangeburg Scarp. Much Genesis Chapter One tion after observation, the “Keplerian of the sand is part of the Pinehurst For- Gorman Gray Decline” pattern was seen to be present mation. Conventional interpretations only in the central region of galaxies. In indicate several different depositional Books have been written and conferences any particular galaxy, as we move out- environments, including eolian, sub- devoted to detailing proper methodol- ward from the central region, we come tidal sandwaves, intertidal, fluvial, and ogy for Biblical hermeneutics. This to a second region that comprises the rest deltaic. presentation will attempt to emphasize of the galaxy, where the observed pattern Ten samples of sand were collected the psychological barriers we humans deviates strikingly from the expected pat- and analyzed, including samples from encounter that sometimes prevent sound tern. This paradigm-shaking discovery, “Sugarloaf Mountain” and “Horseshoe Bible interpretation. With that cautionary that supposedly ancient galaxies were Mountain,” which are barchan-shaped background, we will carefully observe not revealing the patterns of dynamical dunes (with south- and southwest- the pattern of God’s procedures on each equilibrium, soon resulted in an ongo- dipping cross beds) in Chesterfield of the daily activities and apply it to the ing search for “dark matter,” which was County, South Carolina. In this area fourth day. This pattern constrains and ex- hoped to offer a logical explanation for many mound-shaped accumulations plains the interpretation of Genesis 1:16, those unexpected stellar velocity profiles like this occur, which are up to 35 m that very crucial verse of Scripture. and similar anomalous observations high. Outcrop observations, bulk sieve Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 234 Creation Research Society Quarterly analysis, and thin section studies all show as a function of geological time. On the post-Flood conditions using a coupled the sand is poorly sorted, angular, and conventional timescale of evolutionary ocean/atmosphere model. An initial immature. Grain sizes range from clay geologists, between the Precambrian study focuses on the cooling rate of the to large granules. and the onset of the Paleozoic era, or oceans, which has an impact on the time We propose that a large post-Flood more precisely about 109 years ago, a frame over which an ice age can occur. hurricane(s) or hypercane(s) may be able change in this half-life from about 25 x Future studies will implement a higher to explain the unusual mix of features. 1020 years to about 8 x 1020 years is found. resolution model and will explore the The Orangeburg Scarp may represent a A recent direct measurement of this circulation patterns of both the ocean wave-cut cliff, cut by the high-standing half-life by the NEMO-3 group agrees and atmosphere. post-Flood Atlantic Ocean (before the with this trend, yielding 7.6 ± 1.5 (stat) Ice Age). The angular, unsorted, and ± 0.8 (syst) × 1020 y. I consider plausible overall immature nature of the sand sug- interpretations of the changes in half-life gests deposition soon after erosion, close in which the change in half-life occurs Genesis 10 & 11: to its source (igneous and metamorphic near the end of the Genesis Flood. Pos- A Correlation rocks to the west). It is conceivable that sible theoretical mechanisms for this Stanley V. Udd the sand may have been eroded and change in decay constant, involving a deposited during the same storm. The change in the strong coupling constant, This paper will examine the relation- unusual, poorly sorted nature of these are examined and found to be credible. ship between chapters 10 and 11 of dunes may suggest catastrophic wind- It is shown that very small changes in the book of Genesis. Exegetical con- blown processes during a large storm, the coupling constant can lead to en- nections will be emphasized, and the leaving little time for sorting. Cross bed hanced alpha particle tunneling and contribution of each will be considered. direction might be explained due to can also change the rates for forbidden The so-called Table of Nations (Genesis counterclockwise circulation around a beta decays dramatically by changing 10) represents those family groups that storm causing strong north or northeast the predominate angular momentum participated in the dispersion of popu- winds. The confusing mix of so many transfer of the decay. lations from the region of Babel, while depositional environments may be due the first part of Genesis 11 provides to continental erosion processes coalesc- insight into the mechanism that caused ing with storm surge and strong coastal said dispersion. To reconstruct those winds during a large storm. Perhaps the Post-Flood Ocean Cooling original 50-60 language groups is prob- reason this formation has been so poorly and the Ice Age ably impossible, but the information in understood is that it did not form by Steven Gollmer these two chapters gives one valuable conventional means. guidance and direction into queries of This study is being undertaken as Michael Oard has introduced an Ice anthropological and ethno-archaeologi- part of the Flood-Activated Sedimenta- Age model that fits within a recent cal studies. tion and Tectonics (FAST) project of creation time frame. This model be- the Coconino Sandstone funded by the gins with a well-mixed warm ocean National Creation Science Foundation and a stratosphere with a large amount (NCSF) and Calgary Rock and Materi- of volcanic dust. The warm oceans Genesis and the als Services. We thank them for their provide a ready source of water vapor, Demise of the Dinosaurs generous support. and the volcanic dust provides a strong Joel D. Klenck cooling mechanism not present today. This work was complemented by Larry The large taxonomic classifications of Vardiman’s modeling of precipitation terrestrial animal kinds, as defined by Double Beta Decay patterns using the community climate God, are discussed during the Creation as an Indicator model (CCM). Since the CCM focuses week, the Fall, the Flood, and thereafter. of Accelerated Decay on the atmosphere, warm oceans are The analysis suggests dinosaurs rapidly Gene Chaffin implemented as boundary conditions. declined after the Fall and before the Recent climate models use either a Noachian deluge. Conversely, after the Geological determinations of the half- dynamic ocean interface or a complete Fall, mammals increased markedly. A life of Te-130 and Se-82 for double ocean circulation model. This paper re- discussion follows as to the causations beta-decay are compiled and considered ports on progress made toward modeling for the extinction of Dinosauria. Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 235

The Region of Eden: HCF (highest common factor) of what than 0.2. Eventually the system becomes Analysis and Debate is common between science and religion unstable, leading to the formation of a Joel D. Klenck and every truth in between. single, fast-rotating subgiant FK Comae- Another helpful tool is to purge er- type star. This is the leading explanation The location of the region that contained roneous thinking from our construct of of the “blue straggler” population in star the Garden of Eden is controversial. reality. This is especially important if clusters. Several creationists suggest that it is not this thinking originated from such icons Long contact of the two stars causes possible to locate the region of Eden due as Aristotle, Galileo, Sir Issac Newton, the stars to equalize in temperature, and to the dramatic changes to the surface of and even Einstein, and if it originated the large star becomes the main source the earth during the Noachian Deluge. from such other sources as popes and of energy. This configuration means that However, I suggest that close analysis of high priests, the claim that everything the eclipses have equal depths. However, relevant Biblical passages and archae- physical is virtual particles, the myth in our study of eclipsing binaries, we ology and geology suggest a region for of closed systems in relationship to the have discovered two extreme mass-ratio Eden in Southeastern Anatolia. second law of thermodynamics, 5-way binaries with EB-type light curves—that miracles of light (seeing), life (entropy), is, the eclipse depths are quite different, gravitation as contact force of virtual and the component temperatures differ particles, correction constants of nature, by hundreds of Kelvins. The existence CRSforum and resolution of paradoxes (such as the of such binaries calls into question the Phil Haymaker and Lane Lester twin paradox, wave particle duality, etc.). long-age interpretation of such systems. What is more, GPS does not vindicate The two binaries and their creationary The purpose of the CRSforum is to Einstein’s theory of relativity, as it works implications will be discussed. provide a place for CRS members to not because of science but in spite of discuss any topic of interest to them science. and that might interest other members. We will discuss the purpose, basic use, Universe in Near Real Time and method of registration for the Steve Miller CRSforum. We will also consider the Ancient Binaries In A CRSforum purpose statement and show “Young” Configuration: There is speculation, even in secular the value of the CRSforum for all CRS The Strange Story Of V409 Hya circles, that the velocity of light has members. and GSC 2537-0520 been much greater in the past. We are Ronald G. Samec, Gregory Behn, going to propose, due to observational Heather A. Chamberlain, E. R. Figg, evidence, that the velocity of light may Christa M. Labadorf, be much faster in deep space right now. A Paradigm of Reality towards and Danny R. Faulkner The observational evidence that galaxy a Theory of Everything clusters appear the same no matter what Pal Asija Both V409 Hya and GSC 2537-0520 distance they are observed supports the are extreme mass-ratio binaries thought possibility we are actually seeing the This paper and concomitant presenta- to arise from billions of years of evolu- whole universe in near real time right tion explore a paradigm of reality as tion. During their history, the systems now. This viewpoint will be tested by our best hope for achieving the illusive began as detached binaries and have God Himself, and the evidence for this theory of everything. It is based on the gone through semidetached and contact is in Revelation 8:12. premise that there is But ONE Reality stages and finally an “over contact con- in here and out there and its search figuration” due to long ages of magnetic is based upon the premise that truth breaking as experienced by solar type agrees with truth regardless of its source stars and binaries. This causes a steady The Discovery of Design or label. The chances of success are but slow loss of angular momentum in Don B. DeYoung greatly increased by application of faith the binary system and its subsequent in science and application of reason coalescence. Contact and magnetic The name biomimicry is often given to and even experimentation in religion. breaking results in the slow absorption the discovering and copying of useful One technique employed is the use of of the smaller companion by the larger design ideas found in nature. The classic LCM (lowest common multiple) and star and an extreme mass ratio smaller example is Velcro, based on the sticky Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 236 Creation Research Society Quarterly seeds of the cocklebur. Some conclude Martin Luther? Since the Scopes trial, 10,000 feet of sedimentary rocks from that the credit must go to millions of Christians in general have conceded the Grand Canyon area during east-to- years of random mutations and natu- much of the public arena to the atheists northeast-flowing sheet currents. This ral selection. However, this approach and evolutionary bulldogs. The control event fits the sheet-flow phase during to explain optimum design in nature by these groups is grossly out of portion the early retreating stage of the Flood. fails for several reasons. An alternate to their numbers in the population of Then the Flood current reversed, prob- approach sees practical design features the USA. Is it time to reenter the battle ably because of the rise of the southern as embedded in the material universe of worldviews? Rocky Mountains, and channelized, by supernatural acts of creation for our flowing vigorously toward the west. It welfare. From a host of possibilities, was during this channelized-flow phase eight examples of intelligent design are of the late retreating stage that likely described. The Origin of Grand Canyon by carved Grand Canyon. Late-Flood Channelized Flow Michael Oard

The Origin of Grand Canyon by The Grand Canyon is a fascinating An Analysis of the Late-Flood Channelized Flow: place. Its origin is important to which Star of Bethlehem DVD Words, Definitions, paradigm of earth history is more Danny R. Faulkner and Thoughts in the Battle reasonable: the little-water-over-a- of Worldviews long-time, uniformitarian paradigm or Near Christmas in recent years the Star Horace D. Skipper a huge-amount-of-water-over-a-short- of Bethlehem DVD has been popular in time, catastrophic paradigm. However, Christian circles. We will discuss certain As we attempt to share the Creation uniformitarian scientists have had over claims made in the DVD, and we will message with others and why we believe 150 years to decipher its origin, and see that some of these claims are not it, the choice of words and stated or un- despite several hypotheses, which will supportable. stated definitions and implied thoughts be summarized, they fall far short in are important tools. Often one of the explaining the origin of Grand Canyon. contenders in the battle of worldviews Creationists possess two hypotheses: has or at least seems to control the a post-Flood dam-breach hypothesis A New Solution to the discussion based on word selections or and a late-Flood channelized-erosion Light-Travel Time Problem excludes some participants by selective hypothesis. The dam-breach hypothesis Danny R. Faulkner definitions. In order to be at the table comes in three versions but has numer- or on critical committees in the public ous problems. Two of these problems A number of solutions to the light-travel arena, we perhaps need to sharpen our seem fatal: (1) the lack of evidence for time problem have been proposed, but swords, be gentle with our words, and ponded lakes southeast and northeast of creationists have many problems with persevere for the sake of our families Grand Canyon and (2) the erosion of the various solutions. A new solution and our country. long, deep tributary canyons down to the will be presented, drawing upon possible Words to be addressed in this presen- level of Grand Canyon, both of which parallels of process between days three tation will be science, religion, evolu- will be discussed. A new hypothesis for and four of the Creation week. This new tion, and fetus. Have we elevated science the late-Flood channelized-erosion ori- solution to the light-travel time problem to the level of “a god,” or is science OK? gin will be fleshed out by showing from relies upon a miraculous mechanism but Are scientists the root of the problem? geomorphology that the Grand Canyon, assures us that the light that we see from Why is one religion allowed to dominate being just another of over a thousand distant objects actually left those objects the educational process and exclude water gaps, very likely was cut late in and that we likely see the entire universe any hints of disagreement? And what the Flood. The erosion started with the in something close to real time. could Planned Parenthood learn from Great Denudation that eroded 6,000 to

Minutes of the 2009 Creation Research Society Board of Directors Meeting

The forty-sixth annual Creation Re- (right) Pictured from left to right: search Society (CRS) Board of Direc- Russ Humphreys, Don DeYoung, tors (BOD) meeting was held 18–20 and Michael Oard June 2009, at the Embassy Suites LAX South. Present were Mark Armitage, (below) CRS Board Members. Ted Aufdemberge, Gene Chaffin, Pictured from left to right: Mi- Don DeYoung, Danny Faulkner, Russ chael Oard, Gary Locklair, Danny Humphreys, David Kaufmann, Jean Faulkner, Ronald Samec, David Lightner, Gary Locklair, Michael Oard, Kaufmann, Don DeYoung, Mark Armitage, Ron Samec, and Glen Wolfrom. Unable Gene Chaffi n, Ted Aufdemberge, Russ Humphreys, to attend were John Reed and David Glen Wolfrom, Kevin Anderson*, Jean Lightner, Rodabaugh. Diane Anderson* (*CRS Professional Staff)Staff) President Don DeYoung called the fi rst session of the general board meeting to order at 19:07 on Thursday, 18 June 2009. His fi rst order of business was to welcome the newest board member, Dr. Jean Lightner. President DeYoung outlined the logistics for the weekend: general board meeting on Thursday, committee meetings on Friday, a fi eld trip to the La Brea Tar Pits on Friday between committee meetings, the second session of the general board meeting on Saturday, and a CRS supporters’ banquet and reception Saturday evening. Don noted that the BOD had a full and busy Armitage, Gene Chaffi n, Jean Lightner, weekend of work managing the busi- board member Lane Lester brought John Reed, and Glen Wolfrom. A list of ness of the society. Mark Armitage was the sad news that he must resign from potential future candidates suggested thanked for his work in securing the the BOD due to several factors. A letter by the membership was presented. motel for our meeting. The motel was from emeritus board member Emmett Secretary Locklair noted that the CRS literally within walking distance of LAX Williams brought encouraging news of constitution and bylaws were being and near the Saturday evening banquet his recent successful surgery. updated and will be made available in facility. Recording Secretary Gary Locklair digital form via the CRS website. President DeYoung read a number of moved that the minutes of the 2008 President DeYoung reminded board letters addressed to the CRS, thanking BOD meeting be approved as printed members of their duties. Those duties in- the society for its contributions to the in the winter 2009 issue of the Creation clude participating in the CRS; working scientifi c understanding of the creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ). on committees; engaging in discussion; model. A letter from board member John Motion was approved. Gary provided becoming better informed about ac- Reed indicated his surgery rehabilitation results from the 2009 BOD election: 183 tivities of the CRS (via CRSQ, CRSnet, continues, and he hopes to join the BOD ballots were received, and the following Creation Matters, CRS newsletter, and at its next meeting. A letter from former were elected to three-year terms: Mark the CRS Web site); and considering Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 238 Creation Research Society Quarterly how their talents and training can be supervisor in the Denver area. wonderful adjective. Ted’s service with employed to promote CRS (e.g., when Gary Locklair reported on his visit Laborers for Christ was recognized. speaking). Between meetings board to the CRS archives during August Constitution committee chairman members continue to serve, promote 2008. The CRS archives are held at the Dave Kaufmann reported on their re- publications and the society, write, re- Concordia Historical Institute on the view of CRS documents (constitution, view, recruit new members, and prepare campus of Concordia Seminary in St. bylaws, position descriptions, etc.) and for future meetings. It was noted that the Louis, MO. The Institute is prepared to that the committee needs to update CRS is unique with a working research continue receiving CRS archival materi- those documents that are available on laboratory, and we support this research als; their facilities are ideal for archival the Web site. He reported on additional financially. storage. Ted Aufdemberge mentioned details related to the CRS archives at Financial Secretary Mark Armitage that the winter 2008 publication of the the Concordia Historical Institute. CHI provided an overview of finances and institute had an article on Lutherans as does not charge us for the archives but the budgeting process to be employed part of the CRS; this has given the society can provide help with organization, by committees. Mark stated that we some positive exposure. After discussion, cataloging, etc. The committee moved are riding out a challenging financial it was moved that the recording secretary that $500 be budgeted to pay CHI situation. look into procedures associated with our workers to assist in organizing the CRS Mark also previewed our trip to the archives. The motion passed. archives. Gary Locklair will be making La Brea Tar Pits. The museum provides President DeYoung shared that we several trips to CHI during August and a massive indoctrination of evolution to are the oldest creation organization and September to begin the organizational visitors. However, geological evidence the only one doing research. We enjoy a process. The committee will request a actually shows that the site underwent a good relationship with the other creation budget of $500. catastrophic deposition. Our tour guide organizations. Next year’s BOD meeting Internet committee chairman Gary will be creationary scientist Dave Phil- will be held in the Phoenix / Chino Val- Locklair reported on matters relating to lips, who has worked at the tar pits. ley, AZ area; tentative dates are 17–19 CRSnet, CRSforum, and the CRS Web Van Andel Creation Research Cen- June. The first session of the BOD meet- site. All three showed growth over the ter (VACRC) director Kevin Anderson ing adjourned at 20:35. past year. There were 150,000 unique previewed the CRS appreciation dinner. Friday, 19 June, was devoted to com- Web site page views recorded for the Los Angeles is a strong support area for mittee meetings and a trip to the La Brea period June 2008–June 2009. Source CRS. This banquet will allow us to thank Tar Pits. The internet and periodicals traffic to the CRS Web site is broken our supporters and introduce the BOD. committees met in the morning, with down as follows: 27% direct, 27% refer- A similar banquet is planned for Phoenix constitution, publications, finance, lab, ring site, and 46% search engine. Images next year. research, and membership committees on our site continue to be a good source Danny Faulkner provided informa- meeting in the afternoon. During the of search engine traffic. The outstand- tion on the upcoming CRS conference mid-morning hours, the board visited the ing work of volunteer webmaster Fred at the University of South Carolina, La Brea Tar Pits. Mark Armitage, Dave Williams was commended. The BOD Lancaster, from 10–11 July. Holding a Phillips, and BOD member emeritus will solicit a volunteer assistant for Fred, creation conference at a state university George Howe served as tour guides. as his workload continues to increase. is certainly rare. Twenty-six presenters The second part of the general board The committee will request a budget of are scheduled, including individuals meeting convened at 08:23 on 20 June $1000 for expenses related to the CRS from ICR and AIG. Up to 100 registered 2009. Web site. attendees are expected. Friday evening Ted Aufdemberge’s devotion began Don DeYoung, chairman of the John Whitcomb will give the Henry with a hymn originally published in lab committee, reviewed the state of Morris Memorial Lecture, to which Creation Matters, “God Created Earth VACRC facilities in Chino Valley, the general public has been invited. and Heaven” by Ralph Gillmann. Ted AZ. Some minor repairs are needed, The BOD thanked Danny for his hard recalled being asked by a student to de- along with several improvements (e.g., work and planning for this first general fine the word “creationist.” Ted replied a fume hood). A city project to extend meeting of the CRS. that the best description is found in the a major water line across CRS property Kevin Anderson provided an update beginning of the Creeds and in Luther’s is currently on hold, but we continue on his status. Kevin has worked for the explanation of the First Article. Ted has to monitor its status. Mark Armitage’s society part-time since December 2007. been influenced by great leaders of the SEM work, workshops, and intern- He is currently working as a research CRS and believes that “Biblical” is a ships were recognized. The committee Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society Volume 46, Winter 2010 239 extended Mark’s invitation to continue issues of CM were produced last year, was noted that a number of our titles are these efforts for another year. The com- and a new regular feature, tentatively available on Amazon.com. The commit- mittee renewed the contracts of Kevin named “Q&A with Jean Lightner,” will tee will investigate issues related to books and Diane Anderson and indicated that be introduced. Glen Wolfrom has asked on Amazon. Kevin may be returning to full-time to be replaced as the editor of Creation Gene Chaffi n, research committee status this year. Matters. The committee is seeking chairman, indicated the committee has a suitable replacement. The BOD reviewed its policies and procedures. thanked Glen for his hard work on Extensions for three projects were Creation MattersMatters over the years. approved: Grand Canyon geology, President DeYoung comment- electron microscope studies of mosses, eded oonn tthehe CCRSRS ddisplayisplay fforor tthehe AAIGIG and electron microscope studies of museum.museum. BoardBoard membersmembers withwith blue-green algae. Two new electron “milestones” of service microscope projects involving pyrenoids and diatoms were approved. It was noted that Mark’s work with the SEM is producing wonderful images. A three-year extension on the service contracts for both microscopes was approved. The committee anticipates that all current (above) Pictured from left to research will be completed during the right: Glen Wolfrom, Russ year. The CRS is the organization actu- Humphreys, Mark Armitage ally doing research, and there is some great research happening. Gene also shared some details of his new position GlenGlen Wolfrom,Wolfrom, membershipmembership com-com- at North Greenville University. mittee chairman, reminded the board (above) Pictured from left to right: Treasurer Danny Faulkner presented of the “challenge” extended to it regard- Gary Locklair, Ted Aufdemberge, information about fi scal year 2008–2009. ing recruitment of new CRS members. David Kaufmann The society will be close to a balanced Glen’s colorful report indicated that budget ($260,450) depending upon June membership has decreased from last were honored: Danny Faulkner, 5 years; income. Several questions regarding year. Globally, the total membership Michael Oard, 10 years; and Dave endowments and fund transfers were (1446) is allocated to 694 voting (+5), Kaufmann, 25 years. addressed. 740 sustaining (-19), and 12 student Publications chairman Mike Oard Financial secretary Mark Armitage (-2). Library subscriptions also have de- shared news of our benefi cial relation- put forth a number of proposals at the creased (-13), and new member renewal ship with Master Books. The CRS has recommendation of the society’s ac- rates continue to show a loss of more a good working relationship with Tim countant. than 40% after the fi rst year. There was Dudley and his crew at Master Books. (1) At previous meetings, we des- discussion regarding the reasons for the Mike indicated that the committee had ignated endowment withdrawals as high rate of initial loss. Glen was com- experienced very few problems this “loans.” Mark moved that these “loans” mended for his readable, detailed report. past year. Books slated to be published be considered expenditure of capital The committee will request a budget include Rock Solid Answers, Rocks are and not tracked internally as “loans.” of $11,800, which is reduced from last not Clocks, and a “coffee table” creation Discussion over the original intent of year’s approved budget. book. The committee has received and the wording revealed two points: we Periodicals committee chairman is reviewing a number of book proposals. wanted to make it diffi cult to use en- Gene Chaffi n shared reports from the Mike reported that publications showed dowment funds, and such “borrowing” editors of the CRSQ and Creation Mat- a good profi t margin last year, and book results in losing money for the society. ters. Kevin Anderson reported on an sales have increased even in the current It was passed that previous “loans” are upcoming “editor’s forum” (a written de- poor economy. Last year Master Books now considered withdrawals. During bate) in the CRSQ. The board thanked assisted us by publishing our resource discussion it was noted that executive Kevin for his work and especially his catalog. Mike will again ask Master board approval is needed before with- editorial comments in the CRSQ. Six Books about publishing the catalog. It drawing endowment funds between Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 240 Creation Research Society Quarterly board meetings, unless the full board in Chino Valley. Currently, the updated nonendowment funds to pay expenses; has preauthorized a withdrawal amount membership file is sent to Chino Valley the treasurer needs to be informed when for the coming fiscal year. Ted reminded on a 2–3 month interval. While this such transfers occur. the BOD that we are not to spend the doesn’t currently present a problem, Gary Locklair proposed Fellow status endowment monies themselves, only the we want to be responsive to member for member David Kaufmann. After interest generated by the funds. inquiries. If a member inquiry can’t Dave’s many accomplishments and years (2) Mark indicated that some bills be handled by the professional staff at of service to the society were reviewed, are not paid on a timely basis. It was Chino Valley, the matter will be referred he was unanimously elected a Fellow moved that reimbursements, receipts, to the membership secretary. of the CRS. and bills be submitted within 30 days of Treasurer Faulkner and financial Election of BOD officers was held. the end of a quarter. The exception to secretary Armitage led a discussion re- Don DeYoung was elected president, this policy is research funding. Motion lated to the 2009–2010 budget. Ted will Gene Chaffin was elected vice-presi- was approved. It was noted that original provide Mark with endowment value dent, Gary Locklair was elected record- receipts are required. Diane keeps re- figures so everyone is clear regarding the ing secretary, Glen Wolfrom was elected ceipts for approximately 10 years. The distinction between spendable and non- membership secretary, Mark Armitage BOD was reminded that approval for spendable amounts. Mark commended was elected financial secretary, and reimbursement should not come from the work of the society’s financial advisor, Danny Faulkner was elected treasurer. the originator. We need to maintain an who has done a masterful job in manag- The membership secretary, financial audit trail with checks and balances. ing CRS funds. Don reminded the board secretary, and treasurer were elected (3) There was discussion concerning to be careful in budgeting. We’ve been for three-year terms. Their service will the designation of subcontractor versus financially blessed, especially when be confirmed annually. employee for society part-time workers. compared to some other organizations, The BOD submitted the names of A motion to designate one of our part- and we want to maintain our high level Don DeYoung, Russ Humphreys, Gary time workers as a subcontractor rather of good stewardship. Locklair, and Ron Samec as candidates than an employee was tabled. Further The following committee budget for the 2010 BOD election. information about this will be requested requests were approved: research— While the meeting was adjourned from the society’s accountant. $30,000; periodicals—$47,500; at 12:15, board members remained in (4) It was moved that all information publications—$52,100; member- order to participate in the CRS banquet on CRS donations be sent to the profes- ship—$11,850; constitution—$500; held at the Proud Bird Restaurant begin- sional staff in Chino Valley for complete VACRC—$150,500; finance—$0; ning at 18:00. tracking and recording. After discussion, Internet—$1000; executive/treasurer— this motion was approved. $14,000. It was approved to operate with Respectfully submitted, (5) There was discussion concerning an expense budget of $307,450 for fiscal Dr. Gary Locklair, the timely transfer of information on 2009–2010. The BOD authorized the Recording Secretary memberships to the professional staff professional staff to move up to $25K of

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 Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 242 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.

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 ______

Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 244 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. Copyright 2010 Creation Research Society 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.