Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

The origin of life: DNA and protein

by Dr. Gary Parker

The two basic parts of the tumbled pebble and the arrowhead we considered are hard and soft rock. Two basic parts of every living system are DNA and protein.

DNA is the famous molecule of heredity. It has been on the cover of Time magazine, and we often hear news stories about it. This is the molecule that gets passed down from one generation to the next. Each of us starts off as a tiny little ball about the size of a period on a printed page. In that tiny ball, there are over six feet (2m) of DNA all coiled up. All of our characteristics (height, skin color, etc.) are “spelled out” in that DNA.

What are proteins? Proteins are the molecules of structure and function. Hair is mostly protein; skin cells are packed full of proteins; the enzymes that break down food and build it up are proteins; the filaments that slide together to make muscles work are proteins.

So, DNA and protein are two basic “parts” of every living system. When you get down to a virus, that’s all you find—DNA and protein. (In some viruses, RNA substitutes for DNA.) The DNA molecules code for the protein molecules that make us what we are. That same principle applies to all life forms: viruses, plants, animals, as well as human beings.

My students study all of the details,2 but DNA and protein molecules are really quite simple in their basic structure. If you can picture a string of pearls, you can picture DNA: it is a chain of repeating units. Fig. 2-A is a diagram of a DNA molecule. The parts that look like railroad box cars are sugar and phosphate groups, and the parts that stick out from each box car in the chain are groups called bases.

Proteins are built in about the same way. Proteins are also chains of repeated units. As shown in Fig. 2-B, the links in protein chains are called amino acids. In all living things, inherited chains of DNA bases are used to line up chains of amino acids. These amino-acid chains are the protein molecules responsible for structure and function. For example, chains of several hundred DNA bases tell the cell how to make a protein called hemoglobin, and that protein functions as the oxygen carrier in red blood cells. In short form, DNA→protein→trait, and that relationship is the physical basis of all life on earth.

Now, what about that relationship between DNA and protein? How did it get started? Evolutionists picture a time long ago when the earth might have been quite different. They imagine that fragments of DNA and fragments of protein are produced. These molecules are supposed to “do what comes naturally” over vast periods of time. What’s going to happen? Will time, chance, and chemical reactions between DNA and protein automatically produce life?

At first you might think so. After all, nothing is more natural than a reaction between acids and bases. Perhaps you’ve used soda (a base) to clean acid from a battery. The fizz is an acid-base reaction. So is using “Tums” to neutralize stomach acid. Nothing is more common than reactions between acids and bases. If you just wait long enough, acid-base reactions will get DNA and protein working together, and life will appear—right? Wrong! Just the opposite.

The problem is that the properties of bases and acids produce the wrong relationship for living systems. Acid-base reactions would “scramble up” DNA and protein units in all sorts of “deadly” combinations. These reactions would prevent, not promote, the use of DNA to code protein production. Since use of DNA to code protein production is the basis of all life on earth, these acid-base reactions would prevent, not promote, the evolution of life by chemical processes based on the inherent properties of matter.

These wrong reactions have produced serious problems for Stanley Miller, Sidney Fox, and other scientists trying to do experiments to support chemical evolution. Almost all biology books have a picture of Miller’s famous spark chamber (Fig. 3). In it, Miller used simple raw materials and electric sparks to produce amino acids and other simple molecules—the so-called “building blocks of life.” Some newspapers reported that Miller had practically made “life in a test tube.”

Miller’s experiment was brilliant, and I loved to tell my students about it. But then I came to see there were just three little problems: he had the wrong starting materials, used the wrong conditions, and got the wrong results.

What do I mean by “wrong starting materials?” Miller left out oxygen. Why? Because of the scientific evidence? No. He left it out because he knew oxygen would destroy the very molecules he was trying to produce. It’s hard for us to realize how “corrosive” oxygen is, since most modern living things depend on it. But oxygen is so valuable to life precisely because it’s so chemically reactive, and aerobic living things today have systems to protect themselves against the harmful effects of oxygen, while using its chemical power to their advantage. (Anaerobic organisms and most viruses are quickly destroyed by contact with oxygen.)

A. I. Oparin, the Russian biochemist who “fathered” modern views of spontaneous generation or chemical evolution, knew oxygen in the atmosphere would prevent evolution. But he also “knew,” by faith in Engels’ materialistic philosophy (the view that matter is the only reality), that creation was impossible (there was no spiritual dimension). As an act of faith, then, Oparin believed evolution must have occurred, and as a concession to his faith, he left oxygen out. Science has not been kind to that belief. We find oxidized rocks, suggesting an oxygen atmosphere, as deep as we can dig.

Furthermore, methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3), two prime gases in the Miller spark chamber, could not have been present in large amounts. The ammonia would be dissolved in the oceans, and the methane should be found stuck to ancient (deep) sedimentary clays. It’s not there! Those who still believe in chemical evolution are aware of these problems (as is Miller himself), so they are simply trying (as yet unsuccessfully) to simulate the origin of life using different starting materials. (Carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide are two popular, if unlikely, gases being used today.)

Wrong conditions? Miller used an electric spark to get the gas molecules to combine, and that works. Problem: the same electric spark that puts amino acids together also tears them apart. And it’s much better at destroying them than making them, meaning, few if any amino acids would actually accumulate in the spark chamber. Miller, a good biochemist, knew that, of course. So he used a common chemist’s trick. He drew the gases out of the spark chamber and into a “trap” that would save the amino acids from destruction by the same electric spark that made them. Using product removal (the principle of LeChatelier or law of mass action) to increase yield is ordinary chemical practice, but it depends on intervention by informed intelligence. Miller was supposed to be demonstrating that the gases could make the “building blocks of life” all by themselves without any outside help, yet his outside, intelligent help was necessary to save the molecules from their destructive chemical fate. (Moreover, creating life in a test tube as a consequence of intelligent design would offer more support to creation than to evolution.)

Wrong results? How could that be? Miller wanted to make amino acids, and he got amino acids (along with sugars and a few other things). How could those results be wrong?

The proteins in living cells are made of just certain kinds of amino acids, those that are “alpha” (short) and “left-handed.” Miller’s “primordial soup” contained many long (beta, gamma, delta) amino acids and equal numbers of both right-and left-handed forms. Problem: just one long or right-handed amino acid inserted into a chain of short, left-handed amino acids would prevent the coiling and folding necessary for proper protein function. What Miller actually produced was a seething brew of potent poisons that would absolutely destroy any hope for the chemical evolution of life.

The “left-handed amino acid problem” is particularly well-known to evolutionists, and several have been trying to solve it. One brilliant researcher, after working unsuccessfully for years on the problem, just smiled and chuckled when asked about it: “Perhaps God is left-handed.” He may have been closer to the truth than he realized. From what we know about the chemistry of the molecules involved, it really looks like the molecules could never put themselves together into living cells apart from the careful selection, engineering genius, and deliberate design of the Transcendent Creative Intelligence we call God!

Chemistry, then, is not our ancestor; it’s our problem. When cells lose their biological order and their molecules start reacting in chemical ways, we die. A dead body contains all the molecules necessary for life and approximately the right amount of each, but we never see a “road kill” get up and walk off because sunlight energy shining on the carcass made all the molecules of life start working together again. What’s lost at death are balance and biological order that otherwise use food to put us together faster than chemistry tears us apart! (See Parker,3,4; Bliss and Parker5; Wilder-Smith6; and Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen7 for details.)

Time and chance are no help to the evolutionist either, since time and chance can only act on inherent chemical properties. Trying to throw “life” on a roll of molecular dice is like trying to throw a “13” on a pair of gaming dice. It just won’t work. The possibility is not there, so the probability is just plain zero.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

The relationship between DNA and protein required for life is one that no chemist would ever suspect. It’s using a series of bases (actually taken three at a time) to line up a series of R-groups (Fig. 4). R-groups are the parts of each amino acid that “stick out” along the protein chain. “R” stands for the “variable radical,” and variable it is! An R-group can be acid; it can be a base; it can be a single hydrogen atom, a short chain, a long chain, a single ring, a double ring, fat-soluble, or water-soluble!

The point is this: there is no inherent chemical tendency for a series of bases (three at a time) to line up a series of R-groups in the orderly way required for life. The base/R-group relationship has to be imposed on matter; it has no basis within matter.

The relationship between hard and soft rock in the arrowhead in Fig. 1 had to be imposed from the outside. All of us could recognize that matter had been shaped and molded according to a design that could not be produced by time, chance, and weathering processes acting on the hard and soft rock involved. In the same way, our knowledge of DNA, protein, and their chemical properties should lead us to infer that life also is the result of plan, purpose, and special acts of creation.

Let me use a simpler example of the same kind of reasoning. Suppose I asked you this question: “Can aluminum fly?” Think a moment. Can aluminum fly? I’m sure that sounds like a trick question. By itself, of course, aluminum can’t fly. Aluminum ore in rock just sits there. A volcano may throw it, but it doesn’t fly. If you pour gasoline on it, does that make it fly? Pour a little rubber on it; that doesn’t make it fly either. But suppose you take that aluminum, stretch it out in a nice long tube with wings, a tail, and a few other parts. Then it flies; we call it an airplane.

Did you ever wonder what makes an airplane fly? Try a few thought experiments. Take the wings off and study them; they don’t fly. Take the engines off, study them; they don’t fly. Take the little man out of the cockpit, study him; he doesn’t fly. Don’t dwell on this the next time you’re on an airplane, but an airplane is a collection of non-flying parts! Not a single part of it flies!

What does it take to make an airplane fly? The answer is something every scientist can understand and appreciate, something every scientist can work with and use to frame hypotheses and conduct experiments. What does it take to make an airplane fly? Creative design and organization.

Take a look at the features of a living cell diagrammed in Fig. 5. Don’t worry; I am not going to say much about this diagram. Just notice the DNA molecule in the upper left circle and the protein in the lower right. What are all the rest of those strange looking things diagrammed in the cell? Those represent just a few of the molecules that a cell needs to make just one protein according to the instructions of just one DNA molecule. A cell needs over 75 “helper molecules,” all working together in harmony, to make one protein (R-group series) as instructed by one DNA base series. A few of these molecules are RNA (messenger, transfer, and ribosomal RNA); most are highly specific proteins.8

When it comes to “translating” DNA’s instructions for making proteins, the real “heroes” are the activating enzymes. Enzymes are proteins with special slots for selecting and holding other molecules for speedy reaction. As shown in Fig. 5 (Circle 3), each activating enzyme has five slots: two for chemical coupling (c, d), one for energy (ATP), and, most importantly, two to establish a non-chemical three-base “code name” for each different amino acid R-group (a, b). You may find that awe-inspiring, and so do my cell-biology students!

And that’s not the end of the story. The living cell requires at least 20 of these activating enzymes I call “translases,” one for each of the specific R-group/code name (amino acid/tRNA) pairs. Even so, the whole set of translases (100 specific active sites) would be (1) worthless without ribosomes (50 proteins plus rRNA) to break the base-coded message of heredity into three-letter code names; (2) destructive without a continuously renewed supply of ATP energy to keep the translases from tearing up the pairs they are supposed to form; and (3) vanishing if it weren’t for having translases and other specific proteins to re-make the translase proteins that are continuously and rapidly wearing out because of the destructive effects of time and chance on protein structure!

But let’s forget about all the complexity of the DNA-protein relationship and just remember two simple points. First, it takes specific proteins to make specific proteins. That may remind you of the chicken-and-egg problem: how can you get one without the other? That problem is solved, if the molecules needed for “DNA-protein translation” are produced by creation.

Second, among all the molecules that translate DNA into protein, there’s not one molecule that is alive. There’s not a single molecule in your body that’s alive. There’s not a single molecule in the living cell that’s alive. A living cell is a collection of non-living molecules! What does it take to make a living cell alive? The answer is something every scientist recognizes and uses in a laboratory, something every scientist can logically infer from his observations of DNA and protein. What does it take to make a living cell alive? Creative design and organization!

Only creative acts could organize matter into the first living cells. But once all the parts are in place, there is nothing “magical” or “mysterious “ in the way cells make proteins. If they are continually supplied with the right kind of energy and raw materials, and if all 75-plus of the RNA and protein molecules required for DNA-protein “translation” are present in the right places at the right times in the right amounts with the right structure, then cells make proteins by using DNA’s base series (quite indirectly!) to line up amino acids at the rate of about two per second. In ways scientists understand rather well, it takes a living cell only about four minutes to “crank out” an average protein (500 amino acids) according to DNA specifications.

Scientists also understand how airplanes fly. For that very reason, no scientist believes that airplanes are the result of time, chance, and the properties of aluminum and other materials that make up the airplane. Flying is a property of organization, not of substance. A Boeing 747, for example, is a collection of 41/2 million non-flying parts, but thanks to design and creation (and a continuous supply of energy and of repair services!), it flies.

Similarly, “life” is a property of organization, not of substance. A living cell is a collection of several billion non-living molecules, and death results when a shortage of energy or a flaw in the operational or repair mechanisms allows inherent chemical processes to destroy its biological order.

It’s what we do know and can explain about aluminum and the laws of physics that would convince us that airplanes are the products of creation, even if we never saw the acts of creation. In the same way, it’s what we do know and can explain about DNA and protein and the laws of chemistry which suggests that life itself is the result of special creation.

My point is not based on design per se, but on the kind of design we observe. As creationists point out, some kinds of design, such as snowflakes and wind-worn rock formations, do result from time and chance—given the properties of the materials involved. Even complex relationships, such as the oxygen-carbon dioxide balance in a sealed aquarium, can result from organisms “doing what comes naturally,” given the properties of living things. But just as clearly, other kinds of design, e.g., arrowheads and airplanes, are the direct result of creative design and organization giving matter properties it doesn’t have and can’t develop on its own. What we know about the DNA-protein relationship suggests that living cells have the created kind of design.

In the well-known Scientific American book, Evolution, Dickerson9 seems to support my point (without meaning to, I’m sure). After describing the problems in producing the right kinds of molecules for living systems, he says that those droplets that by “sheer chance” contained the right molecules survived longer. He continues, “This is not life, but it is getting close to it. The missing ingredient is …”

What will he say here? The “missing ingredient” is … one more protein? … a little more DNA? … an energy supply? … the right acid-base balance? No, he says: “The missing ingredient is an orderly mechanism … ”An orderly mechanism! That’s what’s missing—but that’s what life is all about! As I stated before, life is not a property of substance; it’s a property of organization. The same kind of reasoning applies to the pyramids in Egypt, for example. The pyramids are made of stone, but studying the stone does not even begin to explain how the pyramids were built. Similarly, until evolutionists begin to explain the origin of the “orderly mechanism,” they have not even begun to talk about the origin of life.


cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

When it comes to the evolutionary origin of that orderly mechanism, Dickerson adds, we have “no laboratory models: hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.” With “no laboratory models” to provide data, the case for the evolution of life must be based on imagination. But, as Dickerson admits, “We [evolutionists] can only imagine what probably existed, and our imagination so far has not been very helpful.”

The case for creation, however, is not based on imagination. Creation is based instead on logical inference from our scientific observations, and on simple acknowledgment that everyone, scientists and laymen alike, recognize that certain kinds of order imply creation.

Let me give you another example of the same sort of reasoning. Imagine that you have just finished reading a fabulous novel. Wanting to read another book like it, you exclaim to a friend, “Wow! That was quite a book. I wonder where I can get a bottle of that ink?” Of course not! You wouldn’t give the ink and paper credit for writing the book. You’d praise the author, and look for another book by the same writer. By some twist of logic, though, many who read the fabulous DNA script want to give credit to the “ink (DNA base code) and paper (proteins)” for composing the code.

In a novel, the ink and paper are merely the means the author uses to express his or her thoughts. In the genetic code, the DNA bases and proteins are merely the means God uses to express His thoughts. The real credit for the message in a novel goes to the author, not the ink and paper, and the real credit for the genetic message in DNA goes to the Author of Life, the Creator, not to the creature (Romans 1:25).

Creation thus stands between the classic extremes of mechanism and vitalism. Mechanists, including evolutionists, believe that both the operation and origin of living things are the results of the laws of chemistry which reflect the inherent properties of matter. Vitalists believe that both the operation and origin of living systems depend on mysterious forces that lie beyond scientific description. According to creation, living things operate in understandable ways that can be described in terms of scientific laws—but, such observations include properties of organization that logically imply a created origin of life.

In this sense, the Bible proved to be, as it often has, far ahead of its time. Right down to the last century, most scientists and philosophers believed living things were made of something fundamentally different from non-living. But Genesis 1–2 tells us living things, human beings included, were just made of “dust of the ground.” Indeed, scientists now recognize that living cells are composed of only a few simple elements. It’s not the stuff (“dust”) we’re made of that makes us special; it’s the way we’re put together. It’s not the metal and glass that make an airplane fly, nor the ink and paper that write a novel. Similarly, it’s not the “dust” that makes life, but the way it’s put together with creative design and organization. And when that organization is lost, we return to “dust,” the simple elements that make us up, just as other created objects break down into their simpler parts when left to the ravages of time, chance, and chemistry.

The creationist, then, recognizes the orderliness that the vitalist doesn’t see. But he doesn’t limit himself to only those kinds of order that result from time, chance, and the properties of matter, as the evolutionist does. Creation introduces levels of order and organization that greatly enrich the range of explorable hypotheses and turn the study of life into a scientist’s delight. Science requires an orderliness in nature. One of the real emotional thrills of my changing from evolution to creation was realizing both that there are many more levels of order than I had once imagined and that order in nature, and a mind in tune with it, were guaranteed by God Himself. It’s no wonder that explicit Biblical faith gave initial success to the founding fathers of modern experimental science (a couple of centuries before evolution came along to shift the basis toward time and chance).

If the evidence for the creation of life is as clear as I say it is, then other scientists, even those who are evolutionists, ought to see it—and they do.

I once took my students to hear Francis Crick, who shared a Nobel prize for the discovery of DNA’s structure. After explaining why life could not and did not evolve on earth, he argued instead for “directed panspermia,” his belief that life reached earth in a rocket fired by intelligent life on some other planet. Crick admitted that his view only moved the creation-evolution question back to another time and place, but he argued that different conditions might have given life a chance to evolve that it did not have on earth.10

Creationists are pleased that Crick recognizes the same fatal flaws in chemical evolution that they have cited for years, but creationists also point out that the differences between “chemical chemistry” and “biological chemistry” are wrapped up with the fundamental nature of matter and energy and would apply on other planets as well as on earth.11

That opinion seems to be shared in part by the famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle,12 who made the news under the heading “There must be a God.” Hoyle and his colleague, Chandra Wickramasinghe, independently reached that conclusion after their mathematical analyses showed that believing that life could result from time, chance, and the properties of matter was like believing that “… a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” (Remember what it takes to make an airplane fly?)

Drawing the logical inference from our scientific knowledge, both scientists concluded that “it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate.” (Emphasis Hoyle’s.) But both were surprised by their results. Hoyle called himself an agnostic, and, in the same article, Wickramasinghe said he was an atheistic Buddhist who “… was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation.”

My purpose in quoting these scientists (and others later on) is not, of course, to suggest that they are creationists who would endorse all my views. Rather, it is simply to show that experts in the field, even when they have no preference for creationist thinking, at least agree with the creationists on the facts. And when people with different viewpoints agree, we can be pretty sure what the facts are. I also want to show that scientists who are not creationists are able to see that creation is a legitimate scientific concept, whose merits deserve to be compared with those of evolution.

In that light, I’d like to call your attention to a fascinating and revolutionary book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by a prominent molecular biologist, Dr. Michael Denton.13 In a television program we did together, and in our extensive personal conversations, Dr. Denton describes himself as a child of the secular age who desires naturalistic explanations when he can find them. But when it comes to the origin of life, Dr. Denton explains with authority and stark clarity that evolutionists are nowhere near a naturalistic explanation at present. After comparing the genetic programs in living things to a library of a thousand volumes encoding a billion bits of information and all the mathematically intricate algorithms for coordinating them, Dr. Denton refers to the chemical evolution scenario as “simply an affront to reason,” i.e., an insult to the intelligence! (p. 351).

He openly and frankly states that the thesis of his book is “anti-evolutionary” (p. 353), but it seems to me that he is cautiously taking a step even further. The first chapter of his book is titled “Genesis Rejected,” and he would react very strongly against being called a creationist, but in his honest analysis of the creation-evolution controversy through history, Dr. Denton freely admits that many of the scientific views of the early creationists have been vindicated by modern discoveries in science.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

Take William Paley’s classic argument that design in living things implies a Designer just as clearly as design in a watch implies a watchmaker. Denton states, “Paley was not only right in asserting an analogy between life and a machine, but also remarkably prophetic in guessing that the technological ingenuity realized in living systems is vastly in excess of anything yet accomplished by man.” (Emphasis added.) Then Denton goes on to summarize his thinking on life’s origin (p. 341) as follows:

    The almost irresistible force of the analogy has completely undermined the complacent assumption, prevalent in biological circles over most of the past century, that the design hypothesis can be excluded on the grounds that the notion is fundamentally a metaphysical a priori concept and therefore scientifically unsound. On the contrary, the inference to design is a purely a posteriori induction based on a ruthlessly consistent application of the logic of analogy. The conclusion may have religious implications, but it does not depend on religious presuppositions. (Emphasis added.)

Now that’s quite an admission! Even though he would deny any leaning toward a Christian concept of creation, this leading molecular biologist sees quite plainly that a scientific concept of creation can be constructed, just as I’ve said, using the ordinary tools of science, logic, and observation. (In fact, Denton intimates that creation scientists have shown more respect than evolutionists for empirical evidence and a “ruthlessly consistent” application of logic!)

It’s also true, as Denton concludes, that creation may have religious implications, but so does evolution, and that should not prevent our evaluating their scientific merits on the basis of logic and observation alone. Notice, I am not suggesting at this point that I’ve somehow “proved evolution is false and creation is true.” Rather, I’m simply suggesting that the creation-evolution controversy, far from being a dead issue, is a live and lively question that demands serious scientific consideration.

Even that “simple” suggestion may prove too much for some. In what seems to me a real fear of discussing the scientific weaknesses of evolution and the scientific strengths of creation, it has become fashionable among anti-creationists to accuse creation scientists of misquoting authorities. After spending a fabulous four-hour evening with Dr. and Mrs. Denton, I then quoted him extensively in a conference (April 1987) in Sydney, Australia, which he attended and at which he spoke briefly after my presentations. Whatever others might say, at least Michael Denton doesn’t believe I misquoted him! (If you’re concerned about misquotation, see Dr. Gish’s thorough new book documenting evolutionists’ misquotations, Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics.14)

But again, my point: I am not quoting Dr. Denton as if he agreed with all my thinking. On the contrary, my point is that a fellow scientist who shares neither my basic assumptions nor conclusions regarding world-and-life view, nevertheless recognizes that the concept of creation can be explained scientifically, and that the concept has at least some scientific merit.

Dr. Denton is, of course, not alone in that stand. In a short but thought-provoking article, British physicist H. S. Lipson15 first expresses his interest in life’s origin, then his feeling—quite apart from any preference for creation—that “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit with it.”

After wondering how well evolution has stood up to scientific testing, Lipson continues: “To my mind, the theory [evolution] does not stand up at all.” Then he comes to the heart of the issue: “If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation [i.e., time, chance, and chemistry], how has it come into being?” After dismissing a sort of directed evolution, Lipson concludes: “I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.” (Emphasis his.)

Like Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, Lipson is a bit surprised and unhappy with his own conclusion. He writes, “I know that this [creation] is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me … . ” But his sense of honesty and scientific integrity forces him to conclude his sentence thus: “… but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” That’s the spirit I’d like to encourage in this book: a willingness to look openly at all sides of an issue, to draw the most logical inference from the weight of evidence, and to follow “truth” wherever it might lead, regardless of personal preference and preconceptions.

By the way, let me assure you that not all who see the evidence of creation are unhappy about it! Witness Dr. Dean Kenyon. Dr. Kenyon is a molecular biologist whose area of research interest is specifically the origin of life. His book on life’s origin, Biochemical Predestination, opened with laudatory phrases for Darwinian evolution, and he taught evolution at San Francisco State University for many years.

A couple of students in Dr. Kenyon’s class once asked him to read a book on creation science. He didn’t want to, but, thanks to their polite persistence, he resolved to read it and refute it. But, as he told me in person, he read it and couldn’t refute it. Instead, Dr. Kenyon got interested in creation science and began a re-evaluation of the scientific evidence, which finally led him to the happy conclusion that life, including his, is here as a result of creation, the deliberate plan and purpose of a personal Creator God! He still presents the evidence cited in favor of evolution in his classes, but he also allows his students to weigh that against the evidence that favors creation.

Like mine, Dr. Kenyon’s change from evolution to creation took a long time and involved re-examination of much more than just the evidence from molecular relationships within living cells. Let’s take a look now at some evidence of creation from other areas of biology.
Reference

   2. Parker, Gary E., W. Ann Reynolds, and Rex Reynolds, DNA: The Key to Life, Rev. Ed., Programmed Biology Series, Educational Methods, Inc., Chicago 1977. Return to text.
   3. Parker, Gary E., The Origin of Life on Earth, Creation Science Research Quarterly, September 1970. Return to text.
   4. Parker, Gary E., and Thomas R. Mortens, Life’s Basis: Biomolecules, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1977. (Available in Spanish as Biomoleculas: Basa de la Vida.) Return to text.
   5. Bliss, Richard B., and Gary E. Parker, Origin of Life, Two Models Creation-Evolution Series, Master Books, Colorado Springs, 1994. Return to text.
   6. Wilder-Smith, A. E., The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, Master Books, Colorado Springs, 1981. Return to text.
   7. Thaxton, Charles, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library, New York, 1984. Return to text.
   8. See references 2, 4, 5, and 7 above for details. Return to text.
   9. Dickerson, Richard E., Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life, Scientific American (and Scientific American book, Evolution), September 1978. Return to text.
  10. Crick, Francis, The Seeds of Life, Discover, October 1981. Return to text.
  11. Parker, Gary E., The Origin of Life on Earth, Creation Science Research Quarterly, September 1970. Return to text.
  12. Hoyle, Sir Fred, and Chandra Wickramasinghe; in: There Must Be a God, Daily Express, August 14, 1981, and Hoyle on Evolution, Nature, November 12, 1981. Return to text.
  13. Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985. Return to text.
  14. Gish, Duane T., Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, Master Books, Colorado Springs, 1993. Return to text.
  15. Lipson, H. S., A Physicist Looks at Evolution, Physics Bulletin, p. 138, May 1980. Return to text.

[Soldier4Christ]

Fox News: Bone Marrow Found Intact in Ancient Fossils & National Geographic: Fossils Yield 10-Million-Year-Old Bone Marrow -- A First

Findings like this one illustrate the rigidity of the millions-of-years paradigm. Just as in the case of the soft dinosaur tissue discovered awhile back, scientists admit being shocked that tissues—in this case, bone marrow of fossilized frogs and salamanders—could last so long. “It pushes back the boundary for how far [soft tissue] fossilization can go,” according to the study leader.

Of course, there’s no real evidence that soft tissue can last that long; it’s certainly not something scientists have demonstrated in a laboratory! One can only swallow the idea that the tissues are millions of years old if one unyieldingly presupposes that fossils take millions of years to develop and, therefore, that these fossilized animals lived millions of years ago. To draw on The Parable of the Candle a bit (go ahead; read it—I’ll wait), let’s say Lucy proceeds to determine that the candle has been burning for at least a whole day. Then, on the table next to the candle, she discovers a bowl full of cold ice cream. Yet she unquestioningly believes, based on her estimate of how long the candle’s been burning, that no one has been in the room in the past day. So instead of allowing the bowl of ice cream to overturn her notion that no one’s been in the room (and realizing that someone has been there rather recently!), she instead remarks to Chris, “Well, this just shows you that ice cream can take an awfully long time to melt!” Even if she doesn’t accept Manuel’s note that says he’s only been gone since 2:30, the bowl of ice cream shows that someone had to have been in the room recently with the bowl of ice cream, otherwise it would have melted.

[Soldier4Christ]

Cassini finds evidence of hydrocarbon lakes on Titan

Scientists increasingly focus on other bodies in our solar system, and now, on other stellar systems, all in the hope of finding alien life. However, as Ken Ham points out in Any little green men out there?, these scientists who spend millions of taxpayer dollars to find life “out there,” and who would offer ostentatious fanfare over the slightest sign of alien intelligence, are the same who will ignore the abundant evidence for a Designer and Creator here on Earth (see Romans 1:20).

_________________

Any little green men out there?
Millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money is going into a search for intelligent life in outer space.

by Ken Ham

Believe it or not, there is an astronomical object called LGM-1—the letters of which stand for ‘Little Green Men’. This was the first pulsar ever discovered. A pulsar is a very dense star which rotates so rapidly that it sends out extremely regular ‘pulses’ of radio waves.

The scientists who discovered this hitherto unknown, strangely regular signal, flashing its pulses every one-and-a-third seconds, were puzzled. Perhaps this was in fact some alien civilization trying to contact us, they somewhat facetiously suggested to each other. Anyway, the name stuck. But would scientists seriously contemplate such an idea as Little Green Men?

In fact, this year millions of US tax-payers’ dollars are being spent on a massive search for just that. NASA magazine in 1991 stated that on the 500th anniversary of Christopher Columbus’s landing, on October 12, 1992, scientists were to begin exploring for other worlds by ‘listening to distant stars for signs that humans are not alone in the universe’.

This search is managed by NASA’s Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) program office, based solely on belief in evolution as a fact. A SETI information sheet indicates that since evolution has happened here on earth, why shouldn’t it have happened throughout the cosmos? They say that ‘there may now be about 10 million advanced civilizations in our galaxy alone.’

How will they look for these? Briefly, by using radio telescopes and other electronic equipment designed to look for pulsed signals and other ordered signals or sequences (as distinct from random radio ‘noise’). If their assumption of evolution is not true (and it is not) then 10 million tax dollars per year for the next 10 years will have been spent on merely demonstrating what is obvious and what the Bible makes clear—man did not evolve.

Just as those scientists who discovered the regular pulses from what we now know is a pulsar contemplated Little Green Men, so the SETI scientists will get very excited if they find some sort of regular pulse from outer space that they can’t explain. Even something as simple as ‘Pulse … pulse … pulse’ could be enough for them to investigate whether this could be from ‘extraterrestrial beings’.
Seeing intelligence

What is so illogical and inconsistent about all this is that these same scientists would only have to change their telescopes for microscopes, as it were, and observe the DNA in the chromosomes of any living creature. They would see a highly complex code, an ordered language, making up the most highly complex, ordered information sequence in the universe. When scientists look at it, they say—chance! Yet if they received the simplest of ordered sequences possible from outer space, they would say—intelligence!

No scientists have ever seen a complex language system like our DNA evolve by chance. They know that it takes information to get information, that information never arises unless an intelligence is operating. Yet they refuse to consider the possibility that the vast amount of information contained in life on earth was programmed by intelligence. They refuse to accept the possibility that the God of creation as spoken of in the Holy Scriptures is that intelligence—the infinitely intelligent Creator. Why? It would mean that this Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ, is Lord over them, and they must kneel and worship Him, and accept their sinfulness and the need for salvation.

As those scientists look into outer space, it is as if they are shaking their fists at Jesus Christ, defiantly saying ‘we refuse to accept you as Lord over us.’

If only NASA would realize that they don’t have to waste millions of dollars of other people’s money searching for an intelligence out there. Without even using a telescope, look up at the night sky. What do you see?

‘The heavens declare the glory of God: and the firmament sheweth his handiwork’ (Psalm 19:1).

‘The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory’ (Psalm 97:6).
Incredible order

Look at the incredible order in our DNA. What do you see?

‘For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse’ (Romans 1:20).

These scientists know deep down there is a God (Romans 1:19). Every human has a God-consciousness which the Creator placed there. The Greeks in Acts 17, even with all their idols, still had one to the unknown God; in their hearts they knew there was more to life than what they had.

NASA scientists today know there is an intelligence greater than they. They know there has to be more than just us. In a sense, they are desperately trying to find God, not accepting that God has already found them.

The God of the universe has provided us with a written revelation, the Scriptures, and came to earth to be a man so he could pay the penalty for our sin, to enable us to live for eternity with Him.

The SETI people can use their telescopes and electronic equipment as much as they want, but the Scripture remains true:

‘For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them’ (Matthew 13:15).

[Soldier4Christ]

Hall of Science Studies How Children Learn

This article really speaks for itself, I’m afraid. Basically, a new project—backed by a $2.5 million grant from the taxpayer-funded National Science Foundation—will “research how children acquire the concepts of biological evolution and look at new ways to engage children in exploring the topic.” The result of this study will be a “traveling exhibition on evolution geared to children and their parents.”

The project is yet another step to further the evolutionary indoctrination children go through in public schools and in the public arena. It’s not enough, humanists argue, to present the theory of evolution—exclusively—in junior high and high school science classes; rather, it must be drilled into the minds of students as young as five (the youngest age this study will target; the oldest age is twelve). I don’t doubt that these efforts are, in a large part, due to the increasing frequency and strength of attacks on evolutionary theory.

At one point, the article states, “Current research in cognitive psychology indicates that if children are introduced to these concepts at an early age, they are more likely to see the natural world through a scientific perspective.” I don’t disagree with the former part; actually, the Bible emphasized that educating children establishes their belief system quite a few years before “current research in cognitive psychology” did! But as for the latter part—will this program make children more likely to see “the natural world through a scientific perspective” or, instead, make them more likely to see the scientific world through a natural[ist] perspective?

And because this program is funded by the US government, those of us who work and pay U.S. taxes will be supporting this project!

[Soldier4Christ]

An exam to examine evolution

What students wrote in their final exams for an evolution class at a major U.S. university

After a university class devoted several weeks to offering a pro and con view of life’s origins according to the evolutionary perspective (i.e., presenting the problems with molecules-to-man evolution as well as the arguments for it, yet not teaching creation or intelligent design), its professor asked the students to assess the class in their final examination papers. As AiG reviewed the comments made by the students (graciously supplied by the professor, but retaining his students’ anonymity), we found them to be quite revealing and even hopeful—it may prompt other instructors at secular universities to follow this class’s model


_________________________


“I have learned to think critically after learning the information from this course. Current evolutionary theory has many holes which are essentially covered up by blanket theories which ignore empirical evidence. This is not to discredit science in any way, but I believe that the theory of evolution must evolve to stay alive.”


“I would have to say that the argument against evolution is far more convincing to me at this point. I came into this class taking Darwin’s theory for fact, as that is what has been taught for years. I think the argument against evolution needs to gain more attention and needs to start being taught alongside the theory for evolution so that the public can choose for itself instead of taking sides due to sheer ignorance.”


“I believe the case against evolution is more convincing. Before this class my outlook was the complete opposite, and it’s interesting to see how quickly my views have changed after 10 weeks and 2 books.”


“I used to believe in evolution and I still believe it a little bit on a loose basis, but I do not believe evolution as a fact any more.”


“The case against evolution … is a strong one, and one I find hard to ignore.”

“I feel there is more evidence against evolution. I do not believe in God either. The case against evolution has much more evidence that makes more sense.”


“I believe the case against evolution is stronger. It makes you a little freaked out when you realize how many people still believe evolution is not a theory but a fact. The evidence was well presented against evolution.”


“… Though scientists pledge to seek the truth, one must wonder whether personal interests, biases, and motivations play a role in the field. Science works best when it is disproving and questioning itself. Science is seeking truth after all.”


“Leaving this class I view science in a completely new light, more of a religion that people believe to be true. At the same time you proved evolution to be false and it gives me a new inspiration to find out what is really true.”

[Soldier4Christ]

Mt. St. Helens - Still Rocking the Long Ages of Evolutionary Time
by Michael Fishwick

An impressive rock slab is growing from one of the craters on Mt. St. Helens at a rate of more than one meter per day. A new dome is also developing, and stands a good four hundred feet higher in altitude than the 1980's dome. The slab, which is more than one hundred meters long, has only been forming since November 2005, but looks to all the world as though it could have been there for millions of years of alleged geological time. The ancient appearance of many things, such as starlight or rock structures, are often used by evolutionists to claim immense ages, but it is not necessarily so. This slab offers a good example of how age can not be determined by appearance.

The Mt. St. Helens volcano in the state of Washington, U.S.A. commanded worldwide attention in 1980 when it violently erupted with a force of four hundred million tons of TNT. This explosive force is equivalent to roughly twenty thousand Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs. The resulting chain of events completely changed the landscape of the surrounding area, and wrought devastation over at least one hundred and fifty square miles. Furthermore, it provided an on site laboratory for observing the natural creation of incredible geological formations.

The scientific data collected from Mt. St. Helens over the past twenty six years has done a great deal to destroy many geological assumptions that relate to the necessary long ages required by macroevolution. This collection of data fits in perfectly with other empirical data known to geologists, but is generally ignored in an attempt to uphold the myth of a world billions of years old. Kolbe Center Advisor Guy Berthault has shown several times in laboratory conditions that the conventional assumption of sediments exhibiting their deposition time is false. He has also falsified the hypothesis of how they build up, destroying in the process the idea that fossils and the rock that they are found in can be used to date each other.

We are taught, for instance, that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to be carved by the Colorado River. Yet, a single series of eruptions from Mt. St. Helens formed the deposits and cut out a very similar canyon, with branching side canyons, on a 1/40 scale of the most famous natural geological formation in the U.S.A. This took a matter of days, not millions of years. Many of the investigations at Mt. St. Helens have been led by Dr. Steve Austin of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). A two square mile area of Spirit Lake, for example, was covered by tens of thousands of floating trees, forming an enormous log mat. Dr. Austin discovered that trees began to sink and place themselves in sediments in an upright position. As more sediments began to settle, and more trees began to sink, the bottom of the lake began to resemble what is now seen at the petrified forests of Yellowstone National Park. The lake bottom gave the appearance of multiple forests at different geological levels, thus indicating the appearance of long ages of geological time. Dr. Austin's work falsifying the concept of long ages for the fossilized forests has been made available to visitors by the Park authorities. Furthermore, Dr. Austin discovered a probable mechanism for the formation of coal beds during the Flood. The tons of bark and branches that had been stripped from the trees began to settle and gradually form a layer of peat on the bottom of the lake. Under conditions of heat and pressure this peat would turn to coal.

With the dating hypothesis of rock by fossil now falsified, the only method of determining geological chronology that evolutionists could claim was radioisotope dating. But this method is also built upon assumptions. Perhaps the biggest assumption is that of uniformitarianism, that the radioactive decay of various elements has remained constant throughout geological time. To falsify this hypothesis would require the testing of igneous rock whose time of formation was known beyond doubt. The Mt. St. Helens rocks that formed in 1980 have played a large part in falsifying the validity of radio dating techniques. Those rocks, formed twenty six years ago, date up to an amazing two million, eight hundred thousand years old! Similar results are reported in the scientific literature from Hawaii, Mt. Etna in Sicily and from California and Arizona. The hypothesis has been falsified. The scientific data does not back the claim of immensely long ages for the Earth's rocks.

A great deal more empirical scientific data exists that point to the impossibility of an old-age Earth. There is one set of data, however, that even tells us that the Earth was not formed gradually, as evolutionists claim, but within a maximum time of one hour. Science can say no more than that. Be that as it may, the unfalsified evidence of the "Fingerprints of Creation" is enough to destroy the evolutionary framework and point dramatically to ex nihilo Creation.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Mt. St. Helens and Catastrophism (#157)
by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.
Abstract
The eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington State on May 18, 1980, is certain to be remembered as one of the most significant geologic events in the United States of the 20th century. The explosion, on May 18, was initiated by an earthquake and rockslide involving one-half cubic mile of rock. As the summit and north slope slid off the volcano that morning, pressure was released inside the volcano - where super hot liquid water immediately flashed to steam. The northward-directed steam explosion released energy equivalent to 20 million tons of TNT, which toppled 150 square miles of forest in six minutes. In Spirit lake, north of the volcano, an enormous water wave, initiated by one-eighth cubic mile of rockslide debris, stripped trees from slopes as high as 850 feet above the pre-eruption water level. The total energy output, on May 18, was equivalent to 400 million tons of TNT - approximately 20,000 Hiroshima-size atomic bombs.

The eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington State on May 18, 1980, is certain to be remembered as one of the most significant geologic events in the United States of the 20th century. The explosion, on May 18, was initiated by an earthquake and rockslide involving one-half cubic mile of rock. As the summit and north slope slid off the volcano that morning, pressure was released inside the volcano - where super hot liquid water immediately flashed to steam. The northward-directed steam explosion released energy equivalent to 20 million tons of TNT, which toppled 150 square miles of forest in six minutes. In Spirit lake, north of the volcano, an enormous water wave, initiated by one-eighth cubic mile of rockslide debris, stripped trees from slopes as high as 850 feet above the pre-eruption water level. The total energy output, on May 18, was equivalent to 400 million tons of TNT - approximately 20,000 Hiroshima-size atomic bombs.

On May 18 and also during later eruptions, critical energy thresholds were exceeded by potent geologic processes which were able to accomplish significant changes in short order. These processes challenge the traditional uniformitarian way of thinking about how the earth works, and serve as a miniature laboratory for catastrophism. Institute for Creation Research scientists have spent three summers investigating the geologic changes which have occurred at the volcano. Four of the most significant discoveries are summarized in this short report.

RAPIDLY FORMED STRATIFICATION

Up to 400 feet thickness of strata have formed since 1980 at Mount St. Helens. These deposits accumulated from primary air blast, landslide, waves on the lake, pyroclastic flows, mudflows, air fall, and stream water. Perhaps the most surprising accumulations are the pyroclastic flow deposits amassed from ground-hugging, fluidized, turbulent slurries of fine volcanic debris, which moved at high velocities off the flank of the volcano as the eruption plume of debris over the volcano collapsed. These deposits include fine pumice ash laminae and beds from one millimeter thick to greater than one meter thick, each representing just a few seconds to several minutes of accumulation. A deposit accumulated in less than one day, on June 12, 1980, is 25 feet thick and contains many thin laminae and beds. Conventionally, sedimentary laminae and beds are assumed to represent longer seasonal variations, or annual changes, as the layers accumulated very slowly. Mount St. Helens teaches us that the stratified layers commonly characterizing geological formations can form very rapidly by flow processes. Such features have been formed quickly underwater in laboratory sedimentation tanks, and it should not surprise us to see that they have formed in a natural catastrophe.

RAPID EROSION

Erosion during volcanic eruptions at Mount St. Helens was accomplished by scour from steam blast, landslide, water waves, hot pumice ash flows (pyroclastic flows), and mudflows. Since the eruptions, the erosion process has been dominated by sheet flooding and channelized flow of water, with occasional mudflows. About 23 square miles of the North Fork of the Toutle River Valley was obstructed by two-thirds cubic mile of landslide and pyroclastic debris, which has been rapidly eroded since 1980. Jetting steam from buried water and ice under hot pumice reamed steam explosion pits with associated mass-wasting processes at the margins of pits, producing rills and gullies over 125 feet deep. Photographic documentation assembled by ICR scientists demonstrates that very pronounced rills and gullies had formed at the margins of seam explosion pits before May 23 - less than five days after the pumice was deposited. The rills and gullies resemble badlands topography, which geologists have usually assumed required many hundreds or even thousands of years to form.

Mudflows, from Mount St. Helens, were responsible for the most significant erosion. A mudflow on March 19, 1982, eroded a canyon system up to 140 feet deep in the headwaters of the North Fork of the Toutle River Valley, establishing the new dendritic pattern of drainage. As ICR scientists surveyed this new terrain, they began to contemplate the processes which may have formed the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River. The little "Grand Canyon of the Toutle River" is a one-fortieth scale model of the real Grand Canyon. The small creeks which flow through the headwaters of the Toutle River today might seem, by present appearances, to have carved these canyons very slowly over a long time period, except for the fact that the erosion was observed to have occurred rapidly! Geologists should learn that, since the long-time scale they have been trained to assign to landform development would lead to obvious error on Mount St. Helens, it also may be useless or misleading elsewhere.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

UPRIGHT DEPOSITED LOGS

The landslide generated waves on Spirit Lake stripped the forests from the slopes adjacent to the lake and created an enormous log mat, made up of millions of prone floating trunks that occupy about two square miles of the lake surface. These logs float freely as the wind blows them, and the decreasing size of the log mat indicates that the trees are gradually sinking to the lake floor. Careful observation of the floating log mat indicates that many trees float in upright position, with a root ball submerging the root end of the trunk, while the opposite end floats out of the water. Hundreds of upright floated and deposited logs have been grounded in shallow water along the shore of the lake. These trees, if buried in sediment, would appear to have been a forest which grew in place over hundreds of years, which is the standard geological interpretation for the upright petrified "forests" at Yellowstone National Park.

In order to get more information on the upright deposited logs in Spirit Lake, members of the ICR research team worked with Dr. Harold Coffin, of Geoscience Research Institute, to survey the lake bottom, using sonar and scuba. Hundreds of upright, fully submerged logs were located by sidescan sonar, and scuba divers verified that they were, indeed, trunks of trees which the sonar detected.

Extrapolating from the area of lake floor surveyed to the entire lake bottom, we estimate more than 19,000 upright stumps existed on the floor of the lake in August 1985. The average height of an upright deposited stump is 20 feet. Sonar records and scuba investigations verified that many of the upright deposited trees have root masses radiating away from the bases of the trunks. Furthermore, the trees are randomly spaced, not clumped together, over the bottom of the lake, again having the appearance of being an in situ forest. Scuba investigation of the upright deposited trunks shows that some are already solidly buried by sedimentation, with more than three feet of sediment around their bases, while others have no sediment around their bases. This proved that the upright trees were deposited at different times, with their roots buried at different levels. If found buried in the stratigraphic record, these trees might be interpreted as multiple forests which grew on different levels over periods of thousands of years. The Spirit Lake upright deposited stumps, therefore, have considerable implications for interpreting "petrified forests" in the stratigraphic record.

PEAT LAYER IN SPIRIT LAKE

The enormous log mat floating on Spirit Lake has lost its bark and branches by the abrasive action of wind and waves. Scuba investigations of the lake bottom showed that water-saturated sheets of tree bark are especially abundant on the bottom of the lake, where, in areas removed from volcanic sediment added from the lake shore, a layer of peat several inches thick has accumulated. The Spirit Lake peat resembles, both compositionally and texturally, certain coal beds of the eastern United States, which also are dominated by tree bark and appear to have accumulated beneath floating log mats. Coal is supposed, conventionally, to have accumulated from organic material accumulated in swamps by growth in place of plants and burial. Because the accumulation of peat in swamps is a slow process, geologists have supposed that coal beds required about one thousand years to form each inch of coal. The peat layer in Spirit lake, however, demonstrates that peat accumulate rapidly. Swamp peats, however, have only very rare bark sheet material because the intrusive action of tree roots disintegrates and homogenizes the peat. The Spirit Lake peat, in contrast, is texturally very similar to coal. All that is needed is burial and slight heating to transform the Spirit Lake peat into coal. Thus, at Spirit Lake, we may have seen the first stage in the formation of coal.

CONCLUSION

Mount St. Helens provides a rare opportunity to study transient geologic processes which produced, within a few months, changes which geologists might otherwise assume required many thousands of years. The volcano, therefore, challenges our way of thinking about how the earth works, how it changes, and the time scale we are accustomed to attaching to its formations. These processes and their effects allow Mount St. Helens to serve as a miniature laboratory for catastrophism. Mount St. Helens helps us to imagine what the Biblical Flood, of Noah's day, may have been like.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

    1. S.A. Austin, 1979, Depositional Environment of the Kentucky No. 12 Coal Bed (Middle Pennsylvanian) of Western Kentucky, with Special Reference to the Origin of Coal Lithotypes (Pennsylvania State University, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation) 411 p.
    2. S.A. Austin, 1984, "Rapid Erosion at Mount St. Helens" (Origins Vol.11, No.2) pp.90-98.
    3. SA. Austin, 1984, Catastrophes in Earth History: A Source Book of Geologic Evidence, Speculation and Theory (El Cajon, Calif., Institute for Creation Research, Monograph No.13) 318 p.
    4. H.G. Coffin, 1983, "Mount St. Helens and Spirit Lake" (Origins Vol.10) pp.9-17.
    5. H.G. Coffin, 1983, "Erect Floating Stumps in Sprit Lake, Washington" (Geology Vol.11) pp.298, 299.
    6. R. Decker and B. Decker, 1981, "The Eruption of Mount. St. Helens" (Scientific American, Vol.244, No.3) pp.68-80.
    7. W.J. Fritz, 1980, "Reinterpretation of the Depositional Environment of the Yellowstone Fossil Forests" (Geology, Vol. pp.309-313.
    8. P.W. Lipman and D.R. Mullineaux, eds., 1981, The 1980 Eruptions of Mount St. Helens, Washington (U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1250) 844 p.
    9. C.L. Rosenfdd, and G.L. Beach, 1983, Evolution of a Drainage Network: Remote Sensing Analysis of the North Fork Toutle River, Mount St. Helens, Washington (Corvallis, Oregon State University Water Resources Research Institute, WRRI-88) 100 p.
    10. P.D. Rowley, et al., 1985, "Proximal Bedded Deposits Related to Pyroctastic Flows of May 18, 1980, Mount St. Helens, Washington" (Geol. Soc., Amer. Bull., Vol. 96) pp. 1373-1383.
    11. R.B. Waitt, Jr., et al., 1983, "Eruption-Triggered Avalanche, Flood, and Lahar at Mount St. Helens—Effects of Winter Snowpack" (Science, Vol.221) pp. 1394-1397.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Butterfly Evolution?


 John D. Morris

The media has been increasingly alive with stories touted as proof for Darwinian evolution. Much has recently been written regarding the discovery of new animal and plant species and secular scientists' unearthing of missing links from the fossil record.

Recently, evolutionists have claimed a South American species of butterfly, Heliconius heurippa, was “created.” But this new species hardly refutes divine creation. What researchers have created is a hybrid butterfly whose genes and color are blends of two other Heliconius species, but the new butterfly is still a butterfly. This hybridization is clearly not macroevolution; it is subspeciation or variation within the butterfly kind. Producing a butterfly from two non-butterflies would prove macroevolution. Those skeptical of neo-Darwinian claims are still waiting for such major changes.

Hybridization (mating between divergent populations) has never been contrary to the creation model; it is common in plants, can be done in the lab or wild, and has nothing to do with real evolution (also known as macroevolution).

Was this an example of “evolution in action”? Of course not. Some of the best and brightest entomologists, with time and funding, were engaged in a direct attempt to produce a lab hybrid. No one should be surprised when they were successful. They produced a butterfly of the genus Heliconius from two butterflies, both belonging to the genus Heliconius.

What about the origin of the Lepidoptera (moths & butterflies)? A recent book on insect evolution, Evolution of the Insects, states on page 556 that Lepidoptera wings and scales have been found in Early Jurassic rock, perhaps 200 million years ago according to evolutionary thinking. So, the first time we find fossilized evidence of Lepidoptera, the fossil is 100% Lepidoptera, as the creation model states.

Man cannot create anything. That ability lies with only God, the Creator.  Man can make something from existing materials, like a new butterfly subspecies.

References
Grimaldi, David and Michael S. Engel. 2005. Evolution of the insects. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

[Soldier4Christ]

 A “100 Million Year Old Bird” Is Still a Bird

Frank Sherwin

Birds are incredible flying (and occasionally non-flying) machines. The Creator has designed these creatures with specialized flight apparatus, an amazing respiratory system, not to mention unbelievable migration and navigation abilities. Creationists see these creatures as having been designed and created as 100% birds, while evolutionists are forever in heated debates regarding bird origin:

    However, recent fossil discoveries have complicated the picture of bird origins and renewed the debate over which amniote [applied to a type (nontaxonomic) of development regarding extraembryonic membranes and a shelled egg] lineage was ancestral to birds (Hickman, Roberts & Larson 1997).

Another Bird Fossil
The secular scientific community has announced the recent discovery by American and Chinese paleontologists of an alleged “100 million year old” missing avian link, possibly with soft tissue. Despite claims that Gansus yumenensis is “the missing link on the evolution of birds,” all indications show it is in fact just a bird.

Creation Scientists are Ecstatic
Creation scientists are even more excited than their secular counterparts about recent bird fossils uncovered in the Xiagou Formation 1,200 miles west of Beijing. For not only are these fossils revealing 100% bird traits, but the tissue from some of these fossils is possibly still soft. Both of these physical manifestations are clearly within the creation model.

A recent CNN.com story says “the new fossils demonstrate that Gansus clearly is a bird . . . . the oldest example of the nearly modern birds, . . . .similar to loons or diving ducks” (CNN.com 2006). With such repeated graphic descriptions, there seems to be no reason to claim this bird is a “missing link.” National Geographic.com crows that Gansus “is strikingly similar to today's birds, considering that it lived alongside dinosaurs” (Norris 2006). Indeed, a majority of evolutionists maintain birds evolved from dinosaurs and today, are dinosaurs: "So, in fact, birds are not some separate biological entity, distinct and apart from 'reptiles.' Birds are dinosaurs" (Fastovsky & Weishample 1996).

But this fossil discovery shows these birds “lived alongside dinosaurs” supporting not Darwinism, but the creation model that states dinosaurs have always been dinosaurs and birds have always been birds. According to creationism, finding the two groups together is natural and to be expected.

Soft Tissue?
Since the recent and unexpected unearthing of soft dinosaur tissue in eastern Montana (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2033 ) there have been multiple discoveries of soft tissue in “ancient” fossils. The Chinese bird fossil may be the newest addition. "We went to Changma hoping that we'd discover one, maybe two, fragments of fossil birds," said Matt Lamanna of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. “Instead, we found dozens, including some almost complete skeletons with soft tissues.” The fossil material, according to Hans-Dieter Sues, of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, “is remarkable for its excellent preservation” (AP 2006). The MSNBC.com article also quotes Lamanna as saying “one of the fossils even has skin preserved between the toes showing that it had webbed feet.” 

National Geographic.com goes on to state that “Soft tissues were also preserved, including flight feathers and webbing—like a duck's—between the bird's toes.” NG also says, “Moreover . . . the preserved skin of the webbed feet shows the same microscopic structure seen in aquatic birds today.” One cannot even imagine delicate bird tissue remaining soft (unfossilized) for even thousands of years, let alone secular science’s claim of 100 million years. Creationists maintain soft tissue means very recent death and burial.

GeoTimes.org is another evolutionary publication that states, “[T]he fossils of the surprisingly modern-looking bird . . . could fly in the same way modern birds can . . . G. yumenensis now has the distinction of being the oldest-known bird that is really, really modern in its anatomy” (Yauck 2006). In fact, an artist’s colorful reconstruction of this fossil in the GeoTimes and National Geographic articles shows a beautiful bird.

Creation scientists maintain that God created birds as birds. The recent discovery in China of Gansus yumenensis supports this claim.

[Soldier4Christ]

Do Volcanoes Come in Super-Size?

 Abstract
Supervolcanoes on a scale unlike any in recorded human history once shook western North America. The gigantic Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation stands as mute testimony of this violence. Three observations, including super-cracks, super-deposits, and widespread soft-sediment deformation, suggest a violent rending of fissure vents in the Sierra region that was the source for the Brushy Basin ash.

by Steven A. Austin and William A. Hoesch *

Geologists have long known that explosive volcanoes of the past were far bigger than the relatively tepid eruptions known from human recorded experience.1 As a new generation of geologists wonder about the mechanics of supervolcanoes,2,3 some ICR geologists are also wondering about a gigantic volcanic ash pile—the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation.4 Did this enormous deposit originate as ejecta from super volcanoes in the Sierra region of California? If so, what might these eruptions have been like?

Three styles of explosive volcanoes

Explosive volcanoes come in three types and are classified according to their vent structures: (1) "nozzle," (2) "ring fissure," and (3) "linear fissure array." Nozzle eruptions occur through a pipe-shaped vent with a constricted open-ing, as at Mount St. Helens (1980) and North Mono Craters (~A.D. 1350). They are the familiar volcanoes of human experience and appear to be size-limited to about 100 cubic kilometers of volcanic products.

Ring-fissure eruptions, also known as collapsed caldera eruptions, begin with a set of surface fractures above a shallow magma body. With increased instability, the fractures "unzip" into a circular pattern and vast "curtains" of ejecta are explosively released along the ring-shaped set of fissures. The evacuation of magma results in the signature collapse structure named a caldera. To give some idea of size of these eruptions, Long Valley Caldera is a 16 by 32 km structure that in a near instant hurled 600-cubic-kilometers of ejecta resulting in the Bishop Tuff. Yellowstone Caldera of northwestern Wyoming was about four times this size. Humans, fortunately, have had very little experience with ring-fissure eruptions, especially these large ones.

Linear-fissure-array eruptions include the largest known in earth history. These occur in settings where crustal tension (associated with plate movements) opens multiple, straight fissures above elongate batholith-size magma bodies. For example, the Sierra Madre Occidental mountains of western Mexico are composed almost entirely of ignimbrite, a rock-type that originated as explosively-emplaced pyroclastic flows.2 At more than 300,000 cubic kilometers, it is called "the largest ignimbrite field in the world" erupted from a series of linear fissures, not calderas. Individual fissures are 50-100 meters in width and over 25 kilometers in length, and the collective dike swarm is thought to extend for the full length of the mountain range (1,200 kilometers). Basin-and-Range faults and grabens provided the plumbing system that delivered the highly fluidized rhyolitic magmas to the surface at discharge rates that can only be described as "super." A higher orbit of the Space Shuttle would be a safe distance to view so massive an eruption.

A super-size deposit

In the western interior states of Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming is a remarkable deposit known as the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation. The layer is over 100 meters thick across wide portions of the Rocky Mountain and Colorado Plateau regions, and altered volcanic ash in the form of smectitic clay is its dominant component. Sedimentary bedforms indicate airfall tephra settled into water and, in some cases, formed into an ash-water suspension that flowed with considerable energy before coming to rest. One such suspension in northeast Utah carried dinosaur carcasses and deposited them in what is today a world-famous dinosaur exhibit.5 Marble-size pumice fragments occur within the air-fallout deposit in Colorado and Utah. The (dense rock) volume of pyroclastics in the Brushy Basin Member, an estimated 15,000 cubic kilometers, would be enough to bury the state of New Jersey to a depth of 740 meters. Volcanoes in the Sierra region are thought to have spewed the ash.6 Chemical and isotopic composition of the Brushy Basin Member appear to match granitic plutons in the Sierra Nevada Batholith, as well as rocks of the Independence dike swarm in the eastern Sierra and Mojave region. The Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation testifies of super-size volcanism and simultaneous watery catastrophe. But where were the fissures from which this ejecta came?

Did supervolcanoes erupt in the Sierra Nevada region during the Flood?

Nearly all the granitic rocks making up the Sierras originated as plutons emplaced during two abbreviated "magmatic flare-ups"; one in the Late Jurassic and another in the Late Cretaceous.7 Remnants of volcanic rock in the highly eroded Sierra Nevada Range indicate that highly explosive volcanism also accompanied these flare-ups. Three lines of evidence suggest explosive volcanism during this Late Jurassic flare-up in the Sierras was the source for the gigantic ash deposits of the Brushy Basin Member.

1. In California's southern Inyo Mountains and western Mojave Desert are volcanic deposits that may represent the "upwind" equivalent to the Brushy Basin Member.

A 2,260-meter-thick succession of volcanic mudflow and pyroclastic flow deposits, known as the upper interval of the Inyo Mountains Volcanic Complex, is considered "the eastern fringe" of a volcanic/sedimentary cover that once extended over the top of the Sierra Nevada Batholith.8 The mudflow deposits consist of matrix-supported volcaniclastic conglomerates with subangular dacite clasts to 1.5 meters in diameter. Individual mudflow beds to 20 meters thick sometimes display coarsening-upward, then fining-upward texture, indicative of catastrophic flow conditions. These are interbedded with coarse sandstones and pyroclastic ignimbrite sheets of dacite-rhyodacite composition. Fossils found in the deposit include bivalves of the Unionidae family and gastropods of the Neritidae family, which remarkably are found also in the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation far to the east. It is easy to envision the Inyo Mountain mudflows and pyroclastic flows grading eastward into the airfall tuffs and mudstones of the Morrison Formation in a vast, once-continuous sheet that has since been dissected by erosion. A source-vent in the Sierras is indicated.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

2. The Independence dike swarm is the preserved remains of a linear set of fissures that may have served as vents for supervolcanoes.

A set of cracks extends for over 600 kilometers from the southern Mojave Desert (Chuckwalla Mountains) to the central Sierra Nevada Range nearly as far north as Mammoth Lakes.9 Known as the Independence dike swarm, this northwest-trending belt consists of hundreds of dikes, individually about a meter in width. They often occur in composite "sheet dikes" in excess of 100 meters in width. In places the belt is 90 km wide. These dikes generated pull-apart space on the order of hundreds of meters along the length of this belt. The cracks are filled with rocks of mafic to felsic composition. The swarm of dikes has long been interpreted as having opened as an event with an interpreted age of ~150 Ma (Late Jurassic). Its origin has traditionally been tied to that of Sierra Nevada granites; "The Independence dike swarm apparently formed by local fracturing of the carapace above the Late Jurassic Sierran batholith during rapid changes in plate motions."10 The dike swarm may represent the eroded substructure of linear-fissure-array supervolcanoes. It is significant that in the east-central portion of the Mojave Desert lava flows of rhyolitic to basaltic composition are up to 500 meters thick. These lavas indicate that the Independence dike swarm once had communication with the surface.11

The Independence dike swarm closely resembles another set of cracks called the Rancho San Marcos dike swarm,12 which extends from southernmost California into northern Baja Mexico and parallels the axis of the granitic Peninsular Range. The dike rock that fills these fissures is cogenetic with both the granites of this range and the thick pyroclastic "carapace" that partially overlies it called the Santiago Peak Volcanics. In fact the cracks are recognized as the source-vents for the volcanics! The picture is one of granitic magmatism and simultaneous violent fissure eruptions. The similarities between the San Marcos and Independence dike swarms suggest a common type of origin for both.

3. Liquefaction of sandy sediment in south-central Utah points to an immense seismic-shaking event. Supervolcanoes in California may have been the cause.

Liquefaction occurs when loosely packed and water-saturated sediment is transformed from a condition of grain-on-grain stability to a condition in which load is transferred from the particle contacts to the pore fluid. It is usually triggered by seismic shaking. The process can cause large bodies of sand to behave as a fluid for short moments, and revert back to a "frozen" and stable state when the shaking stops. Across a broad portion of south Utah is an accumulation of large cross-bedded sandstones of the Glen Canyon and San Rafael Groups that is 1.5-3.0 kilometers thick. The sands were obviously in a water-saturated state when they were folded into convoluted shapes and injected into an amazing series of dikes and pipes.13 The distribution of disturbed bedding corresponds with the boundaries for the sedimentary basin that contains the thick sands. Overlying the sands like a smoking gun at the scene of the crime is the Morrison Formation (and its equivalents). Something big shook these thick sands when they were all water-saturated, and opinions range from explosive volcanism to meteorite impact. The same supervolcanoes in California that supplied the ash for the Morrison Formation may have triggered liquefaction in these thick sands.

Summary

Supervolcanoes on a scale unlike any in recorded human history once shook western North America. The gigantic Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation stands as mute testimony of this violence. Three observations, including super-cracks, super-deposits, and widespread soft-sediment deformation, suggest a violent rending of fissure vents in the Sierra region that was the source for the Brushy Basin ash. The same watery catastrophe that buried dinosaurs in Utah was accompanied by super-size volcanism from sources in the west. The record is best interpreted in durations of days or weeks, not millions of years. The Genesis Flood provides the historical framework used to understand supervolcanoes.

Endnotes

   1. Austin, S. A., 1998, The declining power of post-Flood volcanoes: Impact (ICR) no. 302, 4 pp.
   2. Aguirre-Diaz, G. J., and Labarthe-Hernandez, G., 2003, Fissure ignimbrites: fissure-source origin for voluminous ignimbrites of the Sierra Madre Occidental and its relationship with Basin and Range faulting: Geology, v. 31, no. 9, pp. 773-776.
   3. The term supervolcano can be defined as a silicic, explosive fissure-eruption more than 1,000 cubic kilometers (DRE) of volcanic products.
   4. Hoesch, W. A., and Austin, S. A., 2004, Dinosaur National Monument: Jurassic park or Jurassic jumble?: Impact (ICR) no. 370, 8 pp.
   5. Hoesch and Austin, 2004.
   6. Turner, C. E., and Peterson, F., 2004, Reconstruction of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation extinct ecosystem—a synthesis: Sedimentary Geology, v. 167, no. 3-4, pp. 309-356.
   7. Ducea, M., 2001, The California arc: thick granitic batholiths, eclogitic residues, lithospheric-scale thrusting, and magmatic flare-ups: GSA Today, v. 11, no. 11, pp. 4-10.
   8. Dunne, G. C., Garvey, T. P., Osborne, M., Schneidereit, D., Fritsche, A. E., and Walker, J. D., 1998, Geology of the Inyo Mountains Volcanic Complex: implications for Jurassic paleogeography of the Sierran magmatic arc in eastern California: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 110, no. 11, pp. 1376-1397.
   9. Carl, B. S., and Glazner, A. F., 2002, Extent and significance of the Independence dike swarm, eastern California, in Glazner, A. F., Walker, J. D., & Bartley, J. M., eds., Geologic Evolution of the Mojave Desert and Southwestern Basin and Range: Boulder, Colo., Geological Society of America Memoir 195, pp. 117-130.
  10. Carl and Glazner, p. 117.
  11. Schermer, E. R., and Busby, C., 1994, Jurassic magmatism in the central Mojave Desert: implications for arc peleogeography and preservation of continental volcanic sequences: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 106, pp. 767-790.
  12. Farquharson, P. T., 2004, Geology of the Rancho San Marcos Dike Swarm: Baja California, Mexico. Master's thesis, San Diego State University.
  13. Huuse, M., Shoulders, S. J., Netoff, D. I., and Cartwright, J., 2005, Giant sandstone pipes record basin-scale liquefaction of buried dune sands in the Middle Jurassic of SE Utah: Terra Nova, v. 17, no. 1, pp. 80-85.