Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

Water, Water Everywhere . . . And Not A Drop To Drink
by Donna L. O'Daniel, M.A.

Abstract
Seawater has a much higher concentration of salt than that found in the body fluids of most animals, including mammals and birds; therefore, when seawater is ingested, the osmotic balance of these animals is upset.

Many seabirds (such as albatrosses, petrels, and shearwaters) spend months and even years at sea soaring over the world's oceans without ever approaching any land mass. So the question naturally arises, "What do seabirds drink?" The answer is, "seawater." The next question that naturally arises is, "How then do they survive?"

Seawater has a much higher concentration of salt than that found in the body fluids of most animals, including mammals and birds; therefore, when seawater is ingested, the osmotic balance of these animals is upset. Mammalian kidneys, in order to flush the body of excess salt, must use one and one-half times as much fresh water as the amount of ingested seawater. Without fresh water, dehydration of body tissues ensues, and in most cases, death follows. Avian kidneys, being much less efficient than mammalian kidneys,1 must use an even greater amount of fresh water to rid the body of seawater. Thus, seabirds would encounter the same fate if they had to rely solely on their kidneys to maintain their body's osmotic balance.

Avian Salt Glands

But seabirds have their own desalinization systems to deal with excess salt taken in by drinking seawater and feeding in the ocean, in the form of glands that lie in shallow depressions in or above the eye sockets. Salt glands in birds are also called supraorbital or nasal glands2 and their function was not discovered until 1957-1958 when Knut Schmidt-Nielsen and co-workers found that these glands in the Double-crested Cormorant excreted sodium chloride (NaCl) in concentrated solution.3 For most seabirds, the excess salt excreted from the blood by these glands passes as a concentrated solution through ducts into the nasal cavity and is eliminated in liquid form through the nostrils, often accompanied by vigorous shaking of the bird's head or forced "sneezing."4

Salt glands have a micro-structure similar to the kidney and use a system of countercurrent blood flow to remove and concentrate salt ions from the bloodstream.5 The paired, crescent-shaped glands each contain several longitudinal lobes approximately 1 mm in diameter6 and each lobe contains a central duct from which radiate thousands of tubules enmeshed in blood capillaries. These tiny capillaries carry blood along the tubules of the gland, which have walls just one cell thick and form a simple barrier between the salty fluid within the tubules and the bloodstream. It is here that salt excretion occurs.7 The glands serve as osmoregulators, responding to osmotic loads in the bloodsalt or other substances, e.g., glucose—they respond to such loads by excreting only NaCl and possibly potassium (K), but no other substances.8

The apparent simplicity of the transfer of NaCl from the blood to the tubules of the salt glands is deceptively complicated, for it has been shown that the glands do not function independently of other organs and tissues of the body. Sturkie comments on the initiation of salt gland activity:

    . . . the sensory (afferent) input goes to the central nervous system, which then relays the stimulus to the hypothalamus, pituitary, and adrenals and directly to the nasal gland via the seventh cranial nerve (efferent), to the ganglion ethmoidale, and thence to postganglionic (cholinergic) fibers that run to the gland to produce the final stimulus (secretion).9

Within the glands themselves, some very finely tuned biochemical changes
take place. Commenting on the inter- and intracellular workings of the glands, Shuttleworth states:

    Control of [the secretion of ions and fluid] is achieved by a range of neurotransmitters and hormones many of which act intracellularly by generating the second messenger inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate (InsP3) and increasing cytosolic free calcium ion concentrations ([Ca2+]i). These increases are achieved by a combination of the InsP3-induced release of Ca2+ from specific intracellular stores and the activation of Ca2+ entry from the extracellular environment. The [Ca2+]i signal represents a balance between the adequate activation of components of the secretory mechanism and the avoidance of [Ca2+]i levels that are toxic to the cell. . . . Consequently, for successful Ca2+ signaling, it is imperative that these two mechanisms of raising [Ca2+]i (i.e., Ca2+ release and Ca2+ entry) are closely integrated. . . . Recent experiments on the oscillatory [Ca2+]i responses . . . indicate a previously unsuspected, independent activation of Ca2+ entry involving arachidonic acid. This arachidonic-acid-activated entry plays a key role, along with InsP3, in inducing the repetitive release of Ca2+ from the stores to produce the [Ca2+]i oscillations. In this way, the two components responsible for the elevation of [Ca2+]i are intimately related and their dual effects closely coordinated, resulting in the finely tuned control of agonist-induced changes in [Ca2+]i10 (italics added).

The avian salt gland has made it possible for seabirds not only to exist but to maintain homeostasis in an otherwise hostile environment. Truly, "the salt gland is one of the most effective ion transport systems known."11 But how did such a system arise? There are only two possible explanations for the origin of avian salt glands:

Either they evolved along with the birds themselves, or they were created within the birds by God as He spoke the feathered creatures into existence (Genesis 1:21).

Evolutionists' Explanation for the Origin of Avian Salt Glands

In addition to birds, marine turtles (both plant-eating and carnivorous), sea snakes, and marine lizards (i.e., the Galapagos iguana) also possess salt glands which process seawater in a manner similar to seabird salt glands.12 Some evolutionists believe that avian salt glands "have been inherited from the birds' reptilian ancestors. . . ."13 This declarative statement presupposes that birds evolved from reptiles, although there is much argument today among evolutionists as to which particular kind of reptile was the ancestor of birds.14 Most think they evolved from dinosaurs or some other land dwelling reptile. None think they came from marine reptiles. Thus, a significant conundrum. How could such a marvelous, irreducibly complex system arise more than once?

Avian salt gland function is an example of the staggering complexity that underlies even apparently simple bodily processes. "Faced with such complexity beneath even simple phenomena, Darwinian theory falls silent."15 While providing no mechanistic explanation for this ion transport process itself, evolutionists would have us believe that birds simply inherited salt glands from their reptilian ancestors. Even if this were true, the question then arises, where did reptiles
get them? Nowhere in the avian (or reptilian) literature is an explanation found of how such a complicated and intricately woven ion transport system could have evolved. As Behe points out regarding the construction of a transport system:

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

    . . . there is no new function unless an intelligent agent guides the setup . . . the system can't be put together piecemeal from either new or secondhand parts. . . . In the face of the enormous complexity of vesicular transport, Darwinian theory is mute.16 (italics added.)

Behe continues:

    Over the years the Journal of Molecular Evolution has published origin-of-life research concerning many questions. . . . but they do not begin to answer the challenge to evolution posed by . . . cellular transport. . . . In fact, none of the papers [ever] published in JME . . . has ever proposed a detailed model by which a complex biochemical system might have been produced in a gradual, step-by-step Darwinian fashion.17

Creationists' Explanation for the Origin of Avian Salt Glands

The creation model for the origin of avian salt glands states that an intelligent Creator created this class of vertebrates complete with all of the complex systems within their bodies to survive in and adapt to their given environments, including salt glands to rid their bodies of excess salt. Perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the creation model for the origin of avian salt glands, aside from the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, is one consisting of purpose and interdependence of purposeful parts.

Given the complexity of the functioning of avian salt glands, their existence by design can hardly be denied. The evidence for design that is obvious in the avian salt gland suggests a Designer who not only created the gland, but the entire animal, the earth, and the entire universe. "But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee: Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee. Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this? In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind" (Job 12:7-10).

References

   1. Löfgren, Lars. (1984) Ocean Birds: Their Breeding, Biology, and Behavior, Beckenham, UK: Croom Helm Ltd., p. 24.
   2. Pettingill, O. S., Jr. (1970) Ornithology, Minneapolis, MN: Burgess Publishing Co., p. 121.
   3. Schmidt-Nielsen, J., C. B. Jorgensen, and H. Osaki (1958) "Extrarenal Salt Excretion in Birds," American Journal of Physiology, 193:101_107.
   4. Haley, Delphine, ed. (1984) Seabirds of Eastern North Pacific and Arctic Waters, Seattle, Washington: Pacific Search Press, p. 22.
   5. Eckert, Roger (1978) Animal Physiology, San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman & Co., p. 422.
   6. Ibid., p. 421.
   7. Welty, J. C. (1979) The Life of Birds, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders College Publishing, p. 99.
   8. Schmidt-Nielsen, K. (1960) "The Salt Secreting Gland of Marine Birds," in Welty, The Life of Birds, (1979) Philadelphia, PA: Saunders College Publishing, p. 99.
   9. Sturkie, P. D. (1986) Avian Physiology, New York, NY: Springer-Verlag,
      p. 373.
  10. Shuttleworth, Trevor, "Intracellular Ca2+ Signalling in Secretory Cells," The Journal of Experimental Biology (vol. 200, 1997), p. 303.
  11. Schmidt-Nielsen, K. (1960) Animal Physiology: Adaptation and Environment, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., p. 330.
  12. Ibid., p. 328.
  13. Brooke, M., and Tim Birkhead (eds.) (1991) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Ornithology, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, p. 125.
  14. Gish, Duane (1995) Evolution: The Fossils Still Say NO! El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, pp. 129, 130.
  15. Behe, Michael J. (1996) Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, New York: Touchstone, p. 97.
  16. Ibid., pp. 112, 113, 116.
  17. Ibid., pp. 173, 176.

* Donna L. O'Daniel, M.A., is a wildlife biologist for the Johnston Atoll Nat. Wildlife Refuge.

[Soldier4Christ]

 High School Students' Attitudes toward Creation and Evolution Compared To Their Worldview
by Steve Deckard, Ed.D.

Abstract
The Scriptures reveal (I Corinthians 2:14-16 and Romans 1:20) that there exists a dichotomy between those that believe the Creation account and those who do not.

High school students' beliefs regarding origins are very important. Many high school students claim to believe in a supernatural theistic Creator. Many also report a born-again experience and would thus hold to having a personal relationship with the Creator. Such a relationship should impact all aspects of one's personal life and worldview.

The Scriptures reveal (I Corinthians 2:14-16 and Romans 1:20) that there exists a dichotomy between those that believe the Creation account and those who do not. Only the truly born-again believer is able to take every thought and attitude and compare it to the thoughts and attitudes of the Creator Jesus Christ (II Corinthians 10:5 and Colossians 1:16). Accepting this God-ordained worldview is vital to a correct view of the clash between Biblical theism and naturalism—a clash between two all encompassing worldviews, a "Creationist Worldview" and an "Evolutionary Worldview." This dichotomy of world-views was thoroughly investigated by David Ray; his findings are summarized in this article.

Background for the Ray Study

Ray studied four groups of school students from the eastern section of Atlanta, Georgia. The groups consisted of: (1) two Christian school groups— 30 students; (2) two church youth groups—30 students; (3) one public school class—42 students; and (4) one home school group—30 students.

Instrumentation and Methodology

Two survey instruments, the CWT (Creationist Worldview Test, Deckard, 1997) and the PEERS Test (Smithwick, Nehemiah Institute, 1995), were used to gather the data.1 The CWT test is a 51-item instrument constructed for the purpose of measuring views related to the creation/evolution controversy. The PEERS Test is 70 items constructed for the purpose of measuring Christian views in politics, economics, education, religion, and social issues. Students were categorized into two groups: (1) those holding to a creationist view of life, and (2) those holding to an evolutionist view of life. This evaluation process was based on answers to the CWT. The views of these two groups were compared using three PEERS categories, Education, Religion, and Social Issues. The PEERS test has a scale as follows: Biblical Theism (70-100), Moderate Christian (30-69), Secular Humanism (0-29) and Socialism (<0). For comparison purposes this same scale was adapted to the CWT.

Research Questions

Research questions were formulated to answer the following questions. How do students with creationist or evolutionist attitudes differ on:

    * 1 and 2 issues related to education?
    * 3 and 4 issues related to religion?
    * 5 and 6 social issues?
    * 7 and 8 their views toward God?
    * 9 and 10 their views toward Christianity?
    * 11 What is the frequency and comparative magnitude of public school students with Biblical theists worldviews when contrasted to home schooling and Christian school students?

Findings and Conclusions

Below are the findings and conclusions based on the above research questions.

Question 1 and 2 The data showed that those students who were identified as creationist registered an average composite score on the PEERS education category of only 18.77.

Even though all of these students claimed to be born-again, 39% scored in the Secular Humanism worldview category and 28% scored in the Socialism category. This provides strong evidence that many Christian students have not been taught to think Biblically or in worldview terms about educational issues.2

Furthermore, despite the low scores by those students with creationist attitudes regarding education there still existed a positive correlation between the creationist attitudes and their view toward education. While the creationists' educational category scores were low, the evolutionists students' attitudes were significantly lower, scoring -18.75, well into the Socialism worldview category. This group of students viewed education as a proper task of the civil government which lies at the heart of socialist thinking regarding education. None of the students with evolutionist views scored in the Biblical Theist or Moderate Christian categories, indicating a strong relationship between their evolution and education views. This relationship was statistically significant (p 0.01). Thus the data showed significant differences in the views of high school students with evolutionists' attitudes toward education when compared with those students with creationist views.

Question 3 and 4 compared the attitudes of students holding creationist views and those with evolutionist views to variable religion. Creationist view holders scored an average of 59.53 on the CWT and 52.59 PEERS (both are mid-range on the Moderate Christian category). This reflects that the creationists have some degree of Biblical knowledge.

On the other hand the evolutionist view holders scored -5.39 on the CWT and -12.68 on the PEERS. The disparity is substantial with a significant chi square value (p 0.001). It may be concluded that the students with evolutionist views differed significantly from those with creationist views when it comes to religion.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

Question 5 and 6 compared the attitudes of the students holding creationist views and students with evolutionist views on the PEERS variable social studies. Creationist view holders scored an average of 59.53 on the CWT and 32.99 PEERS (both are in the Moderate Christian category). The creationists have some degree of Biblical knowledge although the PEERS test would indicate a "lukewarm view of social issues" on topics such as homosexuality, capital punishment, pre-marital sex, and the definition of family. In contrast, the evolutionist view holders scored -5.39 on the CWT and -0.71 on the PEERS indicating a socialist view. The disparity is significant chi square value (p 0.001). It may be concluded that the students with evolutionist views differed significantly from those with creationist views when it comes to social issues.

Question 7 and 8 compared the attitudes of the students holding creationist views and those students with evolutionist views on the PEERS variable God. The chi-square analysis on eight different categories related to God demonstrated significant distribution and a strong correlation in the relationship of high school students with creationist attitudes and their views toward God. The creationist students viewed God as One who supernaturally made the universe for an ultimate purpose and as the one and only Supreme Being. They also viewed the Bible as being inerrant and inspired. In contrast, the majority of those students with evolutionists views expressed they did not believe in the existence of God along with a belief that there are many avenues toward knowing God and most did not view God's word as a revelation.

Question 9 and 10 compared the attitudes of the students holding creationist views and those students with evolutionist views on the PEERS variable Christianity. Seven of the eight chi-square analyses illustrated significant distributions and strong correlations between high school students' attitudes toward creation and their views toward Christianity. These students held to a belief in the Triune God and the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as the only hope for man's separation from God. In contrast, those students with evolutionary views believed in the existence of a God yet disagreed with certain key doctrines of orthodox Christianity. For example a majority of these students held the view that sin is a mythical concept.

Question 11 The last question focused on frequencies and magnitudes of public school students with Biblical theist worldviews when contrasted with home school and Christian school students. The results showed that 39 of the 132 participating students scored above 70.00 (the cutoff score for Biblical theist) on the CWT. Twenty of the 39 were home schoolers, while ten were Christian school and nine were public school students. For the PEERS results, five students scored as Biblical theist, four were home schoolers while one was a Christian school student.

Home schoolers demonstrated the highest scores on both instruments (PEERS and CWT) in contrast to the 42 public school students who had the lowest scores on both instruments. Of the 42, only one scored in the Biblical theist range on either instrument, despite the fact that 37 of the 42 claimed to be born-again. This is alarming evidence of the damaging effect that the public/government school system is having on worldview development and the thinking of Christian youth.

The Chi-Square Analysis showed a significant distribution from the home school, Christian school, and public setting. Hence it can be concluded that a positive correlation is present between having a Biblical theist worldview and mode of education.

Conclusions

The Bible commands parents to "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it" (Proverbs 22:6). Ray's dissertation provides the Christian creationist community with strong objective and scientific evidence that teaching a Biblical view of origins is fundamental to worldview adoption and development. Training up a child in an environment of evolutionary thinking or in an environment where creationism is not firmly taught, is a certain formula for causing the child to depart from the Christian faith. Departure from this faith will lead to the acceptance of the only alternative, evolution. Few issues could be of greater importance to the Christian family and the church than to teach youth (at home, school, or Sunday School) the Biblical doctrine of creationism.

Endnotes

   1. Tests and follow-up training materials are available through Nehemiah Institute by calling 800/948-3101. Or visit their web site: nehemiahinstitute.com
   2. Students consistently scored higher on the CWT scale when compared to the PEERS. This seems to be due to instrumentation differences. The CWT measures basic doctrine related to Biblical and creation/evolution issues, whereas the PEERS measures more in the realm of application of Biblical principles. This seems to indicate that many students have a grasp of basic tenets of the Christian faith, but are weak in the application of such. It is important to note that the CWT showed a .789 Spearman rho correlation with the PEERS. This high correlation indicates the two instruments are measuring something similar.

* Dr. Deckard is adjunct professor of Science Education at ICR and Academic Dean at Vision University. Daniel Smithwick is President of Nehemiah Institute.

[Soldier4Christ]

 The ICR Scientists
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

Abstract
Despite the claims and wishful thinking of many people, not all fully credentialed scientists are evolutionists.

This article will provide brief information about the team of scientists associated with ICR who believe, study, and teach the scientific evidence for recent creation and the global flood, as divinely revealed in the Bible. All of these professional scientists, whether serving as full-time staff, on the adjunct roster, or advisory board, are Bible-believing Christians and are committed to all of ICR's Tenets, including absolute Biblical inerrant authority and its implied "young-earth creationism."

Scientists on Regular Faculty - The Institute for Creation Research has eleven faculty scientists listed alphabetically below:

1. Steven A. Austin (Professor of Geology). With three degrees in Geology-University of Washington, San Jose State, and Pennsylvania State University (Ph.D.), Dr. Austin has specialized in field geology research and teaching and directing research in the ICR Graduate School. He has made outstanding discoveries at Grand Canyon and Mount St. Helens and has written four books and several technical papers on creationist geology.

2. Kenneth B. Cumming (Dean and Professor of Biology). Dr. Cumming has a B.S. from Tufts University and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from Harvard where he studied under Ernst Mayr, often considered the dean of living evolutionists, specializing in ecology. He spent several years in biological research in government agencies with some 20 secular scientific publications. Before coming to ICR and Christian Heritage College, Dr. Cumming taught at Virginia Tech and University of Wisconsin (Eau Claire).

3. Stephen W. Deckard (Science Education). Dr. Deckard has the Ed.D. from Sarasota University and the M.S. from University of Illinois, plus substantial post-M.S. work at Northern Illinois University and has taught on the faculties at three Christian institutions.

4. Robert H. Franks (Associate Professor of Biology). Dr. Franks had a medical practice for many years in San Diego, joining the ICR staff after retiring. He had also served on ICR's Board of Trustees for some 20 years. His B.A. is from San Diego State and his M.D. from UCLA.

5. Duane T. Gish (Senior Vice President and Professor of Biochemistry). After graduating from UCLA and the University of California at Berkeley (Ph.D. in Biochemistry), Dr. Gish had a successful career in industry as a research chemist, publishing at least 24 articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Since joining ICR in 1971, he has written eight books on creation science. He is also known worldwide for winning over 300 scientific debates with evolutionists.

6. D. Russell Humphreys (Associate Professor of Physics). Dr. Humphreys joined the full-time ICR staff in 2001 after a distinguished career with General Electric and the Sandia National Labs, publishing numerous technical papers. He has the B.S. from Duke University and the Ph.D. from Louisiana State University, both in Physics. He has published a unique creationist book on the starlight/time problem, as well as several creationist papers.

7. Henry M. Morris (Founder and President Emeritus). Dr. Morris received the B.S. from Rice University with the M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota in Hydraulics, Mathematics, and Geology. He was on the faculties at Rice, Minnesota, Southern Illinois, Louisiana University (Lafayette), and Virginia Tech, including 18 years as Head of Civil Engineering at the latter two universities. He has authored five books in engineering science, including a widely used senior/graduate textbook still in print, plus about 50 books defending and expounding the Biblical Christian faith.

8. John D. Morris (President). After earning the B.S. degree from Virginia Tech followed by M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Geological Engineering from Oklahoma University, he remained on the Oklahoma faculty as Assistant Professor of Geological Engineering until 1984 when he joined the ICR faculty. Dr. Morris has been ICR's president since 1996. He is author or co-author of about ten books on creation science (in addition to several books for young people). He has also led several exploration teams on Mount Ararat in Turkey.

9. Gary E. Parker (Biology). Dr. Parker has the B.A. from Wabash College and M.S. and Ed.D. from Ball State University. He has served on the biology faculties at three Christian colleges and published five biology textbook-programmed supplements and authored or co-authored eight creationist books.

10. Andrew Snelling (Associate Professor of Geology). Dr. Snelling has a B.S. in Geology from the University of New South Wales in Australia and a Ph.D. in Geology from the University of Sydney. He has worked in both field geology and geological research for several years, publishing some 20 papers in secular geological journals. He was editor of the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal for 15 years and has published over 50 papers on catastrophic geology and creationism.

11. Larry Vardiman (Professor of Astro/Geophysics). Dr. Vardiman has degrees from University of Missouri, St. Louis University, and Colorado State (Ph.D. in iii Atmospheric Physics). After a long career with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and other scientific organizations, and publishing 18 scientific papers, Dr. Vardiman came to Christian Heritage College and ICR in 1980 where he has published four technical monographs and edited a multi-authored book on radioactive dating.

Scientists Associated with ICR

The scientists listed below have served ICR in a variety of ways-some as adjunct faculty or research associates in the ICR Graduate School, some speaking in ICR seminars or writing monographs or books for ICR. Names are listed alphabetically with their respective scientific fields of specialty.

1. Paul G. Ackerman (Psychology) has been a professor in the psychology department at Wichita State University for many years. He received his B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees from Kansas University. He was a founder and president of the Creation Social Science and Humanities Society and has authored several excellent creationist books.

2. Ross S. Anderson (Biochemistry) has the B.S. from Austin College, the M.B.S. from the University of Colorado, and the Ph.D. from Baylor College of Medicine. He has taught at Lamar University and Houston Baptist University. He currently teaches at The Master's College (California) and has published seven articles in science journals.

3. John R. Baumgardner (Geophysics) is a distinguished geophysicist with the University of California's Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, serving there since 1984. He has degrees from Texas Tech, Princeton, and UCLA (Ph.D. in Geophysics and Space Physics) and over 30 technical publications in his field.

4. Jerry Bergman (Science Education) has written 20 books and 500 articles with at least one translated into 20 languages. He has two Ph.D.'s and is currently a professor at Northwest College in Ohio.

5. Edward A. Boudreaux (Chemistry) was Professor of Chemistry at the University of New Orleans for 29 years. His M.S. and Ph.D. degrees are from Tulane University. He has published many technical articles and contributed to several books in his field.

6. Linn E. Carothers (Statistics) has a B.S. and Ph.D. from the University of Southern California with an M.S. from California State University (Northridge). He served many years at The Master's College, also taught at the University of Southern California and has several technical publications.

7. Eugene F. Chaffin (Nuclear Physics) received all three degrees (B.S., M.S., Ph.D.) from Oklahoma State University and then served some 25 years on the faculty at Bluefield College in West Virginia. He is currently Professor of Physics at Bob Jones University.

8. Donald E. Chittick (Chemistry) has been a chemistry professor at the University of Puget Sound and Chairman of the Division of Natural Science at George Fox College. His B.S. and Ph.D. degrees are from Oregon State University. He is the author of several excellent books on creation science as well as an inventor and patent holder.

9. David A. DeWitt (Neurosciences) has a B.S. from Michigan State University and the Ph.D. from Case Western Reserve University. He has 10 technical publications and is currently on the faculty at Liberty University in Virginia.

10. Donald B. DeYoung (Physics) is the author of at least six helpful books on creationism. He has B.S. and M.S. degrees from Michigan Tech and the Ph.D. from Iowa State University, all in physics. He has been Professor of Physics at Grace College in Indiana for many years and also earned the M.Div. from Grace Seminary. He is currently President of the Creation Research Society.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

11. Mark F. Eastman (Biology) was a former evolutionist but is now a dynamic creationist speaker. With his M.D. from the University of California at San Diego, he is a full-time family physician and also a professor at Calvary Chapel Bible College. He has written several books on creation.

12. Dennis Englin (Science Education) has a B.S. from Westmont, the M.S. from Cal State (Northridge), and the Ed.D. from the University of Southern California. He has served for many years on the faculty at The Master's College.

13. Danny Faulkner (Astronomy) is Assistant Professor of Astronomy at the University of South Carolina (Lancaster) and has over 25 technical publications in astronomy. His B.S. is from Bob Jones University, M.S. from Clemson, M.A. (Astronomy) and Ph.D. (Astronomy) from Indiana University.

14. Carl B. Fliermans (Microbiology) is a microbial ecologist with Dupont. His B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. are from Asbury College, University of Kentucky, and Indiana University, respectively. With over 60 technical publications, he is an adjunct professor at seven state universities and consultant to many scientific organizations. He is also on ICR's Technical Advisory Board.

15. Wayne Frair (Biology) served ten years as Chairman of the Biology Department at The King's College in New York. He has a B.S. from Wheaton College, an M.A. from the University of Massachusetts, and the Ph.D. from Rutgers. He has specialized in herpetology, has over 40 research papers, and has served as President of the Creation Research Society.

16. Randy Guluizza (Biology) has degrees in engineering (B.S., South Dakota School of Mines and Technology), Bible (B.A., Moody Bible Institute), and Medicine (M.D., University of Minnesota). He is currently a flight surgeon at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas.

17. Kenneth A. Ham (Science Education) is the founder and director of Answers in Genesis and earlier had been one of the founders of the Creation Science Foundation in Australia. He also served six years on the staff of ICR as a seminar speaker. He has the B.S. degree from the Queensland Institute of Technology and the Diploma in Education from the University of Queensland.

18. Kelly Hollowell (Molecular Biology) has a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology from the University of Miami. She is also an attorney (J.D.) as well as a consultant for various laboratories and companies, with a number of publications in the fields of DNA technology, cloning, and neurobiology.

19. Stephen J. Koepp (Biology) has taught at North Texas State University, Fairleigh Dickinson University, and Montclair State College. His Ph.D. is from North Texas State University, and he has some 20 scientific publications.

20. Lane P. Lester (Biology) received his Ph.D. in genetics from Purdue University. He has taught biology at several colleges, including University of Tennessee (Chattanooga), Christian Heritage College, and Liberty University, and has authored or co-authored several books on creationist biology.

21. George D. Lindsey (Science Education) is now at LeTourneau College in Texas. He received his B.S., M.S., and Ed.D. degrees at East Texas State University and previously served as Chairman of Natural Sciences at Christian Heritage College.

22. Marvin Lubenow (Bible and Anthropology) is well known as the author of a widely used creationist book on human paleoanthropology. He has an M.S. (Eastern Michigan University) and the Th.M. (Dallas Seminary). With extensive pastoral and teaching experience, he currently teaches Bible and apologetics at the Southern California Bible College and Seminary.

23. Gregory M. Mandley (Science Education) is active as a consultant in education and has taught at National University, Mira Costa College, and San Diego State. He has a B.A. (Anthropology) from Cal State (Los Angeles), an M.A. (Educational Technology) from San Diego State, and is nearing completion of the Ph.D. program in Multicultural Education at San Diego State University.

24. Joseph A. Mastropaolo (Physiology) had a long and distinguished career and is now retired, spending much time speaking and debating on creation. His academic background includes the B.S. from Brooklyn College, M.S. from University of Illinois, and Ph.D. from University of Iowa, with over 40 scientific publications.

25. David R. McQueen (Geology) has two degrees in geology. A B.A. from the University of Tennessee and M.A. (University of Michigan), plus additional graduate study and extensive practical experience in both geology and education.

26. John R. Meyer (Zoology) has the Ph.D. from Iowa University and held a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Colorado. He taught at Louisville University, The Master's College, and Baptist Bible College for more than 20 years and is currently Director of the Van Andel Research Center for the Creation Research Society. He has 14 or more technical publications and is on ICR's Technical Advisory Board.

27. Arlo Moehlenpah (Chemistry) has B.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Washington, along with an M.S. from the University of Minnesota. He has taught at several colleges and written a book on scientific creationism.

28. Patricia Nason (Science Education) has a B.A. from Sam Houston State University, plus the M.Ed. and Ph.D. from Texas A & M University. She has published several papers in professional journals.

29. Michael J. Oard (Geohydrology) has a Master's degree from the University of Washington in Atmospheric Science and has published several creationist books and numerous articles in the fields of geology, hydrology and meteorology. He served many years as an atmospheric scientist with the National Weather Service.

30. Heidi K. Ortmeyer (Physiology) has a B.S. in Food Science and a B.A. in Psychology from Southern Illinois University and the Ph.D. in Physiology from the University of Maryland. She is an Assistant Professor at the University of Maryland and has authored or co-authored over 60 technical publications.

31. Chris D. Osborne (Biology) took his B.A. degree at California State University at Fullerton and then an M.S. at the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School, followed by his Ph.D. at Loma Linda University.

32. David Phillipps (Paleoanthropology) has B.A. and M.A. degrees in paleoanthropology from the California State University at Northridge. He is currently a professor in physical sciences at The Master's College and is also a researcher in the paleontology lab at the La Brea Tar Pits.

33. Doug Phillips (Science Education and Law) is Director of Family Vision Publishers and a popular speaker on the importance of Genesis and creation for Christian family values, law, and apologetics at ICR seminars. He has his law degree from the George Mason University School of Law.

34. Theodore W. Rybka (Physics) has physics degrees from the universities of Saskatchewan and British Columbia followed by the Ph.D. in Solid State Physics from the University of Oklahoma. He has spent many years working in the field of aerospace science, with a number of technical publications. He has also published an extensive study of many evidences for recent creation in astronomy and geophysics.

35. Jonathan B. Scripture (Biology) has a B.A. (Zoology) from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.Div. from Grace Seminary in Indiana, and a Ph.D. (Biochemistry) from the University of Notre Dame.

36. Harold Slusher (Physics) has the B.A.and M.S. degrees from the University of Tennessee and the University of Oklahoma, respectively. He has served many years on the physics faculty at the University of Texas (El Paso), including a number of years as Director of its seismic observatory.

37. William Spear (Veterinary Science) has his doctorate from Colorado State University in addition to an M.A. in Apologetics from Denver Seminary. He is listed in Who's Who in Veterinary Science and Medicine.

38. James Stark (Science Education) is currently on the faculty at Christian Heritage College. His B.S. was from San Diego State University, his M.S. from University of Southern California, and Ph.D. from U.S. International University.

39. Thottathel Varughese (Mathematics/Physics) has four degrees in three fields from Kerala University in India plus the M.A. and Ph.D. in Mathematics from the University of Indiana. He has had extensive college teaching experience in three countries (India, Ghana, United States).

40. Keith E. White (Science Education) has a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology and Research from the University of Kansas and has several publications in the field of education.

41. Clifford Wilson (Archaeology) has published many excellent books in defense of the Bible, especially in the field of Biblical archaeology. His degrees are from Sydney University, Melbourne College of Divinity, and the University of vi South Carolina (Ph.D., Psycho-linguistics), with extensive experience both in education and field archaeology.

42. Kurt Wise (Paleontology) has the M.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard University, studying under Stephen J. Gould, as well as a B.S. from the University of Chicago, studying under David M. Raup. He is currently in charge of the science division at Bryan College.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

43. Todd Wood (Genomics) received a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Virginia and did post-doctoral work at Clemsen University on the rice genome project. He is currently at Bryan College (Tennessee) doing research in this field. He has many technical articles published in his field.

44. John Woodmorappe (Geology) has Master's degrees in both geology and biology and has published several papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. He has also published three important creationist monographs and numerous articles in the broad field of scientific creationism.

ICR Technical Advisory Board (those not listed above)

1. Edward F. Blick, Ph.D. Professor of Petroleum and Geological Engineering. Retired, University of Oklahoma.

2. David R. Boylan, Ph.D. Professor of Chemical Engineering. Retired, formerly Dean of Engineering, Iowa State University.

3. Malcolm A. Cutchins, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University, Alabama.

4. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D. Inventor (most notably of the M.R.I. machine) and Professor, Long Island, New York.

5. Robert H. Eckel, M.D. Professor of Medicine, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, Colorado.

6. Joseph L. Henson, Ph.D. Chairman Emeritus, Director of Natural Sciences, Bob Jones University, Greenville, South Carolina.

7. Gailen Marshall, Jr., M.D., Ph.D. Associate Professor of Medicine and Pathology, Director, Division of Allergy & Clinical Immunology, University of Texas (Houston).

8. David Menton, Ph.D. Associate Professor Emeritus, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.

9. John W. Oller, Ph.D. Professor and Department Head of Communicative Disorders, University of Louisiana at Lafayette.

10. Ker C. Thomson, D.Sc., Professor of Geophysics (retired), Baylor University, Waco, Texas.

11. John C. Whitcomb, Jr., Th.D. Formerly Director of Doctoral Studies, Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, Indiana.

Full-time ICR Scientists not on Graduate School Faculty Several ICR scientists on the full-time staff, but not with faculty status (which requires the appropriate terminal degree) have specialized ministries that are equally vital to the over-all ICR ministry.

1. John Arend has a B.S. in geology from St. Lawrence University and the M.S. in science education from the ICR Graduate School. In addition, he has an M.B.A. (Syracuse University), M.Div. (The Master's Seminary), and extensive experience in Biblical counseling. He is now serving as Public Information Services Director.

2. Deborah Brooks has a B.S. from Bob Jones University and M.S. from ICR in science education. After eight years as an instructor for ICR's Student Discovery Days (a San Diego based workshop for homeschoolers) and Creation Science Camps, Debbie now works as an editor with ICR's Resource Development Team.

3. William A. Hoesch is a field geologist with considerable industry experience as well as a B.A. degree in geology from the University of Colorado and the M.S. from the ICR Graduate School. He is also an effective speaker in churches, schools, and ICR field tours.

4. Henry M. Morris III has an M.B.A. from Pepperdine University and a D.Min. from Luther Rice Seminary. A very effective speaker at seminars and other meetings, his main responsibility is promoting financing for future special projects.

5. John Rajca is Curator of the ICR Museum of Creation and Earth History. He has a B.S. from Christian Heritage College and M.S. from the ICR Graduate School, both in biology.

6. Mike Riddle conducts extensive church creation tours and also has developed ICR's on-line creation course. He has a B.S. in mathematics from Southern Colorado University and M.A. in education from Pepperdine University, plus extensive experience with Microsoft and other companies in computer technology.

7. Frank Sherwin has a B.A. in biology and M.A. in zoology from Western State College and University of Northern Colorado respectively. He is a regular speaker for ICR's creation seminars and tours and has co-authored a recent book on creationist biology, Body by Design.

8. Frederick A. Willson, with over 30 years science teaching experience in public schools, directs science workshops for parents and teachers in Christian schools and home schools all over the nation. He has two B.S. degrees from Emporia State University in Kansas, one in biology, one in physical education.

Thus the ICR team currently includes 74 trained scientists, of whom 57 have earned doctorates in their fields from accredited universities. There are, of course, many thousands of other creationist scientists, with similar qualifications, who are not formally affiliated with ICR. Many of these are listed on ICR's website and many participate from time to time on ICR radio programs. Despite the claims and wishful thinking of many people, not all fully credentialed scientists are evolutionists. Despite their past indoctrination in evolution, there are many scientists, probably numbering in the thousands, who now believe in special creation.

* Dr. Morris is founder and President Emeritus of ICR.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Bishop or Bible? A Question of Authority
by Kenneth Ham
Abstract
The Church MUST return to its foundations. Christians must realize how far short they have fallen from accepting the truth of God's Word--��ALL of God's Word.

At a popular tourist stop, a new attraction had been set up to teach people about growing fruits and vegetables under special conditions. However, as visitors commence the tour of this attraction, the story of evolution is presented as fact in a dramatic way. The thousands of tourists who visit this display are told that billions of years ago the earth began as a hot molten blob—then, as it cooled and water formed, life arose from the sea: eventually land plants, etc., were formed. Of course, this type of presentation is not unusual in today's world.

Response—A Christian who saw this display wrote a letter of complaint to the manager. The reply to this complaint is a sad reflection on the state of the Church. It should make each of us realize how important it is for the creation ministry to continue to grow and evangelize the Church as well as non-Christians. The manager wrote, "Regarding your comments on the narration, I was very surprised to read of your belief that we are promoting evolutionary doctrines. I am a regular church attendee and a firm believer in Creation. So I checked with my Bishop on the theological soundness of what we said and was assured that we were not out of line."

Wrong Authority—It is interesting that this person checked with the Bishop and was told that he could believe in evolution. (By the way, the narration mentioned nothing of God—it was just the theory of atheistic evolution.) Had the man checked with the Bible, and particularly Genesis, he would have discovered an enormous conflict. When we study the Bible diligently, it becomes quite evident that Genesis not only teaches Creation by the Word of God, but also is foundational to all the rest of the Bible's teaching. A major problem in the Church today is that people put human wisdom above God's Word. In I Corinthians 4:6, Paul, warning about pride, states "that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written:"

Trusting Man—We sinful humans are so easily puffed up because of human wisdom that we think we can trust man's reasoning powers to determine truth. In all matters, Christians should be like the ancient Bereans, about whom we read in Acts 17:11. They "searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so." When we don't do this, there can be disastrous consequences.

Return to Foundations—Many Christian colleges and seminaries either compromise with evolution or say Genesis doesn't matter. When students ask the professors in these institutions questions about evolution, they are usually told either to accept evolution or to ignore the whole issue. They are being taught to doubt God's Word. Many pastors don't even realize they have been taught evolution.

The Church MUST return to its foundations. Christians must realize how far short they have fallen from accepting the truth of God's Word—ALL of God's Word. Today's liberals Christians are promulgating the notion those changing times and new scientific "knowledge" demands a changing Gospel. No wonder Christ said in Luke 18:8 " . . . when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" However, there is only ONE faith, and only ONE Gospel, as the Apostle John put it in Revelation 14:6, "an everlasting Gospel." And this Gospel has its foundation in the Book of Genesis—the book of beginnings.

Raised Up—The ministry of the Institute for Creation Research is laying again the foundation that has been removed and can provide the basis for revival in this nation and other nations around the world. This is not just another ministry! ICR has been raised up in these times to call the church back to its foundation and to proclaim the message of Christ as Creator and Savior to a pagan world. Please support this ministry as much as you can. We must realize that we are not just missionaries to the pagan world, but also to the Church!
dino
Will the Real Dinosaur Please Stand Up!

How many different dinosaurs were there? Secular books on dinosaurs give the idea that there were hundreds of different kinds of dinosaurs. Children are indoctrinated to believe that these hundreds of different types of dinosaurs lived during the dinosaur age millions of years ago. Thus, they are led to believe that evolution is true and the Biblical account of creation wrong.

However, one begins to lose faith in "science falsely so called" when a careful dinosaur investigation is made. There are far fewer dinosaurs than we have been led to believe. We recently reviewed the book A Field Guide to Dinosaurs—an evolutionary book claiming to be the first complete guide to every dinosaur known. We mention just a few examples from this book:

1. Arctosaurus is known from only one vertebra once thought to be a turtle's (page 92).

2. Colonosaurus is known only from a jaw that might just as well be from a bird or sea lizard (page 92).

3. Diplotomodon is known only from one tooth (page 93).

4. Paronychodon was named from a single tooth found in Montana (page 93).

5. Chienkosaurus is known from just four teeth. Some experts think they came from a prehistoric crocodile (page 82).

6. Embasaurus is known only from pieces of backbone (page 76).

7. Macrodontophion is known from just one round-topped tooth (page 76).

8. Supersaurus is possibly a diploma docid (page 119).

9. Dystrophaeus is known only from pieces of bone from an arm, hip, or shoulder. It was a big dinosaur, possibly the same kind as another already named (page 115).

10. Aepisaurus is from one arm bone found in France (page 125).

It almost seems that whenever some bone fragments are found in so called "dinosaur age" rock, someone names a new dinosaur! There are some complete skeletons of dinosaurs and some large deposits of dinosaur bones, but there are far fewer dinosaurs than we have been led to believe. Not only that, but also what are named as different dinosaurs, in many instances may just be variations within a kind (like the variation within the dog kind mentioned elsewhere). ICR has some excellent books that explain dinosaurs and how they fit into the Biblical account of creation and the flood.
Back-to-Genesis Soon to Include Special
Home School and Christian School Programs

"Back-to-Genesis" is ICR's most popular family-oriented seminar program. Thousands attended the seminars in 1988 and many more are planned for 1989. From early 1989, the "Back-to-Genesis" seminar will feature a special series of workshops for home schools conducted by Dr. Richard Bliss. This will involve hands on experiments for parents to help them develop skills to teach their children how to understand science from a Christian basis

Another addition to the "Back-to-Genesis" program will be a special lecture and film presentation geared for Christian and home school students conducted Friday morning before the "Back-to-Genesis" seminar begins. It is expected that Christian schools will bus their students to the auditorium where the seminar is being conducted for this special event. For further information on the "Back-to-Genesis" seminar, contact the ICR Information Officer, Mr. Mark Looy
Why Does A Wombat Have A Pouch That Opens Backwards?

A wombat is an Australian marsupial, which, like the kangaroo has a pouch. However, the pouch of the wombat opens backwards! At wildlife sanctuaries in Australia, the evolutionist guide usually tells the listening audience how wonderful evolution is to make sure the wombat's pouch was turned around. This is necessary because the wombat tunnels under the ground—if its pouch opened forward like the kangaroo, the young would not survive as the pouch would become filled with dirt! One wonders how the young wombats survived for millions of years as the pouch slowly evolved its way around to ensure the pouch opened backwards! Design by the Almighty Creator—NOT evolution is the ONLY explanation.
Did You Know?

Did you know that the domestic dogs, fox, coyote, wolf, colishe, jackal fennec, and dingo could be the descendants of a single mating pair of dog-like creatures? If this is the case, Noah would have only needed a pair representing the dog "kind" on board the Ark that would eventually give rise to the large number of varieties (this is variation within a kind—NOT evolution) that we see today. Noah did not have to take an excessively large number of animals on board the Ark. Noah needed only the representative kinds of all the air breathing land dwelling animals—and these could have easily fit on the Ark with room to spare!

[Soldier4Christ]

A Modern Babel? Confusion in America
by Kenneth Ham
Abstract
A rather irate professor from a local university called in to say that evolution is science because you can investigate it in a laboratory. He went on to say that one can set up apparatus in a laboratory to simulate the original atmosphere and oceans (the presumed original conditions on the primeval earth) to show how life may have formed millions of years ago.

tower

In Isaiah 5:20, 21, we read, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight!"

During an interview on the origin of life, the talk-show host insisted that there was a lot of evidence for evolution that millions of years ago life arose by chance random processes in some primordial soup. Somehow, he explained, life arose from chemicals. He insisted that the evolution of life was a scientific theory-but to believe in creation, as I did, was just religious idea.

EVOLUTION IS BELIEF—I then began to explain that there were no human witnesses to the event, and there was no written record. I explained that we did not have a sample of the original atmosphere or oceans, and there was no way of proving the idea concerning the evolution of life. I also explained that in the dictionary, "science" is defined as "knowledge," and that which can be "observed and repeatedly tested." I insisted that evolution was belief—not science.

A rather irate professor from a local university called in to say that evolution is science because you can investigate it in a laboratory. He went on to say that one can set up apparatus in a laboratory to simulate the original atmosphere and oceans (the presumed original conditions on the primeval earth) to show how life may have formed millions of years ago. I then told the professor that in doing this experiment he could never prove life evolved by chance because he was obviously putting intelligence into his experiments. He then yelled at me over the telephone, "we are not putting intelligence into our experiments!" In a sense, I was inclined to agree with him. However, I believe the talk-show host (and, I hope, the listeners) got the point. Even if scientists did make some form of life in the laboratory, this would have nothing to do with chance, but everything to do with intelligence. If it took intelligence the second time, then, obviously, it took intelligence the first time.

When professors start insisting that using their intelligence to design experiments can help them understand how chance and randomness produced life one starts to wonder if we are speaking the same language. This reminded me of John 1:5, "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." John 3:19 states, "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

Even though everything we observe fits with what the Bible says about the origin of life and the history of the world, the evolutionists insist that evolution is a scientific fact. What we observe in the present does not fit with evolution, but does fit with the Bible. The Bible then must be the basis of true science. Why is it that the courts are ruling in the evolutionists' favor? Why is it that evolution can be taught as science but creation is considered to be religion in the public education system? Is science no longer interested in truth?

GOD ELIMINATED—What has happened is that the evolutionists have changed the definition of science. It was once accepted that a scientific explanation was the same as a feasible explanation. For example, if the evidence fitted with there being a Designer (God), then that explanation was accepted as a possibility. However, because many scientists want nothing to do with God, they have determined that science must be defined in terms of explanations that can have nothing to do with God. In other words, an arbitrary decision has been made by fallible humans to insist that to be scientific, God cannot be a part of the explanation. The reason for this should be obvious. If there is a God and the Bible is true, then men and women would have to obey His rules for their lives.

WARNING—It is not just that these people want evolution accepted—they want a total man-centered philosophy. And yet the Scripture tells us that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom" (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10). Man is redefining words to make them fit his anti-God philosophy, even though the evidence is obviously totally opposite to what he is saying. Don't be led astray by "science falsely so called" (l Timothy 6:20). Don't be led astray "through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of man, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Colossians 2:. Help ICR to warn the nation of America "that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart" (Ephesians 4:17,18).

Woe to those who have redefined science, to those who want evolution presented as fact: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

HOW CAN THE PANDA EAT BAMBOO?
panda

Have you ever seen the giant pandas on display in some of our zoos? You will notice that their diet is basically bamboo. Of course, if a human being tried to munch on bamboo, he probably wouldn't have many teeth left at the end of the meal! The reason the giant panda is able to have such a diet is because it has strong, sharp teeth.

It was fascinating to hear the evolutionist guide at the San Diego Zoo explain to the public the panda's teeth. She said that the panda had obviously evolved to be a carnivore (thus it has sharp teeth), and now it is able to use those sharp teeth to eat bamboo. Because the panda had sharp teeth, she assumed from evolution that it had to be a meat eater to start with. This is because evolutionists equate particular types of teeth with food rather than function.

The thing to consider, of course, is this: How do the evolutionists know that the panda used to be a carnivore? They were not there to see the supposed evolution occur. In fact, how do they know that it wasn't a vegetarian originally and that its teeth were designed specifically for eating such things as bamboo? According to the Bible, in Genesis 1:29, 30, the original animals were created to be vegetarian. If this is the case, then the panda was created with sharp teeth to eat such things as bamboo—but now (because of the entrance of sin and death) on rare occasions it eats small animals.

This is exactly the opposite of what the evolutionists say.

It is important to realize that just because the evolutionists talk of evolution over millions of years, it doesn't mean this is a true scientific statement. Evolution is just a belief. There is no scientific reason why creationists can't insist that the panda was designed with sharp teeth specifically for eating plant material such as

DID YOU KNOW?
carbolic acid

Did you know that in 1844 a medical doctor named Ignas Phillip Semmelweis, who was assistant director at the Vienna Maternity Hospital, suggested to the doctors that the high rate of death of patients and new babies was due to the fact that the doctors attending them were carrying infections from the diseased and dead people whom they had previously touched?

Semmelweis ordered doctors to wash their hands with soap and water and rinse them in a strong chemical before examining their patients. He tried to get doctors to wear clean clothes and he battled for clean wards. However, the majority of doctors disagreed with Semmelweis and they deliberately disobeyed his orders. In the late nineteenth century, on the basis of the work by Semmelweis, Joseph Lister began soaking surgery instruments, the operating table, his hands, and the patients with carbolic acid. The results were astonishing. What was previously risky surgery now became routine. However, the majority of doctors criticized his work also. Today we know that Lister and Semmelweis were right; the majority of doctors in their day were wrong. Just because the majority believe one thing does not necessarily mean it is true. It is good to remember this when the evolutionists insist that because the majority of scientists accept a theory it has to be right.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Is God an Evolutionist?
by Kenneth Ham
Abstract
Basically, it is to get across to people that these two men represent extreme positions on the question of origins.

Three professors from Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan-Howard J. Van Till, Davis A. Young, and Clarence Menninga-have recently written a book entitled Science Held Hostage. The bold: headline on the back cover states "Henry Morris or Carl Sagan?"

What is the purpose of this heading? Basically, it is to get across to people that these two men represent extreme positions on the question of origins. On the one hand, there is the position taken by the Institute for Creation Research, and its President, Dr. Henry Morris, that Genesis must be taken literally and that it is foundational to the rest of the Bible, true science, true history, true philosophy, etc. On the other hand, there is the position on the opposite end of the spectrum held by people such as Carl Sagan, who take a totally atheistic view of origins.

The Calvin College professors, like many other instructors at Christian colleges throughout the United States, are insisting that there is a compromise position between Dr. Morris and Dr. Sagan. The view they take is, in reality, not significantly different from atheistic evolution except that they have added God to the supposed process of evolution. They insist that one can accept evolution and the Bible at the same time. There are several different terms that are being used to describe this position, the most common being "theistic evolution.") To hold to these views would mean that God is an evolutionist-He used the process of evolution to bring all the major forms of life into being.

Can Christians accept evolution? Does it really matter? Is God an evolutionist? Many Christians have been told by Christian leaders to accept evolution, since it is the acknowledged: "scientific" view of origins. They accept what the evolutionists say as truth and reinterpret the Bible to make it agree. Many Christians get confused with this when trying to interpret Scripture and to understand what is: scientifically true and what is not. If a so-called scientific view (e.g., evolution) appears to contradict the Bible, I have found it useful to consider the following to help resolve the dilemma.

First, is it totally based upon direct, repeatable observation, or does it assume certain things about the past, which cannot be observed by our five senses? Whenever men make statements about evidence, this necessarily involves such evidence being put into a framework to try to give overall meaning to the facts. Ask yourself— "On what basis was this framework (or story) built? Can it be tested?"

Conclusions based on things which cannot be directly observed, and a framework based only on man's theories, must be suspect. Man does not know everything, nor can he have directly observed events in the distant past.

Secondly, is my interpretation of Scripture correct? For example, is the conflict due to the wrong story being applied to the facts, or a wrong interpretation of Scripture? To sort this out, one must remember that the Bible is the revealed Word of the infinite God, and it must interpret itself-it must be self-authenticating. One should, without being influenced by external matters, attempt first to determine the context and true definitions of the words in the passage of Scripture being studied, especially as intended by the author. Then one should ask is the subject referred to elsewhere in Scripture? Asking such questions will help determine which is wrong-the interpretation of Scripture or the external story about the facts. When this is done, it becomes obvious that Genesis is an historical narrative containing the literal foundations of all true doctrine. Thus, in the areas in which it clearly speaks, the book is authoritative.

Consider one example: The theory of evolution teaches that for millions of years before man, organisms have lived and died. Thus, death has been "from the beginning." However, no scientist was there to observe this death and struggle over millions of years. This is obviously a framework of understanding built upon the words of fallible humans who were not there. However, the Bible clearly teaches that death, particularly the physical and spiritual death of man entered the world only after the first man, Adam sinned. Consider Romans 5:12, Genesis 3:22, 23, Romans 8:22, Hebrews 9:22, Isaiah 11:6-9, Acts 3:21, Revelation 2: 3, and Revelation 21:4. It is obvious that if death and bloodshed did exist before Adam sinned, then the whole basis of the meaning of the message of the Cross-has been destroyed. Therefore, God could not have been an evolutionist! He did not use death and struggle to bring the forms of life into being! Death is a part of the curse after sin. The Biblical I account cannot possibly accommodate the theory of evolution (or "process creation" or "progressive creation" which also have death and bloodshed existing before Adam)!

Is, then, the ICR position as extreme and nonvalid as these authors suggest? Submitting ourselves as best we are able to the One who knows everything, end: faking His Word at face value, we accept the Book of Genesis as Jesus Christ, the Creator, meant it to be. Look up the words of Jesus Christ in the New Testament when He refers to the Book of Genesis and see for yourself that He believed it to be true and reliable, and thus certainly did not believe in evolution. (Consider: Mark 10:6-9, Matthew 19:4-6, Matthew 23:35, John 5:45-47, Matthew 24:37-39).

If God is an evolutionist, as many Christians claim, then why shouldn't evolutionary standards be applied to our everyday lives? Sadly, many do so apply them, and with tragic results.

Is God an evolutionist? Certainly not! Theistic evolution is a compromise position that destroys the foundations of the Gospel message and ultimately leads to the destruction of the Christian worldview. It is nothing more than the pagan theory of evolution with God added. No wonder America has fallen so far. Christians must defend a literal Genesis and stand against those who are compromising the Word of God.

WHEN IS A DAY NOT A DAY?

The answer to this question is, "When Christians insist that the days in Genesis must be something other than ordinary days." If one takes the Scripture without the external influences of what many people believe about the age of the earth, then it is obvious that the writer in Genesis meant them to be taken as ordinary days. In fact, Professor James Barr, of Oxford, although he rejects Genesis as sober history, wrote:

    So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world class university who does not believe that the writers of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to the readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days, which were the same as the 24-hour days we now experience, (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the Biblical story, (c) Noah's Flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguished all human and animal life except those in the Ark.

Why did God take six days? Look up Exodus 20:11. The seven-day week has its basis in Scripture and attests to the fact that God made everything in six days and rested for one. This was the pattern He set for us. God did not work for six billion years and rest for one billion years and tell us to copy that pattern this would make nonsense of one of the Ten Commandments

DID YOU KNOW?

Did you know that the acceptance of evolution affects people's view of their fellow men? Much has been written concerning the early European settlers of the state of Tasmania in Australia and their attitudes towards the Tasmanian Aboriginal people. Even before the time of Darwin, clergymen in the early days of the colony ignored the aborigines completely, believing them to be so far beneath the level of humanity as not to be worth teaching. In fact, when Governor Arthur asked the church missionary society for a missionary, he was refused. Darwinian evolution later reinforced this ungodly attitude to these people.

In the book, The Coming of the Strangers, by Beiba Baibaberzins (Collins), the author states "They (the first European settlers) had no doubts about the superiority of their culture and they regarded the aborigines as 'poor creatures who were at a very primitive stage of evolution.'" In fact, in 1924,the New York Tribune had an article on the Tasmanian Aborigines, and had as one-of their headings, "Missing Links with Mankind in Early Dawn of History." Sadly, many of the early settlers treated the Tasmanian aborigines as a missing link and less than human.

What was one of the consequences of these wrong ideas about the Aborigines? At one stage, the settlers lined up across the state to shoot every aboriginal they could find. The settlers treated them as less than human. Even today, many people still have wrong attitudes regarding certain cultures because of the influence of evolutionary ideas. Each of us needs to examine our own thoughts in regard to this matter.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Is God Being Outlawed in California?
by Kenneth Ham
Abstract
Every Christian organization, Christian school, home school, and any organization involved in promoting Christian truth or Christian morality needs to be involved: in this battle for the mind.

WARNING–MIND CONTROL

This is an urgent message to every Bible-believing Christian.

Something ominous is happening in California education, which may soon have ramifications throughout the entire nation, and affect millions of children for decades to come. If humanistic educators in the States schools and colleges can gain control of the minds of young people and train them to reject God as Creator, a totally pagan culture will result. Ail Christians need to know the tactics being employed to accomplish this, so they can fight the battle.

GOD IS KING

It should be remembered, though, that no matter what happens on this earth and regardless of how anti-God the courts or governments may become, the Creator God is our " everlasting King" (Jeremiah 10:10) whose throne is "forever and ever" Hebrews 1:. He is the "King of all the earth" (Psalm: 47:7). Thus, God can NEVER be dethroned, even though rebellious men may try to do so. However, as Paul warns us in Ephesians, we are engaged in a mortal conflict with the devil and all his forces, and if we do not take the appropriate action with respect to it, we will undoubtedly and inevitably be defeated. Ephesians 6:10-13 is a stirring call to battle. God does make us more than conquerors, but: we have to fight, nonetheless. We dare not sit back and do nothing.

FROM THE OFFICE OF BILL HONIG

Recently, we acquired copies of the working draft of the Science Framework Committee that is proposing a new science curriculum to be adopted by the California State Board of Education. Those responsible for this material did not want anyone outside the committee to see it, for once something has been bated on and accepted, it is difficult to have it reversed. The Framework, if and when adopted, will implement a new Policy Statement already approved for the State of California, which allows evolutionism to be promoted dogmatically in California’s schools. Below is a sampling of some of the points that highlight the philosophy the office of Bill Honig (Superintendent of Public instruction) wants adopted into education.

1. "Evolution is the central organizing principle of biology, and has fundamental importance in the other sciences as well. . .evolution is a fact, and it is also a theory. . . However, certain fundamentalist religious groups in our country have been historically opposed to evolution on religious grounds, and so it has become a controversial issue. Nevertheless, the weight of scientific evidence is clear.... But there is no doubt about the fact of evolution or about the general features of the theory of evolution."

2. "Evolution should be the starting point of any course in natural science. Evolution should be shown to be the basis of biology, the historical record of the chemical processes that led to the appearance of life, the reason for the pattern of history in earth science, and the direct analogue of cosmology (evolution of the universe) in physics and astronomy.

"The ramifications of evolution should permeate every textbook as a basic part of K-12 education. Evolution is the basis of biological classification, comparative anatomy and physiology, ecology, and stellar and planetary formation.... Educators should reject the notion that evolution is too complex a topic for even elementary students to understand." (Emphasis ours).

3. "While recognizing the right of individuals to hold and practice their own beliefs, teachers must not be pressured by any social community, parental, or administrative influences to distort or suppress science [by this they mean evolution], or go beyond what they are professionally obligated to teach."

In other words, parents have no say regarding this matter. The State has decided what instructors will teach—and they MUST teach evolution as fact. Even teachers are not allowed any freedom in this.

Ironically, the document also defines science as observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Evolution fails all of these criteria-but modern evolutionists in effect have defined science to be "naturalism" and declared evolution to be a fact. These people also say that any ethical matters (birth control, population control, conservation, animal rights, etc.) must be taught from this evolutionary perspective.

Many have recognized the document as proposing "New Age" doctrine, for parts sound like Eastern mysticism in philosophy. Consider: " . . .no instructional materials should ever convey the impression that science itself is a matter of guesswork, belief, or opinion.... In science, there is no truth. There is only received understanding that tests itself and builds upon itself constantly." On the previous page the document states that "The theme of evolution is what links all the disciplines necessary to the study of life." The committee insists in the document that students should not get the idea that any part of science (which they equate with evolution) is belief. They talk about science being accumulated knowledge with theories that continually change-but evolution itself is not to be questioned. Evolution is fact, they claim, and the backbone of science!

TEXTBOOKS TO CHANGE

If this document is accepted and enforced, public school students will hear only that evolution is fact in science classes. The document further states that "provisions for 'equal time' for religious beliefs held to conflict with scientific knowledge (which they equate with evolution) are not valid in the context of science classrooms.... Examples of pseudosciences include astrology, extrasensory perception, UFOology, and creation science."

When we consider that many saddened parents have told of their children’s rejection of Christianity because of the teaching of evolution in schools and colleges, how much more so will this be if this totally evolutionary indoctrination program is adopted and implemented at all grade levels.

OPPOSITION GROWING

It needs to be emphasized that by rejecting creation and teaching only evolution, the Science Framework Committee has not thrown out religion the State would merely be establishing a totally humanistic, secular religion!

ICR is, through its Extension Division and its publications, reaching more people than ever before with the vital and foundational message of creation. The implication of this message-that there is a God who owns everything and everyone and thus demands that His rules be obeyed-is opposed by those who want to govern their own lives and maintain whatever lifestyle they please (e.g., homosexuality, abortion pornography; etc.).

WARNING TO CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS

This hostile takeover of education will not stop at the public school. From what has happened with the State's threat to the ICR Graduate School's right to offer science degrees, it is obvious that Superintendent Bill Honig's office intends to insist on the above framework philosophy in EVERY school-including Christian schools and colleges if their science courses are to be acceptable. It is not an exaggeration to say that if this document is accepted, all schools may soon have to teach evolution as fact and as the backbone of science, for in California, the State has the power to grant or rescind a school's license to operate. This may be just around the corner-not only for California, but for other states as well. Already the ideas expressed in this California science framework document are starting to appear in education journals and are being expressed by various spokespersons as necessary for other states. A similar power play is even now in progress in the state of Texas, as well as other states.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

There is an increasingly influential organization formed for the specific purpose of opposing creation and propagandizing evolution in this nation. This organization calls itself the "Committees of Correspondence," associated closely with the atheistic American Humanist Association. An officer of this organization, Dr. Kevin Padian (a Berkeley paleontologist), is a leading member of the committee now composing the Science Framework for recommendation to the State Board of Education. Dr. Padian clearly has his own evolutionary agenda which plainly has influenced others on the committee, and thus the entire future of California science education. This seems to involve an obvious conflict of interest, but the Superintendent's office seems unconcerned.

PREPARE FOR BATTLE

Every Christian organization, Christian school, home school, and any organization involved in promoting Christian truth or Christian morality needs to be involved: in this battle for the mind. This world in which we live is a battleground as well as a mission field-a place in which we must not only proclaim the Gospel but also defend it against its enemies (note Philippians 1:7, 17). We at ICR can only try to inform you of the battle, and continue to let the world know that Jesus Christ is the Creator, Savior, and Judge.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Five Vital Questions to Ask Your Church or School - Recognizing Evolutionary Infiltration
by Kenneth Ham
Abstract
This is a major problem in Christendom today. When prospective pastors, Christian schoolteachers, and theological lecturers, etc., are interviewed by a church or school board for position, many interviewers do not know the specific questions that need to be asked in regard to the foundational Book of Genesis.

It's a special deacon's meeting at the church to interview the prospective new pastor. Each of the deacons begins to ask questions of the pastor. "Do you believe that God created the world? Do you believe that man is a sinner? Did Noah's Flood really occur? Was Jesus God?....And so the questioning continues.

At the end of the question time, the deacons are all convinced that this prospective pastor believes in the inspired, infallible Word of God, and is certainly the one they are looking for. Suddenly, one of the deacons requests that he be allowed to ask some really specific questions concerning the foundational Book of Genesis. To the horror of the others present, as very specific questions are asked, they suddenly realize that this pastor actually believes in evolution—rejects the Biblical account of a global flood—believes in millions of years in regard to the history of the earth and accepts a total evolutionary view of the dinosaurs.

This is a major problem in Christendom today. When prospective pastors, Christian schoolteachers, and theological lecturers, etc., are interviewed by a church or school board for position, many interviewers do not know the specific questions that need to be asked in regard to the foundational Book of Genesis. After the pastor or teacher is employed, people are shocked to find that they hold compromising beliefs in evolution, and yet they thought they had a sufficient screening process, which would not allow this to happen.

It is about time people start asking specific questions of their pastors, Christian schoolteachers, and theological colleges to determine what they really do believe and teach in regard to the foundational Book of Beginnings—Genesis. To help you with this, I have listed below five major questions that need to be asked, giving the specific details to ensure there can be no misunderstanding as to what is meant. It is suggested that Christians gently ask these same questions, in the same detail, and then act upon the results if it is found that the Christian leader they are questioning is an evolutionist or holds to some compromising position.

1. Do they believe in Adam? If the answer is "Yes"—this could still mean that they believe that Adam means "mankind," and not a specific person called Adam. The question needs to be asked in such a way that they will understand you are asking whether they believe there was an original man—one man—the First Man (I Corinthians 15) called Adam, of whom all people living and dead are descended.

2. Did death result from Adam's fall? Even though people will answer "Yes" to this, they may actually be thinking in terms of spiritual death, and not physical death, as well. One needs to get specific and ask if they believe that physical death and bloodshed of man and animals only existed in the world as a result of Adam's sin, and not before sin (Romans 5:12; Hebrews 9:22; I Corinthians 15; Genesis 3:23). Even more specifically, they must be asked as to whether they believe the fossils of animals existed before Adam sinned; to allow this is to allow death and bloodshed before Adam sinned, which undermines the whole foundation of the Gospel message.

3. Did God create the heavens, and earth, and all things therein, in six days? A "Yes" answer to this question could still mean that the person believes the days were millions of years long. Again, the question must be asked very specifically: Do you believe these days were approximately 24 hours in length, as we understand a 24-hour day, today?

4. Was Noah's Flood worldwide? A person could answer in the affirmative, all the while thinking of worldwide in the sense of the known world at that time. Thus, they may actually believe in a local flood. It is necessary, therefore, to specifically ask if they believe the flood was global-that is, that the water covered the entire globe, covering all of the hills under the whole of heaven-that it was not just a local flood.

5. Where do the dinosaurs fit into: history? According to the Bible, God made all land animals and man on Day Six-this must have included the dinosaurs. Do they believe dinosaurs lived along side of Adam? Did the dinosaurs go on the Ark? Did God send two of every (all) kinds of land-dwelling, air-breathing animals on board Noah's Ark? Then dinosaurs also must have gone onboard. Ask your Christian school I what they are teaching children in relation to dinosaurs!

Many people have come to me shocked at finding that the teacher at their Christian school, for instance, was actually a theistic evolutionist. The parents didn't even recognize the evolutionary ideas that were infiltrating their children's thinking. They ask what can be done. One could suggest to the school that extra funds be designated for creation books, videos, and movie rentals, as well as teacher training so that the students and teachers can get this information. Of course, if the school refuses, then one would have to consider whether that is the place they want their children to go, but a good Christian school (and church) is well worth the time and financial resources it takes to restore complete Biblical thinking.

Some have said that maybe it doesn't matter if the Christian leaders (teachers, pastors, lecturers, etc.) do compromise with evolution, as long as they are solid in other areas. But it can easily be shown that the Book of Genesis is foundational to the rest of the Bible. It is important to remember the Lord's message to the Laodi-cean Church in Revelation 3:15, 16, "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.... I will spew thee out of My mouth." Keeping this in mind, we then read Matthew 18:6: "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Surely, this is a serious warning to those who teach-no wonder we are told, in James 3:1, " . . .be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation."

DID YOU KNOW?

. . . to hang on to your appendix? (Unless of course it is inflamed, which could be a dangerous condition.)

Most of you are familiar with the idea that the appendix is a vestigial and useless organ. We have been told that since the appendix was left over from our evolutionary ancestry, it should be removed as soon as it gives us any trouble. In fact, some doctors have suggested removing it to keep a problem from occurring. This is a good example of how non-scientific evolutionary ideas have been detrimental to the advancement of true science. Now that considerable research has been done on the appendix, it has been found to be a complex and highly specialized organ. While there are still a lot of things we do not understand about the human appendix, scientists believe it has important functions in the following areas: embryological, physiological, microbiological (bacteriological), biochemical, immunological. For instance, consider the following physiological function: The goblet cells which line the appendix and the adjacent caecum and colon secrete a special mucus which can be regarded as an antibacterial paint controlling the organisms which develop in the bowel, without which the body cannot truly utilize its food. Thus, most doctors now say that the appendix should not be removed. Think about it! How could these evolutionary scientists be sure it didn't have a function, just because they didn't yet know what the function was? Millions of people were led astray by this anti-scientific evolutionary belief. Had people accepted the Bible, which is the basis of true science, they would have seen that the Creator was responsible for all organs in the human body, and therefore the appendix was the result of creative design and organization formed according to a plan to perform a specific purpose.

[Soldier4Christ]

 The Terror of Anthrax in a Degrading Creation
by Todd Charles Wood, Ph.D.

Abstract
As the U.S. fights its first battle against this biological weapon, an important question arises in the minds of creationists: Where do dangerous pathogens like anthrax come from?

Since the September 11, 2001 attack on America, we have realized a variety of hitherto ignored threats to U.S. citizens, including biological attack with engineered anthrax. Anthrax disease begins when spores of Bacillus anthracis invade an animal or human body. If the invasion comes through the skin, the cutaneous variety of anthrax results. The skin forms a pustule around the germinating anthrax spores three to five days after infection. Surprisingly, the entire process causes little pain or discomfort, although secondary infections have been known to occur. The majority of cutaneous anthrax victims survive.

Anthrax spores can also be ingested or inhaled and become much more severe if the infection spreads to the lymphatic system. When inhaled, anthrax spores germinate and grow in the lymph nodes nearest the lungs. The infection leads to swelling of the mediastinum, the region between the lungs that houses the heart. High numbers of bacteria enter the blood from the lymph nodes and begin secreting toxins. From the time the first symptoms appear to the time of death, only three days elapse on average. By the time doctors diagnose the disease, the bacteria have already filled the patient with toxin, and death is virtually inevitable.

As the U.S. fights its first battle against this biological weapon, an important question arises in the minds of creationists: Where do dangerous pathogens like anthrax come from? The Bible depicts a benevolent God who does not inflict pain without purpose. Consequently, creationists claim that the existence of biological "evil" or imperfection, such as anthrax, comes not from God's creative activities but from the degenerative effects of the Curse on creation (Genesis 3:14-19). Recently, I presented evidence of genome decay in the mycoplasmas that supports this model of a degrading creation.1 Unlike the simpler disease mechanism of the mycoplasmas, the complex pathogenesis of B. anthracis involves both invasion of the host and secretion of toxins. As such, anthrax poses a more difficult challenge to the degrading creation model, requiring explanations based on both baraminology and design theory.

Like most members of the Bacillus genus, B. anthracis inhabits the soil as its normal habitat. The spores of Bacillus bacteria can survive drying, heat, and radiation, making anthrax an attractive choice for a biological weapon. B. anthracis belongs to the B. cereus group of six Bacillus species (anthracis, cereus, thuringiensis, mycoides, pseudomycoides, and weihenstephanensis).2 Nearly all members of the Bacillus genus inhabit soil or dust particles, but the B. cereus group contains several important pathogens, including the insecticide-producing B. thuringiensis. Numerous genetic, biochemical, and microbiological studies have shown that B. anthracis and B. thuringiensis are very closely related to B. cereus.3,4 Scientists have proposed that B. anthracis, B. thuringiensis, and B. mycoides are actually strains or subspecies of B. cereus.5 In baraminological terms, B. anthracis, B. thuringiensis, B. mycoides, and B. cereus form a monobaramin, a group of species that share a common ancestor.

Despite such close affinities to B. anthracis, no other members of the B. cereus group are so deadly to humans. Presently, the molecular mechanism underlying anthrax disease is poorly understood.6 We know that two components of the B. anthracis cells contribute to their virulence, the capsule and exotoxins. The capsule that surrounds B. anthracis cells permits the cell to evade detection by the immune system of the host organism, while the exotoxins induce the cellular damage and anthrax symptoms. B. anthracis secretes two exotoxins, edema toxin and lethal toxin. When injected alone directly into the blood stream, lethal toxin kills mice with the same efficiency as fully virulent anthrax spores.

Each B. anthracis toxin consists of two parts, the binding component (BC) and the active component (AC). Both edema and lethal toxin contain the same BC, a protein called protective antigen (PA), which specifically binds to mammalian cell membranes.7,8 After binding, PA is cleaved into two pieces, one of which dissociates into the blood. The other part, PA63, forms a heptamer on the surface of the host cell. The heptamer then binds one AC, either edema factor (EF) or lethal factor (LF). The cell then internalizes the PA63 heptamer and the EF or LF via phagocytosis. Inside the internalized membrane vesicle, PA63 somehow facilitates the injection of LF and EF into the cytoplasm.9

In the cytoplasm, EF and LF begin their damaging work. EF is a special protein that produces a cellular signaling molecule, but how EF actually induces cellular damage is presently unknown. LF is a type of protein called a protease and requires zinc ions to function. LF cuts the "tail" off a protein called MEK2, an important component of the cell's signaling pathways. Somehow, the action of LF induces the cell to begin producing unusually large amounts of tumor necrosis factor (TNF), a molecule that induces other cells to die. Once the infected cell dies, its contents, including the TNF, enter the bloodstream causing massive tissue death. Victims do not survive this stage.

Although this mechanism sounds terrifically complicated, we can readily explain its presence in B. anthracis. All virulent strains of B. anthracis possess two plasmids, small circles of DNA that replicate independently of the main bacterial chromosome. One plasmid, pXO1, carries the genes necessary to produce all three components of the anthrax toxins. The other plasmid, pXO2, contains the genes required to generate the bacterial capsule. Without either of these plasmids, B. anthracis becomes harmless and difficult to distinguish from other strains of B. cereus. Since members of the B. cereus group readily accept foreign pieces of DNA including plasmids, we see how an originally benign bacterium could become the deadly anthrax by the acquisition of both pXO1 and pXO2.

By explaining the origin of pathogenesis in B. anthracis, a new problem arises. If B. anthracis becomes a pathogen after acquiring two plasmids, how did these plasmids and amazing biochemical pathway of the toxins originate? As a reminder to the reader, creationists endorse a model of creation degrading under the effects of sin. Therefore, we may rephrase the questions above: Could the plasmids and toxins have degraded from something benign or even beneficial?

Some plasmids are extremely helpful not just to the bacteria that possess them but to the entire earth. Some strains of Pseudomonas harbor plasmids that bear genes necessary for the metabolism of toluene and other toxic chemicals. Pseudomonas that carry these plasmids can efficiently detoxify polluted environments. Almost all Rhizobia species carry a plasmid that allows the bacteria to form a symbiosis with legumes like peas and beans. Rhizobial symbiosis provide so much nitrogen to their host plants that much of the nitrogen goes into the soil and becomes available for other plant species. These examples highlight the functional importance of plasmids in their proper environment.

The sequence of B. anthracis plasmid pXO1 was recently published, revealing numerous details that are consistent with a degrading creation.10 The average pXO1 gene is about 400 nucleotides shorter than the average bacterial chromosomal gene, implying that the pXO1 genes have been damaged by point mutations. The pXO1 plasmid also contains a large amount of insertion sequences, several of which are also damaged by point mutations. The toxin genes of pXO1 occupy a region called a pathogenicity island. Common features of pathogenic bacterial chromosomes, pathogenecity islands undergo frequent recombination and reorganization. Scientists have discovered evidence for recombination in the pathogenecity island of pXO1.11 All of these features strongly support the degradation of the pXO1 plasmid.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

If pXO1 and its genes degraded, what was their original form? Normally, benign original function may be inferred by showing close relationship to harmless or beneficial genes. Unfortunately, the anthrax toxins are unique. The chemical structure of PA and LF reveal general similarities to other classes of proteins, but not enough to infer relationship. PA is distantly similar to proteins in B. thuringiensis, B. cereus, and Clostridium perfringens, each of which is part of a toxin.12 A heptameric structure is very uncommon in proteins. As mentioned above, LF is a zinc-dependent protease, distantly similar to tetanus neurotoxin and the various botulinum neurotoxins.13 Because our taxonomic survey of proteins and genes is still very shallow, we should not claim that these proteins are absolutely unique. We can only conclude that the origin of these toxin proteins presently remains enigmatic.

Skeptics often cite biological imperfections as evidence against a designer, but close examination of imperfections often supports the creationist's assertion that man's sin brought about a degradation of creation. In the case of the terrible anthrax disease, we find ample evidence for the creationist claim. B. anthracis is directly related to forms of Bacillus that do not cause diseases as severe as anthrax. The plasmid pXO1 that contains the anthrax toxin genes shows signs of degradation. Although the toxins themselves are difficult to explain, the similarity between toxins may be very important for future studies of biological imperfection. Considering the explanatory power of the creationist explanation for biological imperfection, I am confident that a solution to the problem of bacterial toxins will be found.

References

   1. Wood, T.C., "Genome Decay in the Mycoplasmas," Impact 340 (2001).
   2. Daffonchio, D., A. Cherif, and S. Borin, "Homoduplex and Heteroduplex Polymorphisms of the Amplified Ribosomal 16S-23S Internal Transcribed Spacers Describe Genetic Relationships in the `Bacillus cereus group,'" Applied and Environmental Microbiology 66 (2000): 5460-5468.
   3. Helgason, E., O.A. Økstad, D.A. Caugant, H.A. Johansen, A. Fouet, M. Mock, I. Hegna, and A.-B. Kolstø, "Bacillus anthracis, Bacillus cereus, and Bacillus thuringiensis--One Species on the Basis of Genetic Evidence," Applied and Environmental Microbiology 66 (2000): 2627-2630.
   4. Ticknor, L.O., A.-B. Kolstø, K.K. Hill, P. Keim, M.T. Laker, M. Tonks, and P.J. Jackson, "Fluorescent Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism Analysis of Norwegian Bacillus cereus and Bacillus thuringiensis Soil Isolates," Applied and Environmental Microbiology 67 (2001): 4863-4873.
   5. Økstad, O.A., I. Hegna, T. Lindbäck, A.L. Rishovd, and A.-B. Kolstø, "Genome Organization is not Conserved Between Bacillus cereus and Bacillus subtilis," Microbiology 145 (1999): 621-631.
   6. Harrell, L.J., G.L. Andersen, and K.H. Wilson, "Genetic Variability of Bacillus anthracis and Related Species," Journal of Clinical Microbiology 33 (1995): 1847-1850.
   7. Little, S.F. and B.E. Ivins, "Molecular Pathogenesis of Bacillus anthracis Infection," Microbes and Infection 2 (1999): 131-139.
   8. Bradley, K.A., J. Mogridge, M. Mourez, R.J. Collier, and J.A. Young, "Identification of the Cellular Receptor for Anthrax Toxin," Nature 414 (2001): 225-229.
   9. Little and Ivins, ref. 10.
  10. Okinaka, R.T., K. Cloud, O. Hampton, A.R. Hoffmaster, K.K. Hill, and others, "Sequence and Organization of pXO1, the Large Bacillus anthracis Plasmid Harboring the Anthrax Toxin Genes," Journal of Bacteriology 181 (1999): 6509-6515.
  11. Okinaka, et al., ref. 10.
  12. Petosa, C., R.J. Collier, K.R. Klimpel, S.H. Leppla, and R.C. Liddington, "Crystal Structure of the Anthrax Toxin Protective Antigen," Nature 385(1997): 833-838.

* Dr. Wood has a Ph.D. in Genetics from Clemson University.

[Soldier4Christ]

 The Effect of Darwinism on Morality and Christianity
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D

Abstract
Historians have documented meticulously the fact that Darwinism has had a devastating impact, not only on Christianity, but also on theism.

It sometimes is claimed that one can be both a Darwinist and a Christian (Miller). Others argue that religion and Darwinism are incompatible because they are separate fields that should not be intermixed (Gould). In fact, the Darwinism worldview leads directly to certain clear moral and religious teachings about the origin, purpose, and ultimate meaning of life that are diametrically opposed to the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic faiths. The problem is that Darwinists,

    can in good conscience say at one moment that they do not deal with God or religion, and then in the next breath make sweeping pronouncements about the purposelessness of the cosmos (Johnson, p. 118).

Some scientists are more open and forthright than Miller and Gould, some even concluding that "there is something dishonestly selfserving" in the tactic claiming that "science and religion are two separate fields" (Dawkins, p. 62). Most evolutionists fully understand what is at stake in the creation/evolution controversy. Futuyma admits that anyone who "believes in Genesis as a literal description of history" holds a "worldview that is entirely incompatible with the idea of evolution . . ." (pp. 12-13). Futuyma then claims that Darwinists insist on "material, mechanistic causes" for life but the "believer in Genesis" can look to God for explanations.

Historians have documented meticulously the fact that Darwinism has had a devastating impact, not only on Christianity, but also on theism. Many scientists also have admitted that the acceptance of Darwinism has convinced large numbers of people that the Genesis account of creation is erroneous, and that this has caused the whole house of theistic cards to tumble:

    If the Bible was wrong in the very first chapter of Genesis, then the veracity of the entire enterprise was called into question. Evolution was not just a scientific idea, it was a bombshell . . . welcomed by atheists, feared by theists (Raymo, p. 138).

As a result of the widespread acceptance of Darwinism, the Christian moral basis of society was undermined. Furthermore Darwin himself was "keenly aware of the political, social, and religious implications of his new idea. . . . Religion, especially, appeared to have much to lose . . ." (Raymo, p. 138).

Numerous scientists have noted that one result of the general acceptance of Darwinism was acceptance of the belief that humans "are accidental, contingent, ephemeral parts of creation, rather than lords over it" and humans are not "the raison d'être of the universe" as all theistic religions teach (Raymo, p. 163).

The Darwinism belief that humans (and all living things) are nothing more than an accident of history, "cosmically inconsequential bundles of stardust, adrift in an infinite and purposeless universe" is a belief that is now "widely embraced within the scientific community" (Raymo, p. 160). Darwinism was a major factor in causing many eminent scientists to conclude, in the words of Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, that the "more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless" (p. 154). Darwinism teaches "that our lives are brief and inconsequential in the cosmic scheme of things" (Raymo, p. 110), and that life has no ultimate purpose because there is no heaven, hell, or afterlife and "nothing we know about life requires the existence of a disembodied vital force or immaterial spirits, or a special creation of species" (Raymo, p. 42). Raymo concludes:

    Everything we have learned in science since the time of Galileo suggests that the [universe is] . . . oblivious to our fates [and] that the grave is our destiny (Raymo, p. 66-67).

One of the most eminent evolutionists ever, Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, taught that, "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind" (p. 345).

Raymo concludes that Darwin's theory was "not what we want to hear" because it is difficult for humans who have long thought of themselves as "the central and immortal apex of creation—the apple of God's eye—to accept that" we are, "unexceptional, contingent, and ephemeral in the cosmological scheme of things" (p. 129).

Raymo adds that since Darwinism has demolished the belief that the universe and human beings have an ultimate purpose, our educational system must inculcate young people in "cold and clammy truths like descent from reptilian or amoebic ancestors," Raymo then suggests that although it,

    would be comforting to think, as did our ancestors, that we live in a nurturing universe, centered upon ourselves. . . . The truth, however, is . . . Evolution is not warm and fuzzy. It can even be capricious and sometimes cruel (p. 144).

Cruel or otherwise, Raymo states that Darwinism "is a fact by every criterion of science" and that our "school kids do not need intellectual security blankets" (p. 144). The implications of Darwinism "perhaps the most revolutionary idea in the history of human thought" are clear.

    We are small, contingent parts of something that existed long before we appeared on the scene. . . . We are as incidental to the cosmos as are ephemeral mayflies to the planet Earth. At first glance, this was shattering news. Indeed, the majority of us have not yet come to terms with it. . . . Our lives are brief, our fate is oblivion (p. 222 emphasis his).

Acclaimed Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins has written extensively about the implications of Darwinism. In a speech titled "A Scientist's Case Against God," Dawkins argued that Darwinism "has shown higher purpose to be an illusion" and that the Universe consists of "selfish genes;" consequently, "some people are going to get hurt, others are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason for it" (Easterbrook, p. 892).

Dawkins believes that people who believe life was created for a purpose not only are mistaken, but are ignorant: "Only the scientifically illiterate" believe we exist for a higher purpose. The scientifically literate know there is no reason "why" we exist, we "just do" as an accident of history. Dawkins also teaches that no evidence exists to support theism, and that "nowadays the better educated admit it" (Easterbrook, p. 892).

The central message of Richard Dawkins' voluminous writings is that the universe has precisely the properties we should expect if it has "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference" (Easterbrook, p. 892). Dawkins even admitted that his best-selling book, The Selfish Gene, was an attempt to get rid of what he regarded as an "outright wrong idea" that had achieved a grip in popular science—namely, the erroneous "assumption that individuals act for the good of the species," which he believes is "an error that needed exploding, and the best way to demonstrate what's wrong with it . . . was to explain evolution from the point of view of the gene" (Easterbrook, p. 892). Dawkins added that the reason why The Selfish Gene was a best seller could be because it teaches the "truth" about why humans exist, namely humans,

    . . . are for nothing. You are here to propagate your selfish genes. There is no higher purpose to life. One man said he didn't sleep for three nights after reading The Selfish Gene. He felt that the whole of his life had become empty, and the universe no longer had a point (quoted in Bass, p. 60).

Dawkins obviously is proud of the depressing effect his writings have on people. Raymo even claims that the dominant view among modern Darwinists is that our minds are "merely a computer made of meat" (pp. 187-188), and that "almost all scientists" believe the idea that a human soul exists is a "bankrupt notion"; and consequently, the conclusion that our minds are "merely a computer made of meat" is considered by Darwinists "almost a truism" (pp. 192-193, emphasis his).

In Futuyma's words, "if the world and its creatures developed purely by material, physical forces, it could not have been designed and has no purpose or goal" (pp. 12-13). Furthermore, he notes that the creationist, in contrast, believes that everything in the world, every species . . . was designed by an intelligent, purposeful artificer, and that it was made for a purpose . . . the human species was not designed, has no purpose, and is the product of mere material mechanism . . . seems to be the message of evolution (pp. 12-13).

cont'd