Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

The theological implications of modern Darwinism result in much "squirming among scientists, who claim a high degree of rationality." To resolve this issue, some scientists along with many liberal theologians, suggest that God set up the universe in the beginning and/or works through the laws of nature. This silly way of trying to have one's cake and eat it too. . . . is equivalent to the claim that science and religion are compatible if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism (Provine, 1988, p. 10).

Provine concludes that a person who argues that Darwinism and theism are compatible is (1) an effective atheist, or (2) one who believes things demonstrably unscientific, or (3) asserts the existence of entities or processes for which no shred of evidence exists (Provine, 1988, p. 10).

Provine concludes the answer to the question, "Does an intellectually honest Christian evolutionist position" exist? is clearly no. Provine adds that he believes the only way to be a theistic evolutionist is to check your brains "at the church house door" (Provine, 1988, p. 10). This is clear in the outcry that resulted from Cardinal Schonborn's recent statement that "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true . . . but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense—an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection—is not" (quoted in Holden, 2005, p. 996). Holden notes that "it didn't take scientists long to react" to Schonborn's "attack" on Darwinism which "disturbed many scientists." The Vatican astronomer priest George Coyne "took it upon himself to rebut Schonborn" and defend the view that humans and all life is the result of an "unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" (Holden, 2005, p. 996). It is difficult to imagine a view that is more contrary to, not only Christianity, but theism of all types.

Conclusion

Theistic evolution is clearly not the solution to quieting the creation-evolution controversy for many reasons. One is because leading educators, scientists, and major science organizations are all hotly opposed to any and all worldviews that involve God, and this view now actually faces much more opposition than does creationism. The solution to the controversy is not to adopt a position that does justice to neither the science nor the Scriptures, but to advocate a position supported by the scientific data, and not science speculation based on naturalism.

References

Bhattacharjee, Yudhijit. 2005. "Kansas Gears Up for Another Battle Over Teaching Evolution." Science, 308:627.

Bliss, Richard. 1978. A Comparison of Two Approaches to the Teaching of Origins of Living Things to High School Students in Racine, Wisconsin. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Sarasota.

Brumfiel, Geoff. 2005. "Who has Designs on Your Students' Minds?" Nature, 434:1062-1065.

Dembski, William A. 2004. The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

"Dealing with Design." Nature, 434:1053.

Enserink, Martin. 2005. "Is Holland Becoming the Kansas of Europe?" Science, 308:1394.

Holden, Constance. 2005. "Vatican Astronomer Rebuts Cardinal's Attack on Darwinism." Science, 309:996.

Little, David. 1990. "Religion and Public Life." First Things. March, page 3.

Nussbaum, Paul. 2005. "Can God and Evolution Coexist?" Philadelphia Inquirer, May 30.

Provine, William. 1988. "Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible." The Scientist, September 5, p. 10.

Footnote

1. Actually, advocates of intelligent design hold a wide variety of religious positions from creationism to theistic evolution to agnosticism. The focus of ID is limited to the search for evidence of intelligent design in the biological world. The Nature and Science articles quoted in this paper are not refering to ID, but theistic evolution.

[Soldier4Christ]

Confirmation of Rapid Metamorphism of Rocks

Where thick sequences of sedimentary rock layers have been deposited in large basins, the deepest layers at the bottoms of the sequences may subsequently have become folded by earth movements when subjected to elevated temperatures and pressures that were sufficient to transform them into meta-morphic rocks. Thus the clay particles in shales and the mineral grains in sandstones were metamorphosed into the new minerals found today in schists and gneisses. Geologists conventionally envisage these metamorphic processes as having required millions of years.1

In contrast, creation geologists maintain that just as thick sequences of sedimentary rocks were rapidly deposited and movements of the tectonic plates of the earth's crust occurred rapidly during the year-long Flood catas-trophe, these associated metamorphic processes were likewise rapid. The hot waters that saturated the deeply buried sedimentary and other rocks, and/or that flowed rapidly through them, were responsible for the rapid mineral transformations.2,3
Norwegian Metamorphic Rocks

Conventional geologists were surprised recently by documented evidence for rapid metamorphism.4 Along the southwest coast of Norway, in the Bergen area, former igneous (intrusive) rocks were radically transformed into high-grade metamorphic rocks known as granulites by the high pressures exerted on them deep in the earth's crust late in the Precambrian.5 During a subsequent continental collision in the Silurian, hot fluids penetrated along closely-spaced shear zones, where rocks are believed to have deformed plastically as they moved sideways against each other, and transformed most of the granulites into another metamorphic rock called eclogite.6

These eclogites are strikingly beautiful, coarse-grained, and characterized by large pink garnets in a green matrix, rich in pyroxene. They are conventionally believed to have formed at depths of some 60 km and temperatures of around

700°C.7 However, these Norwegian eclogites paradoxically exhibit features more commonly associated with tectonic processes at lower temperatures closer to the earth's surface.8,9 Furthermore, rubidium-strontium radioisotope dating of the granulite lenses immediately adjacent to these eclogites yields an "age" closer to that of the untransformed granulite,10,11 even though the temperatures supposedly required for formation of the eclogites should have obliterated that earlier "age."12 Thus it has been suggested that the Norwegian granulite-eclogite transformation must have occurred during short-lived fluid flow events over less than a million years.13
A Radical Short Timescale

However, a drastically shorter timescale has now been proposed,14 one that "will make many geologists draw breath!"15 An ultraviolet laser was used to measure profiles of argon-argon radioisotope "ages" across individual mineral grains in the untransformed granulite lenses.16 In this technique the abundance of argon-40 (which forms from the radioactive decay of potassium-40) supposedly indicates the elapsed time since the temperature was last high enough for the argon (a gas) to diffuse rapidly through these minerals and escape at the boundaries between grains. The "ages" thus obtained not only confirmed the earlier rubidium-strontium "dates," but demonstrated just how little the granulite lenses had been affected by the later formation of the immediately adjacent eclogites.

Furthermore, these argon-40 data were then used to estimate what the temperature must have been in the granulite lenses during formation of the eclogites. The estimate—less than 400°C—is dramatically lower than the conventional requirement of around 700°C for formation of the immediately adjacent eclogites. The only way this glaring inconsistency can be reconciled is if the time period over which the heat was applied to these granulites during their adjacent metamorphism to eclogites was drastically shorter than the previously suggested one million years or less. It was calculated that the total heating duration must have been around only 18,000 years to explain the argon-argon "age" profiles in the mineral grains.

However, even more radical is the conclusion from heat-conduction calculations that the individual fluid flow "events," when hot fluids (at 700°C) flowed through the shear zones in the granulites and metamorphosed them to eclogites, had to have lasted just ten years or less, otherwise there would have been significant heating beyond 400°C of the surviving granulite lenses between the shear zones. Furthermore, it was concluded that this is exactly what would be expected if fluid migration was triggered by multiple, spasmodic deformation events associated with earthquakes, in which the hot fluids were repeatedly injected into, and pumped along, the shear zones by earth movements. This is consistent with the evidence of hydraulic fracturing17 and rocks formed by friction melting along fractures18 associated with these eclogite-bearing shear zones.19 Thus this model overturns conventional long-age thinking by evoking a radically different picture for the conditions responsible for eclogite metamorphism, in which the exceedingly rapid metamorphic transformation occurs in only ten years or less!
Confirming Evidence

Such rapid fluid flow events are not without precedent, having been associated with vein formation during regional metamorphism of schists in Connecticut (USA).20

However, there is also independent evidence within these Norwegian eclogites of these flows of hot fluids that were responsible for the rapid metamorphism of the precursor granulites. A sample of related eclogite containing biotite flakes was closely examined and polonium-210 radiohalos were found in it (7 polonium-210 radiohalos in 50 microscope slides, each containing 20-30 biotite flakes).21 This discovery, the first time any radiohalos have been documented in eclogites, is highly significant.

Biotite was not in the precursor granulites, so it had to form as a result of both their metamorphism to eclogite and the fluid flows. Of course, these radiohalos could only have been produced in the biotite grains after they formed. Furthermore, because there was no source of either parent uranium-238 or its radioactive decay products within either the eclogites or the precursor granulites, the large quantities of polonium-210 required to generate these radiohalos had to have been transported from external sources into the biotite flakes within these rocks by the hot fluids.22 But the polonium-210 only has a half-life of 138 days, and the radiohalos would only have formed and survived after the temperature in the rocks fell below 150°C. So this drastically restricts the duration of the earthquake-triggered hot fluid flows and associated eclogite metamorphism even more, perhaps to only a few weeks or months! And because the heat flow into the granulites to metamorphose them would have been primarily by convection associated with the fluid flows, rather than just by conduction,23 such a drastically short timescale of only weeks for this eclogite metamorphism is entirely feasible.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

Conclusion

Of course, in conventional geological dogma which primarily envisages slow and gradual processes over long ages, even a timescale of ten years is almost too radical and controversial to be readily accepted. However, in the context of accelerated catastrophic erosion, deposition of thick strata sequences, earth movements, plate tectonics and continental collisions during the year-long global Genesis Flood, it is entirely feasible that rapid flows of hot fluids triggered by earthquakes were injected into shear zones within the granulites to transform them into eclogites within weeks. Once again, continued research has provided evidence that confirms the feasibility of another aspect of the Creation-Flood model of Earth history, namely, rapid metamorphism of rocks during the Genesis Flood, consistent with the infallible record of God's Word.
References

   1. Bucher, K., and M. Frey, 2002. Petrogenesis of Metamorphic Rocks, 7th edition, pp. 67-68, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
   2. Snelling, A. A., 1994. "Towards a Creationist Explanation of Regional Metamorphism." Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 8(1):51-77.
   3. Snelling, A. A., 1994. "Regional Metamorphism Within a Creationist Framework: What Garnet Compositions Reveal." In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, R. E. Walsh (editor), pp. 485-496. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.
   4. Kelley, S., 2005. "Hot Fluids and Cold Crusts." Nature, 435:1171.
   5. Wain, A. L., D. J. Waters, and H. Austrheim, 2001. "Metastability of Granulites and Processes of Eclogitisation in the UHP Region of Western Norway." Journal of Metamorphic Geology, 19:607-623.
   6. Austrheim, H., and W. L. Griffin, 1985. "Shear Deformation and Eclogite Formation within Granulite Facies Anorthosites of the Bergen Arcs, Western Norway." Chemical Geology, 50:267-281.
   7. Boundy, T. M., and D. M. Fountain, 1992. "Structural Development and Petro-fabrics of Eclogite Facies Shear Zones, Bergen Arcs, Western Norway: Implications for Deep Crustal Deformational Processes." Journal of Metamorphic Geology, 10:127-146.
   8. Austrheim, H., M. Erambert, and T. M. Boundy, 1996. "Garnets Record Deep Crustal Earthquakes." Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 139:223-238.
   9. Austrheim, H., and T. M. Boundy, 1994. "Pseudotachylytes Generated During Seismic Faulting and Eclogitization of the Deep Crust." Science, 265:82-83.
  10. Kühn, A., J. Glodny, K. Iden, and H. Austrheim, 2000. "Retention of Precambrian Rb/Sr Phlogopite Ages through Caledonian Eclogite Facies Metamorphism, Bergen Arc Complex, W-Norway." Lithos, 51:305-330.
  11. Bingen, B., W. J. Davis, and H. Austrheim, 2001. "Zircon U-Pb Geochronology in the Bergen Arc Eclogites and Their Proterozoic Protoliths, and Implications for the Pre-Scandian Evolution of the Caledonides in Western Norway." Geological Society of America Bulletin, 113(5):640-649.
  12. Jamtveit, B., K. Bucher-Nurminen, and H. Austrheim, 1990. "Fluid Controlled Eclogitization of Eclogites in Deep Crustal Shear Zones, Bergen Arcs, Western Norway." Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 104:184-193.
  13. Austrheim, H., and T. M. Boundy (1994), op. cit.
  14. Camacho, A., J. K. W. Lee, B. J. Hensen, and J. Braun, 2005. "Short-lived Orogenic Cycles and the Eclogitization of Cold Crust by Spasmodic Hot Fluids." Nature, 435:1191-1196.
  15. Kelley, S. (2005), op. cit.
  16. Camacho, A., J. K. W. Lee, B. J. Hensen, and J. Braun (2005), op. cit.
  17. Jamtveit, B., H. Austrheim, and A. Malthe-Sorenssen, 2000. "Accelerated Hydration of the Earth's Deep Crust Induced by Stress Perturbations." Nature, 408:75-78.
  18. Austrheim, H., and T. M. Boundy (1994), op. cit.
  19. Bjornerud, M., H. Austrheim, and M. G. Lund, 2002. "Processes Leading to Eclogitization (Densification) of Subducted and Tectonically Buried Crust." Journal of Geophysical Research, 107(B10):2252-2269.
  20. VanHaren, J. L. M., J. J. Ague, and D. M. Rye, 1996. "Oxygen Isotope Record of Fluid Infiltration and Mass Transfer During Regional Metamorphism of Pelitic Schist, Connecticut, USA." Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 60(18):3487-3504.
  21. Snelling, A. A., 2005. "Radiohalos in Granites: Evidence for Accelerated Nuclear Decay." In Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (editors), chapter 3, pp. 101-207 (especially Table 4, p. 188). Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, AZ.
  22. Snelling, A. A. (2005), op. cit.
  23. Snelling, A. A., and J. Woodmorappe, 1998. "The Cooling of Thick Igneous Bodies on a Young Earth." In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, R. E. Walsh (editor), pp. 527-545. Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.

[Soldier4Christ]

What Makes Us Human?

Are humans really biologically and socially different from the rest of the created world? Are there definitive characteristics that separate humans from other forms of life, or are humans simply an improvement on the body plans of other animals, the result of random processes that have occurred over millions of years? The answers to these questions may seem obvious to a Christian, but defining what characteristics separate man from the animals that closely resemble him, such as chimpanzees and gorillas, still has not been completely resolved by secular science. Is this an answer that can be derived by studying the physical and biological creation, or can it only be understood in light of Biblical truth?

There have been many attempts to answer these questions. Paleontologists have identified many features unique to human skeletons, enabling them to distinguish between human and ape (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans) fossils. For example, apes and man share the same tooth pattern in their jaws; two incisors, one canine, two premolars, and three molars. But the tooth-bearing mandible (jawbone) in humans is smaller in relation to the skull and V-shaped, while that of an ape is U-shaped. Another skeletal feature, the human pelvis, is more bowl-shaped than that of an ape, providing support for the abdominal organs as a result of the constant upright position of humans. But these skeletal qualities can't fully define "what makes us human." They only describe some of the attributes of the "vessel" that "houses" a human.

Anthropologists have looked for cultural evidence to identify and describe human remains and help determine "what makes us human." Humans have been described as tool users, once thought to be a quality unique from all other animals. However, extensive studies over the years by many researchers has identified tool use by chimpanzees, and more recently gorillas, indicating that use of crude tools is not necessarily a unique human feature. Even a sea otter uses a crude tool, such as a rock, to crack open shell fish. The use of fire and burying the dead are also cited as evidence of "what makes us human." It certainly could be argued that using fire and evidence of burials are unique to humans, but these activities result from the spiritual nature within humans. Fire use and religion (funerals) do not fully explain "what makes us human."

Currently, molecular geneticists have taken their turn at defining a human based on DNA sequence differences between humans and apes. The arrangement, sequence, and expression levels of our DNA will provide valuable information of what makes a human unique from other created kinds, including the skeletal features and behavioral differences mentioned above. But like the studies from paleontology, it will only tell us more about the "vessel" humans were created in, not what truly "makes us human."

In the Bible, Genesis 1:27 describes the creation of mankind as being in the "Image of God," which usually leads to a discussion of the qualities of God that can be seen in mankind. For example, God is The Creator, and although man requires pre-existing materials to "create" new objects such as buildings, vehicles, artwork, and gadgets of all kinds, he is capable of creating objects for his use or pleasure from his imagination that have never been seen before. Emotions attributed to God's character can also be seen in man. Man has the ability to love, hate, and become jealous, and through the power of the Holy Spirit he can express these emotions in appropriate ways. Forgiveness is another quality that man shares with his Creator. But these human characteristics are reflections of God's nature given to mankind at the time of creation. Is "what makes us human" the combined characteristics that we share with animals and the attributes of being created in God's image? Or is there more?

The observations mentioned above certainly contribute to our human character, but the following paragraphs give some of the unique aspects of humanity not attributable to any other part of creation, but to the present outworking of "what makes us human" and the choices we make.

Our Position As Servants

Man was created to serve. Human ambition for the purpose of serving oneself certainly cannot provide anyone with the fulfillment they are seeking. There are many examples of people who became famous and wealthy, only to find there is no fulfillment in personal ambition. The resulting disappointment in reaching personal goals and not finding fulfillment in them frequently leads to that individual's despair or eventual suicide. King Solomon, in the book of Ecclesiastes, described human ambition as "vanity" and "a chasing after the wind," concluding that man's only duty was to fear God and keep His commandments (Ecclesiastes 12:13). Certainly, a life spent not functioning as it was designed to leads only to frustration and misery. The role for man as a servant can be seen from the beginning of his creation. Adam was created and placed in the Garden of Eden "to dress it and to keep it" (Genesis 2:15). The first recorded task man was given was to serve his Creator by caring for the Garden that He had planted. Christ emphasized the importance of the role of a servant many times to His disciples, teaching them that, "he that shall humble himself shall be exalted" (Matthew 23:12). He consistently used the concept of a servant as a synonym to describe those who would be His followers (Matthew 24:25; 25:21; John 12:26). Christ responded to the question of, "which is the great[est] commandment" by saying, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matthew 22:37,39). It may be easy to see that loving God with all your heart reflects a servant's attitude, but sometimes what it takes to love your neighbor as yourself is not as clear. When questioned about, "Who is my neighbor?" Christ gave the parable of the Good Samaritan, who at his own expense served the needs of a crime victim from an ethnic group that was normally hostile to Samaritans. This human behavior contrasts with a recent study of chimpanzee behavior revealing that chimpanzees are oblivious to the needs of others who are not related to them.1 In their book, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, Dr. Paul Brand and Philip Yancey reported anthropologist Margaret Mead as saying, evidence for civilization is when a healed femur is found. It shows that someone must have cared for the injured person. Someone was a servant, evidence of "what makes us human."

"What makes us human" is our created responsibility to serve God and one another. Whether we remember we were created to serve and do so, or choose not to fulfill what we were designed to do, may determine how fulfilled our life will be.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

Our Value to God

How is the value of a human determined? At one time in human history, slave traders would assess the value of a human based on the type and amount of work that an individual could perform for his "owner" just the same as if the person were an animal. Today the value of a human is determined by the individual's prospects for a quality life and by how much one can contribute to society. This is evident by the treatment of the unwanted pre-born, the aged, and the infirmed. Mass slaughter of humans via legalized abortion, the push for legalization of doctor-assisted suicide, and the use of embryonic stem cells have defined what the worth of humans are by society. In addition to human value based on ethical ills, our culture is full of social ills that determine human value based on ethnic, social, or economic standing. Racial profiling and discrimination may be easy to recognize, but are all humans treated equally, regardless of their profession or economic standing? Is the trash man, referee, or sales clerk, valued and treated the same as the doctor, entertainer, or pastor? (James 2:2-4, 9-10.)

What is the standard that determines human value? Scripture clearly teaches what the value of a human is. Human life is to be valued from conception to old age (Exodus 21; Matthew 19:14), is infinitely more valuable than other forms of creation (Matthew 10:29; 12:12), and each individual is equally valuable to God (Colossians 3:11). The value of a human in God's eyes is clearly stated in Romans 5:8. "But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." How valuable are humans? They are so valuable that the Creator of the universe humbled Himself as a man and died a cruel death to reconcile Himself to His most valued creation.

"What makes us human" is our incomprehensible value to God.

Our Need for Salvation

Recent natural disasters affecting the southern United States, Indonesia, and Pakistan have emphasized the need to save humans in times of distress. But this salvation is only temporary, providing salvation for the physical body or the physical needs of someone who has lost all material possessions. The true human need for salvation is from eternal spiritual death. Unlike the response to natural disasters that make physical needs obvious, many continue to allow another type of disaster, their spiritual need, to continue unresolved and frequently unnoticed. And God has permitted each human the right to choose to resolve this spiritual need or not. This right was given to mankind from the beginning when God told Adam and Eve they could eat of any tree in the Garden of Eden except for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 2:16-17). Unfortunately, Adam and Eve made the wrong choice and all of their descendents have followed suit. Romans 3:10-18 quotes portions of the Old Testament, vividly describing the desperate situation of the human race. "There is none righteous, no, not one" (v.10), "none that seeketh after God" (v. 11), all have "gone out of the way" (v.12), and "the way of peace have they not known" (v.17). Because of this disastrous situation God in His mercy has provided a plan for salvation. Salvation cannot be earned, but is a gift offered to all humans as a result of Christ paying the penalty for each individual's sin (Ephesians 2:8-9; John 1:12). There are many distinctions between those who possess this gift and those who don't. Christ stated, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another" (John 13:35). The apostle John put it another way when he wrote in his epistle, "Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother" (I John 3:10). Paul further identified the behavior of those who have received the gift of salvation with those who have not in Galatians 5:16-24 and Colossians 3:1-11. Humans were created with an eternal spirit that will either live for eternity in the presence of God, or exist for eternity banished from His presence. Because of sin in the world, everyone needs salvation (Romans 5) and God has granted them the choice of accepting His plan of salvation or rejecting it.

Ultimately, "what makes us human" is the choice we make about the spiritual disaster in our lives. Do we accept the gift of salvation and experience the peace of God, or do we reject the gift and experience the consequences of spiritual death?

Reference

   1. Silk, J. B. et al., 2005. "Chimpanzees are indifferent to the welfare of unrelated group members," Nature 437:1357-1359.

* Dr. Daniel Criswell has a Ph.D. in molecular biology and is a biology professor at the ICR Graduate School.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Are Hurricanes Getting More Destructive?
Abstract
There seems to be evidence that hurricanes are becoming more destructive, due to an increase in frequency, intensity, and duration. This should be of concern especially to those who live in coastal communities. The historical record shows a lot of variation for short intervals in the past when large numbers of storms have occurred in some years and very intense, destructive storms have occurred in others.
Introduction

Hurricane Katrina which plowed through New Orleans in August 2005 comprised the most costly natural disaster in U.S. history. Not too many years earlier in 1992 Hurricane Andrew crossed through Miami and had claimed that distinction. But Katrina was quickly followed by Hurricane Rita, making 2005 the first time in history two category 5 hurricanes with sustained winds exceeding 155 miles per hour occurred in the Atlantic Ocean. Why have there been so many powerful hurricanes in the past few years? Is this a new trend or have we just entered a temporary new cycle of intense hurricane occurrence? Is recent concern over global warming legitimate and the recent number of hurricanes with such high winds a result of warmer temperatures?

A hurricane is one of the most powerful natural forces on planet Earth. The amount of energy output is comparable to that of an earthquake, a volcano, a tsunami, or a nuclear weapon. And like most geophysical events their occurrence is very difficult to predict. Their path from formation to landfall is quite irregular. Attempts to weaken or divert hurricanes away from population centers have been largely unsuccessful. Most research on hurricanes has been conducted to understand how they function and to document their intensity, frequency, and geographical distributions. We will attempt to report on some of the latest research results on Atlantic hurricanes and answer the question, "Are hurricanes getting more destructive?"

Temporal and Spatial Distributions

Tropical cyclones generally form between about 5o and 30o latitude in all oceans of the world except the south Atlantic and the southeast Pacific. They do not form directly over the equator because there is no Coriolis force at the equator (rotational effect caused by the turning of the earth) and the sea surface temperature (SST) is too cold at latitudes poleward of about 30o latitude. Tropical cyclones are called hurricanes in the Atlantic and typhoons or simply tropical cyclones in oceans other than the Atlantic. They form when the SST exceeds about 80oF and a disturbance in the tropical airflow causes a convergence of warm, moist air for a long enough period of time to permit a weak vortex to form and grow into a tropical depression. Tropical cyclones in the northern hemisphere form in late summer and fall following the extended period of summer heating with a maximum in September. In the southern hemisphere where summer is six months out of phase with the northern hemisphere, the maximum occurs in February.

Frequency

Typically about 85 tropical cyclones develop globally each year, of which roughly half go on to become full-fledged hurricanes/typhoons. About 9 hurricanes on the average form annually in the Atlantic. Figure 1 shows the number of tropical cyclones which have formed each year in the Atlantic since 1851 with a maximum wind speed exceeding 39 miles per hour. These data were obtained from the Tropical Prediction Center and contain "best-track" adjustments which could influence the statistics, particularly for hurricanes in the 1800s and from 1944-1969.1 The maximum and minimum annual number of hurricanes was 21 and 1 in 1933 and 1914, respectively. There appears to be a trend in the annual number of hurricanes over the 153 years of data with an increase of about 1 hurricane every 30 years. The trend line shown in Figure 1 is the least squares regression line from 1851 through 2004.

This trend is in contrast to the conclusions of Landsea et al.,2 relative to the 50-year period from 1944 to 1994 in which they detected a decline in the frequency of hurricanes. The difference in conclusions for this new analysis is probably due to the addition of another 10 years of data with a higher average number of hurricanes (about 14 per year) and an analysis over a much longer period. It is evident from the full sequence of data that there are short-term variations in the frequency of hurricanes which could lead to misinterpretations. For example, between 1880 and 1900 and between 1945 and 1960 there appear to be short periods of high frequency. On the other hand, between 1910 and 1930 the frequency seems unusually low. So, it would be premature to assume the period from 1995 to the present will continue. However, the long-term trend of an increase of 1 hurricane every 30 years is well supported statistically.

The suggestion by some that global warming caused by man's activities may be causing hurricane frequency to increase can't be proven from these data. The problem of tropical cyclogenesis is extremely complex and remains one of the great mysteries of the tropical atmosphere.3 It involves not just the growth of hurricanes after they have been initiated, but must also include the development of triggers in the atmosphere which form the incipient tropical depressions. These triggers may or may not be accentuated by warmer SSTs. In addition, any possible warming in SSTs may be a natural variation independent of man's activities.

Intensity

The frequency of hurricane occurrence is not the only criterion by which destructiveness should be estimated. Emanuel4 has proposed a formula for calculating the power dissipation of a hurricane which includes consideration of the drag coefficient, the surface air density, the magnitude of the surface wind, the size of the storm, and its lifetime. Although the power dissipation calculation he suggested should give a good estimate of destructiveness, it is difficult to evaluate using historical data sets which seldom report storm dimensions. So, he simplified the calculation and proposed a substitute called the power dissipation index (PDI). It integrates the cube of the maximum wind speed over the lifetime of the hurricane and performs some smoothing.

Emanuel found that when the method was applied to Atlantic hurricanes his index more than doubled in the 30 years since the 1970s. This suggests that storms have become more intense, on the average, and have survived at high intensity for longer periods of time. Emanuel also applied his technique to other data sets. He found that the accumulated annual duration of storms in the Atlantic and western North Pacific combined has increased by roughly 60% since 1949, although this may partially reflect changes in reporting practices. The average annual storm peak wind speed summed over the Atlantic and the North Pacific has also increased during this period, by about 50%. Thus, both duration and peak intensity trends are contributing to the overall increase in net power dissipation. For fixed rates of intensification and dissipation, storms will take longer to reach greater peak winds, and also take longer to dissipate. Thus, not surprisingly, stronger storms last longer.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

Conclusions

There seems to be evidence that hurricanes are becoming more destructive, due to an increase in frequency, intensity, and duration. This should be of concern especially to those who live in coastal communities. The historical record shows a lot of variation for short intervals in the past when large numbers of storms have occurred in some years and very intense, destructive storms have occurred in others. We may have been lulled to sleep between about 1970 and 1995 when hurricane frequencies and intensities were weaker than the average. However, hurricane destructiveness seems to have recently returned to a more normal level and may even be increasing beyond the long-term average. Of course, it doesn't help that during this same period, extensive development has occurred all along the coastlines. The landfall of hurricanes of the same frequency and intensity as 30 years ago would now produce a much greater loss of life and property than it would have then. If hurricanes are increasing in destructiveness, the problem becomes even worse.

Of course, we haven't answered the question as to why the frequency and intensity of hurricanes may be increasing. Such increases in hurricane destructiveness are consistent with warming of the SST. However, I am of the opinion that a possible small increase in SST is possibly due to a natural variation rather than a manmade effect. The ocean has many periodicities such as the 7-10 year El Niño/Southern Oscillation. The current detected trends could be the result of a similar, longer-period variation. This same variation could also be responsible for the measured increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere measured at Mauna Loa since 1958. A warming ocean will expel carbon dioxide from the ocean and increase the concentration in the atmosphere.

None of the small temperature changes discussed above compare to those which likely occurred after the Genesis Flood. It has been shown that the ocean temperature at the end of the Genesis Flood was likely as warm as 100oF or more.5 Such a warm ocean would be an explanation for the Ice Age because of the excessive evaporation of water into the atmosphere and deposition of snow in the polar regions and on mountaintops that would have occurred. An ocean with a SST equal to or greater than 100oF would also likely have produced large frequencies and intensities of hurricanes beyond anything experienced today. It has been shown that giant hurricanes called hypercanes would likely have occurred over major portions of the earth.6 They would have grown to hundreds of miles in diameter, produced horizontal winds of over 300 miles per hour, had vertical winds of 100 miles per hour, and precipitated rain at rates greater than 10 inches per hour. Large amounts of erosion of the unconsolidated sediments would have occurred on the continents following the Flood. In this context, today's increasing hurricane activity represents a minor oscillation in the steady-state condition at the end of about 5,000 years of cooling.

References

   1. Landsea, C. W., 1993, A Climatology of Intense (or Major) Atlantic Hurricanes, Monthly Weather Review, 121, 1703-1713.
   2. Landsea, C. W., N. Nicholls, W. M. Gray, and L. A. Avila, 1996, Downward Trends in the Frequency of Intense Atlantic Hurricanes during the Past Five Decades, Geophysical Research Letters, 23, 1697-1700.
   3. Emanuel, K., 2005, Divine Wind: The History and Science of Hurricanes , Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 285 pp.
   4. Emanuel, K., 2005, Increasing Destructiveness of Tropical Cyclones over the Past 30 Years, Nature, vol. 436, no. 4, pp. 686-688.
   5. Vardiman, L., 1996, Sea-Floor Sediment and the Age of the Earth, ICR Technical Monograph, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, 94 pp.
   6. Vardiman, L., 2001, Climates before and after the Genesis Flood: Numerical Models and Their Implications, ICR Technical Monograph, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, 110 pp.

* Dr. Vardiman is Chairman of the Astrogeophysics Department at ICR and Chief Operations Officer.

[Soldier4Christ]

 FitzRoy, Captain of the Beagle, Fierce Critic of Darwinism
Abstract
Some have suggested that marriage to a devout wife changed FitzRoy's view from doubter to preacher, but from the Narrative it seems that the geological evidence observed first hand on the voyage was a major influence in changing his mind to accept the literal truth of Genesis.

Background

Admiral Robert FitzRoy is better known as the Captain of HMS Beagle, the ship that carried Darwin on his famous voyage. FitzRoy was born into a notable royal family line and gained command of a ship at the young age of 23, mainly through his exceptional ability, and only partly from his lineage. He could in fact trace his ancestors back through the Royal line of Charles II, and Barbara Villiers, the Duchess of Cleveland, and he was also a nephew of Lord Castlereagh. He was later nominated to fellowship of the Royal Society for his hydrographic and chronographic survey, and was also chosen as the first Chief Statist of the newly formed Meteorological Department of the Board of Trade in the UK (Now the UK Meteorological Office). Throughout his life he had a strong sense of Christian duty and desire to protect life, especially the lives of fellow sailors, and he was a pioneer in the development of a system of storm warnings around Britain following the Royal Charter naval disaster, and was the first to produce and issue regular weather forecasts.

FitzRoy was born on July 5, 1805, at Ampton Hall, Suffolk, and trained at the Portsmouth based Royal Naval College, formerly the Royal Naval Academy founded in 1733. He gained the distinction of being the first student to win the gold medal from this long established institution with a 100 percent pass rate, demonstrating the ability of an extraordinary scholar.1 Supporters of Darwin later tried to rubbish his reputation, but FitzRoy is now recognized as a man of exceptional scientific ability.

In 1828 he took command of HMS Beagle, and three years later in 1831 he began his most famous second voyage. This was the journey that carried the naturalist Charles Darwin on expedition to South America and the Galapagos Islands. FitzRoy also became a more devout Christian and was later a major critic of the theory of evolution following the publication of Darwin's book The Origin of Species, in 1859.

The voyage of the Beagle was commissioned and organized by Admiral Francis Beaufort and left Plymouth on December 27, 1831. However, the original plan of FitzRoy had been to arrange a trip at his own expense to carry three natives back to Tierra del Fuego. Lavallee has previously shown in an Impact article how these three had been brought to England from the previous voyage, and FitzRoy's plan had been to educate them as Christians and send them back with two missionaries.2 The Navy took over the organization of the trip, and it was to last much longer than any had expected. Its main naval purpose was to survey the coast and waters of South America, so that accurate charts could be drawn of the southern passage, this for reasons of maritime safety.

Beagle Voyage

The young Darwin joined the Beagle as the ship's naturalist and companion of the Captain, following the recommendation of his former Professor, John Henslow. FitzRoy and Darwin remained friends for many years after. While FitzRoy was examining the coast on this long trip, Darwin was expected to survey the surrounding geology, flora, and fauna. Both FitzRoy and Darwin wrote up the exploration of the Beagle in a three-volume work, known as the Narrative of the Surveying Voyages of His Majesty's Ships Adventure and Beagle. FitzRoy wrote the first two volumes with Darwin the third (although the first volume mainly used edited material from Parker King and Pringle Stokes). What unfolds from FitzRoy's account is that he seemed at first unsure of the truth of Genesis and was in fact responsible for giving Darwin a copy of Lyell's book Principles of Geology to read on the long voyage, a decision he later bitterly regretted. Despite his early years of doubt, FitzRoy later became a strong Christian and humanitarian. He commented,

    I suffered much anxiety in former years from a disposition to doubt, if not disbelieve, the inspired History written by Moses. I knew so little of that record, or of the intimate manner in which the Old Testament is connected with the New, that I fancied some events there related might be mythological or fabulous, while I sincerely believed the truth of others; a wavering between opinions, which could only be productive of an unsettled, and therefore unhappy, state of mind.3

Some have suggested that marriage to a devout wife changed FitzRoy's view from doubter to preacher, but from the Narrative it seems that the geological evidence observed first hand on the voyage was a major influence in changing his mind to accept the literal truth of Genesis. In April and May, 1834, FitzRoy commanded a trip up the Rio Santa Cruz in whaleboats to survey the river course with Darwin a passenger. On his return to England, FitzRoy reported these findings to the Royal Geological Society and wrote up his survey in the Narrative showing him to be an able geologist. FitzRoy comments,

    Is it not remarkable that water-worn shingle stones, and diluvial accumulations, compose the greater portion of these plains? On how vast a scale, and of what duration must have been the action of those waters which smoothed the shingle stones now buried in the deserts of Patagonia.4

    Though the bed of the river is there so much below the level of stratum of lava, it still bears the appearance of having worn away its channel by the continual action of running water. The surface of the lava may be considered as the natural level of the country, since, when upon it, a plain, which seems to the eye horizontal, extends in every direction. How wonderful must that immense volcanic action have been which spread liquid lava over the surface of a vast tract of country.5

From these observations it appears that FitzRoy was beginning to see catastrophes at work in shaping the landform, both in terms of the action of water and volcanoes. But it seems that evidence of shells found in mountain rocks was foundational for FitzRoy in coming to accept the literal nature of the Genesis Flood.

    It appeared to me a convincing proof of the universality of the deluge. I am not ignorant that some have attributed this to other causes; but an unanswerable confutation of their subterfuge is this, that the various sorts of shells which compose these strata both in the plains and mountains, are the very same with those found in the bay and neighbouring places . . . these to me seem to preclude all manner of doubt that they were originally produced in that sea, from whence they were carried by waters, and deposited in the places where they are now found.6

After the voyage FitzRoy continued to visit Darwin at Down House in Kent regularly until the spring of 1857,7 but their friendship became severely strained following the publication of Darwin's book in November 1859. FitzRoy became a major critic of his friend's work, and although he suffered from depression and a sharp temper he never bore grudges and showed compassion to those he disagreed with. In December 1859, FitzRoy began an exchange in The Times criticizing the dating of stone tools found near the river Somme, these dated to 14,000 years BP. This exchange was under a pseudonym Senex, from the Latin nemo senex metuit louem, meaning, "An old man should be fearful of God."8

1860 Oxford Debate

In June of 1860, some six months after Darwin published his Origins book, a famous debate took place in Oxford, England, with notable speakers Bishop Samuel Wilberforce and Thomas Huxley. The Bishop, the son of the anti-slave campaigner William Wilberforce, was not a scientist, but instead was briefed by Richard Owen, founder of the Natural History Museum in London. This meeting was held by the British Association and was attended by a packed audience of some one thousand people. Things turned sour, and followers of Darwin and Huxley later claimed victory, although the evidence does not really support this and exactly what happened and who won is still open to debate. Times were changing and Huxley's rudeness to a leading Bishop, with his fierce, rhetorical style won him popularity from the audience.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

FitzRoy also spoke at this emotionally charged meeting. At the end of the meeting FitzRoy is reported to have held a heavy Bible above his head like an Old Testament prophet and "implored the audience to believe God rather than man,"9 commenting that Darwin's work caused him "the acutest pain."10 The official report in The Athenaeum records FitzRoy as saying that ". . . [he] regretted the publication of Mr. Darwin's book and denied Professor Huxley's statement that it was a logical arrangement of facts."11

FitzRoy seems to have been shouted down for his comments, and Lady Brewster, overcome by the heated atmosphere and passion created, fainted and had to be carried out.12

FitzRoy's contribution to the debate seems to have been most memorable. Julius Carus in a private letter to Darwin some six years later comments that,

    I shall never forget that meeting of the combined sections of the British Association when at Oxford in 1860, where Admiral FitzRoy expressed his sorrows for having given you the opportunities of collecting facts for such a shocking theory as yours.13

Sir David Brewster, a co-founder of the British Association was also a strong opponent of evolution and in private correspondence to FitzRoy, commented that,

    Darwin's book and the essays and reviews are most alarming proof of the infidelity and rashness of distinguished men.14

Some time later in another correspondence with Brewster, FitzRoy referred to Revelation 13 likening Darwin's theory of evolution to the "beast rising up out of the sea . . . opening his mouth in blasphemy against God."15

FitzRoy was an exceptional scholar and scientist, and a fierce and important critic of Darwin's theory of evolution, disputing the facts that Darwin presented. Supporters of Darwin later attacked FitzRoy's reputation because it was recognized that the Captain of the Beagle's comments could do enormous damage to the theory of evolution. Nevertheless, FitzRoy was a notable scientist and supporter of Flood geology and Special Creation.

Endnotes

   1. Gribbin, J. & M., FitzRoy, Review, Headline Book Publishing, p. 23, 2003. Comments by Professor Inman.
   2. Lavallee, L. "The Voyage of the Beagle -- In the Creator's Service," Impact 358, ICR, April 2003.
   3. Gribbin, J. & M., ref. 1, p. 79.
   4. Ibid., p. 155.
   5. Ibid., p. 156.
   6. Ibid., p. 163.
   7. Barlow, D., "The Devil within: Evolution of a tragedy," Weather, Royal Met. Soc., vol. 52 (11), pp. 337-341, 1997.
   8. Gribbin, J. & M., ref. 1, p. 264.
   9. Reported in Cadbury, D., The Dinosaur Hunters, 4th Estate, Harper Collins, London,
      p. 310, 2000.
  10. Barlow, ref. 7. Sourced from: Origins of Meteorology: An analytical catalogue of the correspondence and papers of the first Government Meteorological Office, under Rear Admiral Robert FitzRoy, 1854-1865, and Thomas Henry Babington 1865-1866, of the successor Meteorological Office from 1867, primarily during its first two years under the Scientific Committee appointed by the Royal Society, and of registers of Instruments issued by successive Meteorological Offices from 1854 to c. 1915. Held at the Public Records Office, Kew, England.
  11. The Athenaeum, 14th July. 1860. From www.oum.ox.ac.uk/debate4.htm --Accessed July 2005 -- Website of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History.
  12. Cadbury, D., ref. 9, p. 310.
  13. Letter from Julius Carus to Charles Darwin, 15th Nov. 1866, (From Gribbin, J. & M., ref. 1, p. 325.)
  14. Barlow, ref. 7, (Source as ref. 10).
  15. Barlow, ref. 7, (Source as ref. 10).

* Andrew Sibley is a Meteorologist working for the Met Office in the UK. He has a Masters of Science and is a Council member of the Creation Science Movement.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Is the Backwards Human Retina Evidence of Poor Design? (#388)
by Various Authors
Download PDF Download Is the Backwards Human Retina Evidence of Poor Design? PDF
Abstract
Research by ophthalmologists has clearly shown why the human retina must employ what is called the "inverted" design. An inverted retina is where the photoreceptors face away from the light, forcing the incoming light to travel through the front of the retina to reach the photoreceptors.

By Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. and Joseph Calkins, M.D.*

Introduction

The so-called backwards retina is an example of an argument against creationism long ago disproved. Nonetheless, it is one of the most common arguments used by Darwinists to argue that life was not designed. For example, one of the leading American Darwinists, Brown University Professor Kenneth Miller, claimed that a prime example of "poor design" is the fact that light in the human eye has to travel through the neuron layers before it reaches the retina photoreceptors. He argues that this design reflects poorly on an Intelligent Designer and, to Miller, provides clear evidence that no designer exists. Rather, it demonstrates to him that the eye evolved by mutations and natural selection and was not designed. In the words of Miller, an Intelligent Designer would not have placed the neural wiring of the retina on the side facing incoming light. This arrangement scatters the light, making our vision less detailed than it might be, and even produces a blind spot at the point that the wiring is pulled through the light-sensitive retina to produce the optic nerve that carries visual messages to the brain (1999, p. 101).

The blind spot does not reduce vision quality for several reasons. Special tests are normally required to even notice it because the other eye fills in the gap. Furthermore, the brain only uses information from the retina to construct an image and does an excellent job of dealing with other "blind spots" such as shadows, reflection problems, dim light, and dirt on a person's glasses. Shermer claims that the human eye is not just "poorly designed" but the

anatomy of the human eye shows that it is anything but "intelligently designed." It is built upside down and backward, with photons of light having to travel through the cornea, lens, aqueous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells, before reaching the light-sensitive rods and cones that will transduce the light signal into neural impulses (2005, p. 186).

Williams adds that not only human eyes, but those of "all other vertebrates, have the functionally stupid upside-down orientation of the retina" and that the "functionally sensible arrangement is in fact what is found in the eye of a squid and other mollusks" (1997, pp. 9-10). An evaluation of this argument reveals it is not only naive, but grossly erroneous.

The Findings of Research

Research by ophthalmologists has clearly shown why the human retina must employ what is called the "inverted" design. An inverted retina is where the photoreceptors face away from the light, forcing the incoming light to travel through the front of the retina to reach the photoreceptors. The opposite placement (where the photoreceptors face the front of the eye) is called a "verted" design. One of the many reasons for the inverted design is, behind the photoreceptors lies a multifunctional and indispensable structure, the retinal pigment epithelium (Martínez-Morales 2004, p. 766). This monolayered tissue contains the black pigment melanin that absorbs most of the light not captured by the retina. This design has the very beneficial effect of preventing light from being reflected off the back of the eye onto the retina, which would degrade the visual image.

The photoreceptors (rods and cones) must also face away from the front of the eye in order to be in close contact with the pigment epithelium on the choroid, which supplies the photoreceptors with blood. This arrangement allows a "steady stream of the vital molecule retinal" to flow to the rods and cones without which vision would be impossible (Kolb 2003, p. 28). The verted design, claimed by Miller to be superior, would place the photoreceptors away from their source of nutrition, oxygen, and retinal (the choroid). This design would cause major problems because rods and cones require an enormous amount of energy for their very high metabolism required in functioning, maintenance, and repair. In addition, because of phototoxicity damage, the rods and cones must completely replace themselves approximately every seven days or so.

The photoreceptors and retinal epithelium absorb an enormous amount of light on a continuous basis when the eyes are open. Because the light is converted largely into heat, the retina must have a very effective cooling system, again provided by the choroidal blood supply directly behind the pigment epithelium. If the pigment epithelium tissue were placed in front of the retina, sight would be seriously compromised. Reversing the retina so that it faces away from the pigment epithelium would also compromise sight to the degree that sight would be impossible because the photoreceptors must be embedded in the retinal pigment epithelium to obtain the nutrients required to function.

This design is extremely critical because the retina requires a high metabolism level due to the continual replacement of the photoreceptors required for vision. Consequently, the retina uses more oxygen and nutrients than almost every other part of the body, requiring an ample blood supply. The verted design would not allow the rods and cones to function properly because of the blood supply required for their high rate of metabolism. If the photoreceptors were in front of the neurons, the blood supply would have to be either directly in the light path of the receptors, or on their side, which would significantly reduce the number of photoreceptors used for sight.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

Importantly, placing the retina neural components in front of the photoreceptors does not produce an optical handicap for several reasons. One reason is the neural elements are separated by less than a wavelength of light. Consequently, very little or no scattering or diffraction occurs, and the light travels through this area as if it was at near-perfect transparency. Secondly, when viewed under the microscope, most cells are largely transparent (and it is for this reason stains, such as Eosin-Y and Hematoxylin 2, are needed to better visualize the various cell parts). Consequently, the thin layer of cells in front of the retina rods and cones have a negligible light blocking effect.

In the retina region which has the highest resolution, the central retina (the fovea and, in particular, the foveola), the neurons in front of the photoreceptors are shifted to the side so that light has a direct pathway to them, resulting in the least distortion where it matters most. The high resolution macula also uses cones that are more tightly packed to achieve high resolution color vision. The peripheral retina has lower resolution and consists of mostly rods for black and white vision.

This design is a highly effective method to accurately transmit enormous amounts of data along the optic nerve in a method analogous to the zipping and unzipping of a computer file to facilitate computer file transmission. To function, the transmission must be very rapid because the image needs to be refreshed continuously like a pixel TV image. The eye's design actually appears to be optimized around the physical limits of the visible light spectrum (Calkins 1986).

The pigment epithelium tissue performs numerous other functions critical for retina viability and activity. One is that it phagocytosises ten percent of the mass of each photoreceptor outer segment on a diurnal schedule, and constantly restores the chromophore to 11-cis-retinal from its all-trans configuration, permitting visual pigment synthesis and regeneration (Dowling 1987, p. 198). It also is part of the outer blood-retinal barrier, helps maintain water and ion flow between the neural retina and the choroid, protects against free radical damage, and regulates retinoid metabolism (Martínez-Morales, et al., 2004, p. 766).

This short review covers only a few of the many reasons for the superiority of the existing design of the mammalian retina. Our knowledge now shows that the retina design is superior to what we understood even just a few short years ago. Gratitude rather than impertinence seems the more appropriate response to its ingenious design.

Note: I wish to thank Jody Allen for her review of an earlier draft of this article.

References

    * Bergman, Jerry. 2000. "Is the Inverted Human Eye a Poor Design?" Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation. 52(1):18-30, March.
    * Calkins, Joseph L. 1986. "Design in the Human Eye." Bible-Science Newsletter. March. pp. 1-2.
    * Dowling, John E. 1987. The Retina: An Approachable Part of the Brain. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
    * Kolb, Helga. 2003. "How the Retina Works." American Scientist. 91:28-35.
    * Martínez-Morales, Juan Ramón, Isabel Rodrigo, and Paola Bovolenta. 2004. "Eye Development: A View from the Retina Pigmented Epithelium." BioEssays. 26:766-777.
    * Miller, Kenneth R. 1999. Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. New York: Cliff Street Books.
    * Shermer, Michael. 2005. Science Friction: Where the Known Meets the Unknown. New York: Henry Holt/Times Books.
    * Williams, George C. 1997. The Pony Fish's Glow and Other Clues to Plan and Purpose in Nature. New York: Basic Books.

* Jerry Bergman is on the Biology faculty at Northwest State College in Ohio. Joseph Calkins is an Ophthalmologist in private practice, formerly Professor of Ophthalmology at Johns Hopkins University.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified
Abstract
The results of this test were astounding. As can be readily seen in figure 1, whereas seven of the samples averaged around 30 Po radiohalos each, the two samples straddling the staurolite isograd contained 177 and 147 Po radiohalos respectively. This is exactly as predicted.

One focus of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project was radiohalos research.1 It was concluded that the uranium (238U) and polonium (Po) radiohalos frequently found in granitic rocks had to have formed simultaneously.2 This implies that hundreds of millions of years of radioactive decay (at today's rates) had to have occurred in a matter of a few days! There needs to have been that much decay of 238U to produce both the visible physical damage (the radiohalos) and the required Po, but that much Po would then have decayed within a few days (because of its short half-lives, that is, very rapid decay rates). So radioisotope "ages" for such granitic rocks of hundreds of millions of years, calculated on the assumption that radioactive decay has always occurred at today's rates, are grossly in error, and these rocks would thus have formed during the Flood year only 4500 years ago. A hydrothermal fluid (hot water) transport model was thus proposed which explained how the Po was separated from its parent 238U and then concentrated in radiocenters close by to form the Po radiohalos.3-5

Another outcome of this research was the discovery of plentiful Po radio-halos in metamorphic rocks.6 Such a finding was predicted, because hydrothermal fluids are generated in water-saturated sedimentary rocks as they become deeply buried, helping to transform them into regional metamorphic complexes.7-9 Thus it was argued that the same hydrothermal fluid transport model could likewise explain the formation of Po radiohalos in those regional metamorphic rocks where an adequate supply of U-decay products occurred.10

In continued research, a test of this Po radiohalos formation model in metamorphic rocks was proposed. Sandstones often contain some zircon grains, derived from erosion of, for example, granitic rocks and deposited in water-transported sandy sediments. Chemical weathering of such source rocks plus abrasion of grains during water transport destroys all biotite grains, so none are ever present in sandstones. However, when sandstones are metamorphosed, the resultant schists and gneisses usually contain biotite grains, which could thus have only formed via mineral reactions during the metamorphism. Such mineral reactions have been studied in laboratory experiments and in them water is often a by-product.11 At the temperatures of these metamorphic processes such water would become hydrothermal fluids capable of transporting any U-decay products from nearby zircon grains and depositing Po in biotite flakes to form Po radiohalos.

The thick Thunderhead Sandstone (Upper Precambrian Great Smoky Group) in the Great Smoky Mountains along the Tennessee/North Carolina border was deformed and regionally metamorphosed during formation of the Appalachian Highlands, beginning in the so-called Devonian (that is, early in the Flood year).12-14 With increasing temperatures and pressures from northwest to southeast, the regional metamorphism produced in these sandstone layers a series of chemically and mineralogically distinct zones of schists and gneisses.15 These zones are named according to the first appearance of the distinctive metamorphic minerals which characterize them as the intensity of the metamorphism increased laterally—the biotite, garnet, staurolite, and kyanite zones. The boundaries between these zones, called isograds, are where mineral reactions have produced the new minerals because of the progressively higher temperatures and pressures.

When originally deposited, the Thunderhead Sandstone contained occasional zircon grains, but no biotite flakes. This metamorphosed sandstone, however, now contains both biotite flakes and zircon grains throughout all these metamorphic zones. Because they still contain minor amounts of U, the zircons would thus have been a source of 238U decay products including Po. Therefore, if hydrothermal fluids had been generated by the metamorphism, according to the hydrothermal fluid transport model for Po radiohalo formation, those hydrothermal fluids should have transported the Po diffusing out of the zircons into the biotite flakes, where it should have formed Po radiohalos.

In the metamorphosed Thunderhead Sandstone it was found that at the staurolite isograd, the boundary between the garnet and staurolite zones, the mineral chlorite disappears from the rocks and muscovite decreases sharply, whereas staurolite appears and biotite becomes more abundant. This can be explained by the mineral reaction:

54 muscovite + 31 chlorite —> 54 biotite + 24 staurolite +152 quartz + 224 water which has been confirmed experimentally.16-17 The generation of this water by this reaction at the prevailing high temperatures determined experimentally would thus have resulted in relatively large volumes of hydrothermal fluids in the rocks surrounding this isograd. These would have been ideal conditions for the generation of Po radiohalos in these metamorphosed sandstones, if Po radiohalo formation does indeed occur as described by the hydrothermal fluid transport model.

Therefore, as a test of the hydrothermal fluid transport model for Po radiohalo formation, nine samples of the metamorphosed Thunderhead Sandstone were collected from road-cut outcrops along U.S. Highway 441 between Cherokee, North Carolina, and Gatlinburg, Tennessee, forming a traverse through the biotite, garnet, staurolite, and kyanite zones of the regional metamorphism as already described.18 The biotite flakes were separated from these samples and scanned under a microscope for radiohalos, using standardized techniques.19-20 The total number of Po radiohalos found in each sample was then plotted against each sample's relative position along the traverse through the metamorphic zones.

The results of this test were astounding. As can be readily seen in figure 1, whereas seven of the samples averaged around 30 Po radiohalos each, the two samples straddling the staurolite isograd contained 177 and 147 Po radiohalos respectively. This is exactly as predicted. Uranium-bearing zircon grains and biotite flakes are present in the metamorphosed sandstones in all samples along the traverse, so during the metamorphism the minor water originally in the sandstones when deposited has generated some Po radiohalos. However, where the mineral reaction around the staurolite isograd has produced a lot of hot water, large numbers of Po radiohalos have formed.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

The hydrothermal fluid transport model for Po radiohalos formation has thus been tested and verified. Neither the Po nor the biotite flakes were primordial. The biotite flakes were formed in the sandstone only during the metamorphism early in the Flood year, and the Po was derived from 238U decay in the zircon grains. And where extra water was generated during the metamorphic processes, many more Po radiohalos were formed. This successful verification only serves to spur on continuing research, because the time scale implications for the formation of the Po radiohalos and these metamorphic rocks are only consistent with a global Flood on a young earth.
References

   1. Snelling, A. A., "Radiohalos," in L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin, eds., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative (2000, El Cajon, CA., Institute for Creation Research, and St. Joseph, MO., Creation Research Society), pp. 381-468.
   2. Snelling, A. A., "Radiohalos in Granites: Evidence for Accelerated Nuclear Decay," in L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin, eds., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative (2005, El Cajon, CA., Institute for Creation Research, and St. Joseph, MO., Creation Research Society), pp. 101-207.
   3. Snelling, A. A., and M. H. Armitage, "Radiohalos—A Tale of Three Granitic Plutons," in R. L. Ivey, Jr., ed., Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism (2003, Pittsburgh, PA., Creation Science Fellowship), pp. 243-267.
   4. Snelling, A. A., J. R. Baumgardner, and L. Vardiman, "Abundant Po Radiohalos in Phanerozoic Granites and Timescale Implications for Their Formation," EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 84:46, Fall Meeting Supplement (2003), Abstract V32C-1046.
   5. Snelling, A. A. (2005), op. cit.
   6. Snelling, A. A. (2005), op. cit.
   7. Stanton, R. L., "An Alternative to the Barrovian Interpretation? Evidence from Stratiform Ores," Proceedings of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 282 (1982): pp. 11-32.
   8. Stanton, R. L., "The Precursor Principle and the Possible Significance of Stratiform Ores and Related Chemical Sediments in the Elucidation of Processes of Regional Metamorphic Mineral Formation," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, A328(1989): pp. 529-646.
   9. Snelling, A. A., "Towards a Creationist Explanation of Regional Metamorphism," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 8 (1994): pp. 51-77.
  10. Snelling, A. A. (2005), op. cit.
  11. Spear, F. S., Metamorphic Phase Equilibria and Pressure-Temperature-Time Paths (1993, Washington, D.C., Mineralogical Society of America).
  12. King, P. B., J. B. Hadley, R. B. Neuman, and W. B. Hamilton, "Stratigraphy of the Ocoee Series, Great Smoky Mountains, Tennessee and North Carolina," Geological Society of America Bulletin, 69 (1958): pp. 947-956.
  13. Hadley, J. B., and R. Goldsmith, Geology of the Eastern Great Smoky Mountains, North Carolina—Tennessee (1963, Washington, DC, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 349-B), 118 pp.
  14. King, P. B., Geology of the Central Great Smoky Mountains, Tennessee (1964, Washington, D.C., U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 349-C), 148 pp.
  15. Allen, G. C., and P. C. Ragland, "Chemical and Mineralogical Variations during Prograde Metamorphism, Great Smoky Mountains, North Carolina and Tennessee," Geological Society of America Bulletin, 83(1972): pp. 1285-1298.
  16. Hoschek, G., "Untersuchungen zum Stabilitätsbereich von Chloritoid und Staurolith," Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 14(1967): pp. 123-162.
  17. Hoschek, G., "The Stability of Staurolite and Chloritoid and their Significance in Metamorphism of Pelitic Rocks," Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 22 (1969): pp. 208-232.
  18. Allen, G. C., and P. C. Ragland (1972), op. cit.
  19. Snelling, A. A., and M. H. Armitage (2003), op. cit.
  20. Snelling, A. A. (2005), op. cit.

*Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. geology, is an associate professor in the Geology Department at the ICR Graduate School.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Genomics at ICR
by Daniel Criswell, Ph.D.

Abstract
The study of the human genome will reveal much about the number and organization of genes and the products of their transcription (proteins). This information will enable scientists to answer a number of questions about heredity (the study of inheritance) and possibly lead to a number of cures for genetic disorders.

In 2001 the complete human genome was published1 with great fanfare and excitement. Many anticipated that the knowledge of the human genetic code (the genome) would provide a complete understanding of what makes a human, well--human. In addition to the human genome, finished and draft genomes for over 25 plants and animals, including the chimpanzee, have now been completed, providing a complete "book of life" for all these organisms.2 Unfortunately, only a small portion of each of these books is understood by scientists.

From the genomes of these organisms emerged a new scientific field called "genomics." Genomics is a science that tries to make sense of the mountains of DNA sequence data that is being compiled. The study of the human genome will reveal much about the number and organization of genes and the products of their transcription (proteins). This information will enable scientists to answer a number of questions about heredity (the study of inheritance) and possibly lead to a number of cures for genetic disorders. But what else might the genome tell us about ourselves? Will this provide any new information about human origins and help determine what makes a human distinct from the animal kingdom? Many secular scientists have used this information in a variety of ways to support evolutionary hypotheses about human origins and the origin of all life forms. At ICR, we have also begun to investigate the field of genomics to provide scientific evidence supporting the Biblical position that man was created distinctly different from the animals, and that each "kind" of animal was created distinctly different from other "kinds."

One area of research currently being conducted at ICR is a comparison of the human and chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) genomes. The Biblical teaching that man was a special creation (Genesis 1:27), different from any other created "kind," is contrary to the evolutionary paradigm that man evolved from a primitive ape. Following the evolutionary line of reasoning, evolutionists have proposed that the chimpanzee is the nearest relative of modern man--both have evolved from a common hypothetical ancestor. Evolutionists are using certain fossils and the general similarity of man and chimpanzee as proof of their common ancestry. As molecular data (including amino acid sequences in proteins) have accumulated over the past thirty years, this evolutionary link has supposedly been confirmed. Many protein-coding sequences in the genome have been reported to have a 98.5% sequence homology (the percent of DNA that matches between two organisms) for humans and chimpanzees. However, such sequence similarity was based only on a fraction of the total genome of man and chimpanzees, and reflects only the physiological similarities of humans and chimpanzees based on their cellular protein content, not the overall genomic content. The homology frequently reported for the human/chimpanzee genomes excluded "indels," which are areas with zero sequence homology. In a recent analysis by Britten et al., inclusion of "indels" in human and chimpanzee sequences reduced the human/chimpanzee homology to 95%.3 However, preliminary research at ICR using genomic databases and the current literature indicates that the sequence homology between humans and chimpanzees may be less than 90%, as more genomic regions, such as heterochromatin (regions of condensed noncoding DNA) and unresolved alignment gaps are included in homology studies.

Major differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes are increasingly being documented in scientific journals. An example of this was reported in an article in Genome Research identifying chromosome rearrangements between human chromosome 21 and the homologous chimpanzee chromosome 22.4 Using many long-range human PCR primers (primers used to sequence 10,000 bases at a time) that spanned 32.4 Mb (1Mb = 1 million bases) of human chromosome 21, approximately 27 Mb of chimpanzee chromosome 22 were successfully sequenced. This left 5.4 Mb of corresponding human sequences undetectable in chimpanzee chromosome 22. Assuming the 5.4 Mb of DNA that was unable to be sequenced in the chimpanzee genome was 70% homologous to the corresponding human sequence (very generous for sequences that are not alignable!) and combining this with the 27 Mb of sequenced chimpanzee DNA (assuming this region is 95% homologous, see above) would give a homology of 90% for human chromosome 21 and chimpanzee chromosome 22. If the unalignable region is less than 70%, the homology of human chromosome 21 and chimpanzee chromosome 22 will be even less than 90%. Considering all the elements that determine sequence homology, when an entire sequence comparison is finally made between the human and chimpanzee genomes, the actual amount of DNA sequence homology is almost certainly going to be less than 90%.

What is the significance of 98.5% versus 90% homology? If the human and chimpanzee genomes are 10% different, it rules out the possibility that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor. If the difference between the two genomes is 10% then the total number of differences in the DNA sequence would be approximately 300 million nucleotide bases (10% of 3 billion nucleotides present in humans or chimpanzees), meaning that 150 million bases in both the human and chimpanzee have mutated and been fixed in the population since the last common ancestor. If the hypothetical divergence of humans and chimpanzees occurred about 5 million years ago and given that a human generation is about 20 years (and a chimp slightly less), then 250,000 generations have passed from the time humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor. To get 150 million nucleotide changes in 250,000 generations, the two lines of descent would require 600 beneficial mutations fixed in each population of ancestral humans and chimpanzee per generation. However, nearly all mutations are neutral, having no effect and therefore are not selectable, or are slightly deleterious, causing genetic deterioration in a population of organisms. A few beneficial mutations have been observed, such as mutations that confer antibiotic resistance in bacteria and sickle cell trait in humans. But even these mutations are deleterious when the individual is returned to optimal conditions for survival and forced to compete with other individuals lacking the mutation. Recognizing the high genetic cost of fixing any mutation in a population, J.B.S. Haldane, an evolutionist, determined mathematically that it would take 6 million years to fix just 1,000 beneficial mutations in humans through natural selection.5 If only 1,000 of the mutations are beneficial, then nearly all of the 150 million mutations in the human lineage would be slightly deleterious or neutral. Deleterious mutations would lead to degeneration of the genome resulting in extinction, and the neutral mutations would cause no change. This does not lead to some "great leap forward" to a more adapted creature. Because there is no feasible evolutionary solution to this problem, this whole situation has been termed "Haldane's dilemma." Even if the difference in homology of humans and chimpanzees is just 98.5% there still would be 250,000 beneficial mutations to be fixed in both populations in the last 5 million years, far too many than are feasible by Haldane's calculations.

The differences between humans and chimpanzees cannot be determined simply by the amount of sequence homology. The regulation of genes is also an important factor. Differential expression of proteins in humans and chimpanzees has been identified in brain and liver cells. In a comparison of 538 proteins expressed in brain and liver cells in both humans and chimpanzees, 31% of these proteins showed different levels of expression between humans and chimpanzees.6 For comparison, two species of mice, Mus musculus and Mus spretus, also were analyzed for protein expression differences, but showed just a 7.5% difference in the number of differentially expressed proteins. The larger difference between humans and chimpanzees would support the position that they are two separate "kinds" while the mice, which are classified in the same genus, are likely one "kind."

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

The differences in expression were not trivial either, as some of the differentially expressed proteins had more than a 10-fold difference in expression levels between humans and chimpanzees.7 One likely candidate controlling the different levels of proteins in the brain and liver cells are differences in the DNA sequences of the gene promoters in humans and chimpanzees.7 These differences might affect the binding affinity between DNA and the enzymes necessary for the expression of the gene that encodes the respective protein. Differential expression of proteins is one likely way the Designer specified some of the physical and behavioral differences between humans and chimpanzees.

Certainly, the real difference between man and animals (including the chimpanzee) is man's creation in the image of God, as revealed in the Bible. Man's relationship with his Creator affects much of the way he behaves, and ultimately is the defining characteristic that separates him from the animal kingdom. Genomics research at ICR should support this fact, showing man to possess genomic characteristics that could not evolve from another created kind.

This Impact article signals the beginning of genomic studies at ICR. We are currently working on a number of research projects associated with genomics in addition to the human/chimpanzee homology study. Some of our proposed projects will include sequencing mitochondrial DNA with the goals of:

1) Measuring mutation rates in humans.
2) Determining the validity of molecular clocks.
3) Refining the mitochondrial Eve hypothesis showing the relatedness of all humans.
4) Delineating the created kinds.

We will also conduct research using computer models to study the feasibility of evolutionary genetic theory versus the actual emergence of modern populations from a literal Adam and Eve.
References:

   1. Venter, J. C., et al., 2001. The sequence of the human genome. Science 291:1304-1351.
   2. Genome sequences can be found at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mapview/
   3. Britten, R. J., 2002. Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 99(21):13633-13635.
   4. Frazer, K. A., et al., 2003. Genomic DNA insertions and deletions occur frequently between humans and nonhuman primates: Genome Research 13:341-346.
   5. Haldane, J. B. S., 1957. The cost of natural selection. Journal of Genetics 55:511-524.
   6. Enard, W., et al., 2002. Intra- and interspecific variation in primate gene expression patterns. Science 296:340-343.
   7. Watanabe, H., et al., 2004. DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22. Nature 429:382-388.

*Dr. Daniel Criswell has a Ph.D. in molecular biology and is a biology professor at the ICR Graduate School.