DOCSLIB.ORG

Creation, Evolution, and the Historical Evidence

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Creation, Evolution, and the Historical Evidence Creation,Evolution, and the Historical Evidence DUANE T. GISH classifiedand more or less colligated by being broughtunder general laws, and which includes trustworthymethods for the discoveryof new truth withinits own domain"(emphasis added). Thus,for a theoryto qualifyas a scientifictheory, it mustbe supportedby eventsor processesthat can be observedto occur,and the theorymust be useful * Althoughthe views presentedin this article are not acceptable to the majorityof life scientists,the in predictingthe outcome of future natural phenom- ena or laboratoryexperiments. An additionallimita- editorial stafffeels that our membershipshould be Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/35/3/132/30638/4444262.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 aware of the creationistposition as described by tion usually imposedis that the theorymust be Duane T. Gish. capable of falsification;that is, one mustbe able to conceivesome experiment the failure of which would disprovethe theory. It is on thebasis ofsuch criteria F OR A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING of the issuesto be dis- thatmost evolutionists insist that creation be refused cussedin thispaper, I mustbegin by definingevolu- considerationas a possibleexplanation for origins. tionand creation.When the term evolution is used it Creationhas not been witnessedby humanobserv- will referto the generaltheory of organicevolution, ers,it cannotbe testedscientifically, and as a theory or themolecules-to-man theory of evolution. Accord- it is nonfalsifiable. ing to this theoryall livingthings have arisen by The generaltheory of evolution (molecules-to-man naturalistic,mechanistic, evolutionary processes from theory)also failsto meetall threeof thesecriteria, a single living source,which itselfhad arisen by however.Dobzhansky (1958), while seeking to affirm similarprocesses from inanimate matter. These pro- the factualityof evolution,actually admits that it cesses are attributablesolely to propertiesinherent does notmeet the criteria of a scientifictheory, when in matterand are, therefore,still operativetoday. he says,"The occurrenceof the evolutionof life in Creationtheory postulates, on the otherhand, that the historyof the earthis establishedabout as well all basic animaland planttypes (the createdkinds) as eventsnot witnessed by humanobservers can be" werebrought into being by the acts of a preexisting (emphasisadded). Being by means of special processesthat are not Goldschmidt,who has insistedthat evolution is a operativetoday. The variationthat has occurred factfor which no furtherproof is needed,also re- since creationhas been restrictedwithin the limits veals its failureto meet the usual acceptedcriteria ofeach createdkind. fora scientifictheory. After outlining his postulated Evolutionistsadamantly insist that special creation systemic-mutation,or "hopeful monster," mechanism be excludedfrom any considerationas a possibleex- forevolution, Goldschmidt (1952, p. 94) states,"Such planationfor origins, because it does not qualifyas an assumptionis violentlyopposed by the majority a scientifictheory. The proponentsof evolution of geneticists,who claimthat the factsfound on the theoryat the same timewould view as unthinkable the considerationof evolutionas anythingless than pure science; and indeed most of theminsist that Duane T. Gish is associatedirector, Institute evolutionmust forCreation Research, and professorof nat- no longerbe thoughtof as a theory, ural science, Christian Heritage College, but mustbe consideredto be a fact. 2716 Madison Ave., San Diego, Calif. 92116. A 1949graduate, in chemistry,of the Univer- What Is Theory? sityof Californiaat Los Angeles,he received What Is Fact? his doctorate,in biochemistry,from the Uni- versity of California at Berkeley. During Whatcriteria must be metfor a theoryto be con- postdoctoralstudies at the Cornell Univer- sidered scientificin the usually accepted sense? sity Medical College he was a memberof Nobelist Vincent George GaylordSimpson (1964) has stated,"It is du Vigneaud's team that synthesizeda pituitaryhormone. inherentin any definitionof In 1956Gish went to the Virus Laboratoryof UC, Berkeley; sciencethat statements there he worked with Nobelist Wendell M. Stanley in the thatcannot be checkedby observationare notreally elucidationof the structureof the proteinof tobacco mosaic about anything . or at the very least, they are virus.From 1960to 1971he was engaged in pharmaceuticre- not science."A definitionof science in the Oxford search for the Upjohn Co., Kalamazoo, Mich.-a positionhe EnglishDictionary is "a branchof studywhich is relinquishedso as to give full time to the studyof creation- ism. Gish has publishedmany technicalpapers and has lec- concernedeither with a connectedbody of demon- tured widely. The presentpaper was presentedat the 1972 strated truthsor with observed facts systematically NABT convention. 132 THE AMERICANBIOLOGY TEACHER, MARCH 1973 sub-specificlevel must apply also to the higher cate- ofevolution, Professor Rene Chauvin and othernoted gories. Incessant repetition of this unproved claim, French biologists,and on his thoroughstudy of some glossinglightly over the difficulties,and the assump- 600 pages of biological data collected,in collaboration tion of an arrogantattitude toward those who are not with Mrs. Tetry,by the late Michael Cuenot, a biolo- so easily swayed by fashions in science, are consid- gist of internationalfame. Aime Michel's conclusion ered to affordscientific proof of the doctrine. It is is significant:the classical theoryof evolution in its true thatnobody thus far has produced a new species strictsense belongs to the past. Even if they do not or genus, etc., by macromutation.It is equally true publicly take a definitestand, almost all French spe- thatnobody has produced even a species by the selec- cialists hold today strong mental reservations as to tion of micromutations"(emphasis added). Later in the validityof natural selection." the same paper (p. 97) he says, "Neither has anyone E. C. Olson (1960, p. 523), one of the speakers at witnessed the production of a new specimen of a the Darwinian Centennial Celebration at Chicago, higher taxonomic categoryby selection of micromu- made the following statement on that occasion: tants." Goldschmidt has thus affirmedthat, in the "There exists, as well, a generally silent group of molecules-to-man context, only the most trivial students engaged in biological pursuits who tend to change, or that at the subspecies level, has actually disagree with much of the current thoughtbut say ever been observed. and write littlebecause they are not particularlyin- Furthermore,the architects of the modern syn- terested,do not see that controversyover evolution Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/35/3/132/30638/4444262.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 thetic theory of evolution have so skillfully con- is of any particular importance,or are so stronglyin structedtheir theorythat it is not capable of falsifi- disagreementthat it seems futile to undertake the cation. The theory is so plastic that it is capable of monumentaltask of controvertingthe immensebody explaining anything.This is the complaint of Olson of informationand theorythat exists in the formula- (1960, p. 530) and of several participants in the tion of modern thinking.It is, of course, difficultto Wistar Symposium on Mathematical Challenges to judge the size and compositionof this silent segment, the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution but there is no doubt that the numbers are not in- (Moorhead and Kaplan, 1967)-even includingErnst considerable." Mayr, a leading exponent of the theory.Eden (1967, Fothergill (1961) refers to what he calls "the p. 71), one of the mathematicians,puts it this way, paucity of evolutionarytheory as a whole." Ehrlich with referenceto falsifiability:"This cannot be done and Holm (1962) have stated their reservations in in evolution,taking it in its broad sense, and this is the followingway: "Finally, consider the thirdques- really all I meant when I called it tautologousin the tion posed earlier: 'What accounts for the observed firstplace. It can, indeed,explain anything.You may patterns in nature?' It has become fashionable to be ingenious or not in proposinga mechanismwhich regardmodern evolutionary theory as the only possi- looks plausible to human beings and mechanisms ble explanation of these patterns rather than just which are consistentwith other mechanisms which the best explanation that has been developed so far. you have discovered, but it is still an unfalsifiable It is conceivable, even likely, that what one might theory." facetiouslycall a non-Euclidean theoryof evolution lies over the horizon. Perpetuation of today's theory A Rising Tide of Criticism as dogma will not encourage progress toward more satisfactoryexplanations of observed phenomena." In addition to scientists who are creationists,a Sometirrmesthe attacks are openly critical. Such is growing number of other scientists have expressed Danson's letter that appeared recently in New Sci- doubts that modern evolution theory could explain entist.He states in part, "The Theory of Evolution is more than trivial change. Eden (1967, p. 109) is so no longer with us, because neo-Darwinism is now discouraged, after a thorough consideration of the acknowledged as being unable to explain anything modern theory from a probabilistic point of view, more than trivial changes and in default of some that he proclaims, "an adequate scientifictheory of other theorywe have none. despite
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Baraminological Analysis of the Land Fowl (Class Aves, Order Galliformes)
    Galliform Baraminology 1 Running Head: GALLIFORM BARAMINOLOGY A Baraminological Analysis of the Land Fowl (Class Aves, Order Galliformes) Michelle McConnachie A Senior Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation in the Honors Program Liberty University Spring 2007 Galliform Baraminology 2 Acceptance of Senior Honors Thesis This Senior Honors Thesis is accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation from the Honors Program of Liberty University. ______________________________ Timothy R. Brophy, Ph.D. Chairman of Thesis ______________________________ Marcus R. Ross, Ph.D. Committee Member ______________________________ Harvey D. Hartman, Th.D. Committee Member ______________________________ Judy R. Sandlin, Ph.D. Assistant Honors Program Director ______________________________ Date Galliform Baraminology 3 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, without Whom I would not have had the opportunity of being at this institution or producing this thesis. I would also like to thank my entire committee including Dr. Timothy Brophy, Dr. Marcus Ross, Dr. Harvey Hartman, and Dr. Judy Sandlin. I would especially like to thank Dr. Brophy who patiently guided me through the entire research and writing process and put in many hours working with me on this thesis. Finally, I would like to thank my family for their interest in this project and Robby Mullis for his constant encouragement. Galliform Baraminology 4 Abstract This study investigates the number of galliform bird holobaramins. Criteria used to determine the members of any given holobaramin included a biblical word analysis, statistical baraminology, and hybridization. The biblical search yielded limited biosystematic information; however, since it is a necessary and useful part of baraminology research it is both included and discussed.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution and Original Sin: Accounting for Evil in the World by Dr
    Evolution and Original Sin: Accounting for Evil in the World by Dr. Daryl P. Domning and Dr. Joseph F. Wimmer The Washington Theological Consortium (WTC) produced this discussion guide as part of a series titled "At the Crossroads of Science and Theology." The series aims to connect the interests and expertise of faculty in Washington-area theological schools with the questions and concerns of people in congregations regarding the relationship between science and religion. We hope to bring theological reflection and scientific research to adult education groups, in an interdisciplinary and ecumenical exploration of fundamental issues in this relationship. You may contact WTC at (202) 832-2675 for further information about this series, or visit the organizaton's Web site at http://washtheocon.org . The$Washington$Theological$Consortium$is$a$community$of$Theological$Schools$of$diverse$Christian$ traditions—with$partners$in$education,$spirituality$and$interfaith$dialogue—that$supports$ ecumenical$unity$and$interfaith$understanding$in$four$ways:$ $ • By$supporting$ecumenical$study$and$dialogue$that$explores$the$distinct$theological$traditions$of$ the$churches,$analyzes$barriers$to$Christian$unity,$and$explores$opportunities$for$shared$public$ witness.$$ $ • By$providing$an$ecumenical$context$for$equipping$clergy$and$laity$to$serve$the$mission$and$ ministry$of$the$Church$in$the$world$through$diverse$communities$and$in$ways$that$witness$to$ the$unity$that$is$ours$in$Christ.$$ $ • By$providing$member$institutions$the$means$of$sharing$their$rich$theological,$spiritual,$and$ practical$resources$by$developing$programs$and$services$that$are$best$done$in$collaboration,$ and$which$enrich$the$mission$and$programs$of$each$member.$$ $ • By$engaging$in$interreligious$study$and$dialogue,$with$members$of$other$faiths,$$that$explore$the$ differences$and$shared$values$of$the$theologies$and$practices$of$the$great$world$religions.$$$ $ $ About the Authors Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Science Destroys the Evolutionary Paradigm
    SCIENCE DESTROYS THE EVOLUTIONARY PARADIGM An Inservice Manual for Young-Earth Creationists Free Images – Snappygoat.com Materialistic Naturalism, an Immoral and Incoherent Philosophy!!! Dr. Jim Pagels – 4/18/2018 1 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. Isaiah 55:9-11 This book along with its predecessors including Apologetic Resources, Lesson Plans for Biblical Apologetics and Touching Lives through Apologetics, a Counseling Perspective are offered free for personal and professional use in ministry, being available as downloads on the Michigan District website under schools-curriculum. Scriptural references are typically taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) although the King James Version (KJV) is also periodically utilized. 2 Contents Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………..…….5 Preface…………………………………………………………………………………………...6 Intended Audience ……………………………………………………………………………....8 Inservice Perspective……….…………………………………………………………….……..9 Inservice Questionnaire……………………………………………………………..…………10 1. Evolution, an Attack on the Supernatural Nature of God…………………………………..21 2. In Search of Truth…………………………………………………………………………..23 3. Creation Apologetics, Simple for Some, Incomprehensible to Others………..……..…….35 4. Two Typical Approaches to Young Earth Creationism……………………………………38 5. The Absolute Veracity of the Supernatural…………………….…………………………..40 6. A Tactical Approach to Creationism………………………….………………………..…..43 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Theism Everything Can Be Agnosticism Explained on the Basis of Natural Law
    O3 SB Three • Spring Board to Life • Chapter Three • By Pastor Dan Domke Six Day Creation Number of Days of Creation. –Six Day Creation not millions of years. –With in six days, everything was created. –Plants – for food –All the animals, fish, birds, cattle etc. –And finally Man Genesis is scientific, just in a different way than modern day science. • Lineus – classification Key – By structure • e.g. radial summitry, bi-lateral summitry • Biblical classification Key – By habitat • Sky –Water- Land • Not unscientific just a different methodology Baraminology- Bara=created / Min = Kind •Study of created kind. Science - Knowledge • Descriptive Science - Based on Fact • Prescriptive • Based on Assumptions Secular World View –Evolutionary Materialism –Uniformitarianism –Man a chance and random product of evolution, has no more intrinsic value than other animals. In practice – man –Man is lefthas to fendless for value Himself. than – No God or if there is He/She is impersonal.the animals. Biblical World View 1. Creationism 2. Catastrophism 3. Man is the result of special creation, created by God to be in fellowship with Him. And to care for the planet. 4. Man is above the animals and has infinite value. 5. God provides everything for man’s life, and knowledge, (science) etc. 6. God is the living God, and He is personal. Two World Views Compared REALITY Naturalism The material universe is all that exists. Reality is "one-dimensional." There is no such thing as a soul or a spirit. Atheism Everything can be Agnosticism explained on the basis of natural law. Existentialism Two World Views Compared Naturalism MAN Man is the chance product of a biological process of evolution.
    [Show full text]
  • The Global Flood of Noah
    THE GLOBAL FLOOD OF NOAH by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. DEDICATION This book is dedicated with deep appreciation to Joe and Beryl Nisbet, two “wee Scots” who, as husband and wife, have devoted their entire adult lives to teaching the Gospel in their native Scot- land and who, through their many personal sacrifices and exemplary conduct on behalf of the Lord and His church, have become such an endearing example for everyone around them. APOLOGETICS PRESS, INC. 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117-2752 © Copyright 1986 Revised Editions © Copyright 1999, 2005 ISBN: 0-932859-78-X All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in articles or critical reviews. -i- TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................1 Mankind’s Response to the Genesis Flood .....................................1 CHAPTER 2 THE FLOOD IN SCRIPTURE AND HISTORY....................5 The Importance of the Doctrine of the Global Flood ......................5 The Reason for the Flood................................................................6 Supernatural Elements of the Flood ................................................8 The Ubiquity of Flood Stories.........................................................9 CHAPTER 3 THE GLOBAL FLOOD OF NOAH.......................................11 The Antediluvian World ...............................................................11 The Necessity of Constructing
    [Show full text]
  • Creation /Evolution
    Creation /Evolution • •^'•vs A Creationist Walk Through the Grand Canyon : Issue XX : : :: CONTENTS ; . Spring 1987 ARTICLES :;/ •:: ::- •; '•• •;. ':'••. •';•• ••• •' •••••••• •• .'• •. I A. Creationist Walk Through the Grand Canyon by Thomas Mclver 13 Fossil Insects: Pests of Creatioh by Gene Kritsky 19 Design; Created Kinds, and Engineering by FrancisJ, Arduini 25 Tbe Origin of Species by Punctuated Equilibria byi Frank J, Sonleitner : •REVIEWS.. :. .•-.-;;.: • ;• •;. ; • . .. ; . ; ; . ' ; 31 Reviews . ; . ' .'. ;. .• ' ;' ' V • v .". ... : . 39 Letters to the Edit or :• • • .. LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED About this issue ... For years, the Institute for Creation Research has made much of its fre- quent student expeditions to the Grand Canyon. Since we have so often published investigations of other creationist "field research." we began to feel that it was about time we reported on one of these. Torn Mclver, a cultural anthropologist who had gained the confidence of the ICR. felt the same way and. In June 1985, went down into the Grand Canyon with a creationist study group. His recently completed and quite detailed report on the actual nature of that expedition, this issue's lead article, is an eye-opener. If you had thought that creationist "field research" on Mount Ararat and along the Paluxy River was short on scientific merit and objectivity, you will be amazed at how much less there is of it in these regular ICR treks. According to Henry Morris's cover letter accom- panying the April .1987 Acts & Facts, creationist students will once again enjoy "the inspiration and excitement of the ICR Grand Canyon Tour, climaxed by a glorious Easter morning service on the Canyon rim." From Tom Mclver's article, you will see how Morris's statement sums up the actual purpose of these trips so nicely.
    [Show full text]
  • ANOPA: 'Statistical' Systematics for Young-Earth Creationists
    ARTICLE ANOPA: ‘Statistical’ Systematics for Young-Earth Creationists Dan Bolnick, University of Texas, Austin reationists has been working hard to make been active members in the Baraminology Study Ctheir views appear as legitimate science. Part Group, whose website proclaims its “ultimate goal is of this strategy has been to get papers pub- to develop origin models that accommodate empiri- lished in peer-reviewed scientific journals. cal data in a biblical framework of earth history Creationists have used two strategies to achieve this through scientifically sound analysis of biological data goal. First, the recent review paper on “intelligent and scholarly analysis of biblical texts” design” (Meyer 2004) in the Proceedings of the (<http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/aboutmain.html>). Biological Society of Washington was published by To this end, Cavanaugh has been developing a bypassing the normal peer review process.According quantitative method for identifying whether a collec- to a recent statement from the Council that publishes tion of species represent a single “created kind”or are the journal, the editor Richard Sternberg handled the sufficiently distinct as to qualify as members of differ- paper in a manner “contrary to typical editorial prac- ent holobaramins. This method,called ‘Analysis of tices”(<http://www.biolsocwash.org/>). Pattern’(ANOPA) is touted as a method to “reduce the The second approach is to sanitize the content of dimensionality of multi-dimensional data with mini- the paper. Two other papers written by creationists mal loss of information and no assumptions about the have been published in peer reviewed journals in data’s distribution”(Wood and Cavanaugh 2003: 2).
    [Show full text]
  • The Beginning Linda Ebert Student Handout 1
    A Bible Overview, Session 1: The Beginning Student Handout Genesis 1:1: Attributes of God 1. God is eternal • By creating a beginning, God started time 2. God is the Creator • God created “ex nihilo”= out of nothing 3. God is separate/distinct from His creation Day 1: • Time • The “heavens” = space Building blocks of the universe: • matter • light The light-dark cycle establishes a system of measuring time Day 2: space between the waters= sky Day 3: God separated the waters and dry land appeared and vegetation Day 4: “God made two great lights”: sun and moon and also stars Day 5: fish and birds • KIND: if two things can breed together they are of the same created kind. Day 6: • animals • humans: “Let us make humans beings in our image to be like us.” Genesis 1:26 o “Elohim”= plural noun with singular meaning o “Trinity” concept introduced: ABOV- 2020 Spring Session 1: The Beginning 1 Linda Ebert Student Handout www.abibleoverview.org o One God, three distinct Persons, all involved in creation: § Genesis 1:2 § John 1:1-4 o humans, male and female, made “in the image of God” (Genesis 1:27) o charge to humans Genesis 2 God formed Adam from the dust of the ground & breathed life into him God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden • “tree of life” • “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” o Warning: may eat of every tree “except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” because “If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die.” • God made Eve from Adam’s rib o “male” and “female”, “man” and “wife”, “united into one” o Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 quoted by Jesus in Matthew 19:4,5 ABOV- 2020 Spring Session 1: The Beginning 2 Linda Ebert Student Handout www.abibleoverview.org Creation: God says vs the world says: God says: • He existed before creation • He created time (a beginning), measured in days • He spoke creation into existence • His Creation is ordered and He sustains it.
    [Show full text]
  • The Beginning Linda Ebert Script Facilitator
    ABOV- Session 1: The Beginning Script Facilitator Slide: Summary Introduction • Bible is unique in: o how it’s written o it’s circulation o it’s survival o its predictive prophecy- 1000 of them with 700 already fulfilled o its content • Organizational structure: Historical Highway handout • 12 themes will be used, which connect dots throughout history of Bible • YouVersion.com Start video- Session 1: The Beginning (Video clip SR-01A 00:00.0) Welcome to A Bible OverView session one and the book of Genesis which means "beginning." It starts out telling us the creation of the universe, the earth, and life on the earth in an easy to follow chronological manner. Although there were no witnesses to creation and we cannot recreate it in a laboratory, the Bible's account reveals the creation process using days with God as the Creator. Let’s read about these days starting with chapter one. * Day 1. Genesis 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. In the first ten words of Genesis 1:1 we learn about several attributes of God. First, we learn God is eternal, when it says, “In the beginning God…” This means God has no beginning. He has always been. He was not created and is outside of time. By creating a beginning, God started time. We think of time as a line. We “remember” the past, “live” in the present, and “expect” the future. But there was no time before creation. End video SR-01A (1:28:36) Slide: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1 • How would you answer someone who asked “Who created God?” o No one did.
    [Show full text]
  • The CRS Ekinds Research Initiative: Where We Have Been and Where We Are Headed from Here
    The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism Volume 8 Print Reference: Pages 185-190 Article 25 2018 The CRS eKINDS research initiative: Where we have been and where we are headed from here Jean K. Lightner Liberty University Kevin Anderson Creation Research Society Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings Part of the Biology Commons DigitalCommons@Cedarville provides a publication platform for fully open access journals, which means that all articles are available on the Internet to all users immediately upon publication. However, the opinions and sentiments expressed by the authors of articles published in our journals do not necessarily indicate the endorsement or reflect the views of DigitalCommons@Cedarville, the Centennial Library, or Cedarville University and its employees. The authors are solely responsible for the content of their work. Please address questions to [email protected]. Browse the contents of this volume of The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism. Recommended Citation Lightner, J.K., and K. Anderson. 2018. The CRS eKINDS research initiative: Where we have been and where we are headed from here. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism, ed. J.H. Whitmore, pp. 185–190. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship. Lightner, J.K., and K. Anderson. 2018. The CRS eKINDS research initiative: Where we have been and where we are headed from here. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism, ed. J.H. Whitmore, pp. 185–190. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship. THE CRS eKINDS RESEARCH INIATIVE: WHERE WE HAVE BEEN AND WHERE WE ARE HEADED FROM HERE Jean K.
    [Show full text]
  • How Postcreationism's Claim of Hyperrapid Speciation Opposes Yet
    Duf et al. Evo Edu Outreach (2020) 13:9 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-020-00124-w Evolution: Education and Outreach REVIEW ARTICLE Open Access Dissent with modifcation: how postcreationism’s claim of hyperrapid speciation opposes yet embraces evolutionary theory R. Joel Duf1* , Thomas R. Beatman2 and David S. MacMillan III3 Abstract The development of creationism to its multiple modern forms has been made possible in part by its appropriation and misuse of mainstream scientifc terms. Here we illustrate how anti-evolutionary advocates have redefned the terms macroevolution and microevolution to advance their view of the origins of biological diversity. We identify and describe an ideological movement within modern young-earth creationism we call postcreationism, those that have embraced a hyperrapid speciation model of the origin of biological diversity. Postcreationism is demonstrated with specifc examples from young-earth creationist publications and Ark Encounter creationist theme park, with takea- ways for addressing these ideas in evolutionary biology education. Keywords: Young-earth creationism, Creationist, Macroevolution, Microevolution, Evolution, Natural selection, Postcreationism, Ark Encounter Introduction of living things, including humans, on earth were inde- Young-earth creationism, also known variously as literal- pendently created at about the same time as the earth. day creationism, literal creationism, or creation science, In their description of natural history, the supernatural is a movement dedicated to providing
    [Show full text]
  • The Biota and Logistics of Noah's Ark
    The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism Volume 3 Print Reference: Pages 623-632 Article 55 1994 The Biota and Logistics of Noah's Ark John Woodmorappe Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings DigitalCommons@Cedarville provides a publication platform for fully open access journals, which means that all articles are available on the Internet to all users immediately upon publication. However, the opinions and sentiments expressed by the authors of articles published in our journals do not necessarily indicate the endorsement or reflect the views of DigitalCommons@Cedarville, the Centennial Library, or Cedarville University and its employees. The authors are solely responsible for the content of their work. Please address questions to [email protected]. Browse the contents of this volume of The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism. Recommended Citation Woodmorappe, John (1994) "The Biota and Logistics of Noah's Ark," The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism: Vol. 3 , Article 55. Available at: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings/vol3/iss1/55 THE BIOTA AND LOGISTICS OF NOAH'S ARK JOHN WOODMORAPPE M. S. GEOLOGY, B. S. GEOLOGY, B. S. BIOLOGY 6505 N. NASHVILLE #301 CHICAGO, IL 60631 KEYWORDS Noah, Ark, Apologetics, Genesis, Flood, Vertebrate Taxonomy, Vertebrate Zoology, Vertebrate Husbandry. ABSTRACT This report investigates the identity and housing of approximately 16,000 animals on Noah's Ark. An evaluation of the housing, feeding, and watering requirements of these animals demonstrate the feasibility of the Ark account. INTRODUCTION Until the late 18th century, only a few hundred mammalian species were known (77).
    [Show full text]