Volume 3, Number 6 November December 1998
A bimonthly newsletter of the Creation Research Society.

CRS Home Page

This Web version of Creation Matters lacks the "Creation Calendar" as well as photos and special announcements found only in the print version. The latter is automatically sent to members of the CRS along with the peer-reviewed CRS Quarterly.

Contents:
Men and Women of Mathematics and of God
Former Iowa State University Dean Retires From CRS Board
Current Trends in Creationist Research: A Report on the 1998 International Conference on Creationism
Book Review — Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe
Commentary — Evangelist Stephen Jay Gould at McGill University
Testimony — I Was There
Dear CRS — Help for a Fourth Grader

Men and Women of Mathematics and of God
by Don B. DeYoung

Introduction: In 1982 an important book was written by Henry Morris titled Men of Science Men of God (Morris, 1982). The volume has been a great encouragement to Christians with an interest in the history of science. The book also reminds practicing scientists of the rich biblical foundation of modern science, now nearly forgotten. This article applies the same theme to mathematicians. Some names may be unfamiliar today, but during their lives these men and women were household names. Each person listed made fundamental contributions to our mathematical understanding of the Creation. Not all the included names necessarily represent the young-earth creation position, but their testimonies are strong.

Niels Henrik Abel (1802-1829) was born in poverty in Kristiania, Norway. When his pastor father died, eighteen-year old Niels cared for his mother and six siblings while managing to study mathematics during free moments. He soon was making major contributions in trigonometry theory, especially the study of difficult transcendental functions. Abel also founded group theory, a major field of math today. The class of abelian groups are named in his honor. He always maintained the Christianity of his youth, and family poverty did not dispel an optimistic outlook on life. Unfortunately, Abel’s life was cut short at age twenty-six by a tuberculosis epidemic.

Maria Gaetana Agnesi (1718-1799) was one of the most extraordinary women scholars of all time. By age ten this girl from Milan, Italy had mastered French, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages. She soon followed her father into the world of mathematics. Maria expanded the known calculus of her day, writing Analytical Institutions in two large volumes. Only her womanhood prevented Maria from honored membership in the mathematical societies of her day. Her Catholic faith grew in personal importance over the years. Around age 45 she began to devote all her time to helping the sick and poor around her. She took charge of a local hospital and became known as “an angel of consolation.” Upon her death Maria was buried alongside some of the patients she had cared for. This dear woman combined an outstanding mathematics career with a life of sacrificial Christian service.

George Boole (1815-1864) was an English mathematician who helped establish symbolic logic, now called Boolean Algebra. Though he was trained as a preacher, Boole’s binary mathematical abilities soon blossomed. His unique algebraic system waited until the modern digital electronics revolution to find widespread application. Boole had great interest in the spiritual welfare of youth. In a sermon to young men he said, “Would that some part of the youthful enthusiasm of this present assembly might thus expend itself in labors of benevolence! Would that we could all feel the deep weight and truth of the Divine sentiment that ‘no man liveth to himself and no man dieth to himself.’” This truth is taken from Romans 14:7. Boole’s final words were the request that his five young daughters not fall into the hands of the liberal preachers of his day.

Augustin-Louis Cauchy (1789-1857) is well known in mathematics. He did much original work in differential equation solutions and in understanding group theory. During the last 19 years of his life Cauchy produced over 500 technical papers explaining the mathematical foundations of mechanics, physics, and astronomy. He was the first to fully explain the important mathematical concepts of limit and convergence of functions. He was brought up in a French Catholic family. Cauchy took his faith seriously and was very evangelistic toward others. His final words were to the Archbishop of Paris who was at his side: “Men pass away but their deeds abide.”

Augustus De Morgan (1806-1871) was a world-class mathematician who founded symbolic logic along with George Boole. Nearly two centuries later, this field of mathematics is essential to the growth of digital electronics. De Morgan was a Christian with strong principles. He was never awarded his graduate degree from Trinity College in England because he refused to sign a questionable doctrinal statement. A sentence in De Morgan’s will reads: “I commend my future with hope and confidence to Almighty God; to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom I believe in my heart to be the Son of God but whom I have not confessed with my lips because in my time such confession has always been the way up in the world.”

Leonhard Euler (1707-1783) was the son of a Calvinist pastor and lived in Switzerland. One of the greatest mathematicians of all time, Euler always remained close to his Christian roots. Although he became blind in later years, Euler still managed to author outstanding mathematics papers and books totaling 70 volumes. He was thus one of the most prolific mathematicians of all time. Euler was a family man with 13 children, and he claimed that his home was his joy. Euler’s contemporaries included the French atheists Voltaire and Denis Diderot. A popular story shows that Euler enjoyed humor. One day, in the presence of Russia’s Catherine the Great, Euler and Diderot debated theology. Euler said, “Sir, (a+bn)/n = x, hence God exists. What is your reply?” Diderot, not recognizing a meaningless formula, sat in embarrassed silence. The room erupted in laughter, and Diderot soon retreated to his home in France.

Willem Jacob s’Gravesande (1688- 1742) was an outstanding Dutch mathematician. His Mathematical Elements of Physics (1720) promoted the creationist views of his contemporary Isaac Newton. s’Gravesande wrote that the task of physics was to determine the laws of nature as laid down by the Creator, and to unfold their regular operation throughout the universe. Newton agreed with this lofty job description for scientists.

Christian Huygens (1629-1695) was Europe’s greatest mathematician during his lifetime. His accomplishments included the invention of the pendulum clock in 1656, geometry theorems, optics laws, and the discovery of Saturn’s largest moon, Titan, in 1655. He also developed the wave theory of light. Huygens reasoned in a 1690 book that God’s providence and wisdom are made manifest in the creation and complexity of living things.

Leopold Kronecker (1823-1891) was born the son of prosperous Jewish parents in Liegnitz, Poland. Kronecker’s name today appears often in mathematical physics. For example, the Kronecker delta function is named in his honor. He made important contributions in the theory of algebra, elliptic functions, and calculus. Kronecker had a special fondness for the beauty of whole numbers. He once jokingly said, “God made the integers, all the rest is the work of man.” Each of Kronecker’s six children embraced the Christian faith. Following their example, Kronecker himself converted from Judaism to evangelical Christianity in the final year of his life.

Colin Maclaurin (1698-1746) was the son of a Scottish pastor. As an outstanding mathematician, Maclaurin was invited to join the British Royal Society at age 21. The Maclaurin series, a special case of the Taylor series, is used universally in modern mathematics to expand functions. Maclaurin held an unwavering belief in God and in the future life, which he explained in a published article about Isaac Newton. After his death in 1746, Maclaurin’s friend Alexander Munro paid tribute to him with these words: “He was more nobly distinguished from the bulk of mankind by the qualities of the heart: his sincere love of God and men, his universal benevolence and unaffected piety together with a warmth and constancy in his friendship that was in a manner peculiar to himself.”

Pierre Louis de Maupertuis (1698-1759) distinguished himself in mathematics, physics, and biology. He was an early president of the French Academy of Science. Maupertuis did initial studies on the principle of least action which describes a tendency of nature to function in the most efficient way possible. For example, light always follows the path of least time when traveling between two points. Maupertuis wrote in 1756, “These [conservation] laws, so beautiful and so simple, are perhaps the only ones which the Creator and Organizer of things has established in matter in order to effect all the phenomena of the visible world.”

Marin Mersenne (1588-1648) was a close friend of the creationist astronomer Pierre Gassendi. Mersenne advanced the study of acoustics, mechanics, and optics. As one example, in 1634 he discovered the well-known law that the period of a pendulum varies as the square root of its length. He also described the mathematical details of the cycloid curve. A Bible believer, Mersenne’s 1623 book Questions in Genesis defended Christianity against, in his words, “atheists, magicians, deists and suchlike.”

Charles Sanders Pierce (1839-1914) made mathematical contributions in many areas. He studied associative algebra, the theory of aggregates, transfinite arithmetic, and probability. Pierce was also interested in the integrity and well-being of American society. In an article on mathematical logic titled The Red and the Black, Pierce showed that hope for the future is essential for a community’s health. He went on with these words, “As for the other two sentiments which I find necessary, they are so only as supports and accessories of that. It interests me to notice that these three sentiments seem to be pretty much the same as that famous trio of Charity, Faith, and Hope, which, in the estimation of St. Paul, are the finest and greatest of spiritual gifts. Neither Old nor New Testament is a textbook of the logic of science, but the latter is certainly the highest existing authority in regard to the dispositions of heart which a man ought to have.”

John Henry Pratt (1809-1871) made early studies of the exact mathematical shape of the earth, which is not quite spherical due to its rotational motion. His analysis led to the oblate shape, a sphere slightly flattened at the poles, which is accepted today for the earth. Pratt also correctly calculated the earth’s radius and the processional motion of its axis. The son of missionaries, Pratt spent his life sharing the gospel with others. He believed that science and Scripture were complementary avenues for learning about the Creator. He died in India while on a missionary tour of duty, at age 62.

Andreas Tocquet (1612-1660) taught mathematics in several European universities. He originated many theorems, especially those involving the geometry of cylinders and rings. A master teacher and writer, Tocquet’s textbooks were used by generations of mathematics students. He maintained a lifetime devotion to the Catholic faith and was known for a positive Christian testimony before his students.

John Wallis (1616-1703) was a mathematics professor at Oxford University in England. His 1656 book Arithmetica Infinitorum contains many original theorems and derivations concerning conic sections. Wallis originated the use of the “lazy eight” symbol for infinity. He also was the first to suggest the physics law of conservation of momentum, in 1668. During 1690-1692 Wallis published a series of letters and sermons in support of the Holy Trinity which he directed against Unitarian opponents. As a helpful illustration he compared the mystery of the Trinity to a mathematical cube with its three dimensions of length, width, and height. All three sides equally make up the cube, yet are distinct. Wallis’ lifelong faith was supported by a Puritan upbringing and lifelong membership in the Church of England.

Edmund Taylor Whittaker (1873-1956) did original mathematics work with differential equations and complex variables. His book The Calculus of Observations (1924) was one of the first written expressions of numerical analysis. His outstanding lectures at the University of Edinburgh motivated mathematics careers for an entire generation of students. Whittaker was a deeply religious scholar. He wrote that he deplored the trends of modern life in which “the sense of the creatureliness and dependence has passed away, and God is left out of account.”

Conclusion: In 1996, one thousand randomly-selected scientists were asked about personal beliefs. The results were surprising: 39.3 percent expressed faith in a personal God. A similar survey eighty years earlier in 1916 gave a similar 41.8 percentage for belief in the Creator. Those who predict the imminent demise of Christianity in today’s technological world are clearly wrong. A biblical faith is important to true science and mathematical understanding at all times, including the past, present, and future.

Reference

Morris, Henry. 1982. Men of Science Men of God. Institute for Creation Research. San Diego.

Dr. DeYoung is Professor of Physics at Grace College in Winona Lake, Indiana, and is Vice-President of the Creation Research Society. This article is excerpted from a future creationist biographical book on which he is working.

Former Iowa State University Dean Retires From CRS Board
by David A. Kaufmann, Ph.D.

In the mid 1970's I read that there was a secular, state university that had a Dean of the College of Engineering who was a creationist. I couldn't believe my eyes. As a creationist research professor at a large, state university in Florida, I knew how hard it is for a creation scientist to get tenure and be promoted. But a creationist becoming a top administrator, a Dean of an entire College — that sounded almost impossible. Of course, that creationist Dean was none other than Dr. David R. Boylan, who is now retiring from the Board of Directors of the Creation Research Society (CRS).

    Dr. Boylan went to Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa in 1948 as an Assistant Professor of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics. He earned the Ph.D. in chemical engineering in 1952. By 1959 he was a Full Professor and Associate Director of the Iowa State Engineering Research Institute which utilized over $4 million a year in research contracts.

    In 1970 Dr. Boylan was named Dean of the College of Engineering at Iowa State University where he served until July of 1988. He presided over a period of significant growth with the enrollment of the College of Engineering growing from 2,500 students in 1970 to 5,800 students in 1988. Dave Boylan resigned from the Dean's position at the age of 65, but he did not retire. He went back to teaching, finally retiring from secular academia in May of 1992.

    I first met Dave Boylan in April of 1983 at a CRS Board of Directors meeting at Ann Arbor, Michigan. He served on the Board for 21 years (1977 to 1998). Due to the age limitation in the CRS Constitution, he is no longer eligible to serve. For years he was Chairman of the Constitution/Advanced Planning Committee. All my dealings with Dave Boylan were fantastic. He was always organized, efficient, punctual, and worked through any problems that arose. He always had an attitude of humility and servant hood. I never once saw him ramrod his ideas or ways on anyone on the Board. He was more of a “go-giver” than a “go-getter.” What a pleasure to serve with a man who was a real servant-leader. How fortunate were those faculty members in the College of Engineering at Iowa State to work under a leader with his traits.

    Although Dave Boylan has retired from secular academia and the CRS Board, he has not retired from serving his Creator, Savior and Comforter. Presently he is a Professor and Special Counsel to the President of Faith Baptist Bible College, Ankeny, Iowa. The CRS Board will continue each year conducting its business. But we will do it without Dave Boylan. I personally will miss his humble input and faithful service. Thanks, Dave, for allowing me the privilege of working with you these past 15 years.

Dr. Kaufmann is Secretary of the CRS Board of Directors. He recently retired from his position as Professor of Exercise Science at the University of Florida.

Current Trends in Creationist Research:
A Report on the 1998 International Conference on Creationism
by Richard Overman, M. S. and Virginia (Ginger) Overman

This is a personal account and summary of current trends in creationist research. It is based on my observations and impressions after attending the Fourth International Conference on Creationism (ICC). The purpose of this report is twofold: 1) To allow me to gather and synthesize my thoughts, impressions, and memories of the conference. 2) To provide a summary of the conference for those who could not attend, so they can have the benefit of knowing what is going on in creationist research. Obviously, the papers, information, and topics covered in this report will primarily be the ones that made the biggest impression on me. While I will attempt to be as thorough as possible, something of importance to someone else reading this report may be omitted. Finally, as there were two simultaneous tracks, I was not able to attend all of the lectures. Hence, the reporting on those lectures that I did not attend is based on the papers as printed in the proceedings and audio tapes of selected lectures that were of interest to me.

    There was also a third track, which was an educational track. Ginger attended most of those sessions. Her thoughts, impressions, and conclusions are included in the educational section of this report.

About the Conference

Held every four years, the ICC is sponsored by Creation Science Fellowship (CSF) of Pittsburgh. This conference was held August 3-8, 1998 at Geneva College in Beaver Falls, PA near Pittsburgh. Approximately 350 scientists, teachers, and general public attended the conference.

    CSF did a marvelous job of hosting this year’s conference. I was impressed with how well organized it was and how smoothly it was run. As a host site, Geneva College was superb. The food service in the cafeteria was excellent. I was also impressed with the meeting rooms and auditorium. Sound, lighting, and seating were all very good.

Technical Sessions (General)

There were 47 technical papers presented at this conference and provided in the book of proceedings. One paper in the proceedings was not presented and one paper was presented over 2 sessions. For the purposes of a general overview, I have divided the papers into general categories. The general categories are Astronomy, Biblical Studies, Biology (which includes papers dealing with studies of biological fossils), Geology, Physics (including Astro-Geophysics), and Social Sciences (including papers dealing with worldviews and law). The number of papers representing the various categories is shown in Table 1. This categorization is my own — others may group the papers differently, especially since some of the papers cover more than one category. Table 1 reflects only the papers published in the proceedings, and does not include the evening sessions and the education track.

    Observation of Table 1 shows that the preponderance of papers focused on Biology, Geology, and Physics. Note that the Social Sciences, Biblical Studies, and especially Astronomy are not well represented. In his presentation on the final night of the conference, Dr. Kurt Wise indicated that the fields of Geology and Biology are the furthest along in developing creationist models. The number of papers in those fields confirms that the focus of research is indeed in those areas. Hence, it would not be surprising that they would be the furthest along. It should be noted that some of the Astro-Geophysics papers that I included in the Physics category could be included with Geology, which would make that the highest category. Dr. Wise considered Geology to be further along than Biology.

Important Advances

In this section I will highlight a few of the papers that stood out to me as making critically important advances to Creation Science.

    Age of the Earth: First is a paper by Andrew Snelling of Australia, which was voted to be the best technical paper. It is entitled, “The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-Argon ‘Ages’ for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon ‘Dating’”. Please do not be intimidated by the title. (I would be.) The impact of this paper on the creation/evolution debate is simple and profound.

    Dr. Snelling collected samples of solidified lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe. The lava flows are known to have solidified in 1949, 1954, and 1975. He had these samples Potassium-Argon dated with indicated ages ranging from less than 270,000 years to 3,500,000 years. Standard dating methods maintain that Argon (40Ar) does not begin to accumulate in a lava rock until it solidifies. In other words, while the lava is still liquid, the argon is able to escape. The problem is that these samples showed ages of hundreds of thousands of years when we know that they solidified less than 50 years ago. If they solidified less than 50 years ago and the standard dating methods are correct, there should not be enough Argon in the rocks to obtain ages of hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Since we know when they solidified, then the only alternative left is that the standard dating methods are flawed.

    Finding extra Argon in lava rocks is not new, but Dr. Snelling went much further and concluded that the extra Argon appears to have come from “leftover primordial argon” in the upper mantle. In other words, the kind of Argon that is measured in Potassium-Argon dating schemes has existed from creation. He concludes that this has two very important implications. “First, this is clearly consistent with a young Earth, where the very short time-scale since the creation of the Earth has been insufficient for all of the primordial argon to be released yet from the Earth’s deep interior.”

    The second implication is that “when samples of crustal rocks are analyzed for [Potassium-Argon] ‘dating’, the investigators can never really be sure that the 40Ar in the sample is from in situ radioactive decay … or whether some or all of it is from the excess 40Ar” in the mantle. In short, Dr. Snelling has scientifically shown that the zero initial condition assumption of radiometric dating is probably a very bad assumption. This means that when a scientist measures Argon in a rock sample, he or she has no way of knowing how much of the Argon is due to radioactive decay and how much was there to begin with. Hence, there is no way of knowing how “old” the rock is. We hope and expect to be able to show these same results with other radiometric dating techniques, and to destroy radiometric dating as the savior of an old earth.

    Categorizing Species: Another paper that piqued my interest and that, I believe, may have very significant implications on the creation/evolution debate was a paper entitled “Is Life Singularly Nested or Not?” by Dr. Kurt Wise. Dr. Wise addressed the area of animal classifications, such as, mammals, reptiles, vertebrates, primates, etc. One of the dilemmas that creationists have had is that evolution seems to explain the current way of organizing organisms better than does creation. This should not be surprising since evolutionists invented it. Even though they invented it, they still have to play games with animal characteristics in order to make their systems work.

    Dr. Wise showed that trying to fit the animals into a single pattern, which is called singularly nested, is an exercise in futility. Many “best” groupings can be identified for the animals. In other words, depending on which characteristics you are looking at, a single animal could be included in multiple groups. Computer modeling has shown that there are many ways to organize the animal kingdom, and any one of the ways could be considered the “best” way. This is called multi-nesting. Dr. Wise proposes a multi-nested approach to classifying animals and ends with the following conclusion.

“The unique nested pattern of life memorized by our children in secondary school is pointed to as evidence of macroevolution in tertiary schools. This contributes to the faith-challenges encountered by our children in evolutionary education. If life is networked or multiple-nested, and our children were taught a proper perspective on that, the appeal to bio-classification as evidence of macroevolution would be nullified.”

    Vapor Canopy: The next paper I will address is on a topic I have been following for a few years which, in my opinion, represents one of the best examples of creationist research. For years creationists have proposed that God placed a vapor canopy around the earth on the second day of creation. It is believed by many that the collapse of this canopy was the cause of the 40 days and nights of rain during the time of the flood. David Rush and Dr. Larry Vardiman tested this theory with computer modeling and gave their initial report at the third ICC in 1994. The report was not encouraging. They found that if there was enough water in the canopy to provide substantial amounts of rain for 40 days and nights, the temperature on earth would be too hot for people to live. In order to get the earth surface temperatures down to a tolerable level, there could only be enough water in the canopy for a few feet of rain on the earth. This came as a major surprise to the creationist community and has caused us to open new lines of scientific inquiry into the meaning of “the windows of heaven were opened” as the Bible describes one source of water for the flood.

    Dr. Vardiman provided an update to this research at this ICC. He has refined the computer modeling but has not been able to account for substantially more water in the canopy. This line of research, to date, does not show that the canopy did not exist. It only shows that the canopy could not have been a substantial source of water for the flood. The research continues, but it needs to be more widely disseminated. Many popularizers of creation are still touting the canopy as the source of water for the 40 days and nights of rain. Research to date indicates this may not have been the case.

    Neanderthal Man: Finally, I will discuss a fascinating paper by Dr. John Cuozzo entitled “What Happened to the Cranifacial Structure of Humans who Live Past 100 Years? Neanderthal Similarities.” Dr. Cuozzo has been researching Neanderthal fossils for a number of years. He has also been researching changes to the human head and face with aging. He stated that “The picture that we get here is of an aging skull which, in general terms, grows much longer, a little wider with practically no increase and sometimes decrease in height.”

    He also noted that other researchers have found that “the cranium throughout life continues to thicken in certain places.” By compiling data from extensive studies, Dr. Cuozzo and Brian Garner were able to develop a computer model of modern human head and facial changes with age. With the computer model, they were able to predict what a human face and head would look like at age 500. Comparing their computer predictions with Neanderthal skulls, he concluded that “Evidence has been presented for the Neanderthal peoples to actually be the old humans described in the Bible.”

Importance of the ICC

The papers summarized above highlight the importance of conferences like the ICC. One of the conference participants commented that “most of the prominent popularizers of creation science are not here.” He was right and his comment was saddening. God has given me a ministry of teaching the truths of creation wherever he sends me. One reason I attended the ICC was so I could keep current on creation research. As a non-prominent popularizer of creation science, I would not want to be teaching untruths while teaching the truths of God’s creation. I believe everyone who speaks on creation science has an obligation to keep current on creationist research. (I shall gracefully descend from my soapbox at this time.)

My Paper

Of the 150, or so, papers that started the peer review process, I had the privilege of presenting one of the 47 that were selected. My paper, entitled “Comparing Origins Belief and Moral Views,” was a report on my Masters Thesis at the Institute for Creation Research. As I became more involved in creation science, I kept hearing a common refrain similar to “what you believe about creation and evolution affects your moral views.” While this seemed reasonable, I began to ask myself “how do we know this?” I wondered if there were any scientific data to support this view. People who made this claim would often support their idea with philosophical or anecdotal information, but I could not find any empirical studies to support this claim. So, I conducted a survey of K-12 science teachers in America.

    The survey was designed to measure their beliefs about creation and evolution as well as measure their moral views. When I compared their origins beliefs to their moral views I found that there is, indeed, a relationship. Those who tended to believe in creation tended to have “positive” moral views (moral views that are consistent with the character of God as revealed in scripture). Those who believed in evolution tended to have negative moral views. The survey was not designed to determine whether one caused the other. It was only designed to see if there was a relationship.

    More research needs to be done to see if there is cause and effect. I hope that this will be the first of many studies and will serve to open a new line of scientific inquiry in creation science. If we can conclusively show that a person’s belief about creation and evolution affects his or her moral views, maybe God’s church will take this issue more seriously and understand the danger of compromising with evolutionary religious beliefs. (Since this is my paper, I guess I’m allowed another soapbox.)

Educational Track

None of the papers published in the ICC proceedings were from the educational track. I was left with impressions of how the truths of creation should be taught in the public education arena. Many of the speakers relayed their personal experiences — some positive, but mostly negative. I will attempt to summarize the advice I gleaned from the papers.

    Do not bring up the subject of God, just stick with the science. Dave Nutting, from Alpha Omega Institute in Colorado, says that when students in public schools ask him who he thinks the Creator or Designer is, he answers by saying he believes that He is the God of the Bible. If they are interested in knowing more about that, they can attend the church meeting at which he is speaking.

    Videotape the session. Dave Nutting always videotapes his sessions so that if anyone sues him, he has protection and proof of exactly what he did.

    Get permission from those in authority over you. Let the principal or others who are in authority over you know what you plan to do. Several attribute keeping their jobs to doing just that.

    Get personal counsel (be proactive) before you start. Legal actions brought against teachers often occur within a period of a few days. If you wait until then to get a personal lawyer, you will probably still be waiting for an appointment when everything is over and a decision has already been made.

    Mark Wisniewski wishes he had procured personal counsel before the whole mess started with him. He was using the issue of creation/evolution to teach his students critical thinking skills. A student wrote in the school paper a praise of Wisniewski’s technique. The press picked it up and the ACLU came in and threatened lawsuit of the school system. As a result, neither he nor any other teacher can address any controversial topic. Mark attributes keeping his job to his being a member of the teacher’s union. A union lawyer, who he assumed would be representing him, told Wisniewski that he had not done anything wrong. A few days later he went to the scheduled meeting with the school administration. However, just minutes before the meeting a different lawyer arrived to represent him, and told him that what he was doing was illegal. He hadn’t even had an opportunity to talk with the new lawyer to explain what he had been doing.

    Don’t be cooperative with the press. Mark Wisniewski was interviewed by the press who turned everything around, misrepresenting what he was trying to do in class. In hindsight, he would not have tried to answer to them.

    Make sure you have tenure before you start to teach anything about creation. Dr. Kenyon, a university professor, introduced his students to creation and the problems with evolution, but he waited until after he had tenure. Then, even though some action was taken, he could not be fired. The resulting action was that he could only address the topic in 5% of his classes. He figured out that he could teach the topic in one or two of his classes.

    According to Robert Melnick, a lawyer with the Rutherford Institute, the ACLU is waiting with their guns loaded and millions of dollars to challenge any teacher who teaches creation and the problems of evolution. This is not to scare you away. It is reality. One thing I would suggest is joining one of the alternative teachers’ groups (alternative to the NEA) who told me they would back up teachers financially if they were taken to court. Check with them to be sure that they will indeed back you up, and be sure it is in writing. One organization I have spoken to is the Christian Educators Association International (818-798-1124).

Conclusion

I am very excited about the current trends in creationist research. I have come to believe that the age of the earth is one of the most crucial issues in the creation/evolution debate. If we can conclusively show that the earth and universe are not millions of years old, we will have won the battle that will break the back of evolutionary philosophy. Scientists working on this issue are making great strides.

    It is also exciting to see where the research trends in Biology are going. I’m heartened to see that creationist biologists are casting off evolutionary-based baggage like the current species classification system. They are opening their hearts and minds to other possibilities. In so doing, they are more open to the leading of the Holy Spirit as they attempt to “think God’s thoughts after him.”

    The one area where I believe creationist efforts are severely lacking is Astronomy. If we are going to win the age-of-the-universe battle, we must answer the question of millions of light years. There are also many other lines of scientific inquiry in Astronomy that need to be addressed. I pray that God will raise up more creationist astronomers who are willing to shed evolutionary-based baggage and be willing to open their hearts and minds to the leading of the Holy Spirit so God can reveal His truth.

    May God grant us the wisdom, courage, and love for one another to carry on and solve the mysteries of His creation. I pray that we will be united in one common goal of glorifying God and exposing the myth of evolution.

Rich Overman’s master’s degree is in science education. He can be reached at Creation Education Resources, Inc., P.O. Box 1853, Orange Park, FL 32067-1853.

Book Review

Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe
(New York: The Free Press, 1998) by Michael J. Denton. 448 pages, $27.50 (hardcover)
Reviewed by Peter Line, Ph.D.

The major thesis of the book is “that the cosmos is uniquely fit for human existence” (p. xii), and evidence of such unique fitness is presented. Denton builds his case by accumulating arguments to such an extent that it almost becomes repetitive, which is acknowledged by the author. He argues that it is precisely because so many arguments can be made that he can draw his conclusion. Whilst facts concerning the unique conditions necessary for biological life are not new, Denton's book does an excellent job in presenting them.

    Denton appears to accept the whole evolution scenario, from the Big Bang to the Big Brain; that is, that all phenomena in the cosmos can be explained in terms of a natural evolutionary process (p. xviii). Where his views differ from the standard orthodoxy is in the method of evolution. Instead of random mutations as the raw material on which natural selection works, Denton proposes that evolution has been a directed process from the beginning. Denton suggests that the direction of evolution was preprogrammed or preordained when the universe came into existence, but appears to accept that since then evolution has run its course without added assistance. Hence, biological evolution occurs naturalistically, in a sense, but it can only follow genetic paths already mapped out for it ahead of time. According to this idea the pathways available to each organism, as the evolutionary tree of life branches out over time, are severely restricted by the options available to it in DNA space.

    In the beginning of the book Denton makes it clear that the teleological argument presented is incompatible with a belief in special creation, to the extent that evidence for one is evidence against the other (p. xviii). I found this reasoning a bit strange as Denton's main evidence, as presented in the book, is the unique fitness of life on earth — that is, that organisms are optimally designed for their role. A creationist would, quite reasonably, cite this as evidence for a designer. Denton adds that evidence for his case would be consistent with or supported if “life on earth approximates to the plenitude of all possible biological forms” (p. 299). Such a notion is impossible to prove, but even if it could be shown to be true I also fail to see how this could be used as evidence against special creation.

    Denton toys with the possibility that junk DNA may have coded for some of the direction that biological evolution has taken over time. In fact, he states that “Junk DNA and directed evolution are in the end incompatible concepts. Only if the junk DNA contained information specifying for future evolutionary events, when it would not in a strict sense be junk in any case, could the finding be reconciled with a teleological model of evolution” (p. 289-291). Many creationists would also support the idea that what is currently labeled as junk DNA may yet be shown to have a purpose, although not an evolutionary one.

    The main argument Denton puts forth to support the notion of directed evolution is that the universe and earth, with their laws of physics, chemistry, etc., are uniquely fit to support life, and that any slight variation to one of many constants would make life almost impossible. Included in his argument is that life, if it exists elsewhere in the universe, must of necessity be similar to that on earth. This is because there is not, according to his theory, the flexibility for life to evolve in any other major way. In fact, Denton states that his hypothesis, based on the anthropocentric presumption, would be disproved if it were demonstrated that life systems based on different designs are possible, or if examples were shown where “the laws of nature are not specifically fit for life as it exists on earth” (p. 380).

    The book is full of illustrations of how finely tuned are the conditions for life, and how tinkering with any part of the system would have catastrophic results. Some examples discussed include “the fitness of water for carbon-based life, the mutual fitness of sunlight and life, the fitness of oxygen and oxidations as a source of energy for carbon-based life, the fitness of carbon dioxide for the excretion of the products of carbon oxidation, the fitness of bicarbonate as a buffer for biological systems” (p. 391), etc.

    Denton also discusses “complex and unusual adaptations whose evolution is very difficult to account for in terms of a gradual accumulation of successively advantageous changes” (p. 354). Among the complex systems discussed are the eye of the lobster, the eye of the scallop, the marsupial frog, and the avian lung. Here Denton should be commended for pointing out one of the main difficulties with undirected evolution; i.e., how the complex structures seen in some organisms could have come about without pre-planned design.

    In conclusion, Denton’s notion of directed evolution, through a process akin to a type of ‘naturalistic predestination,’ is based on evidence for the unique fitness of complex life forms on earth. The real difficulty with his theory is in explaining how the information coding the path of evolution (both biological and non-biological) was built into the laws of nature at the creation of the universe. For example, since he accepts the Big Bang theory, how can the information to direct evolution to eventually produce the human brain be stored in atoms of hydrogen, of which the matter in the universe was once supposedly comprised.

    This may not be what Denton is saying, but if the whole evolution scenario has been contrived ahead of time then what are the alternatives? There must be some information, either restricting evolution to only follow the pre-planned paths leading to viable alternatives, or directing evolution over hurdles that it can only overcome by assisted jumps. If not, then his theory differs little, if any, from undirected evolution. Hence, the question needs to be asked concerning the whereabouts of the information needed to direct the path of evolution. On this point Denton is vague, leaving the reader with the impression that he is himself very much struggling for answers.

Peter Line is a research neuroscientist living in Carrum Downs, Victoria, Australia.

Commentary

Evangelist Stephen Jay Gould at McGill University
by Laurence Tisdall, M.S.

In his talk, Gould suggested that the future and past are not predictable because chance determines all. Actually, the theory of chaos was mentioned as the main mechanism for turning a single cell into many life forms in a very short span of time (60 million years). He spent much time talking about historical “what if” scenarios in order to point out that a slight change in the result of any particular battle would have resulted in a drastically different historical timeline. He then took this point into the evolutionary realm and maintained that we (homo sapiens) are basically just a glorious accident.

    He also spent some of his time creationist-bashing. He talked about the creation phenomenon in derogatory terms and took pleasure in showing a statue of Agassiz which had fallen from its pedestal in an earthquake and was headfirst in the surrounding cement. He dismissed God by suggesting (and quoting Darwin) that since chance is a determining factor in life, then there is no need for God. During his talk he promoted his idea of “quirky functional shifts” as latent mechanisms of diversification of species. He also suggested that dinosaurs got feathers to aid in thermoregulation and by a “quirk” they eventually got wings to fly (or not as the case may be). It is obvious that Gould has not changed from believing in punctuated equilibrium.

    I am amazed beyond measure at the gullibility of students, teachers and the public in general. There was not an iota of “good” science in this talk. Let me explain:

1. Chance is not a deterministic factor. Chance or probability is simply man’s way of coping with ignorance. We use probability to help us improve our predictions despite our ignorance. Throughout Gould’s talk it was apparent that for him, chance is a real force. It is not.
2. Chaos is not a deterministic factor. Chaos is just a grouping of chance events. If I leave my teenagers at home for the weekend without supervision “chaos” will be MY description of the result; but it is not the determining factor in the production of what I call chaos. The teenagers themselves are the determining factor.
3. The word evolution was misused throughout the talk. Gould talked about peppered moths, and plants growing despite toxic waste, claiming that these are not examples ofevolution because this would mean that evolution happens too fast. Wrong, Dr. Gould. These are not examples of evolution because they are simply examples of population dynamics, and as we creationists have been saying for years, this is natural selection which will only decrease the gene pool and/or decrease adaptability. Gould used the word “evolution” to describe natural selection, chance events, macro-evolution, and historical cultural events. This can be confusing to the average audience, and probably is meant to be so.
4. Quirky functional shifts are used by Gould to explain why one evolutionary group wins out over another. In Gould’s view, these extraordinary evolutionary shifts in organism functionality render a species capable of improvement, with large evolutionary leaps the result. The word “quirky” appears to be used by Gould to explain fossil evidence that doesn’t fit the gradualistic view of evolution. For examples of environmental events that would cause these shifts, he cited the Burgess Shale fossils and the disappearance of dinosaurs due to a meteor hitting the earth. Naturally, he never once suggested a biomolecular mechanism for these quirky functional shifts.
5. Why would dinosaurs evolve feathers for thermoregulation when they were perfectly able to handle thermoregulation before?
6. Gould did not explain why any phylum would become static. (It seems to me that evolution would be better served if all life forms were very plastic and able to adapt quickly). He does, however, admit that stasis is the norm in the geologic column.
7. Gould did not explain how a simple cell can branch out into so many phyla, so quickly (Burgess Shale). It appears that beneficial mutations must be the norm, in Gould’s mind. He claims that chaos theory can explain this without any problem. What faith!

    Gould is definitely in a war with God. He took scripture out of context to try to prove that even the Bible promotes chance (Eccl. 9:11). He is very intelligent and is an evangelist in every respect. He even tried to console people about the future by maintaining that good political decisions will likely keep the undesirables in check. (This statement was made in the context of evolutionary racism such as Naziism.) He said that the universe has no reason for its being — it’s just here. And his “alter call” is for the audience to just accept the fact that they exist, and to make the best of it.

    As a final comment, I do not believe that Gould is a foe of any size for the creationist. He wants to convince his audience that God is not, but that Gould is. I pray for his soul. He truly personifies Romans 1:18-24 and, as can be expected, the world runs to worship him. How sad to see the creature fight the creator, and how sad to know that the end thereof is seeing the Light, understanding the Light, but never being able to live in the Light (Jesus Christ) (John 1:1-4).

Laurence Tisdall’s graduate degree is in botany. He is president and founder of the Creation Science Association of Quebec.

Testimony

I Was There
by Manuel Rios, M.S.

Before I came to believe wholeheartedly in the Bible I believed in evolution. First, because it had the authority and aura of Science (after all, Science had taken us to the moon...). Second, because of intellectual pride: I had good grades at school, I aspired to be an engineer, and Science was my favorite subject. Moreover, following the trends of that moment, I had become a skeptic of those things I was once taught in Catechism and Sunday School, else I would be old fashioned and ridiculed. Third, because it was convenient: it did not threaten my desires for sex out of marriage, nor my desire to be rich, nor my desire for fame.

    However, at the same time I could easily believe in UFO’s. Technological developments made it seem that someday it would be possible to explore the stars. Other factors included the thought that nature could easily sprout life somewhere else in the universe (evolution), and the need for something bigger than life to bring the magic back to everyday reality. Thus I felt "modern," intelligent, enlightened, refined, and proud. But deep inside, I felt alone in the universe, fearful of the future (back then in the ’70s we were in the middle of the Cold War, and nuclear annihilation seemed so real), with cynicism about everything.

    So, believing in evolution is not really such a far-fetched proposal after all; I was there. But it is a religion, similar to Islam, Buddhism, New Age — modern man's religion. At first glance, it doesn't seem a religion, because it supposedly is nonspiritual, void of magic, void of rituals and dogma. But in reality, it is so much so and even more. Although I despised prayer, I could so easily accept transcendental meditation. Believing in evolution made me feel so superior, which reminds me of the ancient line, “you will be like God, knowing everything...”

    In my own life, only family tragedy burst the inflating bubble that was my outlook in life. Family tragedy, like the illness and death of my mom, made me rethink what life was all about. Also, God opened my eyes to my own biases and hypocrisy. All of us tend to think we are good, that we are better than some people. But God allowed me to see my bad side, and this time I couldn’t hide behind someone worse than I. You see, I started looking at Jesus, and once you see his sacrifice for you, there are no more excuses.

    Something else helped me to grow up and change my mind about evolution. I couldn’t trust Billy Graham, but I could easily trust Carl Sagan. I couldn’t believe in the Bible, but I could easily accept as fact every page of National Geographic. I took a look at myself in the mirror, and realized that I had PREJUDICE, that I had a BIAS. We are all in favor of something and against something, but the evolution crowd think that they have a monopoly on fairness and objectivity. I was there. Sometimes our world has to be turned upside down for us to see ourselves as erring creatures, to lower our concepts about ourselves, to look at ourselves and see our shortcomings, to stop the conceit. Once we do that, the Truth becomes clearer.

Manuel Rios is an Aerospace Engineer in the U.S. Navy.

Dear CRS

Help for a Fourth Grader

Many children, together with their parents, are confronted by the subject of origins in public school classrooms. It may surprise some to learn how evolution is sometimes presented in the early elementary grades. This email message was received from a desperate parent.

Dear CRS,

    Last week was not pretty for my fourth grade daughter who attends public school. Jenny had to make a presentation on how the earth was formed and life began. Her presentation was second to last — after other kids had given their mostly evolutionary ideas. With tears in her eyes, she could hardly bring herself to read her three sentences that said she believed God created the earth. She wasn't sure she was right. As it turned out, all but one of her classmates agreed with her when they voted at the end of her time.

    On Tuesday, Sept. 29, she must present one fact, based on recent evidence, that supports her theory of creation. Can you help us come up with a fact or two based on recent research (within the last one to five years) that can be explained by a 9-year-old and understood by the rest of her class? Thanks for any help you can give.

Thank you very much,
Steve ...

The message was forwarded to CRS Board member Dr. Wayne Frair, who provided some information this young girl could use. A few days later, the following email was received from the girl’s father.

Dear CRS,

    This week went great! We were able to send her into the classroom with a couple of facts to back up her “theory” of creation. She confidently raised her hand and went first. Neither my wife nor I were there, but after class the teacher asked for a copy of her presentation!!

    Thank you for your help. The battle is ongoing though. Next week is cave art, though the teacher said they are not going to talk about WHO drew the cave art. That will be followed in October by two University professors (paleontologists), who will do a presentation of some sort. I believe that concludes their prehistoric unit. The rest of the year I will be trying to counteract “environmentalism.” It is mostly an Earth Flag theme, with a lot of “save the earth” undercurrents.

    I don't know... I may just pull her out of this optional “enrichment” class. It’s a little hard to help a fourth grader understand where all this is coming from and where it is headed, etc. Any thoughts?

Thank you so much,
Steve ...

Home | Quarterly Journal | Popular Publication | Membership | Bookstore | Speakers | Donate | Search | Site Map

© Copyright 2001-2010, Creation Research Society. All rights reserved.