Volume 2, Number 4 July/August 1997
A bimonthly publication of the Creation Research Society.
This Web version of Creation Matters
lacks the "Creation Calendar" as well as photos and special
graphics found only in the print version. The latter is automatically
sent to members of the CRS along with the peer-reviewed CRS Quarterly.
Creation and the Internet
Wider Coverage in Mainstream
Press...: A Progress Report
Questions from the Internet
Book review: Not by Chance!...
by Lee Spetner
and the Internet
This issue of Creation Matters presents several
articles related to the Internet. There are scores of creationist sites
available to online computer users, and the means to access this information
has become widely available and easy to use. The Internet allows individuals
as well as creationist research organizations, educational institutions,
book/movie/video publishers, museums, local groups i.e., anyone
to present their materials to a worldwide audience.
To be sure, the evolutionists, too, are present on the worldwide
web, but it is now more difficult for the scientific and educational
establishments, politically correct judges, and the liberal news media
to censor and misrepresent the views of creationists. From time to time
we will make our readers aware of this vast resource by highlighting
some of the information found on the Internet as it pertains to origins.
Coverage in Mainstream Press for Anti-Darwinians and Proponents of
Creation / Intelligent Design: A Progress Report
by David Buckna
David Buckna is a public school teacher in
Kelowna, British Columbia and co-author of ICR Impact article no. 282
be immune from critical analysis in the science classroom?
A perusal of newspapers, magazines, and the Internet
in recent months suggests that God may be using the various creationist
groups as well as the secular anti-Darwinians to begin moving the origins
debate into the scientific, educational, and cultural mainstream. Look
at what's happened just within the past 12 months. (The URLs in this
article were correct at the time of writing. These sometimes are changed
without notice. Editor)
Articles in the mainstream press
David Berlinski's landmark article in Commentary
The Deniable Darwin
Darwin: David Berlinski and Critics (September 1996)
Berlinski Debates. A visit to the Usenet newsgroup talk.origins
by David Berlinski, to defend his article in the June 1996 issue
of Commentary. <http://www.datasync.com/~farrar/berl.html>
Other reviews and articles by David Berlinski:
The Globe & Mail (November 2, 1996) Keeping
an Eye on Evolution. Book review of Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable.
Forbes ASAP (December 2, 1996) The
End of Materialist Science. Forbes calls Berlinski the
most controversial challenger to the dogma of modern science in
Michael Behes Darwins
Black Box, the first anti-Darwinian book published by a
major New York house in several decades. [to
order from the CRS]
St. Louis Post-Dispatch (July 22, 1996) The
Great Primate Debate, a story about two creationists
challenge of the accuracy of the St. Louis zoos reconstruction
of Australopithecus afarensis.
Science (July 26, 1996) Creationists
Evolve New Strategy pp. 420-422.
Newsweek (September 16, 1996) Heretics
in the Laboratory page 82.
Alberta Report [Orthodoxy columns]:
within the world of science comes a formidable challenge To Darwinism
(September 16, 1996).
isn't it, how Canada's media ignore a scientific bombshell against
Darwinism? (May 19, 1997).
Harper's magazine (November 1996) On
earth as it is in heaven: field trips with the apostles of creation
science pp. 56-60.
Nov. 30, 1996 Very intelligent design.
Nov. 30, 1996 Witnesses
for the prosecution.
Mar. 1, 1997 The
evolution backlash: Debunking Darwin.
Feb. 15, 1997 The lie is marching on
Articles and letters about high-school junior Danny
Phillips challenge to evolutionary indoctrination:
Teacher Magazine (November/December 1996) Counter
Evolutionary by David Hill
Education Week Commentary (March 19, 1997) The
Great Non-Problem of Evolution vs. Creationism by Evans
Education Week Letters to the Editor (December
11, 1996 and February
The Fresno Bee (December 7, 1996) Darwin's
downfall: Show me a walking fish and well talk by Preston
Boston Review, published by MIT, which included
a symposium on origins:
v. Intelligent Design (Again) (January 1997), a review
of Behes Darwins Black Box by Allen Orr.
Darwin in the Details? (February, 1997), responses to Allen
Orr's review, including Behe, Johnson, and Berlinski.
Christianity Today (April 28,1997) Meeting
Darwins Wager (pp. 14-21), a lengthy review of Behe's
Darwin's Black Box by Tom Woodward.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer's three-part series
by Bruce Chapman on the editorial pages:
and science are back in the news, and Deservedly So (May
slipping hold on science (May 23, 1997).
freedom at risk in science education debate (May 30, 1997).
Letters to the editor by:
D. Russell Humphreys, Michael Behe (Newsweek, October 7,1996).
(Scientific American, May 1997).
Marvin Lubenow (Christianity Today, June 16, 1997).
A U.S. News & World Report story about
creationist John Baumgardner of the Los Alamos National Laboratory
(June 16, 1997) The
Geophysics of God: A Scientist Embraces Plate Tectonics and Noah's
Flood (pp. 55-58).
Reason magazine (July 1997) Origin
of the Specious: Why do neoconservatives doubt Darwin?
Books attacking Darwinism
Not By Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of
Evolution by physicist Lee M. Spetner (Judaica Press). See
book review in this issue of Creation Matters.
Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by science
writer Richard Milton (Park Street Press).
Darwinism by Opening Minds by Berkeley law professor Phillip
Johnson (InterVarsity Press). Johnson's latest offering, this book
is written at a general level and is especially geared to high school
and college students. [to
order from the CRS]
The crumbling wall
The wall of Darwinism is beginning to crumble. It took 30
years for the Berlin Wall to be brought down with a combination of changing
politics, people's desire for freedom, and most importantly, prayer. I
think Darwinism will collapse in considerably less time. But the key question
is: What will replace it? God only knows.
by Glen W. Wolfrom,
Glen is membership secretary of the CRS and
editor of Creation Matters. His Ph.D. is in Animal Husbandry/Ruminant
Nutrition from the University of Missouri.
The Creation Research Societys site
on the Internets worldwide web is frequently visited by those
who do not share our views when it comes to origins. Consequently, we
get lots of email from evolutionists trying to set us on the straight
and narrow. Normally, I must kindly respond that I do not have time
to get into a lengthy dialog. However, I am able to answer an occasional
question. Here are a few such queries and the answers I provided.
Is creation a
Which creation story
Flat Earth Society science?
Human appendix proves
Is creation a sectarian
1. Is it or is it not true that most if not all of you
practice a sectarian faith? In other words, does your organization include
people of different religious backgrounds other than Christianity?
Our organization (the Creation Research Society) is not the only organized
group espousing creation, so I cannot speak for all creationists. The
CRS, though, is definitely Christian, a fact which we do not hide. However,
we are nonsectarian to the extent that we only take doctrinal positions
on inspiration of the Bible, salvation through Jesus Christ, and, of
course, creation and the Noachian flood as described in Genesis. Thus,
we have members who represent most Christian denominations, including
Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Seventh-day Adventists,
Lutherans, Catholics, and many others.
Creation (or at least concern over the teaching of evolution), however,
is not limited to Christian faiths. According to Bird (1989, pp. 274-275),
creation is consistent with Orthodox Judaism and Islam. Regarding the
former, a Jewish group joined in the legal defense of creation legislation
for the state of Louisiana. Regarding the latter, Bird references Islamic
writers in support of the creationist view. In fact, it was recently
reported that a group of students in a Canadian school, protesting an
evolutionary wall mural in the school, included Jews and Muslims as
well as Christians (Noble,
story should be taught?
2. If we are going to teach creationism in classes, isn't
it only fair that every creation story known to humankind be taught
in schools (including the Native American religious creation story,
Aztec's religious creation story, Hindu religious creation story, etc.)?
This is a common misconception regarding the views of scientific creationists.
Most do not advocate the teaching of a creation story, but
rather the presentation of scientifc evidence which supports the creation
/ intelligent design model of origins, and scientific evidence which
is contradictory to the evolution model. Such teaching is appropriate
for science classes, and it has been shown that students learn more
science when this is done (Bliss,
1978). If one wishes to delve into the philosophies and metaphysical
concepts involved in either creation or evolution, then sociology or
comparative religion classes would be the appropriate setting. But most
of the furor is over the science curriculum.
Let me hasten to note that the CRS does not, as an organization, lobby
for or promote the forced teaching of creation in public schools via
legislation. Forcing an unwilling teacher to do so would not be productive.
It would be helpful if textbooks presented a balanced view, and I personally
believe that parents and local school boards have a right to select
textbooks on that basis, if they desire to do so. It is an issue of
the rights of students to be exposed to alternate origins models, and
of academic freedom for teachers who wish to teach this two-model approach.
There really are only two views on origins, and it is thus neither
necessary nor desirable to teach various religious stories. According
to evolutionist D.J. Futuyma (1983, p. 197),
"Creation and Evolution, between them, exhaust the possible
explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared
on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they
must have developed from preexisting species by some process of
modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they
must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."
The Flat Earth Society
3. Please explain how your organization is different than
the Flat Earth Society. The FES published so-called scientific research
that backed up their claim that the earth was not a sphere. Mainstream
scientists had to fight this pseudo-science in the late 1800s and early
I know nothing about the flat-earthers, whether or not they used evidence
from science, or even if they really existed. If they did, I don't know
how that invalidates the use of scientific evidence by creationists
any more than it invalidates the use of scientific evidence by evolutionists.
Evolutionists have, in the past, used scientifc evidence to advocate
the following ideas which have later been shown to be in error:
- Lamarckianism (inheritance of acquired characters).
- The law of biogenesis (ontogeny recapitulates
phylogeny, or the idea that the human embryo, during development,
retraces its so-called evolutionary history).
- Piltdown man (the imagined evolutionary ancestor of man accepted
as fact for some 40 years, but later discovered to be a fraud, consisting
of the skull bones of a human and the lower jawbone of an orangutan).
- That there are literally dozens of organs in the human body which
are functionless remnants (vestigial organs) of our evolutionary
as evidence for evolution.
4. A great example of human evolution is the appendix.
It is of no use to humans today. Only Neanderthals and other cavedwellers
made use of this organ. That is why it has become so small throughout
the years ... random drift. That is why appendices can be removed with
little/no side effects. It is a now useless organ. Soon it will disappear
from the human body completely.
If the appendix (or any other so-called vestigial organ) is useless,
how can this be evidence of evolution? You have defined evolution as
the appearance and subsequent inheritance of NEW traits. The loss of
an organ's function (and ultimately disappearance of the organ itself)
certainly doesn't fit this definition.
How do evolutionists know that the appendix is not, in fact, a nascent
organ; i.e., one that is just beginnning to develop in humans? Or, perhaps
monkeys, which have no appendix, are more evolutionarily advanced than
lemurs, apes, and humans.
Your statement that the human appendix is useless shows that you have
been duped into believing in evolution. At one time, it has been said,
as many as 180 organs were claimed by evolutionists to be vestigial.
Medical research has shown that virtually all of these have one or more
function. The evidence thus seems to suggest that there are no truly
functionless organs, only those whose function we have not yet discovered.
There are also organs which are essential at a certain stage of development,
but may have no apparent function later in life.
Since you are open-minded, would you consider your belief
in evolution to be falsified if a function for the appendix can be demonstrated?
Conversely, would you consider creation to be confirmed if functions
are found for organs previously declared to be vestigial by evolutionists?
I doubt it, because your religion (that in which you place your faith)
is atheistic evolution.
One problem experienced by evolutionists, such as yourself, is the
mistaken notion that the appendix once had the function of the cecum
(digestion of cellulose). However, man and many herbivorous mammals
have both a cecum AND an appendix. That the appendix does, indeed, have
a function was noted by the prominent evolutionary paleontologist Romer
(1970, p. 344). Speaking of the cecum, he said:
"In man it [the cecum] terminates in the narrow vermiform
appendix. This is frequently cited as a vestigial organ supposedly
proving something or other about evolution. THIS IS NOT THE CASE;
a terminal appendix is a fairly common feature in the cecum of mammals..."
Many sources (encyclopedias, textbooks, etc.) still erroneously state
that the appendix is useless. Interestingly, the Grolier Multimedia
Encyclopedia states in one place that In humans the cecum and
appendix have no important function, and in another place that
the appendix is now thought to be one of the sites where immune
responses are initiated (Hartenstein, 1995). The appendix is,
in fact, loaded with lymphatic tissue, making it a part of the body's
vast immunological system.
For additional information about the function of the appendix, and
for the most thorough treatment of the entire subject of vestigial organs,
the reader is referred to the CRS
monograph by Bergman and Howe (1990).
Bird, W.R. 1989. The Origin of Species Revisited, Volume
2. Phiolosophical Library, New York.
Noble, Ian. 1997. School mural bugs young Christians - Creationists
uncomfortable with evolutionary art theme. North Shore News,
North Vancouver, B.C. Canada.
Bliss, R.B. 1978. A Comparison of Students Studying the Origin
of Life from a Two-Model Approach vs. Those Studying from a Single-Model
Approach. ICR Impact 60.
Futuyma, D.J. 1983. Science on Trial. Pantheon Books,
Romer, A.S. 1970. The Vertebrate Body. W.B. Saunders
Co., Philadelphia, PA.
Hartenstein, Roy. 1995. Appendix and Intestine
in Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. Grolier Electronic Publishing,
Bergman, J. and G. Howe. 1990. Vestigial Organs
Are Fully Functional. CRS Monograph No. 4. Creation Research Society,
Saint Joseph, MO.
by Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution
(Brooklyn, NY: The Judaica Press, 1997) by Lee Spetner, Ph.D. 272
Reviewed by Ashby L. Camp, J.D., M.Div.
Ashby has a J.D. degree from Duke University
School of Law and a M.Div. degree from Harding University Graduate School
of Religion. He is the author of The
Myth of Natural Origins: How Science Points to Divine Creation
(Tempe, AZ: Ktisis Publishing, 1994).
Lee Spetner received the Ph.D. degree in
physics from MIT in 1950 and joined the Applied Physics Laboratory at
Johns Hopkins University the following year. He spent most of his career
doing research and development on information processing in electronic
systems, and in teaching information and communication theory. In 1962
he accepted a year's fellowship in the Department of Biophysics at Johns
Hopkins where he was to solve problems in the extraction of signal from
noise in DNA electronmicrographs. During that fellowship, he learned
much about biology.
Between 1964 and 1970, Dr. Spetner published several papers in the
professional literature dealing with various aspects of evolutionary
theory. His work appeared in Journal of Theoretical Biology, Proceedings
2nd International Congress on Biophysics, IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory, and Nature. He then returned to his regular work, but he continued
to follow the developments in molecular biology and genetics. His vast
reading on evolution has gained him a true command of the subject.
"Whoever thinks macroevolution
can be made by such mutations is like the merchant who lost
a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up
The first three chapters of the book are introductory but important.
Chapter 1 provides some historical background, chapter 2 explains some
essential facts about biology, and chapter 3 describes the neo-Darwinian
theory of evolution.
The core of Dr. Lee Spetners challenge to neo-Darwinian theory
(NDT) is in chapters 4 and 5. He points out that evolutionists have
repeatedly stressed that NDT is based on random genetic changes, meaning
changes which are not related to the needs of the organism, and not
biased toward adapting the organism to its environment. The question
is not whether evolution is random but whether the genetic variation
on which natural selection works is random. When evolutionists say that
evolution is not random, they mean only that natural selection produces
a nonrandom result from the random genetic variation.
The second requirement of NDT is that the random mutations which fuel
it must also, on average, add information to the genome. If evolution
built up the complexity of life, then it must also have built up the
information underlying that complexity.
A minority of evolutionists say that macroevolutionary change is more
often a single, large, random change than it is a chain of small ones.
They say that large changes in phenotype come mainly from mutations
of regulatory genes, but Spetner rejects the notion that such genetic
rearrangements can serve as the random variation required by NDT. He
does so for two reasons:
(1) There is good reason to believe that these complex genetic rearrangements
are not random. They seem to be deliberate acts performed on behalf
of the cell (or the organism) which involve special enzymes and structures.
Insertions are made so they can be precisely removed, and inversions
are made so they can be precisely reversed.
(2) The claim that evolution is due to such mutations of regulatory
genes does not account for how information can build up in the genome.
The only kind of regulatory changes evolutionists have suggested so
far, insertions and inversions, are ways of turning existing genes
OFF and ON. If they turn ON a regulatory gene, they can bring into
play a complex function or a whole system of functions, but the information
must already be in the genome.
Most evolutionists, on the other hand, hold that a large evolutionary
change occurs through a long chain of small steps (cumulative selection).
They maintain that the mutations in these small steps are copying errors,
which everyone agrees are random. But, according to Spetner, the chance
of getting the necessary mutations is just too small if it's done through
cumulative selection. (See sidebar for Spetners
Regarding the requirement that the random mutations which fuel NDT
must, on average, add information to the genome, Spetner examines the
examples of adaptive mutations that are touted as prototypes of macroevolution
(resistance of bacteria to antibiotics, resistance of insects to pesticides,
breeding of quantitative traits, and adaptation of soil
bacteria to new nutrients) and finds them all wanting. He explains how
none of these mutations adds new information or any new molecular capability.
Instead, they all destroy information. In a memorable line, he says,
Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by such mutations is
like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought
he could make it up on volume.
Spetner points out there are several examples of mutations that permit
bacteria to live on a new nutrient and that seem to add a lot of information.
In fact, some experiments have shown the introduction of an entirely
new enzyme (as opposed to the degradation of an existing one), and recent
experiments have shown that bacteria can mutate to produce new functions
when they are needed. BUT these mutations were not point mutations.
Rather, they appear to be mutations which are triggered by environmental
stimuli and which turn ON existing genes. In other words, they are not
random and do not add information. He believes this kind of plasticity
may be designed into living creatures to allow them to exploit changing
environments, a subject he explores in chapter 7 under the title the
nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis.
Chapter 6 is devoted to exposing the flaws in Richard Dawkins
popular ode to naturalism, The Blind Watchmaker. Spetner ends that chapter
with another great line. He says, The dust jacket of Dawkins
book says, There may be good reasons for belief in G_d, but the
argument from design is not one of them. I would put it differently:
There may be good reasons for being an atheist, but the neo-Darwinian
theory of evolution is not one of them.
Chapter 8 is an epilogue in which Spetner discusses the implications
of the conclusion that evolution cannot be random. Unlike NDT, which
denies creation, he says his nonrandom evolutionary hypothesis poses
no contradiction to creation. Rather, it is perfectly consistent with
the suggestion of Rabbi David Luria (in his commentary to the Midrash)
that 365 basic species of beasts and the same number of birds were originally
created; all the others derived from these.
The book includes a 32-page appendix which explains in more detail
some of the biological functions discussed in the book. It ends with
an 18-page section of references and a 10-page index of people and subjects.
I consider this book to be must reading for those
interested in the creation-evolution issue.
Ashby L. Camp
Not by Chance !...
Spetners Probabilistic Analysis
Spetner presents the following analysis showing why the probability
of getting the needed mutations through cumulative selection is just
G. Ledyard Stebbins, one of the architects of NDT, has estimated that
to evolve a new species would require about 500 steps. For each of these
steps, a mutant with a positive selective value must appear and must
be lucky enough to survive and to eventually take over the population.
Since Stebbins is an expert in the field, and Spetner knows of no prominent
evolutionist who disagrees with his estimate, he accepts this figure
as a reasonable typical value.
Assuming that for each step there is only ONE point mutation (one specific
base of one specific nucleotide) that has a positive selective value,
the odds that this specific nucleotide base will randomly appear depends
on how may reproductions occur during each step. Based on George Gaylord
Simpson's estimates regarding the allegedly well understood evolution
of the horse, it can be calculated that there are about 50 million births
during each evolutionary step.
The chance that a specific nucleotide will mutate in one birth is known
to be 1 in 10 to the 10th power (Spetner did some of the original work
on this). So the chance this will occur over 50 million births (50,000,000
X 10 to the minus 10th power) is 1 in 200. But since there is a roughly
equal chance that the base of the nucleotide will change to any one
of the other three bases (the four nucleotide bases are adenine, guanine,
thymine, and cytosine), the odds of getting a specific change of a specific
nucleotide is 1/200 X 1/3 = 1/600 (i.e., one chance in 600).
Since such a mutation (a point mutation) is the smallest possible mutation,
any selective value it has must also be small. Simpson said a frequent
[selective] value of evolutionary mutations is about 0.1%, meaning
the mutant's average number of surviving offspring is 0.1% higher than
the rest of the population. Sir Ronald Fisher, one of the world's experts
on the mathematics of evolution, showed the odds that a single mutation
having a selective value of 0.1% will survive are 500 to 1 against its
survival (because most mutants, like most other members of a population,
are wiped out by random effects).
So the chance that a specific change (base) of a specific nucleotide
will both occur during a step (1/600) and survive to take over the population
(1/500) is 1/300,000. For this to happen 500 times in a row, the number
of steps estimated to be necessary to achieve a new species, the odds
are 1/300,000 multiplied by itself 500 times. The odds against that
happening are about 3.6 X 10 to the 2738th power to one, or the chance
of its happening is about 2.7 X 10 to the minus 2739th power. This is,
of course, an essential impossibility.
The evolutionist naturally counters that it is unreasonable to assume
there is only ONE point mutation at each step that will have a positive
selective value. If at each of the steps in the process there is more
than ONE potential adaptive mutation, then the odds for evolution improve
accordingly. So Spetner investigates how many possible adaptive mutations
there must be at each step for evolution of a species to have a reasonable
For evolution to have a one in a million chance (1 X 10 to the minus
6th power) of producing a new species through 500 steps, the odds that
a specific change of a specific nucleotide will both occur during a
step and survive to take over the population must be 0.9727 for each
step, or about 36 out of 37 (the probability of each step must be multiplied
by itself 500 times to reach the probability of all 500 steps occurring).
For that to be true, for each step there must be 1,080,000 potential
copying errors with a positive selective value. In other words, only
with that many possible adaptive mutations does one reach the necessary
probability (0.9727 or 36 out of 37) that at least one of the potential
adaptive mutations will both occur and survive to take over the population.
But NDT can find no refuge here. If at each of the 500 steps in the
transition from one species to the next there are over one million potential
adaptive mutations, it would be essentially impossible for the same
trait to ever evolve in two different species. The amount of freedom
is just too great. Yet, evolutionists claim this has happened repeatedly
in what is called convergent or parallel evolution. There are thousands
of examples, but some of the more striking involve ultrasonic echolocation
systems, electrostatic imaging systems, electric generators, visual
systems, and the mammalian brain.
For convergent / parallel evolution to occur, two lines of descent
would have to make the same random choices at many of the 500 steps
of speciation. With one million potential choices at each step, if only
100 of the 500 choices needed to be the same, the odds against it would
be one in 10 to the 600th power. And this is only for convergence in
a single species transition. For convergence of a complicated organ
such as a wing or a kidney or an eye, the probability would be much
smaller because one would need to allow for many species and thus many
thousands of steps.
Evolutionists object to these calculations on the basis that many genotypes
may lead to the same phenotype, so the number of choices at each step
(a million) is too high. But since genotype determines phenotype, freedom
in genotype choices must translate to some degree into freedom in phenotype
choices. If the one million genotype choices at each of the 500 steps
of transition to a new species equate to only 10,000 phenotype choices,
the total number of branches in the 500 steps is still 10 to the 2000th
power. The odds against coming out at the same place twice would still
be essentially impossible.
Moreover, current research is showing that phenotype convergence does
imply genotype convergence. The genes controlling eye development in
both insects and vertebrates have been identified, and they are 94%
identical. This makes convergence so improbable that the authors of
the study say the consensus view that the vertebrate eye and the insect
eye evolved independently has to be reconsidered. Another
recently found example of convergence in the genotype involves the enzyme
lysozyme in the cow and langur monkey (to which Spetner devotes several
The diversity that exists in potential recombinations of existing base
sequences does not, as is sometimes claimed, avoid the probability problem.
Given that about 6,700 of the approximately 100,000 genes of the human
genome come in two versions in the same person (one of each member of
a chromosome pair), there are 10 to the 2017th power different possible
combinations of genes. In order for one of these recombinations to yield
a base sequence with a positive selective value through the relatively
tiny number of recombinations that can actually be achieved in an evolutionary
step, a great many of the potential recombinations (10 to the 1998th
power, without considering the survival factor!) would have to be adaptive.
If that is the case, there is again no place for convergent evolution.
A publication of the Creation Research
Volume 2, Number 4
Copyright © 1997 Creation
All rights reserved.
General Editor: Glen Wolfrom
For membership / subscription
information, advertising rates and information for authors:
P.O. Box 8263
St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263
Articles published in Creation Matters
represent the opinions and beliefs of the authors, and do not
necessarily reflect the official position of the Creation Research
© Copyright 2001-2013, Creation
Research Society. All rights reserved.
Copyright & Permissions