Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

I know that I have posted other material on Mount St Helens already. Each post has at least a little bit more to add to the other. Each one glorifies God and shows how the Bible is correct in it's telling of how young the earth is. The awesome power of God is exemplified in the eruption of Mount St Helens.

_________________


7 Wonders of Mount St. Helens
by Lloyd & Doris Anderson

    Introduction:  The 7 Wonders, summarized below, are seven geological features resulting from the eruptive activity of the ‘80’s and displayed at the MSH Creation Information Center.  Because they were formed rapidly they challenge evolutionary thought which assigns long ages to such formations.  We call them “wonders” because of the awe they produce.  In fact, it is our persuasion that these wonders are a message from God to remind man of the speed in which He created the world.


1.  Mountain rearranged beyond recognition in nine hours.  MSH was acclaimed the most beautiful of the Cascade peaks. Cone-shaped and snow-covered, it  towered over heavily-forested deep ravines with a crystal clear lake to its north.  In March of 1980, magma began moving up into the mountain wedging it apart.  A powerful earthquake at 8:32 a.m., on May 18, caused the north slope to plunge into the valleys below, releasing the pressure within with a lateral, northward, fan-shaped explosion.  This initial eight minute blast destroyed 230 square miles of forest.

     The mountain continued to erupt until evening, expending the power of 20,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs.  In those nine hours, the top 1/4 and entire center of the mountain disappeared, leaving a vast, gaping, horseshoe-shaped crater.  Deep ravines were filled, 250’ of material was deposited on the bottom of the lake, and the river that drained the north and northwest sides of the mountain was buried under an average of 150’ of deposit. In just nine hours the region had become a hideous, lifeless moonscape.

     For 150 years geological evolution minimized the role of catastrophic events.  Yet the enormous geological change produced by this nine-hour eruption of a minor volcano would take a million years of gradual change.

2.  Canyons formed in five months.  In the five months following the eruption two canyons were formed by mud and pyroclastic flows, establishing drainages for the 1.5 x 2.0 mile crater.  The primary drainage, Step Canyon, is up to 700’ deep. To its east is Loowit Canyon.  Both canyons cut through 100’ of solid rock.  Creeks flow through each canyon.  The typical evolutionary explanation is that a creek slowly forms a canyon over vast ages.  In this case we know that the canyons were formed quickly; then a stream began to run through them.  Textbooks say the most spectacular canyon in the world, the Grand Canyon, was formed by stream erosion over a hundred million years.  Now scientists who specialize in geological erosion believe it was formed rapidly just like these canyons at MSH.

3.  Badlands formed in five days.  Badlands topography is found in the Southwest and in South Dakota.  It occurs where loose material has been eroded in areas of rock structures, leaving a jagged but picturesque landscape.  The standard explanation for such landforms is that water, over the centuries, washed away the loose materials, leaving free-standing towering rock patterns.

     At  MSH the massive landslide carried huge amounts of ice and snow with it, burying them in the deep valley to the north.  Throughout the day 30’ of 550 degree F. ash was also deposited, which quickly melted that ice, causing it to “flash” to steam.  This is the same energy process that caused the explosions up in the mountain throughout the day.  Water expands 1700 times when it turns to steam. When this happens instantaneously, it is an explosion.  Eventually through similar explosions all the water was used up.

     When the red hot ash covering the buried ice and snow in the valley caused that ice to melt and “flash” to steam, something called “steam explosion pits” (up to 125’ deep) were formed.  They had nearly vertical sides until gravity collapsed them to produce a “rill and gully” effect, one of the features of badlands topography. (Rills are small gullies).  The great badlands features in the US could also have been produced by catastrophic forces and some by volcanic action.

4.  Layered Strata Formed in Three Hours.  On June 12, 1980 a third explosive eruption produced 25’ of stratification that amazed geologists.  Successive layers are traditionally thought to require long periods of time to form; yet upwards of 100 layers accumulated mostly between the nighttime hours of 9 and 12.  While a plume swiftly ascended nine miles above the mountain, wave after wave of pyroclastic flows began hurtling out of the crater and down the north slope, each dusting the valley below with another lamination.  Measuring from a fraction of an inch to over a yard in thickness, each took from a few seconds to a few minutes to form.

     Geologist Steven Austin described these pyroclastic flows as ground-hugging, fluidized, turbulent slurries of fine volcanic debris.  They moved down the mountainside at hurricane speeds and left deposits of 1000 degrees F.  One would expect each deposit to be homogenized & thoroughly mixed.  Remarkably these high-velocity slurries of red-hot ash and pumice separated into coarse and fine particles of perfectly defined layers.  Such features follow laws governing flows demonstrated in laboratory sedimentation tanks.

     Similar thin layering appears in the Tapeats Sandstones of the Grand Canyon.  Conventional wisdom says they were formed by slow and continuous sedimentation over long ages.  Both gas-charged slurries which formed the MSH strata and water-charged slurries which formed the Tapeats strata follow the same laws of physics.  The volcano has demonstrated that such formations can be formed rapidly.  A global flood would have produced Tapeats in a brief time.

5.  River System Formed in Nine Hours.  The landslide of May 18 had buried the river and highway to Spirit Lake to an average 150’.  It also buried most other drainages in the 23 square miles of the Upper Toutle Valley and plugged the valley’s mouth.  For twenty-two months no established path for water to the Pacific Ocean existed.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

     Then, on March 19, 1982, an eruption melted a large snow pack that had accumulated in the crater over the winter.  The waters mixed with loose material on the slopes of the mountain creating an enormous mudflow.  In nine hours while no eye watched, the mudflow carved an integrated system of drainages over much of the valley and reopened the way to the Pacific Ocean.  The drainages included at least three canyons 100’ deep.  One was nicknamed “The Little Grand Canyon of the Toutle” because it is a 1/40th scale model of the Grand Canyon.

     Much water (or mud) accomplishes rapidly what a little water (or mud) takes an eternity to accomplish.

     Evolutionary geologists assigned long periods of time to the formation of the 16,000 square mile Channeled Scablands of Eastern Washington.  In the ‘70’s they finally acknowledged that this vast geologic formation which includes the Grand Coulee was formed mostly in two days as a result of a catastrophic event.  Catastrophic events best explain the great erosionary formations on the earth’s surface.  The histories of nearly 300 people groups speak of an event adequate to the job--the Global Flood.

6.  Sinking Logs Look Like Many Aged Forests in Just Ten Years.  A million trees were washed into Spirit Lake the day of the main eruption.  As the years go by one by one they become waterlogged and sink to the bottom.  Dense root wood is still a part of 10% of the logs.  Those logs sink to the bottom in an upright position and their roots quickly become covered by the continuing sedimentation washing into the lake.  They give the appearance they grew and died where they are deposited, one forest on top of another over long periods of time.

     Such formations are found in other places, including Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone National Park.  There, geologists found forests “rooted” in 27 different layers in the ridge and concluded they were observing 27 successive forests.  The interpretive sign at Specimen Ridge expressed their error.  It read: “Buried within the volcanic rocks that compose the mountain are twenty-seven distinct layers of fossil forest that flourished 50 million years ago.”

     Today the truth is out and the sign is gone.  Scientists realized that the Spirit Lake phenomena explains Specimen Ridge.  The trees floated on a lake, became waterlogged and sank to the bottom over a period of time, giving the appearance of multiple forests that grew one on top of another.  The 50 million year formation could have formed in just a few years plus the time necessary for petrifying the logs (100 to 1000 years).

7.  A New Model for Quicker Coal Formation.  Dr. Steven Austin wrote his doctoral dissertation at Penn State University on a new model for coal formation based on his study of a coal field in Kentucky.  While geologists have used a peat swamp model to explain coal formation for over 100 years, Austin argued that explanation doesn’t fit because coal is coarsely textured like bark, not finely textured like swamp peat.  Swamp peat contains root material; coal does not.  Swamp peat rests on a layer of soil; coal often rests on a rock layer.  No swamp peat has been found partly formed into coal.

     Austin advanced a floating mat model--that a watery catastrophe stripped away millions of acres of forest and tangled them into mats.  The mats floated on an ocean over Kentucky, bumping against one another and dropping their bark to the bottom.  Subsequent volcanic activity provided heat and pressure, the final ingredients used in laboratories to produce coal.  The result was rich seams of coal in Kentucky and a Ph.D. for Austin.

     Just ten months later Mount St. Helens erupted, dumping vast amounts of vegetation into Spirit Lake including a million logs.  Dr. Austin found the logs on the lake stripped of their bark.  The bottom of the lake was strewn with up to three feet of bark mixed with other vegetation and sediment.  To this day the material remains as merely slowly decaying vegetation.  But if a catastrophe supplies the right amount of heat and pressure, the material will quickly change to coal.  Dr. Austin’s research indicates that the idea of coal formation requiring millions of years is highly questionable.

[Soldier4Christ]

UNNATURAL GRAVEYARDS



Gripped by the same terror, wild beasts and tame struggle together to higher grounds along with people. Some of the people bind their children and themselves upon powerful animals, knowing that these will climb to the highest peaks to escape the rising waters. Some fasten themselves to tall trees on the hills or mountains, but the trees are uprooted and hurled into the billows. As the waters rise higher, the people flee for refuge to the loftiest heights.
       
In amphitheatres in the hills, they find themselves trapped. In great numbers they throng together, pushing into caves, swarming over the ground in front. Until the waters rise and cover them. Strong animals, without a sign of degeneration, come to an end.

There is a most crucial circumstance concerning the earth's strata and the fossils that is not generally disclosed to the public, and which many geologists apparently do not recognise. On every continent, and in numerous places on each, are vast "fossil graveyards", where masses of flora and fauna have been swept to a sudden death in their millions. These areas are often packed with both land and sea creatures from different habitats and even different climatic zones - all mixed and buried together in a completely unnatural way.

There is evidence that a great disaster took place, in which creatures of all types perished together - mostly fit, young and old, with fleet legs, strong muscles and sharp teeth. And with plenty of food around.  Artifacts of man are found among them. They all died together, suddenly and violently, high up on hills and mountains.

In France, numerous clefts crammed to overflowing with animal bones have been found.  Along with them are human remains. One could mention Mount Genay, near Semur in Burgundy - 1,430 feet high. Here, capped by a breccia (a cemented mass of stone fragments), is a fissure filled with mixed bones of numerous animals. Near Chalon-sur-Saone, between Dijon and Lyons, stands an isolated hill, flat-topped Mont de Sautenay. It rises 1,030 feet above the plain.  Near the summit is a fissure crammed with bones.  The bones are unweathered and un-gnawed. The state of preservation of the bones indicates that the animals perished in the same period of time. 

Caves and fissures on the Cote d'Azur have yielded mixed land and sea remains -  bones of lions, rhinoceros, hyenas, macao monkeys, elephants and whales.  All together. In Britain (for example, Yorkshire, Plymouth, Devonshire and Wales) and Eire, are similar mixtures.

In Germany, coal beds contain a complete mixture of plants, insects and animals from all climatic zones. Their muscles and skin are perfectly preserved. Upright trees that are buried in multiple geological layers of coal. Although leaves are preserved in fresh condition (retaining their fine fibre and green colour) and insects their membranes and colours perfectly preserved, ALL ARE VIOLENTLY TORN INTO PIECES. Only a sudden catatrophic event could have caused these plants to be found intact with fine fibre and green coloring. A catastrophy such as a global flood.

Numerous crevices down to 290 feet deep on the Rock of Gibraltar are filled with bones of the wolf, bear, lynx, hare, ibex, rabbit, horse, panther, rhinoceros, ox, wild boar, deer and other animals. The bones are neither worn, rolled, nor gnawed.  They are splintered and broken.  And found together with land and marine shells - as well as coral.

The fact that bones of animals of all ages were piled together, indicates that the catastrophe was SUDDEN. The bones could not have been exposed to weather for long, for none of them shows marks of weathering. That water deposited them is indicated by the very general cementing together of the bones by calcite.

DINOSAURS LIKEWISE DROWNED

Yes, big as they were, dinosaurs suffered the same watery fate - followed by rapid burial.  This is evidence that some scientists prefer to ignore. Great dinosaur beds have been excavated in Alberta, Belgium, New Mexico, Tanzania, Spitzbergen and many other places. All over the world, paleontologists have found caches of fossilized dinosaurs that were buried instantly in a catastrophic movement of water.

[Soldier4Christ]

A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible
by Duane Gish, Ph.D.

There were no human witnesses to the origin of life, and no physical geological evidence of its origin exists. Speaking of the origin of a hypothetical self-replicating molecule and its structure, Pross has recently admitted that "The simple answer is we do not know, and we may never know."1 Later, concerning the question of the origin of such a molecule, Pross said, ". . . one might facetiously rephrase the question as follows: given an effectively unknown reaction mixture, under effectively unknown reaction conditions, reacting to give unknown products by unknown mechanisms, could a particular product with a specific characteristic . . . have been included amongst the reaction products?"2 That pretty well summarizes the extent of the progress evolutionists have made toward establishing a mechanistic, atheistic scenario for the origin of life after more than half a century of physical, chemical, and geological research. It is possible, however, to derive facts that establish beyond doubt that an evolutionary origin of life on this planet would have been impossible. The origin of life could only have resulted from the action of an intelligent agent external to and independent of the natural universe. There is sufficient space here to describe only a few of the insuperable barriers to an evolutionary origin of life.

1. The absence of the required atmosphere.

Our present atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen (N2), 21% molecular oxygen (O2), and 1% of other gases, such as carbon dioxide CO2), argon (Ar), and water vapor H2O). An atmosphere containing free oxygen would be fatal to all origin of life schemes. While oxygen is necessary for life, free oxygen would oxidize and thus destroy all organic molecules required for the origin of life. Thus, in spite of much evidence that the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere,3 evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no oxygen in the earth's early atmosphere. However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth. Ozone is produced by radiation from the sun on the oxygen in the atmosphere, converting the diatomic oxygen(O2) we breathe to triatomic oxygen O3), which is ozone. Thus if there were no oxygen there would be no ozone. The deadly destructive ultraviolet light from the sun would pour down on the surface of the earth unimpeded, destroying those organic molecules required for life, reducing them to simple gases, such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. Thus, evolutionists face an irresolvable dilemma: in the presence of oxygen, life could not evolve; without oxygen, thus no ozone, life could not evolve or exist.

2. All forms of raw energy are destructive.

The energy available on a hypothetical primitive Earth would consist primarily of radiation from the sun, with some energy from electrical discharges (lightning), and minor sources of energy from radioactive decay and heat. The problem for evolution is that the rates of destruction of biological molecules by all sources of raw energy vastly exceed their rates of formation by such energy. The only reason Stanley Miller succeeded in obtaining a small amount of products in his experiment was the fact that he employed a trap to isolate his products from the energy source.4 Here evolutionists face two problems. First, there could be no trap available on a primitive Earth. Second, a trap by itself would be fatal to any evolutionary scenario, for once the products are isolated in the trap, no further evolutionary progress is possible, because no energy is available. In his comments on Miller's experiment, D. E. Hull stated that "These short lives for decomposition in the atmosphere or ocean clearly preclude the possibility of accumulating useful concentrations of organic compounds over eons of time. . . . The physical chemist guided by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist, who needs an ocean full of organic compounds to form even lifeless coacervates."5

3. An evolutionary scenario for the origin of life would result in an incredible clutter.

Let us suppose that, as evolutionists suggest, there actually was some way for organic, biologically important molecules to have formed in a significant quantity on a primitive Earth. An indescribable mess would have been the result. In addition to the 20 different amino acids found in proteins today, hundreds of other kinds of amino acids would have been produced. In addition to deoxyribose and ribose, the five-carbon sugars found in DNA and RNA today, a variety of other five-carbon sugars, four-carbon, six-carbon, and seven-carbon sugars would have been produced. In addition to the five purines and pyrimidines found in DNA and RNA today, a great variety of other purines and pyrimidines would exist. Further, of vital significance, the amino acids in proteins today are exclusively left-handed, but all amino acids on the primitive Earth would be 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed. The sugars in DNA and RNA today are exclusively right-handed, but, if they did exist, sugars on a primitive Earth would have been 50% right-handed and 50% left-handed. If just one right-handed amino acid is in a protein, or just one left-handed sugar is found in a DNA or RNA, all biological activity is destroyed. There would be no mechanism available on a primitive Earth to select the correct form. This fact alone destroys evolution. Evolutionists have been wrestling with this dilemma since it was first recognized, and there is no solution in sight. All these many varieties would compete with one another, and a great variety of other organic molecules, including aldehydes, ketones, acids, amines, lipids, carbohydrates, etc. would exist. If evolutionists really claim to simulate plausible primitive Earth conditions, why don't they place their reactants in a big mess like this and irradiate it with ultraviolet light, shock it with electric discharges, or heat it, and see what results? They don't do that because they know there wouldn't be the remotest possibility that anything useful for their evolutionary scenario would result. Rather, they carefully select just the starting materials they want to produce amino acids or sugars or purines or whatever, and, furthermore, they employ implausible experimental conditions that would not exist on a primitive Earth. They then claim in textbooks and journal articles that such and such biological molecules would have been produced in abundant quantities on the early earth.

4. Micromolecules do not spontaneously combine to form macromolecules.

It is said that DNA is the secret of life. DNA is not the secret of life. Life is the secret of DNA. Evolutionists persistently claim that the initial stage in the origin of life was the origin of a self-replicating DNA or RNA molecule. There is no such thing as a self-replicating molecule, and no such molecule could ever exist.The formation of a molecule requires the input of a highly selected type of energy and the steady input of the building blocks required to form it. To produce a protein, the building blocks are amino acids. For DNA and RNA these building blocks are nucleotides, which are composed of purines, pyrimidines, sugars, and phosphoric acid. If amino acids are dissolved in water they do not spontaneously join together to make a protein. That would require an input of energy. If proteins are dissolved in water the chemical bonds between the amino acids slowly break apart, releasing energy (the protein is said to hydrolyze). The same is true of DNA and RNA. To form a protein in a laboratory the chemist, after dissolving the required amino acids in a solvent, adds a chemical that contains high energy bonds (referred to as a peptide reagent). The energy from this chemical is transferred to the amino acids. This provides the necessary energy to form the chemical bonds between the amino acids and releases H and OH to form H2O (water). This only happens in a chemistry laboratory or in the cells of living organisms. It could never have taken place in a primitive ocean or anywhere on a primitive Earth. Who or what would be there to provide a steady input of the appropriate energy? Destructive raw energy would not work. Who or what would be there to provide a steady supply of the appropriate building blocks rather than just junk? In speaking of a self-replicating DNA molecule, evolutionists are reaching for a pie in the sky.

5. DNA could not survive without repair mechanisms.

DNA, as is true of messenger-RNA, transfer-RNA, and ribosomal-RNA, is destroyed by a variety of agents, including ultraviolet light, reactive oxygen species, alkylting agents, and water. A recent article reported that there are 130 known human DNA repair genes and that more will be found. The authors stated that "Genome |DNA| instability caused by the great variety of DNA-damaging agents would be an overwhelming problem for cells and organisms if it were not for DNA repair emphasis mine)."6 Note that even water is one of the agents that damages DNA! If DNA somehow evolved on the earth it would be dissolved in water. Thus water and many chemical agents dissolved in it, along with ultraviolet light would destroy DNA much faster than it could be produced by the wildest imaginary process. If it were not for DNA repair genes, the article effectively states, DNA could not survive even in the protective environment of a cell! How then could DNA survive when subjected to brutal attack by all the chemical and other DNA-damaging agents that would exist on the hypothetical primitive Earth of the evolutionists?

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

What are the cellular agents that are necessary for DNA repair and survival? DNA genes! Thus, DNA is necessary for the survival of DNA! But it would have been impossible for DNA repair genes to evolve before ordinary DNA evolved and it would have been impossible for ordinary DNA to evolve before DNA repair genes had evolved. Here we see another impossible barrier for evolution. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to imagine that DNA repair genes could have evolved even if a cell existed. DNA genes encode the sequences of the hundreds of amino acids that constitute the proteins that are the actual agents that are involved in DNA repair. The code in the DNA is translated into a messenger RNA (mRNA). The mRNA must then move to and be incorporated into a ribosome (which is made up of three different ribosomal RNAs and 55 different protein molecules). Each amino acid must be coupled to a transfer RNA specific for that amino acid, and the coupling requires a protein enzyme specific for that amino acid and transfer-RNA. Responding to the code on the messenger RNA and utilizing the codes on transfer RNA's, the appropriate amino acids, attached to the transfer RNAs, are attached to the growing protein chain in the order prescribed by the code of the messenger RNA. Many enzymes are required along with appropriate energy. This is only a brief introduction to the incredible complexity of life that is found even in a bacterium.

"Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this?" (Job 12:9).

Endnotes

    1. Pross, Addy. 2004. Causation and the origin of life. Metabolism or replication first? Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biospheres 34:308.

    2. Ibid., 316.

    3. Davidson, C. F. 1965. Geochemical aspects of atomospheric evolution. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 53:1194; Brinkman, R. T., 1969. Dissociation of water vapor and evolution of oxygen in the terrestrial atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res., 74:5355; Clemmey, H., and N. Badham. 1982. Oxygen in the Precambrian atmosphere; an evaluation of the geological evidence. Geology 10:141; Dimroth, E., and M. M. Kimberley. 1976. Precambrian atmospheric oxygen: evidence in the sedimentary distributions of carbon, sulfur, uranium, and iron. Can. J. Earth Sci., 13:1161.

    4. Miller, Stanley. 1953. A production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions. Science 117:528.

    5. Hull, D. E. 1960. Thermodynamics and kinetics of spontaneous generation. Nature 186:693.

    6. Wood, R. D., et al. 2001. Human DNA repair genes. Science 291:1284.

*Dr. Duane Gish is Senior Vice President Emeritus of ICR.

[Soldier4Christ]

DNA: A Stew-pendous Creation
by Frank Sherwin, M.A.*

Often those who prefer non-Darwinian explanations for the origin of the species are accused of being unscientific. One may believe in creation (or intelligent design), evolutionists maintain, but there certainly isn't any evidence for it. Ironically, it is research by the scientific community that begs to differ, revealing stunning and sophisticated features of the living world:

    DNA's simple and elegant structure -- the "twisted ladder," with sugar-phosphate chains making up the "rails" and oxygen- and nitrogen-containing chemical "rungs" tenuously uniting the two halves -- seems to be the work of an accomplished sculptor.

    Yet the graceful, sinuous profile of the DNA double helix is the result of random chemical reactions in a simmering, primordial stew. Just how nature arrived at this molecule and its sister molecule, RNA, remains one of the greatest -- and potentially unsolvable -- scientific mysteries.1

There are a number of points of note in this remarkable quote. The most obvious is that judging simply by what the secular scientist can see (Romans 1:20), DNA has all the earmarks of a Sculptor who is gifted, skilled, and clever. But then notice they deny what is "clearly seen" choosing to attribute the "graceful, sinuous profile" of DNA to "a simmering, primordial stew." In 1952 a graduate student in Chicago attempted to emulate prebiotic conditions on a young Earth "billions of years ago." But organic life and DNA were never "created."2 What biochemists cannot do given almost unlimited funding, time, and contact with the brightest and best scientific minds in the world -- a "simmering, primordial stew" can do! There have been other simulation experiments, but no one has been able to make "the sugar molecules dioxy-ribose |sic| and ribose necessary to build DNA and RNA molecules."3

"Random chemical reactions" are not what any biochemist would bet on when making something as detailed as DNA, even in the fullness of time. Recent discoveries have added even more woes to the primordial stew hypothesis.4

If the origin of DNA/RNA continues to remain "one of the greatest -- and potentially unsolvable -- scientific mysteries" then the door is wide open to a supernatural explanation. Questing, unbiased scientists should be free to go down that path. Darwinists are hoping that some day a purely chemical explanation for the origin of the complex DNA molecule will miraculously appear, but that day will never come.

    1. Physorg.com. 2006. Uncovering DNA's "sweet" secret. October 3, 2006. http://www.physorg.com/news79110174.html.
    2. Meyer, S. Spring 1996. The origin of life, The Intercollegiate Review 31:26.
    3. Ibid.
    4. Kerr, R. A. October 6, 2006. Has lazy mixing spoiled the primordial stew? Science 6 314:36-37.

*Frank Sherwin is a zoologist and seminar speaker for ICR.

[Soldier4Christ]

Fossil Political Correctness in the Sixteenth Century
by William Hoesch, M.S.*

The history of thinking about fossils is a study in worldviews. Conrad Gesner of Zurich (1516-1565) is considered by some the greatest naturalist of his century. His book, On Fossil Objects, in many ways reflects his Protestant upbringing. The fact that he lost his father in armed combat between Catholics and Protestants in 1531 reminds us that this was a time when it was costly to believe. Gesner's close friend growing up was none other than Heinrich Bullinger, one of the most influential Christian figures of his century. Gesner's interest in science led him to universities at a time when Renaissance humanism was the dominant worldview. In his work on fossils, his Protestant upbringing shines through in some interesting ways.

First, Gesner placed great emphasis on first-hand observation which can be seen in his detailed woodcut illustrations of fossils. In this, he broke with the Renaissance tradition of science, placing the opinions of the "Ancients" (Aristotle, etc.) above that of observation. Gesner reversed this. At the time, it was not at all obvious that marine-looking fossils found in stone far from the sea were the remains of once living organisms. Neoplatonism held that the funny fossil shapes were controlled by mysterious astral influences, and Aristotelianism attributed marine-looking fossils to the transport of "seeds" of ocean-dwelling organisms that got carried inland and grew in place after lodging in the cracks. Gesner made no effort to challenge these teachings, but in comparing side-by-side quality woodcut illustrations of living marine organisms with marine-looking fossils, he helped to move thinking toward an organic interpretation of fossils. First-hand observation is an essential step in "taking dominion over nature" that is mandated in Scripture, and Gesner seemed to manifest this.

Second, Gesner took a peculiar delight in the study of nature. When he considered the minerals and gems which were at that time considered in the category of "fossils," he was transfixed by the thought that these were earthly reminders of the jeweled City of Jerusalem. An accomplished physician, he delighted in hiking the Swiss Alps where he sought to catalog botanicals for their potential medicinal use. It was considered odd at this time to "enjoy" nature, but Gesner is hailed by some today as the father of recreational hiking! Despite nature's fallen condition, he was able to "see" the invisible things of God and His attributes (Romans 1:20). The level of delight Gesner took in nature cannot be credited to his Neoplatonic or Aristotelian training. It is as if he saw all of nature as a divine revelation.

The considered wisdom of "the Ancients," that fossils grew in place, was ultimately an article of pagan philosophy. Gesner, and others who followed, helped to change the thinking process. Early church fathers like Tertullian actually had it right; they understood an organic origin for fossils. For them, to get the remains of marine creatures high on the hills required an unusual agency -- it obviously took a global Flood! Although long forgotten, and requiring thinking big about earth history, this teaching of a global Flood would return in the seventeenth century and play a key role in returning science to a solid foundation.

*William A. Hoesch, M.S. geology, is Research Assistant in Geology.

[Soldier4Christ]

Crisis in Crater Count Dating
by David F. Coppedge*

Dating methods are like human pyramids; they depend ultimately on the support of the bottom layer. Picture an inverted pyramid. If the bottom guy buckles under pressure, the circus act quickly turns into a dogpile. One widely used technique for estimating ages of planetary surfaces is in similar jeopardy. Its underlying assumption, unquestioned for decades, has recently been found to be seriously flawed.

Crater-count dating seems perfectly logical: the more craters, the older the landscape. It assumes, however, that impactors arrive at a roughly steady rate and produce one crater per hit. After compensating for various complicating factors, like atmospheric density, gravity, and geological activity, scientists had been confident of their time charts -- until recently. New thinking about "secondary craters" has thrown this whole foundation of comparative planetary dating into disarray.

Secondary craters are those formed from the debris of an initial impact. If a sufficiently massive body hits a planet or moon, the debris cloud tossed upward will contain many pieces big enough to fall back and form more craters. Planetologists were not unaware of secondary cratering, but until recently, underestimated its significance. Now they are finding that the vast majority of craters could be secondaries. One writer in Nature estimated that a single large impact on Mars could generate ten million secondaries, and that 95% of the small craters on Europa could be from fallback debris.

Without a way to reliably identify secondary craters, only subjective inferences can be made about the history of a surface. One might suppose secondaries could be identified by proximity to a large crater, or by similar amounts of erosion or space weathering. It's not so simple. Some debris could go into orbit only to fall back centuries later, while other pieces could escape into space to eventually impact other bodies. Fallback debris could also cast dust over the primary craters, obscuring the relationship, or could even toss up more debris to generate additional impacts.

Believing they knew how old the earth-moon system was, and something about its geological history, scientists had plotted crater density on the moon against surface age. They applied this to Mars and other planets and moons, such that any surface could be dated by reference to the lunar standard. A pyramid was thus built on a shaky assumption. Now, awareness of the potential for single impacts to generate vast numbers of secondary craters has yanked the guy on the bottom, bringing the scheme crashing down. Science (May 26, 2006) reported that at a conference last March, "125 planetary scientists deadlocked" over how to apply the method, with many doubting that crater counts have anything to do with telling time. Geological dates inferred from the method could be "off by orders of magnitude."

A brief discussion like this cannot begin to place crater formation within a Biblical timescale. A full creationist model of cratering in the solar system will require much work. There is an important lesson here, though, for all science lovers: question assumptions.

*David F. Coppedge works in the Cassini program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

[Soldier4Christ]

SETI: Design in Spite of Itself
by David F. Coppedge


Researchers involved in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) use scientific equipment, collaborate with scientists, attend scientific conferences, publish scientific articles, and generally look and smell like scientists, lab coats and all. Most have degrees in science. This has not made them immune from accusations, though, that they are engaged in a quasi-scientific religious quest.

Novelist Michael Crichton and science historian George Basalla have been among the critics. Leaders in the Intelligent Design (ID) movement also have taken great glee in pointing out SETI's assumption that intelligence is detectable with scientific methods. Twice recently, leading SETI spokesmen have fought back against these charges, defending their work as scientific and materialistic. But did they succeed?

A better defender could hardly be found than Seth Shostak, Director of the SETI Institute. He appeared briefly in the ID film The Privileged Planet, not defending Intelligent Design, but explaining that "unless there's something very, very special—miraculous, if you will . . . about our planet Earth . . . then what happened here must have happened many times in the history of the Universe." Apparently irked by the suggestion that SETI uses the same assumption as ID that coded messages indicate an intelligent cause, he attempted to rebut this claim head-on in an essay for Space.com (12/01/2005).

Shostak argued that SETI is not looking for a complex code or message, but a "persistent, narrowband whistle" in a context that would make it appear artificial instead of natural. Yet SETI is clearly not restricted to such a narrow goal. From the beginning, SETI devotees have wished to communicate with other intelligent beings and learn from them; does this not explain repeated attempts to send messages out, whether on radio waves, Pioneer plaques, or Voyager records?

Shostak also made a false distinction between complexity and artificiality. ID argues that specified complexity is detectable by scientific means. The point is that if an intelligent agent wishes to communicate, it can use natural materials to convey a message, and humans can discriminate such attempts (e.g., smoke signals) from natural processes.

More recently, David Darling of the SETI Institute responded on Space.com (06/01/2006) to charges that SETI is a religion. He tried to contrast the scientific-looking appearance of SETI researchers and their equipment to religious believers praying in a worship service. He compared SETI to other research endeavors that took time to prove. He also claimed that we already know about non-human intelligence: apes and dolphins. These responses, however, create false dichotomies and comparisons. They attempt to hide the reality that no evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence has ever been found.

Opponents of creation argue that belief in God (or a designing intelligence) brings science to a halt. They say scientists should seek for underlying natural mechanisms, not just throw up their hands and say "God did it." If SETI researchers ever do detect a signal and conclude "aliens did it," could we not counter-argue they are bringing science to a halt by inferring design?

* David F. Coppedge works in the Cassini program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

[Soldier4Christ]

Out of Ararat?
by William Hoesch, M.S.

Paleoanthropologists are not usually known for shying away from discord, debate, or disagreement. Yet for several decades there has been near-unanimity on two fronts: (1) the so-called fact of evolution, and more specifically that, (2) an African ape, sometime in the last few million years, gave rise to the first African human. There is no sign of yielding on the first front, but on the second, new findings have made continued agreement impossible.

The key findings are summarized by archeologists Robin Dennell and Wil Roebroeks (Nature, 438:1099-1104) in an article entitled: "An Asian perspective on early human dispersal from Africa." By "early humans" the authors mean the genus Homo, either as the east African species H. ergaster, or broadly speaking, H. erectus. Many, but not all creationists will recognize Homo as tool-wielding, upright-walking, and relatively large-brained sons of Adam. Here is the problem. In a half-dozen sites across Asia and Europe, Homo remains are being found that are nearly as old, or older, than their oldest supposed Homo ancestor in east Africa. For example, H. erectus specimens from Dmanisi in the Republic of Georgia dated at an alleged 1.7 Ma; at Mojokerto, Java, dated at 1.81 Ma; and Sangiran, Java, dated at 1.8 Ma, are comparable in age with the oldest H. erectus in Africa, at 1.9 Ma. Laying aside the absolute value of these dates for a moment, it looks as if Homo popped into existence all at once in a multitude of places! By the way, the Dmanisi site, which has become a major focal point for anthropology and is thought to represent an important dispersal point for early man, lies within a mere 200 kilometers of Mount Ararat. It is now widely believed that humans evolved in an as-of-yet undiscovered site in Asia and then migrated into Africa!

So abrupt is the appearance of the earliest true humans (H. ergaster) in the fossil record of east Africa that Dennell and Roebroeks remarked, "Not for nothing has it been described as a hominin 'without an ancestor, without a clear past'" (p. 1099). Hominin is the category shared by humans (Homo) and their assumed ape (Australopithecus) ancestors. The absence of a clear past for Homo finds these two excited archeologists "on the threshold of a profound transformation of our understanding of early hominin evolution" (p. 1103).

The search is now on for a locality that records the key transition from ape to human. "It is hard at present to identify its immediate ancestry in east Africa," say Dennell and Roebroeks (p. 1099). Nor apparently is it in East Asia, nor even in the promising new site in Georgia. Northern China or perhaps the difficult-to-access Muslim nations of central Asia are now being targeted as good prospects. I applaud the courage and persistence of these evolutionary researchers. But what if, at the end of the day, no ancestor can be found anywhere for H. erectus? It is not hard to see this is the direction the data are pointing. An absence of evidence is not evidence for absence, true. But if it is also true that man always was man, as God indicated to us in Genesis, the truly courageous researcher must face the possibility that a search for human ancestry will end in vain. Do not wait until the end of the day, my friend, to go back to Genesis!

* William A. Hoesch, M.S. geology, is Research Assistant in Geology.

[Soldier4Christ]

Hummingbirds at ICR
by Frank Sherwin, M.A.

Baby Hummingbirds at ICR

The staff at ICR trusts you enjoy the hummingbird picture taken outside a window of our main building. It was noticed months ago that an adult bird was weaving a nest on a palm frond. Being a science organization and lovers of God's living creation, we closely followed the maternal events as they unfolded. The tiny eggs hatched and in due time, the two rapidly-growing hatchlings were literally bursting from the confines of their nest. It was interesting that the mother, perched on a nearby branch (always the same one), would intently watch her little ones in the nest. She would occasionally zoom around the nest, showing her crouching, bewildered offspring that "this is how you do it!"

Hummingbirds challenge the neo-Darwinian paradigm. Their size, flight characteristics and patterns, metabolism, all point to our magnificent Creator who designed these amazing animals and created them on Day Five. Secular scientists reject this and state,

    So, in fact, birds are not some separate biological entity, distinct and apart from "reptiles." Birds are dinosaurs.1

Is it really scientifically accurate to say that the ferocious T. rex evolved into birds, that it did not become extinct but sprouted feathers and is now able (in the hummingbird's case) to hover and fly rapidly backwards?

Speaking of flight, such agile flying requires power and coordination. One evolutionary publication said in regard to hummingbird flight,

    Hypobaric challenge is met behaviorally through compensatory changes in wingbeat kinematics, particularly in stroke amplitude.2

Translated, this means the tiny creature has been wonderfully designed to compensate for low pressure problems encountered in flight. But did such "wingbeat kinematics" just evolve by mutations, or is there a Supreme aero-engineer? Unbelievably rapid muscle contraction is the power source of the rapid wingbeats. Skeletal muscle fibers (cells) may be divided into red (sustained use with a greater supply of blood) and white (designed for short, rapid bursts). Not surprisingly, hummingbird muscle, such as the paired supracoracoideus, are of the red type and at least 30 percent of the bird's weight—about 10 percent more than other birds.

The amazing feathered acrobat, the tiny, fearless hummingbird!

Endnotes

   1. Fastovsky, D. E. and D. B. Weishample, 1996. The Evolution and Extinction of Dinosaurs. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 320-321.
   2. Altshuler, D. L. and R. Dudley, 2002. The ecological and evolutionary interface of hummingbird flight physiology. The Journal of Experimental Biology, v. 205, pp. 2325-2336.

* Frank Sherwin is a zoologist and seminar speaker for ICR.

[Soldier4Christ]

Titan vs. Billions of Years
by David F. Coppedge

Abstract
Titan turned out to be very different from predictions made using long-age assumptions. The near absence of ethane remains a profound mystery.
The landing of the Huygens probe on Saturn's moon, Titan ranks as one of the most dramatic achievements in space exploration. When Voyager flew by in 1981, Titan looked like a hazy ball at visible wavelengths. Its surface lay shrouded in mystery for 24 years, as scientists tried to model what would happen under a nitrogen-rich atmosphere spiked with methane. The difference between what they expected and what Huygens discovered should be of great interest to creationists.

Titan is the only moon with a substantial atmosphere, composed primarily of nitrogen and just under 5% methane. It became apparent from post-Voyager models that the atmosphere is unstable. Unlike on Earth, where the nitrogen, carbon, and oxygen are recycled, the methane on Titan has only two places to go: down or out. In the upper atmosphere, methane is continually stripped of electrons from bombardment by the solar wind and cosmic rays. Free hydrogen escapes to space. Depleted of some of the hydrogen, the carbon atoms recombine into more complex molecules, some with nitrogen (nitriles) and some with carbon and hydrogen (hydrocarbons). Ethane, propane, acetylene, and benzene have been detected as products of this strange atmospheric chemistry.

Of particular interest is ethane, a stable molecule with two carbons and six hydrogens. Ethane falls to the surface as a liquid and cannot return to the atmosphere. Scientists were confident that the conversion is irreversible, and should lead to a buildup of ethane, forming lakes and possibly oceans on the surface. By the late 1990s, oceans of ethane several kilometers deep were anticipated. Artists' conceptions up until the landing imagined large expanses of liquid ethane or methane dotting a frozen landscape of water ice.

In 1997, a Titan-IV rocket blasted Cassini and its Huygens probe toward Saturn and Titan. During the seven-year cruise, Earth telescopes with improved spectral resolution detected light and dark areas the size of continents, but no global ocean. Finally, on January 14, 2005, Huygens successfully parachuted to the surface, taking priceless photos and measurements all the way down. It was designed to operate on a solid or liquid surface. Mission scientists actually hoped for a splash.

The results were as surprising as they were sensational. Instead of finding lakes or oceans, Huygens landed on a dry lakebed, where liquid methane appeared to saturate the surface but not form pools. River channels suggested erosion of icy mountains by occasional cloudbursts of methane rain. Contrary to predictions, Huygens measured ethane in only trace amounts. If ethane production had been going on for billions of years, where was it? Subsequent radar scans by Cassini showed vast areas covered by wind-driven dunes of icy grains. It appears that Titan is, for the most part, a freezing desert.

In short, Titan turned out to be very different from predictions made using long-age assumptions. The near absence of ethane remains a profound mystery. Now that the data have been published (Nature, 12/08/2005), creationists could do good work modeling Titan's atmospheric dynamics unfettered by long-age assumptions.

David F. Coppedge works in the Cassini program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

[Soldier4Christ]

Arctic Heat Wave
by William Hoesch, M.S.

Abstract
Only a few decades ago it might have been considered preposterous to suggest oceans of 30-plus degrees centigrade that drove an "abbreviated" post-Flood Ice Age (of relatively short duration), but not today.

Drill cores from beneath the floor of the Arctic Ocean have revealed a startling find. Fossils from around the 430 meter mark indicate the seabed was once a balmy 23 degrees centigrade (74 degrees Fahrenheit)! Today's temperatures beneath the Arctic vary within a few degrees of zero. The find is thought to reflect a global condition of warming, suggesting that all the oceans were once at least this warm pointing to a period called "the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum" (PETM). Although it has long been suspected, from oxygen isotope data derived by analyzing both the deep sea Cenozoic record and from ice cores, such remarkably warm temperatures have taken most scientists by surprise. However, this fits in very well with the young-Earth creationist view of history which includes a global Flood.

Several implications follow from a warm ocean. Warm waters would result in high rates of evaporation, high rates of precipitation, and a very wet world. How wet? ICR research has predicted that a globally uniform sea surface temperature of 30 degrees centigrade would result in sustained precipitation in localities at over eight inches per hour. Heaviest precipitation would have been over the polar regions where the precipitation would fall as snow, the snow would compact to ice, and the ice would move out as glaciers. If the PETM corresponds to the immediate post-Flood period, an Ice Age following the Flood makes great sense. Second, a warm ocean would mean enormously energetic storms. A computational run using a globally uniform surface temperature of 37 degrees centigrade eventuated in cyclones of hundreds of miles in diameter breaking out across wide portions of the earth and not just the lower latitudes. Called "hypercanes," these storms would have generated horizontal winds of over 300 mph, vertical winds of 100 mph, and precipitation of over ten inches per hour. It is not difficult to imagine moisture-laden fronts ripping across polar regions producing temperature drops of scores of degrees centigrade. Flash-frozen mammoths recovered in the Arctic have up until recently been a cryogenic mystery. Although the mystery is by no means solved, a more credible answer is now possible. Such conditions so far from human experience apparently took place in the relatively recent past.

Many scientists suspect some kind of catastrophic release of carbon dioxide is to blame for the warm spell; others argue that a rise of temperature would be the expected cause rather than the effect of a carbon dioxide rise. But there is a more obvious possibility. If a global Flood occurred in recent world history, then one would expect warm oceans and a relatively temperate (or cool) air mass would have followed. Reasons for warm oceans following the Flood include: relatively warm pre-Flood oceans, extraordinary levels of submarine volcanism during the Flood, and possibly elevated rates of radioisotope decay during the Flood. Only a few decades ago it might have been considered preposterous to suggest oceans of 30-plus degrees centigrade that drove an "abbreviated" post-Flood Ice Age (of relatively short duration), but not today. Questions such as the duration of the Ice Age, the lag time between the end of the Flood and maximum ice advance, and many others, will await future research. In the meantime, the overall Flood model of Biblical Earth history looks very good.

William Hoesch, M.S. geology, is Research Assistant in Geology.

[Soldier4Christ]

Giving an Answer
by Frank Sherwin, M.A.

Abstract
Being ready to share the Christian worldview anywhere in society involves a thorough study of God's Word.

Everyone holds to a worldview—a philosophical outlook on life—no matter how ill-defined. Whether one is a believer or not, their worldview is formed and molded by their family, culture, education, books they read, etc. One Christian writer defined a worldview as,

    . . . a set of presuppositions (or assumptions) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously) about the basic makeup of our world.1

The Christian worldview looks to God (Hebrews 11:6) through Jesus Christ for our origin (Genesis 1:27) and our destiny (Romans 10:9; Luke 23:43). We intuitively know of God through His "clearly seen" creation (Romans 1:20), even though it has been corrupted by sin (Genesis 3). This belief system also states there are moral absolutes (Exodus 20) and there is truth (John 14:6). Indeed, all truth is God's truth. This is why a Christian's involvement in science is so intellectually satisfying: science is the search for truth—His truth!

Many holding to a secular worldview embrace Mr. Darwin's 1859 book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection not because it is scientific (he never discussed the origin of species and the first fifty pages was a bland discussion of pigeon variation), but because his book described creation without a Creator. Many in Darwin's day—like today—found such secular explanations academically agreeable, leading the "dean of evolutionary biology," Ernst Mayr to say:

The Darwinian revolution was the most fundamental of all intellectual revolutions in the history of mankind. While such revolutions as those brought about by Copernicus, Newton, Lavoisier, or Einstein affected only one particular branch of science, or the methodology of science as such, the Darwinian revolution affected every thinking man. A world view developed by anyone after 1859 was by necessity quite different from any world view formed prior to 1859.2

Sadly, Mayr was correct. This pervading worldview has corrupted society. For example, large corporations have long ago adopted a win-at-any-cost, survival-of-the-fittest mentality as the business animal claws itself to the top of the corporate ladder. American business practices—even the vocabulary—are often based on Darwinism. The Christian influence in this critical area has been minimized.

Peter states, "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear" (I Peter 3:15). Being ready to share the Christian worldview anywhere in society involves a thorough study of God's Word (Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Matthew 28:18-20). Let each of us know why we believe what we believe—especially in terms of our origin and destiny—and pass this wonderful news on to others (Romans 10:13-17).

Endnotes

   1. Sire, J. 1976. The Universe Next Door, Inter-Varsity Press, p. 17.
   2. Mayr, E. 1988. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, p. 182.

Frank Sherwin is a zoologist and seminar speaker for ICR.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Evolution Is Not Based on Natural Laws
by Duane Gish, Ph.D.

Abstract
According to evolutionary theory, starting with the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and the simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases, the universe created itself.
Dr. GishOne of the claims most frequently used by evolutionists for excluding the scientific evidence for creation in public schools and to be denied for publication in scientific jour-nals is that such evidence is not based on natural laws, therefore it cannot be scientific. They claim that evolutionary theory is based on natural laws and thus qualifies as a scientific theory. Hence, the theory of creation must be excluded, but the theory of evolution is admissible (of course, it must be absolutely atheistic). However, evolutionary theory is not based on natural laws but is actually contrary to natural laws.

Let us first consider evolutionary theories on the origins of the universe. The most widely accepted theory on the origin of the universe is known technically as inflation theory, but is generally referred to as the Big Bang theory. It was recognized that the standard Big Bang theory had insuperable flaws, so something else had to be postulated to rescue the theory. Alan Guth, now at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, invented the notion, based on quantum theory, that prior to the Big Bang there occurred a fluctuation of a false vacuum. The particle, or whatever it might be called, that was produced in a tiny fraction of a second, inflated itself into something about the size of a grapefruit. From this point on the remainder of the universe was produced essentially similar to the original Big Bang theory, starting with subatomic particles, then hydrogen (75%) and helium (25%), then stars and galaxies, eventually our solar system, and so on until we arrived. There were no natural laws in existence during this hypothetical early stage of the origin of the universe. Evolutionists must suppose that the natural laws that now govern the operation of the known universe somehow were produced by the Big Bang. Therefore, its origin could not have been based on natural laws. If creation is excluded then likewise all evolutionary theories on the origin of the universe must also be excluded.

Furthermore, there are perhaps as many as fifty physical constants in the universe that must be precisely what they are or the universe and life could not exist. They cannot be a little bit more or a little bit less. They include, for example, the universal constants (Boltzman's constant, Planck's constant, and gravitational constant); the mass of elementary particles (pion rest mass, neutron rest mass, electron rest mass, unit charge, mass-energy relation); and fine structure constants (gravitational, weak interaction, electromagnetic, and strong fine constants). The probability that even just one of these physical constants could have been produced with precisely the value required from the chaos of the Big Bang is vanishingly small, let alone fifty or so. Thus, all theories on an evolutionary origin of the universe contradict the laws of probability and must therefore be excluded on this basis as well.

According to evolutionary theory, starting with the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and the simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases, the universe created itself. This is clearly a violation of natural law, namely the Second Law of Thermodynamics. According to this law an isolated system can never increase in order and complexity, transforming itself to higher and higher levels of organization. An isolated system will inevitably, with time, run down, becoming more and more disorderly. There are no exceptions. Contrary to this natural law, evolutionists believe the universe is an isolated system which transformed itself from the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases into the incredibly complex universe we have today. This is a direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If natural laws are natural laws, the universe could not have created itself. The only alternative is that it is not an isolated system. There must be a Creator that is external to and independent of the natural universe who was responsible for its origin and who created the natural laws that govern its operation.

What about the present state of the universe? There are three possibilities. It could be in a steady state, neither increasing nor decreasing in order and complexity. A second possibility would be that it is increasing in order and complexity. The third possibility would be that it is constantly decreasing in order and complexity. Some evolutionary astronomers reject the Big Bang theory and suggest what is called the Steady State Theory. They would suggest the first possibility. If the Big Bang theory is correct, and as evolutionists believe, the present natural laws are all there is and all there ever has been, then the order and complexity of the universe should constantly be increasing. Creation scientists, on the other hand, maintain that in the beginning God created the universe in a perfect state and therefore matter would have no tendency to increase in order and complexity. Thus, if something has occurred since creation to change the original created state (and we know that it has) the order and complexity of the universe could not be increasing, but it could be decreasing. Fully in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the order and complexity of the universe is constantly decreasing. Every star in the universe is burning up billions of tons of fuel every second. Obviously, that supply of energy cannot last forever. Therefore, unless God intervenes (and the Bible tells us He will), the universe is certain to die. Eventually every star will have burned up all of its fuel and the lights will go out. At this point, there would be no life and no activity anywhere in the universe. It would be dead. If the natural laws which now govern the universe are causing its death and destruction, and these laws are all there is and all there ever has been, how could they have created the universe in the first place? What sort of tortured logic is necessary to suggest such an impossibility? The present state of the universe and the laws that govern it contradict all evolutionary theories concerning its origin.

The knowledge concerning the laws of thermodynamics was developed about one hundred and fifty years ago, but this knowledge was inscribed in the Bible three thousand years ago. In Psalm 102:25_26 we read, "Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment . . ." The Bible tells us that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but now, in their present state, and fully in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, they are wearing out like a suit of clothes. At the time the Bible was written, most people believed that the universe had been here forever and would continue to be here forever. The Bible says, not so, the universe had a beginning and is now wearing out and running down, just as modern science has determined. Furthermore, modern science establishes that the universe had to have a beginning. If the universe had been here forever it would have run down a long time ago. It hasn't run down yet, so it could not have been here forever. Therefore, it had a beginning, and the Biblical statement, "In the beginning," has been scientifically verified, as has its statements concerning the present state of the universe.

cont'd