Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

 Mediated Design
by Todd Charles Wood, Ph.D.

Abstract
I have come to believe that God created baramins with the ability to adapt to future change in specific, pre-designed ways.

When I was an undergraduate, my plant physiology professor required students to write a term paper for his class. Since I found the subject terribly uninteresting, I asked my professor if he could recommend a topic that had something to do with evolution or origins, a topic in which I was very interested. My professor immediately recommended that I write about the origin of C4 photosynthesis. I knew at the time that there are several types of photosynthesis. Flowering plants have at least three main categories, called C3, C4 and CAM. In C3 photosynthesis, the plant takes carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and turns it directly into sugar. C4 and CAM plants turn CO2 into organic acids and temporarily store them. In C4 plants, the acids are transported to a special region of the leaf called the bundle sheath cells (BSCs) where they are converted into sugar. In CAM plants, the acids are generated at night when the temperature is lower and converted to sugars during the day. C4 and CAM plants photosynthesize more efficiently than C3 plants in hot, dry environments.1

Based on this preliminary knowledge, I assumed that C4 photosynthesis was so complicated that it must have resulted from a creation event separate from C3 photosynthesis. In technical terms, I expected that C4 plants were discontinuous with C3 plants because I assumed that God created the photosynthesis types in separate created kinds. As I began to research the topic, my expectations were shown to be incorrect. First, there is no clear taxonomic distinction between C3 and C4 plants. C4 photosynthesis occurs in 16 different flowering plant families, but no family is entirely C4. In fact, a clear distinction between C3 and C4 photosynthesis cannot be made in some plants. At least 23 species are known to be intermediate between C3 and C4.2

The most extraordinary example of C3-C4 intermediate photosynthesis is found in Flaveriinae, a subtribe of the largest flowering plant family Aster-aceae. Strictly defined, the Flaveriinae consist of three genera (Flaveria, Sartwellia, and Haploësthes) and 28 species.3 The largest genus Flaveria (21 species) contains plants that photosynthesize by C3, C4, and a variety of intermediate types.4 Most extraordinary of all, plants with these various photosynthesis types are capable of hybridization.5

In 1941, Frank Marsh proposed that species that could mate and produce offspring belonged to the same created kind, or in his terminology a baramin.6 Subsequently, hybridization has become a common method of identifying baramins in modern creation thinking. Since the species of Flaveria could hybridize together, they must belong to the same baramin and therefore share an ancestor that might have survived the Flood as part of a vegetation mat.7 The common ancestry of Flaveria would also mean that C4 photosynthesis must be a historical development (since most of the plants in the baramin are strictly C3). This led me to wonder how the post-Creation origin of C4 photosynthesis could have happened, since C4 is so complicated. Though some creationists are fond of using allelic variation (two or more variants of a gene), to explain the diversity of baramins, a change in photosynthesis type goes far beyond blue and brown eyes or smooth and wrinkled peas.

A possible answer to this conundrum would occur to me long after I turned in my plant physiology term paper. Molecular biology studies during the 1990s demonstrated that genes required for the C4 photosynthesis pathway are present in C3 species of Flaveria.8 In C3 plants, these genes are largely inactive, but in C4 plants, the same genes are producing C4 enzymes. Somehow, the C4 genes in the C3 plants were essentially shut down, while in the C4 species they had been turned on. C3-C4 intermediate species represent plants in which only some of the C4 genes had been switched on. This discovery led me to formulate a new idea about God's biological design.

When we think about design, it is helpful to make a distinction between God's plan and the way God implements His plan. In the Bible, we see many examples of God commanding others to carry out His will. A few examples include saving humans and animals on an Ark built by Noah, working through Abraham to create a new nation, destroying the Canaanites by the invading Israelites, and sending the Messiah through the Virgin Mary. In each case, God accomplishes His will (plan), not by de novo creation of something entirely new, but by working through existing parts of the creation. When applied to biology, I call this idea mediated design.

More specifically, I have come to believe that God created baramins with the ability to adapt to future change in specific, pre-designed ways. In contrast, many pre-Darwinian biologists, such as French anatomist Georges Cuvier, believed that each immutable species was perfectly adapted to the environment in which it lives.9 The problem with this perspective is that if the environment changed, the species would most likely go extinct since it had no ability to adapt. Since we now know that the climate of the earth changed drastically during the history of the earth,10 God must have created baramins to survive not just in their original environment, but in whatever future climates might arise. Thus, God must have created "hidden" adaptations in the original baramins waiting to be accessed at some point in the future, much in the same way that a Swiss army knife contains hidden tools that can be accessed as needed.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

Mediated design explains the variation of photosynthesis types in Flaveria more simply than evolution. According to my understanding, God created C4 genes in the genome of the Flaveria ancestor, but they were only activated later in history (probably after the Flood) by a presently unknown mechanism. In contrast, the evolutionist must propose that the C4 genes evolved without any change in the plant's method of photosynthesis, and therefore before the genes could be changed by natural selection. Then at some later point, the C4 genes began to be expressed and to be selected for the "complete" C4 photosynthesis type. Not only did this happen in Flaveria, but it also happened in at least 15 other plant families. In contrast, the mediated design explanation is much simpler. It explains both the complexity of C4 photosynthesis (it was designed), its presence in 16 unrelated families (a common designer), and why it appears to have "originated" randomly in different species (the design was mediated through the Flaveria genome).

Since writing up my original ideas with my colleague, David Cavanaugh,11 I uncovered several other examples of what I suspect to be mediated design. CAM photosynthesis, the third type of photosynthesis discussed above, appears in numerous families and in isolated genera, much like C4 photosynthesis.12 Another example occurs in the legume family. Some legumes are able to form complex relationships with soil bacteria called rhizobia. In these mutualistic relationships, the plant creates a novel organ called a root nodule in which the bacteria live. The bacteria in return give the plant nitrogen they acquire directly from the atmosphere. Once again, this ability occurs seemingly randomly throughout the family. Some species can form nodules, while others that are very closely related cannot.13,14 As a final example, consider the fish genus Poeciliopsis that not only bear live young but also develop a placenta. Just like C4 and CAM photosynthesis and root nodule formation, the ability to form a placenta appears to be randomly distributed throughout the genus. Some species can form a placenta, but other closely-related species do not.15

Each of these examples fit the description of mediated design in which God creates a genetic potential for a complicated trait that is only accessed at some point in history after Creation. Some species in the baramin access the trait, while others do not. In the same way, some people use the corkscrew in their Swiss army knives, while others do not. What makes mediated design so exciting to me is that it facilitates further research. So often, I encounter the common misconception that creationism is defeatist; saying that "God did it" stifles further inquiry. Nothing could be further from the truth in the case of mediated design. With this idea, we can begin by investigating other C4 plants, CAM plants, legumes, and Poeciliopsis to determine which species actually share an ancestor. Then we can examine their genomes to find the genes that are necessary to express their amazing traits. Ultimately, examining these genes should reveal to us the actual mechanism by which these traits become expressed. That's an entire research program developed by assuming a simple model of divine design.
References

   1. Edwards, G. and D. Walker, C3, C4: Mechanisms, and Cellular and Environmental Regulation, of Photosynthesis (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983).
   2. Monson, R.K. and B.D. Moore, "On the significance of C3-C4 intermediate photosynthesis to the evolution of C4 photosynthesis," Plant, Cell and Environment 12 (1989), pp. 689-699.
   3. Powell, A.M., "Systematics of Flaveria (Flaveriinae—Asteraceae)," Annals of the Missouri Botanical Gardens 65 (1978), pp. 590-636.
   4. Monson, R.K., "On the evolutionary pathways resulting in C4 photosynthesis and Crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM)," Advances in Ecological Research 19 (1989), pp. 57-110.
   5. Powell, ref. 3.
   6. Marsh, F.L., Fundamental Biology (Lincoln, NE: Published by the author, 1941).
   7. 7. Wood, T.C. and D.P. Cavanaugh, "A baraminological analysis of subtribe Flaveriinae (Asteraceae: Helenieae) and the origin of biological complexity," Origins 52 (2001), pp. 7-27.
   8. Lipka, B., K. Steinmüller, E. Rosche, D. Börsch, and P. Westhoff, "The C3
      plant Flaveria pringlei contains a plastidic NADP-malic enzyme which is orthologous to the C4 isoform of the C4 plant F. trinervia," Plant Molecular Biology 26 (1994), pp. 1775-1783.
   9. For a recent discussion of Cuvier's beliefs and influence, see Asma, S.T., Following Form and Function (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1996).
  10. E.g., see Vardiman, L., Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996).
  11. Wood and Cavanaugh, ref. 7.
  12. Monson, ref. 4.
  13. De Faria, S.M., G.P. Lewis, J.I. Sprent, and J.M. Sutherland, "Occurrence of nodulation in the Leguminosae," New Phytologist 111 (1989), pp. 607-619.
  14. Doyle, J.J., "Phylogenetic perspectives on nodulation: evolving views of plants and symbiotic bacteria," Trends in Plant Science 3 (1998), pp. 473-478.
  15. Reznick, D.N., M. Mateos, and M.S. Springer, "Independent origins and rapid evolution of the placenta in the fish genus Poeciliopsis," Science 298 (2002), pp. 1018-1020.

*Dr. Wood is Assistant Professor at the Center for Origins Research, Bryan College, Tennessee.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Sea Dragons
by Mace Baker

Abstract
The Scriptures indicate very clearly that sea dragons were part of the original creation and are mentioned as being alive and flourishing even after the time of Noah's flood. For instance, in Psalm 74:13 we read, "Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters."

For more than a thousand years ancient and medieval mariners often returned from their voyages with frightening tales of encounters with, or sightings of, large and dangerous sea monsters. These were amazing creatures, not only because of their size and ferocity, but also because they would at times break the surface of the water, indicating that they were actually air breathers. This, along with their unique anatomy, made it clear that these strange creatures were not a species of fish. It was soon recognized that they were some kind of unusual marine reptile. Consequently, they were often referred to as sea dragons. As time went by, fewer and fewer of these unique and fearsome creatures were seen. Eventually there were only the stories from olden days. Finally the stories themselves began to lose their credibility and were relegated to the realm of legends or mythology.

However, in the 1800s a young English girl, Mary Anning of Lyme Regis, England, discovered the fossil remains of some strange and very ancient marine animals. The pay she received from various paleontologists motivated her to keep looking. She found so many that she actually was able to make a living from the discovery and sale of these fossils. In time the fossils she found received their modern names of ichthyosaurs, meaning "fish lizards," and plesiosaurs, meaning "near lizards."

Since that time, hundreds of articulated ichthyosaur skeletons have been found, making it possible for us to know a good deal about these marine creatures. The first scientist to describe ichthyosaurs was Dr. William Buckland, professor of Geology at Oxford. Dr. Buckland had respect for God as Creator and spoke of the various unique aspects of the ichthyosaurs within the framework of intelligent design. We find that the ichthyosaur had large ear bones, indicating that they had a good sense of hearing. These ear bones were able to carry sound vibrations from both air and water to the inner ear. The eye sockets were very large, indicating that they may have hunted at dusk or in deeper water. In one specimen, the eye orbit was four inches in diameter. The eyeballs were surrounded by a ring of bones, the sclerotic ossicle, which probably protected their eyes when diving abruptly for prey. Buckland states, ". . . the preservation of this curiously constructed hoop of bony plates, shews that the enormous eye, of which they formed the front, was an optical instrument of varied and prodigious power, enabling the Ichthyosaurus to descry its prey at great or little distances, in the obscurity of night, and in the depths of the sea . . ." (William Buckland, Geology and Mineralogy, Considered with Reference to Natural Theology, volume 1, William Pickering, 1836, p. 174.)

It has also been suggested that this ring of bones was useful for protecting the eye from being slapped by the small waves whenever they surfaced. They may have also given the eyes of the ichthyosaurs both microscopic and telescopic powers. "In living animals these bony plates are fixed in the exterior or sclerotic coat of the eye, and vary its scope of action, by altering the convexity of the cornea: by their retraction they press forward the front of the eye and convert it into a microscope; in resuming their position, when the eye is at rest, they convert it into a telescope." (Ibid., p. 174.)

The snout was elongated which gave it a porpoise-like appearance. The long jaws were not composed of one long bone. If they had been, the lower jaw could have been fractured when the jaws had to snap shut on a squirming prey. Instead they were composed of several smaller bones. Dr. Buckland comments, "This contrivance in the lower jaw, to combine the greatest elasticity and strength with the smallest weight of materials, is similar to that adopted in binding together several parallel plates of elastic wood . . . to make a crossbow. . . . As in the . . . compound bow, so also in the compound jaw of the Ichthyosaurus, the plates are most numerous and strong, at the parts where the greatest strength is required to be exerted; and are thinner, and fewer, towards the extremities, where the service to be performed is less severe." (Ibid., p. 176.)

One of the reasons that sea dragons were seen less frequently is because they were able to stay underwater for long periods of time made possible by the design of their ribs. The ribs of the right side were united to those of the left by a set of intermediate bones which came to be referenced as the "sterno-costal" arcs. "This structure was probably subservient to the purpose of introducing to their bodies an unusual quantity of air; the animal by this means being enabled to remain long beneath the water, without rising to the surface for the purpose of breathing." (Ibid., p. 180.) Ichthyosaurs had both paddles (flippers) and fins. The fins probably were used for stabilization and steering and the paddles for lift, but neither were used for propulsion. This was accomplished by the tail, swishing back and forth rapidly which may have allowed it to swim at speeds up to 40 miles per hour.

Dr. Buckland commented that the design of these amazing creatures showed a ". . . union of compensative contrivances, so similar in their relations, so identical in their objects, and so perfect in the adaptation of each subordinate part, to the harmony and perfection of the whole; that we cannot but recognize throughout them all, the workings of one and the same eternal principle of Wisdom and Intelligence, presiding from first to last over the total fabric of the Creation." (Ibid., p. 186.)

As competent paleontologists began to prepare and display these fossils, the more it became obvious that these creatures must have been fearsome predators of the ancient world's warm, shallow seas. In fact, as more of these were reconstructed and displayed in museums, many began to wonder if they had been the terrible sea monsters the ancient and medieval mariners had talked about.

This latter suggestion, of course, has been ridiculed by many in the scientific community, because they insist that these fossils were found in rocks that date back millions of years. They believe that the ichthyosaurs as well as many other creatures found in the sedimentary rocks were buried slowly and gradually. For example, with regard to the ichthyosaurs, one popular book on this subject states, "This unusually fine fossil preservation is probably due to the bottom waters at Holzmaden being inhospitable to life because of the absence of oxygen. Any ichthyosaur dying and sinking to the sea floor would lie undisturbed because of the absence of scavengers (crabs, small fish, etc.) picking the body apart. Fine mud would eventually cover the carcass, recording the delicate skin as a dark silhouette." (The Ultimate Dinosaur, Editors: Byron, Preiss and Robert Silverberg, October, 1992, p. 234.) But animals which are in the ocean today are eaten by predatators or disintegrate in the salty ocean water whether floating to the surface or sinking to the bottom. They do not fall to the sea floor to become slowly and gradually covered with fine mud. Many ichthyosaurs are very well preserved. This would necessitate rapid (catastrophic) burial. And, indeed, a great many of them suffered this fate, "Hundreds of beautifully preserved skeletons, with the bones still joined, or articulated, as in life, have been found." (Steve Parker, The Encyclopedia of the Age of the Dinosaurs, 2000. p. 119.)

The fossil record indicates, not the uniformitarian, but the catastrophic nature of the burial and preservation of the sea dragons. This is evident from the discovery of at least two ichthyosaurs that were covered with sediment so rapidly that their offspring were fossilized in the process of giving birth. In addition to this, several have been found with their last meal still in the stomach area, including parts of pterosaurs!

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

Pterosaurs were the flying reptiles of the ancient world. Why would they wind up in an ichthyosaur's stomach? This was more than likely due to the immense amount of volcanism that was going on during the Flood year. These would have put large volumes of volcanic gases and ash into the atmosphere, which in many cases would have suffocated birds and pterosaurs. As they fell into the sea, some of them would have been quickly eaten by large fish or marine reptiles.

In some cases we not only have articulated bones of the ichthyosaur skeletons but carbonized skin impressions as well. This is even acknowledged by the authors who talk about slow and gradual covering of these reptiles with fine muds, "Carbonized skin impressions have been found around the skeletons of ichthyosaurs in the black shales at Holzmaden, Germany." (Op. cit., p. 234.)

Evolutionists today teach that these creatures became extinct 65 million years ago, a number which has grown in magnitude historically. For example, in 1905 Nature magazine reporting on dinosaurs says, "It is almost an appalling thought that the skeleton of a creature which lived at least several million years ago should have come down in such marvellous preservation to our own day." (———, "The New Diplodocus Skeleton," Nature, May 25, 1905, p. 83.) According to the time reckoning in 1905, the dinosaurs lived only "several" million years ago. Now, today's paleontologists are "sure" that they became extinct 65 million years ago and lived on the earth as many as 220 million years ago. (This time parameter, of course, applies to the dinosaurs, sea dragons, and pterosaurs.)

However, sea monsters or sea dragons have been referenced in many secular sources throughout human history. Modern paleontologists hold to the idea that the sea "dragons" are only mythological in nature, but refer at times to fossil ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs as "sea dragons," i.e., "They were thought to belong to the euryapsid group of reptiles along with other sea dragons such as nothosaurs and plesiosaurs." (Steve Parker, Age of the Dinosaur, p. 116.) The late Carl Sagan titled his book that includes information on dinosaurs, The Dragons of Eden. Further, Christopher McGowan, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto and Professor of Zoology at the University of Toronto, gave his book on dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and marine reptiles the title, Dinosaurs, Spitfires, and Sea Dragons.

The Scriptures indicate very clearly that sea dragons were part of the original creation and are mentioned as being alive and flourishing even after the time of Noah's flood. For instance, in Psalm 74:13 we read, "Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters." The Hebrew word used here for dragons is "tannim." This is the same Hebrew word which refers to the land dragons (dinosaurs) in a variety of Scriptures including, for instance, in Malachi 1:3 which reads, "And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness."

Clearly, it is important for Christians to realize in this age when the doctrine of Creation has been undermined by the teaching of evolution, that God has been careful to reference all the major animal groups that He created, as well as an account of a global flood of judgment which made it possible for animals of the ancient world to be fossilized. If it was not for this great watery catastrophe that covered the entire earth, we would not find articulated fossil remains of animals on every continent. In the Scriptures, the Lord God has documented the fact that many of these creatures lived for an extended period of time after the Flood. During this time, they were also referenced by navigators who encountered them during their sea travels. The Biblical and secular accounts of the land dragons (dinosaurs) and sea dragons (ichthyosaurs) enable us who live in a time of great apostasy and unbelief to have strong confidence in the reliability of the Scriptures.

*Mace Baker is the author of the book, The Real History of Dinosaurs (2001).

[Soldier4Christ]

 Are Polar Ice Sheets Only 4500 Years Old?
by Michael Oard, M.S.

Abstract
Do creationists have a model that can account for these ice sheets and the data used by uniformitarian glaciologists to claim old ages? Just like many other problems in geology, paleontology, chronology, astronomy, etc., creationists need to apply I Thessalonians 5:21: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

Glaciologists have drilled about a dozen deep ice cores into the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets. The two most important, drilled to about 3000 meters to bedrock from the top of the Greenland Ice Sheet, are the GRIP and GISP2 cores.1 It is claimed that annual layers of snow and ice, so well marked at the top of the cores, can be counted downward to 2800 meters for a total of 110,000 years in the GISP2 core.2,3 The annual layer method is said to be like counting tree rings to determine the age of a tree. (The measurements could not be made below 2800 meters because the annual layer thickness was assumed to be too thin. The 250 meters of ice below this depth is believed to be many hundreds of thousands of years old.)

The focus of drilling has recently shifted to Antarctica where several deep cores to over 3000 meters have been drilled. The most important is the new Vostok core that reached 3623 meters in 1998 but stopped drilling due to the presence of a lake 120 meters deeper. The Vostok core is said to span 420,000 years through a depth of 3310 meters.4
The Creationist Model

Such ages pose a considerable challenge to the young-earth creationist time scale. Is there another way of looking at the data? Do creationists have a model that can account for these ice sheets and the data used by uniformitarian glaciologists to claim old ages? Just like many other problems in geology, paleontology, chronology, astronomy, etc., creationists need to apply I Thessalonians 5:21: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." Hold fast to Scripture, and examine the data carefully.

There certainly is an alternative explanation for the origin of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets within the creationist time frame.5,6 To start with, the volume of the Antarctic Ice Sheet is 26.4 million km3 with an average depth of 1900 meters. The corresponding figures for the Greenland Ice Sheet are a volume of 2.9 million km3 and an average depth of 1600 meters. All this ice represents an average depth of 3.1 km if spread over the entire United States. But this amount of ice does not demand an inordinate amount of time to accumulate. At the present average precipitation rate, assuming no melting, the Antarctic Ice Sheet would build up to its present height in only 10,000 years while the Greenland Ice Sheet would build in only 5000 years. In the creationist model, the bulk of the ice sheets built up during a 700-year post-Flood Ice Age with much higher precipitation, represented by the lower half of the GRIP and GISP2 cores. Further accumulation of snow and ice after the Ice Age would have increased the volume upwards to the present day.
Alternative Explanation for Uniformitarian "Annual" Layers

Each annual layer of snow and ice becomes more vertically compressed and stretched horizontally with depth. The uniformitarian model postulates that the annual layers thin considerably with depth and become paper thin near the bottom.7 The creationist model would predict that annual layers thin a little with depth from the top but become much thicker during the glacial portion due to much greater snowfall8 (Figure 1). The creation model is based on a

Figure 1. The thickness of annual ice layers down the GRIP ice core on central Greenland calculated according to the uniformitarian and the creation models (courtesy of TJ, www.answers in genesis.org).
Figure 1. The thickness of annual ice layers down the GRIP ice core on central Greenland calculated according to the uniformitarian7 and the creation models8
(courtesy of TJ).

constant accumulation throughout the glacial period of around six meters of water equivalent per year, followed by a rapid decline during deglaciation and the post-Flood period. The scale on the left in Figure 1 is the current annual layer thickness after compression from the ice above for a period of about 4500 years. The reason why the current annual layer thickness decreases below 1800 meters is because these layers have had more time to compress vertically by the weight of the overlying ice.6

In the creationist model, the well-defined annual layers would be obvious near the surface, but they would be sub-annual deeper down, the number of sub-annual layers per year increasing with depth. It is known that sub-annual events show up within the top annual layers.9 These sub-annual signatures may be the result of individual storms, or they could be cycles of sunny, mild weather alternating with cool, stormy weather. These sub-annual layers can mimic annual layers in the measured variables. For instance, enough variability exists in the precipitation from some mid-latitude storms to account for the annual amplitude of the oxygen isotope ratio.10 In the uniformitarian model, it is assumed that storms and short weather cycles would be smoothed and obliterated deeper in the ice by compression and diffusion. However, in the creationist model, these sub-annual fluctuations would be expected to remain and be counted as "annual" by the uniformitarian scientists.

Dust bands, assumed to be annual, can be found near the bottom of the GISP2 ice core. When glaciologists first dated the GISP2 core by annual layer counting, they arrived at a date of about 85,000 years at the 2800-meter level by counting dust bands.11 But the date at 2800 meters disagreed with the deep-sea ocean sediment time scale, thus the core had to be "redated" below 2300 meters. By using a finer 1-mm laser beam rather than the 8-mm beam to measure the higher ones, they were able to add another 25,000 "annual layers" between 2300 and 2800 meters! By measuring at a finer scale, more dust bands were picked up. This "redating" shows the subjective nature of the process of annual dating in most of the core.

Creationists, on the other hand, point out that much dust is known to have occurred in the Ice Age part of the Greenland Ice Sheet. When the atmosphere is loaded with dust, a storm can lay down multiple dust bands separated by less dusty ice. Showers in the precipitation sector would lay down variable amounts of dust in the snow. The finer the scale of measurement for this dust, the more oscillations in the dust will be detected. It is possible to pick up hundreds and perhaps thousands of dust wiggles in one year when measuring at a very fine scale.
Uniformitarian Time Scale Based on
Astronomical Theory of the Ice Age

cont'd

 

[Soldier4Christ]

The bottom line in dating ice cores is really the assumed age of the ice sheets which is based on the time scale from deep-sea cores. The deep-sea time scale is built into the dating of the ice sheets by the use of flow models and time markers, which act as a first guess to the annual layer thickness. The flow model assumes the ice sheets have been more or less in equilibrium for millions of years. This first guess is used to determine the resolution of the measurements down the core, insuring that multiple measurements per annual layer are "counted." No matter what resolution is used, the glaciologist is able to pick up oscillations in the data record that he assumes are annual but which might actually be sub-annual.

The deep-sea core time scale is likewise built upon the assumption of the astronomical or Milankovitch theory of the Ice Age or ages that is far from proved.12 Antarctic ice cores are dated by this method, since the accumulation on this ice sheet is so low that annual layer dating cannot be applied, except in shallow coastal cores with higher snowfall. So, the 420,000 years obtained near the bottom of the Vostok ice core is based on preconceived ideas on the ages of ocean sediment, which is based on the astronomical theory of the Ice Age. In other words, the uniformitarian scientists date the ice sheets to hundreds of thousands of years because they believe the ice sheets are old to begin with. They have "proved" only what they have assumed!
References

   1. Oard, M.J., "A Tale of Two Greenland Ice Cores," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 9,2 (1995), pp. 135-136.
   2. Alley, R.B., et al., "Visual-Stratigraphic Dating of the GISP2 Ice Core: Basis, Reproducibility, and Application," Journal of Geophysical Research 102, C12 (1997), pp. 26,367-26,381.
   3. Meese, D.A., Gow, A.J., Alley, R.B., Zielinski, G.A., Grootes, P.M., Ram, M., Taylor, K.C., Mayewski, P.A., and Bolzan, J.F., "The Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 Depth-Age Scale: Methods and Results," Journal of Geophysical Research 102, C12 (1997), pp. 26,411-26,423.
   4. Petit, J.R. et al., "Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 Years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica" Nature 399 (1999), pp. 429-436.
   5. Oard, M.J., An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood (Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, 1990).
   6. Vardiman, L., Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth (Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, 1993).
   7. De Angelis, M., Steffensen, J.P., Legrand, M., Clausen, H., and Hammer, C., "Primary Aerosol (Sea Salt and Soil Dust) Deposited in Greenland Ice during the Last Climatic Cycle: Comparison with East Antarctic Records" Journal of Geophysical Research 102, C12 (1997), p. 26,683.
   8. Oard, M.J., "Do Greenland ice cores show over one hundred thousand years of annual layers?" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 15, 3 (2001), pp. 39-42.
   9. Alley, R.B. et al., "Visual-Stratigraphic dating of the GISP2 ice core: basis, reproducibility, and application" Journal of Geophysical Research 102, C12 (1997), pp. 26,367-26,381.
  10. Gedzelman, S.D. and Lawrence, J.R., "The isotopic composition of cyclonic precipitation," Journal of Applied Meteorology 21 (1982), pp. 1385-1404.
  11. Meese, D.A. et al., "The Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 depth-age scale: methods and results," Journal of Geophysical Research 102, C12 (1997),
      pp. 26,411-26,423.
  12. Vardiman, L., Sea-Floor Sediment and the Age of the Earth (Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, 1996).

*Michael Oard has a Master's of Science Degree in Atmospheric Science.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Progressive Creationism
by John C. Whitcomb, Ph.D.

Abstract
"Progressive creationists," such as Drs. Hugh Ross and Robert Newman, profess faith in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, and reject more radical views such as theistic evolutionism, but nevertheless believe also in the timetable of Big Bang cosmology.

Did God use vast ages of time, even millions and billions of years, to bring the universe and the world to its present form? Many Christians have adopted this view during the past two centuries in order to bring the Bible into harmony with the consensus of contemporary scientific opinion.1

"Progressive creationists," such as Drs. Hugh Ross and Robert Newman, profess faith in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, and reject more radical views such as theistic evolutionism (e.g., Dr. Howard Van Till), but nevertheless believe also in the timetable of Big Bang cosmology. They believe that millions of years separated the (miraculous) appearance of the various kinds of living things.2

The efforts of most secular scientists to explain the ultimate origin of the universe in terms of purely natural processes, however, suffer from severe limitations. No one except God was there when the universe began, and thus no human being could have observed the nature, the sequence, or the duration of the original events. That is why scientists differ so profoundly from each other on this vital issue.3

Four thousand years ago, God said to Job: "I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding" (Job 38:3-4). The stupendous impact of that question continues to the present hour.

One of the truly amazing things about the Bible is that it agrees with itself! Even though God used forty human authors over two thousand years, and even though highly complex topics are dealt with, there are no contradictions! Job and Moses, the earliest Bible writers, are supplemented, not contradicted, by the last writer, John. That is because the Spirit of God "moved" them to record what was beyond their own finite limitations (II Peter 1:21; cf., I Peter 1:11).

The intricate details of Genesis 1-2 are sufficient in themselves to negate the theory of Progressive Creationism. This discussion must await a future article. However, our purpose at this time is to demonstrate that stretching the days of creation to millions of years to accommodate secular theories becomes even more absurd when we allow the entire Bible to shed its essential light upon the first chapter of Genesis. For example, it was through the mere spoken word of the pre-incarnate Christ, "the Word" (John 1:1,3; 1:14), that "All things were made." But how, actually, were the heavens and the earth created through the Second Person of the Triune Godhead? What method did He use, and how long did He take to do the work of creation? Here is the amazing answer: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth . . . For He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast" (Psalm 33:6,9). Note carefully that God did not create a tiny speck of energy from which the stars and planets gradually formed through billions of years as the Big Bang theory requires. Instead, "the heavens . . . [even] all the host of them" (Genesis 2:1) came into existence instantly. Progressive Creationism is rendered impossible by this statement. The second book of the Old Testament confirms what the first book says about the duration of creation events: "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" (Exodus 20:11; cf., 31:17). No Israelite, hearing these words, could have understood them as allowing for long periods of time. They knew that the six days in Genesis were literal days, because each of them was identified by a numerical adjective (one day . . . second day . . . etc.), and each of them was locked into the "evening . . . morning" formula which refers to a 24-hour period. This includes the seventh-day Sabbath, which all Jews understand to be a literal day.

A major problem with "Progressive Creationism" is its insistence that animals (and even pre-Adamic "men") died long before Adam sinned. Thus, the strong Biblical connection between sin and death is broken. The reason why "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now" and is in "the bondage of corruption" is because it "was made subject to vanity, not willingly [i.e., because of some inherited design defect], but by reason of Him [God] who hath subjected" the creation to the curse at the time of Adam's rebellion (Romans 8:20-22). Thus, there could have been no death in the animal kingdom before the Fall and the curse. Progressive Creationism collapses under the weight of Romans 8. In this connection, it is highly important to understand the nature of the Kingdom which Christ offered to Israel, and which He will establish at His Second Coming. In many ways, it will be a restoration of the pre-Fall earth. During the Kingdom age, which our Lord taught us to pray for (Matthew 6:10), "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, . . . and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. . . . [and] they shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain [=kingdom; cf., Isaiah 2:2]: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea" (Isaiah 11:6-9). All threats from the animal kingdom will end, for God "will cause the evil beasts to cease out of the land: and they shall dwell safely in the wilderness, and sleep in the woods" (Ezekiel 34:25; cf., Hosea 2:18; Isaiah 35:9). This Kingdom will be a time of "restitution [apokatastasis—"restoration," cf., Matthew 17:11; Acts 1:6] of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began" (Acts 3:21).

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

These characteristics of the coming thousand-year Kingdom of Christ (cf., Revelation 20:2-7) show us clearly what the animal kingdom was like in the pre-Fall world. Indeed, as Genesis 1:30 affirms, all animals ("every beast of the earth . . . every fowl of the air . . . and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth") at the beginning of the world were exclusively plant-eaters, like Adam and Eve (v.29). This totally excludes the possibility of millions of years of death in the animal kingdom before the Fall, and thus of "Progressive Creationism."

How can Christians believe in an "old earth" when our Lord stated that Adam and Eve were created at "the beginning of the creation" (Mark 10:6)? Christ our Creator further asserted that the blood of the prophets, including Abel who was murdered by his older brother because of his faithfulness to God, began to be shed at "the foundation of the world" (Luke 11:50). In fact, human tribulation, which began for Adam and Eve when they were expelled from the Garden, has occurred "from the beginning of the creation which God created" (Mark 13:19), not millions of years after the earth was formed.

Furthermore, Christ who created all angels (Colossians 1:16), told the Pharisees that the greatest of the angels, Satan, "was a murderer from the beginning" (John 8:44; cf., I John 3:12,15, which explains that Satan encouraged Cain to murder Abel). The apostle John repeated this significant point: "the devil sinneth from the beginning" (I John 3:. It is quite evident that Satan's rebellion against God did not occur millions of years before Adam, for God announced, just after He had created Adam and Eve, that "every thing that He had made" was still "very good" (Genesis 1:31). It was therefore sometime between the end of the seventh day and the temptation of Eve (Genesis 3:1; II Corinthians 11:3; Revelation 12:9) that Satan led his great angelic rebellion against God (Ezekiel 28:15; Isaiah 14:12-15), and sought to enlist Adam, the king of the earth, to join this rebellion, by reaching him through his queen. Furthermore, the apostle Paul, who had "the mind of Christ" (I Corinthians 2:16), stated that the invisible things of God, such as His "eternal power and Godhead" have been "clearly seen" by men since "the creation of the world" (Romans 1:20). Note that it had to be men—not animals—who saw God's invisible attributes of greatness at the time of the world's creation. This excludes millions of years from the Genesis record.

We conclude that progressive revelation—each additional verse shedding infallible light on previous revelation—demonstrates conclusively that "old-earth Progressive Creationism" must be abandoned by those who claim to believe that God has not erred in His written revelation of truth in the sixty-six books of the Bible.
Notes:

   1. For several years I attempted to do this by means of "the gap theory," which puts vast ages between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 because, as a young Christian, I was still deeply influenced by courses in historical geology and paleontology which I took while still an unbeliever at Princeton University. See Whitcomb, The Early Earth (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), pp. 141-58, for my reasons for finally rejecting this compromise position.
   2. For a highly readable analysis of the views of Hugh Ross, see John MacArthur, The Battle for the Beginning (Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2001), pp. 57-71. On the views of Newman and Van Till, see J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds, eds., Three Views on Creation and Evolution (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House, 1999).
   3. See, for example, Henry M. Morris, That Their Words May Be Used Against Them: Quotes From Evolutionists Useful For Creationists (El Cajon: I.C.R., 1997).

*Dr. Whitcomb is co-author of The Genesis Flood with Dr. Henry Morris.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Dating Niagara Falls
by John Morris, Ph.D.

Abstract
In this brief article we consider what formed Niagara Falls. How old are they? Are they a remnant of the Great Flood, or did they require long periods of time?

Niagra Falls

Few natural wonders stir the emotions as does the great Niagara Falls. Divided by an island into the American and Canadian falls, their immense size dwarfs the viewer. From the American side the waters cascade down across numerous ledges forming an interacting cauldron of splays and foam. From the Canadian vantage point, overwhelming volumes of water rush past with hardly a ripple, suddenly plummeting into the chasm below. A boat ride underneath the falls or a hike behind the falls leaves one speechless, and it's a good thing, for the impact of water on rock, multiplied in every direction, drowns out all human voices.

A creationist advocate of the great Flood of Noah's day appreciates Niagara Falls for the catastrophic power of moving water on display. The Niagara Gorge down river from the falls provides abundant evidence of its erosive power. Nothing can stand in its way. But the great Flood would be like Niagara Falls multiplied a thousand times. Thankfully that Flood will never be repeated, and lies beyond even our imagination. Thankfully also, Niagara Falls helps us grapple with these thoughts, expanding our feeble imaginations.

In this brief article we consider what formed Niagara Falls. How old are they? Are they a remnant of the Great Flood, or did they require long periods of time?
Dating Methodology

Let's review how earth's features are dated. Obviously only those formed within recorded human history can be dated with absolute accuracy, and even these depend on the reliability of the one who made the observation and the authenticity of the record. For other features of unknown origin, the following method can be applied.

1) Observe the present state of the feature.

2) Measure the rate of a process shaping that feature in the present.

3) Assume certain things about the unobserved past.

4) Calculate how long it would take that process, operating at the observed rate (or some assumed variety of that rate), to produce the present state.

For example, a tree is observed to contain 40 tree rings. We know from observation that (normally) only one tree ring is added per year. Thus, it would take forty years for a tree with 40 tree rings to grow. Let's apply this simple technique to Niagara Falls.
The Observations

The Niagara River flows northward from Lake Erie along a rather calm path for 15 miles or so, dropping in elevation only about one foot per mile, looking almost like a placid arm of the lake. The waters then enter about a mile stretch of rapids foaming wildly. Splitting into the Canadian side (over 1400 feet wide), and the American side (1000 feet wide), they suddenly drop 182 tumultuous feet to the rocks below.

The river continues through a canyon varying from 600 to 1200 feet in width, with the canyon walls rising some 200 to 300 feet in height above the river. The waters flow speedily through numerous rapids for another seven miles or so to the city of Queenston, where suddenly the river exits onto rather flat table land. Here it flows calmly for about eight miles, dropping only four feet in elevation, where upon it enters Lake Ontario.

A precipitous cliff can be seen at Queenston, on either side of the river, marking the end of the ravine. One gets the distinct impression that the falls were once here, and have eroded the ravine upstream for seven miles to reach their present location. Indeed, the falls are eroding headward today, and if this present process continues, eventually the falls will near Lake Erie.
Making Observations in the Present

The Niagara Escarpment consists of the Lockport Dolomite, quite hard and resistant to erosion. Underlying the dolomite is the less resistant Rochester Shale. Waters pounding from above, wash the shale away, undercutting the brittle dolomite, eventually leaving huge blocks hanging out over the water. Freeze/thaw cycles widen cracks until the dolomite blocks fall with great impact. Each year some falls, even after recent engineering efforts have helped stabilize it.

The Falls' average erosion rate can be measured today. These measurements have been kept since the mid 1800s and average about four-five feet per year.

The observed distance from Queenston to the falls is some 35,000 feet (i.e., seven miles). If we assume the observed erosion rate of four-five feet per year existed throughout the unobserved past, it would have taken some 7-9000 years to erode the canyon. But has the rate been constant?
Uniformity vs. Catastrophe

Readers will recognize the assumption of a constant rate throughout the unobserved past as the principle of uniformity, that "the present is the key to the past." Such an assumption may be a legitimate first guess, unless we have an accurate record from a reliable witness from the past, which helps us make better estimates. Both human observations and the Genesis Flood account of the Bible provides just such a record.

A flood like that would have eroded vast amounts of sediments in one place and deposited them in another. These deposits would contain innumerable fossils of marine organisms and cover wide areas of the now-exposed continents. Typical of such sediments would be the Lockport Dolomite and the Rochester Shale.

Centuries of lesser catastrophes would have followed that Flood as the earth struggled to regain equilibrium. If we are correct in inferences made from the account, massive ice sheets would likely have formed in northern latitudes, especially Canada, and as they moved would have gouged out depressions in the fairly fresh sedimentary deposits. As they melted, they left many lakes, including Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. Rivers would have swollen to carry the extensive "Ice Age" meltwater and rainfall. With greater volumes of water flowing over sediments which may not yet have completely hardened, we have reason to suspect even greater erosion rates than today's four-five feet per year, and the canyon's age to be less than 7-9000 years. Such a reduced age is compatible with and fully supportive of the Biblical time of the Flood and its residual catastrophism.
The Father of Uniformity

Sir Charles Lyell, recognized by all as the one who first popularized uniformity, visited Niagara Falls in 1841 and 1842. He had published his monumental Principles of Geology in 1833 in which he attempted to apply uniformity to every geologic situation. In the years following, he traveled the globe, looking for evidence to shore up his then quite radical theory.

Niagara Falls was quite remote at that time. Few had been there, and no scholarly observations had been made. With the long narrow gorge and the receding falls, he found evidence he could use to promote long ages. His descriptions appeared in the many editions of Principles published after 1842.

Lyell himself had no training in the fledgling field of geology, but as a lawyer, he was a careful observer. At Niagara, he interviewed the few local residents of this remote area. He stated:

cont'd

 

[Soldier4Christ]

   Mr. Bakewell, son of the eminent geologist of that name, who visited Niagara Falls in 1829, made the first attempt to calculate from the observations of one who had lived forty years at the Falls, and who had been the first settler there, that the cataract had during that period gone back about a yard annually. But after the most careful inquiries which I was able to make, during my visit to the spot in 1841-42, I came to the conclusion that the average of one foot a year would be a much more probable conjecture. In that case, it would have required thirty-five thousand years for the retreat of the falls, from Queenston to the present site. (Principles, 1859, 9th Edition, p. 217.)

Lyell never expounded on why he rejected the eyewitness's observation of three feet per year, nor how he derived his estimate of one foot per year. As we have seen, however, careful measurements in the decades since Lyell's visit put the rate of erosion at four-five feet per year and likely it was even greater before that. What we do know is that Lyell's faulty reasoning has impacted the entire field of geology, shackling it with the failed concept of uniformity from which it has only recently begun to emerge. We also know that Lyell's work proved pivotal in Charles Darwin's thinking, and that Lyell mentored, supported, and prodded Darwin on to completion of his theory.

Lyell's work at Niagara accomplished its main goal, that of calling Scripture into question; for Biblical chronology cannot allow 35,000 years since Noah's Flood. And if Genesis is wrong, how can we trust any other portion?
Uniformity As a Worldview

It didn't end there. Uniformity has become a way of thinking in many areas of science and in life in general. Concepts of biological evolution are nothing more than unfounded extrapolations of the minor variations we see in living things. To
do so, evolutionists must ignore the barriers to large change that are also observed. Uniformity has become a pseudo-scientific way of manipulating data to make a point. Its basic claim is that there has never been nor ever will be things dramatically different from the kinds and rates of things possible now. On a deeper level, uniformity is the denial of the supernatural, the possibility of things past or future being much different from things possible today. In short, uniformity is the religion of naturalism, which dominates our schoolrooms, academic halls, legislative sessions, and courtrooms, in addition to scientific pronouncements.
The Prophecy of Uniformity

The Author of Scripture knew that this false philosophy would enter the mainstream in the end times.

"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation" (II Peter 3:3-4).

The latter day scoffers deny Christ's prophesied return and "willingly are ignorant of" the truth that creation was by the supernatural "word of God" (v.5), as was the Flood, "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (v.6). Their creed of uniformity shines through in their claim that "all things continue as they were," responsible for the origin (and controlling the destiny) of the universe and life within it.

Uniformity as a way of doing science didn't work at Niagara Falls, and it fails every time it is applied to origins. It has been immensely successful, however, in turning people away from a supernatural God and His Word.

For additional detail see:

Taylor, I.T., In the Minds of Men, TFE Publishing, Toronto, 1984, pp. 81-84.

Morris, J.D., The Young Earth, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 1994,
pp. 48-49.

*Dr. John Morris is President of the Institute for Creation Research.

[Soldier4Christ]

 The Voyage Of The Beagle - In The Creator's Service
by Louis Lavallee, M.S., M.Div.

Abstract
It was ironic that the voyage of the Beagle was used for the theory of evolution. The Beagle's crew, like many in nineteenth century England, held the Biblical worldview.

The famous 1831-36 voyage of His Majesty's Ship (HMS) Beagle, with Charles Darwin on board as naturalist, was a voyage in service of the Creator. Its primary purpose was to survey the coast of lower South America. In helping secure the safety of British shipping, the survey fulfilled the Cultural Mandate of Genesis 1:28 to subdue and rule the earth. Even Darwin's observations added to man's knowledge of the natural resources in those lands.

Another goal of the Captain, Robert Fitzroy, was to return three natives to Tierra del Fuego at the tip of South America. Darwin wrote, "To settle these natives in their own country, was one chief inducement to Captain Fitzroy to undertake our present voyage" (1: 222). With the natives was the Rev. Richard Matthews of the Anglican Church Mission Society. Matthews hoped to establish a mission to the Fuegians in obedience to the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20. While this initial effort was rebuffed, it inspired later, fruitful outreach to the Fuegians.
Fulfilling the Cultural Mandate

The Beagle successfully completed its detailed survey of the coastal lands and waters. The work was carried on through difficult weather, sickness, and even death. Once the Beagle was beached for hull repairs. Another time the crew, including Darwin, took up arms to help the local police preserve order in Montevideo. Usually while the crew was surveying, Darwin was on shore recording observations and collecting specimens which he preserved and sent to England.

After three and a half years of surveying, ending in the Galapagos Islands, the Beagle proceeded around the world. Ports of call included Tahiti, New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa. On arriving in England, Fitzroy was honored with a gold medal by the Royal Geographical Society and officially thanked by Parliament. Popular accounts of the voyage were written by both Fitzroy and Darwin and published as sister volumes in 1839. Neither mentioned evolution, though there were hints of the controversy to come.
Obeying the Great Commission

In an effort to recover a stolen boat on his prior voyage, Fitzroy took several hostages. Four were taken to England. Fitzroy explained,

    When about to depart the Fuegian coast, I decided to keep these four natives on board, for they appeared to be quite cheerful and contented with their situation; and I thought that many good effects might be the consequence of their living a short time in England. . . . I shall procure for these people a suitable education, and, after two or three years, shall send or take them back to their country (2: 54).

The sailors renamed them Boat Memory, York Minster, Fuegia Basket, and Jemmy Button. Though all were vaccinated, Boat Memory died of small pox. Fitzroy arranged for the other three to live at a school in Walthamstow, near London, under Rev. William Wilson and his wife. They were taught English, Christianity, and agriculture. They appeared before the King and Queen, who gave Fuegia one of her bonnets, a ring from her finger, and gifts for a dowry.

The Admiralty allowed Fitzroy to return the Fuegians and a missionary to Tierra del Fuego. The Walthamstow church gave supplies and the Beagle's coxswain, James Bennett, would oversee the Fuegians as he had done before. The young catechist, Richard Matthews, would teach the Fuegians and study their language during the year voyage.

On the Beagle, Darwin had his first contact with the Fuegians. Jemmy Button was his favorite. "[Jemmy] was merry and often laughed, and was remarkably sympathetic with any one in pain: when the water was rough, I was often a little sea-sick, and he used to come to me and say in a plaintive voice, `Poor, poor fellow!'" Darwin noted the Fuegians aptitude for foreign languages and their excellent eyesight. "Both York and Jemmy were much superior to any sailor on board: several times they have declared what some distant object has been, and though doubted by everyone, they have proved right, when it has been examined through a telescope" (1: 222-3).

After a terrible storm the ship reached Jemmy's tribal area in January 1833. The scenery was breath taking, but Darwin was also awed by the condition of the local Fuegians:

    These were the most abject and miserable creatures I anywhere beheld . . . These poor wretches were stunted in their growth, their hideous faces bedaubed with white paint, their skins filthy and greasy, their hair entangled, their voices discordant, and their gestures violent (1: 228).

The first site of their unclothed kinsmen also shocked the three Fuegians onboard. However, Lt. Hamond lamented: "What a pity such fine fellows should be left in such a barbarous state!" (2: 92). Another officer concerned for the Fuegians was Lt. B. J. Sulivan, known for reading a Psalm each day. Sulivan, who later became admiral of the Navy, remained a faithful supporter of the Fuegian mission efforts.

A good site for a mission station was found at Woollya, a protected bay with surrounding land suitable for gardens and pasture. The crew labored building three log huts, unloading the supplies from Walthamstow, and planting two gardens. Constant vigilance was needed to prevent theft. When everything appeared in order, the Beagle left for ten days of surveying.

On the return to Woollya, the Beagle passed natives wearing pieces of linen and tartan cloth. They found Matthews alive but distraught. In the words of Darwin,

    Matthews gave so bad an account of the conduct of the Fuegians, that Captain Fitzroy determined to take him back to the Beagle; and ultimately he was left at New Zealand, where his brother was a missionary. From the time of our leaving, a regular system of plunder commenced . . . Night and day [Matthews] was surrounded by the natives, who tried to tire him out by making an incessant noise close to his head . . . I think we arrived just in time to save his life (1: 241).

Matthews agreed he should leave, but Jemmy, York, and Fuegia wanted to stay. After eight days away, Fitzroy returned to check on them. The garden, though trampled, was beginning to grow. Jemmy told of more stealing, but otherwise they were unharmed. Fitzroy wrote,

    I hoped that through their means our motives in taking them to England would become understood and appreciated among their associates, and that a future visit might find them so favourably disposed towards us, that Matthews might then undertake, with a far better prospect of success, that enterprise which circumstances had obliged him to defer, though not to abandon altogether (2: 103).

About a year later, on March 5, 1834, the Beagle returned one last time to Woollya. The place was deserted. A canoe approached and one of the men was seen washing paint off his face. Darwin wrote,

    This man was poor Jemmy,—now a thin, haggard savage, with long disordered hair, and naked, except a bit of blanket around his waist. . . . We had left him plump, fat, clean, and well dressed; I never saw so complete and grievous a change (1: 244).

Darwin goes on to describe this last contact with Jemmy,

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

   As soon, however, as he was clothed, . . . he dined with Captain Fitzroy, and ate his dinner as tidily as formerly. He told us that he had "too much" (meaning enough) to eat, that he was not cold, that his relations were very good people, and that he did not wish to go back to England: in the evening we found out the cause of this great change in Jemmy's feelings, in the arrival of his young and nice-looking wife. With his usual good feeling, he brought two beautiful otter-skins for two of his best friends, and some spear-heads and arrows made with his own hands for the Captain. . . . When Jemmy reached the shore, he lighted a signal fire, and the smoke curled up, bidding us a last and long farewell, as the ship stood her course into the open sea (1: 244-5).

There would be more failures and martyrdom before a mission station was established in Jemmy's land about thirty years later. However, Fitzroy and Darwin, saw the fruit of missionary work in Tahiti and New Zealand. Darwin wrote his sister, Caroline, that thanks to the missionaries, they could "`walk with as much safety as in England,' surrounded by tribes who `were the most ferocious savages probably on the face of the earth'" (3: 176). In his book, Darwin wrote,

    The march of improvement, consequent on the introduction of Christianity throughout the South Sea, probably stands by itself in the records of history. It is the more striking when we remember that only sixty years since, Cook, whose excellent judgement none will dispute, could foresee no prospect of a change (1: 532).

The Voyage and Evolution

While in South Africa, Fitzroy and Darwin collaborated on an article defending missionary work among native peoples. However, three years after the voyage, different worldviews were evident in their accounts of the voyage. Fitzroy, perhaps anticipating where Darwin was headed, ended his account by urging belief in the literal truth of the Bible. He stressed that all men were related, originating from Asia Minor. He defended six-day creation and the worldwide Flood as consistent with geology (2: 176-9). Darwin's account included several favorable references to Charles Lyell's book, Principles of Geology: Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth's Surface by Reference to Causes Now in Operation (1: 95, 132, 188, 346, 363, 494). On the voyage Darwin read this lengthy book opposed to recent creation and a worldwide Flood.

About the Galapagos finches, Darwin wrote, "Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends" (1: 402). But the birds remained birds. Darwin did not propose a theory of evolution, but concluded,

    . . . as the traveler stays but a short time in each place, his descriptions must generally consist of mere sketches, instead of detailed observations. Hence arises, as I have found to my cost, a constant tendency to fill up the wide gaps of knowledge, by inaccurate and superficial hypotheses (1: 532-3).

By 1859 Darwin set aside such precautions. He began The Origin of Species:

    When on board H.M.S. Beagle, as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the organic beings inhabiting South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts, as will be seen in the later chapters of this volume, seemed to throw some light on the origin of species . . . (4: 6).

It was ironic that the voyage of the Beagle was used for the theory of evolution. The Beagle's crew, like many in nineteenth century England, held the Biblical worldview. On the voyage they conducted worship each Lord's Day, and God gave them success. Through difficulties they completed the coastal survey, while Darwin observed the plants and animals. They assisted the first missionary effort in Tierra del Fuego and made famous the voyage of the Beagle.

Sources: The references, such as (1: 222), indicate the source, 1 (below), and the page, 222.

   1. Charles Darwin, The Voyage of the Beagle, Harvard Classics 29, New York:
      P. F. Collier & Son, 1909 [1839].
   2. H. E. L. Mellersh, Fitzroy of the Beagle, Mason & Lipscomb, 1968.
   3. Adrian Desmond & James Moore, Darwin, New York, Warner Books, 1991.
   4. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Great Books of the Western World, 49, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952 [1859].

*Mr. Louis Lavallee (M.S., M.Div.) is an environmental engineer in Mississippi.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Fellowship, Creation, and Schistosomes
by Todd Charles Wood, Ph.D.

Abstract
If we apply the concept of "fellowship" to biology, we might expect the originally created organisms to have shown a stunningly high degree of interdependence.

God displays His invisible attributes in creation (Romans 1:20). Therefore, creationists can use the nature of God as a guiding principle in science. One attribute of God is His desire for fellowship and community with His people (Psalm 46:10; John 3:16; Revelation 21:3-4). God's people are encouraged to show this desire. Both the Old and the New Testaments contain passages that promote friendship, fellowship, and community among believers (Exodus 12:19,47; Proverbs 17:17; 27:6,10,17; Ecclesiastes 4:12; Hebrews 10:25; Galatians 6:2; Matthew 18:15-17; Acts 4:31-32). The apostle Paul goes so far as to claim that our commitment to others should mimic that of Christ's, who laid down His life for us (Philippians 2).

If we apply the concept of "fellowship" to biology, we might expect the originally created organisms to have shown a stunningly high degree of interdependence. Because God desires His attributes to be perceived by all humans, this pattern would be expected to be prominent even after the Fall. A quick review of ecology indicates that this expectation is correct. It is possible to understand even some pathologies in this light. In a mutualistic relationship, two organisms live together and provide for the needs of the other. It is easy to see that even a slight disruption (at or after the Curse) of the mutualistic relationships might lead quickly to parasitic relationships. If we assume God created all organisms to live in mutualistic relationship (which is consistent with His value of fellowship), we could explain many modern diseases as distortions of originally beneficial relationships. As we examine disease-causing organisms, we often find organisms that appear designed to live in or on other organisms. Indeed this apparent design might be a correct perception. However it is the proper mutualistic relationship God designed and intended, not the distorted parasitic relationship brought about by the Fall.

At first glance, the blood fluke (genus Schistosoma) appears well designed for disease. To complete its lifecycle, the schistosome requires two separate hosts, with brief, free-living stages between infections. Schistosomal eggs enter a fresh water source from the urine or feces of the primary host, such as mammals or humans. These eggs hatch into ciliated larval forms called miracidia, which must infect the intermediate host, a snail, within a few hours of hatching. If a miracidium fails to find a host, it dies. After successful penetration and infection of the intermediate host (the snail), a miracidium develops into a mother sporocyst and produces a daughter generation of sporocysts. Each daughter sporocyst develops into a second larval form called a cercaria. The cercaria leaves the snail and enters the water once again, swimming until contacting the skin of the primary host. The cercaria burrows into the skin and enters blood vessels. Once in the circulatory system, it develops into the final larval form, a schistosomulum, and travels to the liver. In the liver, the schistosomulum matures into an adult schistosome and moves to a specific site of infection—blood vessels of the bladder or gut. Adult females release eggs from these sites into feces or urine for discharge from the primary host. The pathogenic effects on the human body arise when eggs lodge in blood vessels—eliciting an immune response in reaction to the foreign material, causing inflammation, ulcers, and perforation of the bowels or bladder. In very severe cases, cirrhosis or pulmonary vessel damage may occur if the eggs migrate to the liver or lungs. Symptoms of schistosomiasis include bloody diarrhea, haematuria, and dysuria.1,2

Because of the complexity of the life cycle, we infer that it arose by design. God probably created schistosomes to reproduce using this complex life cycle, or one very similar to it. The modern parasitic nature of the schistosome life cycle arose as a disruption of the fellowship between schistosome and host. If this interpretation is correct, what intermediate mechanism transformed schistosomes into parasites and what was the nature of the original relationship? Our previous study of anthrax revealed a genomic invader in the form of a pathogenic plasmid,3 while our study of mycoplasmas implicated a general decay of the organism as the generating mechanism of pathogenicity.4 Applying these principles to schistosomes, we might predict that particular details of the schistosome life cycle may show evidence of invasions, decay, or both. A few possibilities might include:

    * 1. The adult schistosome might inhabit the wrong organs within the host, causing it to act differently than it would in its proper location.
    * 2. The schistosome may be invading the wrong host entirely.
    * 3. Modern schistosomes might produce more eggs than originally intended, causing blockages and eliciting the immune response.
    * 4. The schistosome egg might have changed, eliciting an immune response, or
    * 5. The host may have changed in some way, withholding some important schistosome need. In each of these possibilities, a disruption of the mutualistic relationship occurs.

To analyze these hypotheses, we need to understand the schistosome baramin, and see how modern schistosomes relate to the original blood flukes created by God and thus understand the natural variation of schistosomes. For example, if most schistosomes in the baramin do not cause disease, schistosomiasis may be a recent development of degenerating organisms. If we observe certain variations in the most virulent schistosomes, that characteristic may contribute to the cause of the disease. For example, if egg production or host specificity varied with virulence, we may reasonably conclude that these attributes contribute to the disease.

A first step in baraminology is the identification of discontinuity. The family Schistomatidae possesses a number of unique characteristics setting it apart from other flukes. Generally, flukes live in the bile duct of the liver and are hermaphroditic (each individual possesses both male and female reproductive organs). In contrast, adult schistosome worms live in blood vessels and are dioecious (having separate male and female individuals). Most flukes have a divided intestine, but the schistosome's branched intestines rejoin to form a single tube.5 Other fluke cercariae must be ingested, while the cercariae stage of the Schistosomatidae infects the primary host directly through the skin. These highly distinctive characteristics, particularly the mode of sexual reproduction, probably indicate that the blood flukes do not share an ancestor with any other worms. In ReMine's terminology,6 Schistosomatidae is probably an apobaramin.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

Also, important to the study of baramins is interspecific hybridization. According to Marsh,7 the ability to produce a hybrid individual indicates that the parent species are members of the same baramin. When a person is infected with more than one species of schistosome, hybridization can occur.8 We were able to locate records of ten hybrids within the genus Schistosoma (figure 1).9,10 According to Taylor,11 hybridization within the two groups of schistosomes occurs readily,
Figure 1: Schistosoma Hybridogram. Human pathogens are in bold. The numbers denote the organisms the 19 Schistosoma species inhabit. 1=Artiodactyla, 2=Human, 3=Primate, 4=Leporidae, 5=Equidae, 6=Rodentia, 7=Insectovora, 8=Carnivora, 9=Edentata, 10=Didelphis.

but the groups are largely reproductively isolated. The spines of the egg define these groups. One group has laterally arranged spines, and the other has terminally arranged spines. In ReMine's terminology, the successful hybrids suggest that these two groups are monobaramins. Future research may unite these monobaramins and clarify the identity of the baramin. Meanwhile these two monobaramins provide a basis for preliminary observations on the origin of schistosomiasis.

The variation in parasitic schistosomes gives us intriguing clues to the origin of the disease. As we might expect, all schistosomes are pathogenic to at least one animal. Human pathogens account for only four out of the 19 species in the genus Schistosoma.12 Each monobaramin contains two human pathogens and in each case the human pathogenic schistosomes can infect the greatest number of species (figure 1). This evidence is consistent with the idea that schistosomes might be invading the wrong host. Like the invading plasmids in the bacterium in B. anthracis, schistosomes might be invading systems they were not created to inhabit.

Our current research leaves us with many unanswered questions. First, the similarity between the schistosome monobaramins might constitute evidence of a single schistosome baramin, but we need further analyses to confirm this. Secondly, since all schistosomes are pathogenic, what was the original host that did not suffer from schistosomiasis? Since fellowship is a two-way street, should we examine the hosts to see if changes in anatomy or blood chemistry might be contributing to the disease? Third, we may wonder when and how fast the non-pathogenic relationship deteriorated into a parasitic one. In the case of the schistosomes, some Egyptian mummies dated to 3200 B.C. contain S. haematobium eggs.13 Since S. haematobium is considered the most recently derived group of schistosomes,14 this early date of schistosome infection indicates that the diversification of the baramin probably took place very early, perhaps even before the Flood. This study of schistosomes seems to agree with the study of anthrax in that it also seems to exhibit signs of improper invasion. It appears that "broken fellowship" has produced a nasty disease.
References

   1. Cox, F., ed., Modern Parasitology: A textbook of parasitology (London: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1982), pp. 55-62.
   2. Rollinson, D. and Simpson, A.J.G., The Biology of Schistosomes: From Genes to Latrines (London: Academic Press, 1987), pp. 83-224.
   3. Wood, T.C., "Genome Decay in the Mycoplasmas," Impact 340 (2001).
   4. Wood, T.C., "The Terror of Anthrax in a Degrading Creation," Impact 345 (2002).
   5. Rollinson, ref. 4.
   6. ReMine, W.J., "Discontinuity Systematics: A New Methodology of Biosystematics Relevant to the Creation Model," in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. 2, edited by R.E. Walsh and C.L. Brooks (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 1990), pp. 207-213.
   7. Marsh, F.L., Evolution, Creation, and Science (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1947), pp. 136-160.
   8. Wright, C.A., V.R. Southgate, H.B. van Wijk, and P.J. Moore, "Hybrids between Schistosoma haematobium and S. intercalatum in Cameroon," Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 68 (1974), 413-414.
   9. Taylor, M.G., "Hybridisation experiments on five species of African schistosomes," Journal of Helmintology 44 (1970): pp. 253-314.
  10. Rollinson, et al., ref. 4, pp. 362-373.
  11. Taylor, ref. 9.
  12. Boissier, J.; Desdevises, Y.; and H. Moné, "The evolution of host specificity in the Mammalia-Schistosoma host-parasite system," (submitted).
  13. Araújo, A. and L.F. Ferreira, "Paleoparasitology and the Antiquity of Human Host-parasite Relationships," Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 95 (2000): 89-93.
  14. Boissier, et al., ref. 12.

*The authors are at the Center for Origins Research and Education, Bryan College.

[Soldier4Christ]

 The "Baby Doctor," Benjamin Spock, On Darwin and Morality
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D

Abstract
Unfortunately, Spock's insight about these issues came late in his life when there was little he could do about them. While he recognized that Darwinism was harmful, he had assumed the theory was supported by verifiable scientific facts.

Yale trained Benjamin Spock, M.D., is the author of one of the bestselling nonfiction books of all time, a guide for parents titled, Baby and Child Care. First published in 1946, it has sold over 50 million copies and has been translated into 42 languages. His writings and ideas have influenced so many millions of mothers that he has been called affectionately the nation's "baby doctor" (Spock and Morgan, 1989; Bell, 1966). His influence in the world has been so profound that Dr. Spock was named one of the hundred most important people in the twentieth century by Life magazine (Maier, 1998, p. 298). He also is widely considered the most influential child care authority of the twentieth century (Britannica Year in Review, 1998).

During his long and distinguished professional career, Dr. Spock taught at several of the nation's leading institutions of higher learning, including Cornell University, the University of Minnesota, and Case Western Reserve University. Always a good student, he graduated first in his class at Columbia University Medical School (Lewkonia, 1998, p. 825). His lifelong interest in, and love for, people made him develop into an astute observer of the human condition (Philpot, 1979). His interest in this field motivated him to author a dozen books and hundreds of articles on child care and the major social problems of our age. He was active in helping humanity in numerous organizations until he died in March of 1998, a few weeks before his 95th birthday (Lewkonia, 1998; Collum, 1998).
Spock Is Introduced to Darwinism

Dr. Spock was first introduced to Darwinism at Yale University, and he referenced Darwin and his ideas several times in his books. Even in his classic work, Baby and Child Care, under the subheading, "They're repeating the whole history of the human race," Spock wrote that watching a baby grow is "full of meaning" because,

    the development of each individual child retraces the whole history of the human race, physically and spiritually, step by step. Babies start off in the womb as a single tiny cell, just the way the first living thing appeared in the ocean. Weeks later, as they lie in the amniotic fluid in the womb, they have gills like fish. Toward the end of the first year of life, when they learn to clamber to their feet, they're celebrating that period millions of years ago when our ancestors got up off all fours. It's just at that time that babies are learning to use their fingers with skill and delicacy. Our ancestors stood up because they had found more useful things to do with their hands than walking on them (Spock and Rothenberg, 1992, p. 301).




Table 1: A Sample of Increases in Social Problems in the Last Half Century

Spock Recognizes the Harm That Darwinism Did to Society

Dr. Spock eventually recognized the serious harm that Darwinism had done to people's lives and to society in general (Bloom, 1972). The insight Dr. Spock gained is the story of many individuals of our time. His biographer, Lynn Bloom, stated that it was inevitable that Spock, "frustrated in his attempts to express fully his views on various social or political issues in magazine columns," would elaborate his conclusions in a book. His book, which Bloom calls "Spock's spiritual autobiography," was "the distillation of a lifetime of his varied thoughts on the problems of modern western man, Americans in particular." In this book he concluded that

    man has lost his belief in himself and his sense of direction because the concepts of evolution, of psychology, and of sociology have undermined the authority of religion and man's identification with God. They have induced man to belittle himself, to conceive of himself as merely an animal divisible into a number of mechanical parts and drives (Bloom, p. 213, emphasis mine).

In his spiritual autobiography, Dr. Spock notes that he was reared in a family "with stern morals even by New England standards." He then admitted that he tried to free himself from these strict standards throughout his adolescence and young adulthood because he believed then that a "knowledge of biology, psychology, and sociology should offer sufficient guides for a modern man." His lifetime of reading, practicing as a pediatrician, college teaching, talking with parents, and researching the problems of Western society caused him to,

    come to realize that the worst problems of America—illegal war, racial injustice, unnecessary poverty, for example are caused not by lack of knowledge or means [to solve these problems] but by moral blindness or confusion (1970, p. 207, emphasis and bracketed item mine).

Table I shows the increase in some major social problems that have occurred in the past half century alone. Obviously these problems are due to several factors, a major one being the secularization of society and what Dr. Spock calls "a moral blindness." Dr. Spock concluded that this moral blindness that produced many of our modern social problems was the direct result of modern secular teachings resulting from Darwinism, Freudianism, and other humanistic philosophies. In Spock's own words, the major reason for our most serious social problems was the weakening of the influence of religion that resulted especially from the influence of Darwinism and our increasingly secular society:

    The teachers in the early colonial schools and universities of the United States were predominantly Protestant ministers whose principal aim was to teach religious principles and to train more ministers, who became the next leaders of the community. . . . By the second half of the nineteenth century the discovery of evolution and the development of various behavioral sciences further weakened the authority of the churches as educators. As the need for schools and universities mounted they were established increasingly by towns and states. Now the Supreme Court has forbidden in public schools even the vaguest of prayers (Spock, 1970, p. 207, emphasis mine).

cont'd