Evidence for a Young World
by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

Here are a dozen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers I list below in bold print (often millions of years) are maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the biblical age (6,000 to 10,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the biblical time scale.

Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with an old universe only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a young universe. The list starts with distant astronomic phenomena and works its way down to earth, ending with everyday facts.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast

The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.¹

Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this “the winding-up dilemma,” which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same “winding-up” dilemma also applies to other galaxies.

For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called “density waves.”¹ The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the “Whirlpool” galaxy, M51.²

2. Comets disintegrate too quickly

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years.³

Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical “Oort cloud” well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.⁴ So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.

Lately, there has been much talk of the “Kuiper Belt,” a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

3. Not enough mud on the sea floor

Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.⁵ This material accumulates as loose sediment (i.e., mud) on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the continental shelves, is less than 400 meters.⁶

The main way known to remove the mud from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.⁶ As far as anyone knows, the other 24 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount of sediment in less than 12 million years.

Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged 3 billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of mud within a short time about 5000 years ago.

4. Not enough sodium in the sea

Every year, rivers⁷ and other sources⁹ dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.^8,9 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.⁹ This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, 3 billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.⁹ Calculations¹⁰ for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

5. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast

The total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1000 years.¹¹ Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate.

A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.¹² This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data.¹³ The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 10,000 years old.¹⁴

6. Many strata are too tightly bent

In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.¹⁵

7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic “ages”

Strong geologic evidence¹⁶ exists that the Cambrian Sawatch sandstone - formed an alleged 500 million years ago - of the Ute Pass fault west of Colorado Springs was still unsolidified when it was extruded up to the surface during the uplift of the Rocky Mountains, allegedly 70 million years ago. It is very unlikely that the sandstone would not solidify during the supposed 430 million years it was underground. Instead, it is likely that the two geologic events were less than hundreds of years apart, thus greatly shortening the geologic time scale.

8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years

Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.¹⁷ “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.¹⁸ “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates.^19,20

9. Helium in the wrong places

All naturally-occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If such decay took place for billions of years, as alleged by evolutionists, much helium should have found its way into the earth's atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into account, the atmosphere today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have accumulated in 5 billion years.²¹ This means the atmosphere is much younger than the alleged evolutionary age.

A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years.²²

10. Not enough stone age skeletons

Evolutionary anthropologists say that the stone age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between 1 and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artifacts.²³ By this scenario, they would have buried at least 4 billion bodies.²⁴ If the evolutionary time scale is correct, and if buried bones are able to last for much longer than 100,000 years (as is the case with “70 million-year-old” dinosaurs), then many of the supposed 4 billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the stone age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas.

11. Agriculture is too recent

The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the stone age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.²³ Yet the archaeological evidence shows that stone age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the alleged 4 billion people mentioned in item 10 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture less than a few hundred years after the flood, if at all.²⁴

12. History is too short

According to evolutionists, stone age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4000 to 5000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.²⁵ Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The biblical time scale is much more likely.²⁴

References

1. Scheffler, H. and H. Elsasser, Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter, Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, pp. 352-353, 401-413.
2. D. Zaritsky et al., Nature, July 22, 1993. Sky & Telescope, December 1993, p. 10.
3. Steidl, P. F., “Planets, comets, and asteroids,” in Design and Origins in Astronomy, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983), pp. 73-106.
4. Whipple, F. L., “Background of modern comet theory,” Nature 263 (2 Sept 1976) 15.
5. Gordeyev, V. V. et al., “The average chemical composition of suspensions in the world’s rivers and the supply of sediments to the ocean by streams,” Dockl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR 238 (1980) 150.
6. Hay, W. W., et al., “Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of subduction,” Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, No B12 (10 December 1988) 14,933-14,940.
7. Maybeck, M., “Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans,” Rev. de Geol. Dyn. Geogr. Phys. 21 (1979) 215.
8. Sayles, F. L. and P. C. Mangelsdorf, “Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater,” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 41 (1979) 767.
9. Austin, S. A. and D. R. Humphreys, “The sea’s missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists,” in Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991).
10. Austin, S. A., “Evolution: the oceans say no!” ICR Impact No. 8 (Oct. 1973) Institute for Creation Research.
11. Merrill, R. T. and M. W. McElhinney, The Earth’s Magnetic Field, Academic Press (1983) London, pp. 101-106.
12. Humphreys, D. R., “Reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the Genesis flood,” in Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1987), pp. 113-126.
13. Coe, R. S., M. Prévot, and P. Camps, “New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal,” Nature 374 (20 April 1995) pp. 687-92.
14. Humphreys, D. R., “Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the flood,” in Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991).
15. Austin, S. A. and J. D. Morris, “Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences,” in Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), pp. 3-15.
16. Ibid, pp. 11-12.
17. Gentry, R. V., “Radioactive halos,” Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23 (1973) 347-362.
18. Gentry, R. V. et al., “Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification,” Science 194 (15 Oct. 1976) 315-318.
19. Gentry, R. V., “Radiohalos in a radiochronological and cosmological perspective,” Science 184 (5 Apr. 1974) 62-66.
20. Gentry, R. V., Creation’s Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates (1986) P.O. Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912-0067, pp. 23-37, 51-59, 61-62.
21. Vardiman, L., The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere: a Study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere, Institute for Creation Research (1990) P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021.
22. Gentry, R. V. et al., “Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste management,” Geophys. Res. Lett. 9 (Oct. 1982) 1129-1130. See also ref. 20, pp. 169-170.
23. Deevey, E. S., “The human population,” Scientific American 203 (Sept. 1960) 194-204.
24. Marshak, A., “Exploring the mind of Ice Age man,” Nat. Geog. 147 (Jan. 1975) 64-89.
25. Dritt, J. O., “Man's earliest beginnings: discrepancies in the evolutionary timetable,” in Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. I., Creation Science Fellowship (1990), pp. 73-78.

Dr. Humphreys, a Senior Physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, is a board member of the Creation Research Society, and is a leader in the Creation Science Fellowship of Albuquerque.

Origins and Education
by George F. Howe, Ph.D.

Origins is the complex study of how matter, life, and the universe came into being. It is not a pure science like chemistry or biology because one cannot repeat origins or test it by controlled experiments. One cannot observe, for example, the genesis of mice, humans, or camphor weed plants.

Scientists who pursue origins studies, however, attempt to show how their own views about origins fit with what is known from the various fields of empirical science. But the way one interprets this information will be heavily influenced by that person’s view of reality which is, of course, philosophy.

Opinions about origins will be critically shaped also by an individual's religion or view of deity. The study of evolutionism, creationism, or some other scientifically-oriented origins theory is a fascinating blend of philosophy, religion, and psychology, focused on the evaluation of data from the relevant sciences. Evolutionism, for example, is based on philosophy and religion as well as on an evolutionistic view of genetic facts. It is important to acknowledge openly that there are scientifically-based alternatives to evolutionism.

An important distinction

I wish to draw a distinction between two divergent usages of the word “evolution” — viz., microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolutionism is the study of minor changes in living creatures, changes that may have led on occasion to the genesis of two or more new “species” from one older, preexisting species. Portions of this microevolutionary theory are rooted in the genetic forces of mutation and natural selection. But other key parts of the theory are speculative. Did you realize, for example, that although enormous numbers of research studies have been completed in population genetics, the formation of two new species from one old species has never actually been observed in nature? But even if there is strong evidence to believe that such speciation has occurred, this does not demonstrate Sir Charles Darwin's speculation that microevolution produced larger changes when extrapolated over vast periods of time.

In contrast to microevolutionism, macroevolutionism is a more comprehensive belief system involving several components:

1. Life arose from non-living matter by random events
2. Life continued to change significantly over long time periods
3. As a result, all living organisms have descended from one (or just a very few) ancestral lines

Macroevolutionism is the so-called descent of “ameba to man,” which is a misnomer because most macroevolutionists do not believe that humans descended from a modern ameba, but that both modern ameba and people shared a common ancestor eons ago.

Macroevolutionism is totally theoretical, hypothetical, and unrepeatable. Macroevolutionists attempt to show that their view fits with what science demonstrates, and well they should. Some go beyond that step, however, and argue that macroevolutionism is the only satisfactory explanation for the facts of science. A few of them even assert that macroevolutionism is itself a “scientific fact.” But it is certainly not a fact because events that might have happened three billion, three million or even seven thousand years ago lie outside the domain of all empirical science and observation.

Religious thought systems

Macroevolutionists each have philosophical, psychological, and even theological presuppositions upon which they base their theories. Consider a few of these religious thought systems as illustrations of how macroevolutionists all get involved with theology in a defacto sense.

Atheistic macroevolutionism is the belief that there has been no God at work in evolution history. The view suffers a defect in that omniscience would be required to verify the non-existence of God. Some atheistic evolutionists believe they defend a more scientific origins theory than the rest of us because they ostensibly escape all religious assumptions. But any statements about the nature of God (even the assertion that God does not exist) are theological pronouncements. So in a general and even a legal sense, atheism is but another religion. Not all macroevolutionists are atheists, but many of them are.

Agnostic macroevolutionism is the concept that man does not know whether or not a God was at work in evolution. Some agnostics hold that humans may someday know if a deity was active in origins. Others believe that we will never answer this question. But in either case agnosticism is a religious position in its own right, which further illustrates my claim that evolutionists ultimately base their philosophies on one religious foundation or another, be it overt or ensconced.

People who adhere to deistic evolutionism imagine that there was a God toiling in origins but that this deity labored only at the onset (perhaps 10 billion years ago) to initiate matter and energy. After that, their God simply allowed the proclivities latent within energy and atoms to fulfill evolutionary development without the need for further intervention. Emmett L. Williams¹ has demonstrated in his volume on thermodynamics that the facts of science do not easily support the spontaneous derivation of order from disorder.

The God of the deist is certainly a passive deity, but nevertheless is a God, proving that deistic evolutionists also rest their views on quasi-religious underpinnings. If God created matter and energy in such a way that their mere existence guaranteed the automatic genesis and subsequent evolution of life, this would have been a monumental miracle. If deistic evolutionists are allowed to postulate one colossal, primordial miracle in nuclear physics, certainly creationists should not be censured for believing that God performed a series of rapid, non-evolutionary miracles. It is of interest to note that Charles Darwin had a deistic substructure for his own macroevolutionary theories.

Theistic evolutionists are yet another breed of origins activists. They believe that a personal, “hands on” deity employed macroevolution as his mechanism of creation. When evolutionary philosophies became popular in scientific circles, religionists of many faiths adopted various forms of theistic evolutionism. Alfred Russell Wallace, the man who proposed a theory of evolution before Charles Darwin was prepared to publish, embraced a spiritistic variety of theistic evolutionism by which spirit powers controlled evolutionary development. Modem evolutionists of Hindu, New Age, and similar persuasions are the ideological stepchildren of Alfred Wallace.

Many theistic evolutionists assume that because they have seen fit themselves to assimilate evolution into the fabric of their faith, everyone else in their religion and in all other religions ought to make the same commitment. This has not happened, however, and in each major religion there is still a minority (or sometimes a majority) who hold to special creationism. And there are still some thinkers like Louis Agassiz, the Harvard geologist of the late 1800’s, who maintain a creation view of origins even though they do not participate in any organized religion.

I have briefly surveyed only four of the religious systems which underpin various evolutionary theories. These examples are sufficient to show that macroevolutionism always involves theology and is not pure science. It is an erroneous misrepresentation to assert that macroevolutionism is science and that creationism is religion. Any way one turns with origins, the subject has religious overtones.

Macroevolutionary mechanisms

In terms of the mechanisms that might have caused macroevolutionary changes, there are several divergent proposals, and we can examine a few of them briefly. These will demonstrate that no pervasive unity exists among macroevolutionists concerning the procedure by which life arose and by which change was enacted thereafter.

Neodarwinism is the macroevolutionary view that all life is supposed to have developed by the processes of microevolution. According to this theory, new species were derived gradually from older ones when gene mutations and other changes were acted upon by natural selection over long ages. Alleles which favored reproductive success slowly infiltrated the gene pools of successive generations.

Neodarwinists no longer propose a physical struggle nor a survival of the most physically fit, as Charles Darwin originally did. Instead, they speak about an ongoing “reproductive struggle.” Neodarwinism was developed in part to blunt the criticisms leveled against Darwinism because of Adolph Hitler’s atrocities, which were committed in the name of survival of the most physically fit. Partly, too, neodarwinism was originated to accommodate the burgeoning science of genetics which ran contrary to some of Darwin’s original proposals.

Numerous problems face those who view macroevolution as the end result of microevolutionary changes extrapolated over long time spans. The geological record lacks the links that this theory predicts, such that paleontology holds little support for neodarwinian gradualism. On the subject of links that are still missing, one should consult the work by Michael Denton² who is among a growing group of evolutionists who question many aspects of macroevolutionism.

Other problems face neodarwinists because genetic changes are usually deleterious, not constructive. Natural selection is generally a slow-working system which serves to weed out harmful mutations instead of synthesizing new living kinds. While microevolutionism can explain the shift in frequencies of alleles for existing gene loci, it does not account for the origin of new loci themselves. These and many other problems involved concerning microevolution have been thoroughly examined by creation scientists since the birth of the modern creation movement in 1963.

The Punctuated Equilibrium model for macroevolutionism has existed since the 1930’s but was recently given considerable impetus by Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldridge. They saw that neodarwinian mechanisms yield nothing more than microevolutionary changes at best. They therefore assumed that major outbursts of evolution occurred only infrequently and were followed by long periods of relative stasis or equilibrium. Their view fits well with the fossil record because new fossil forms appear abruptly in clusters with the predicted linking forms still largely missing. On this subject, consult books by Duane T. Gish such as Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No.³ But advocates of the punctuated equilibrium theory have been unable to provide a mechanism by which such sweeping macroevolutionary innovations could have occurred in relatively short time periods.

Among the many mechanisms advocated by different evolution theorists, we must also mention what could be called astronomical evolutionism (panspermia), promoted by the astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, and independently espoused by the co-developer of the Watson-Crick DNA model, Sir Francis Crick. Hoyle and Crick⁴ both believe that life did not originate on earth by chance. They speculate instead that the first cells were broadcast here from deep space by intelligent beings and that further evolutionary innovations occurred because new genetic packages kept arriving from the outside. There is more to be said about their astronomical theories but no one has yet produced unequivocal evidence showing that complete cells or even gene clusters are coming into our atmosphere from outer space.

They each embraced this view because of the extreme unlikelihood that life as we see it would have originated and evolved here in ten billion years. The worthy book on this subject by Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen tells how the origin of cells by chance is an odds-on failure.⁵ Dean Kenyon of San Francisco State University is an example of an evolutionist who, even after having written a well-known evolutionary book on the origin of cells from an organic soup, converted to creationism.

There are many conflicting views of macroevolutionism with no overall consensus as to the mechanisms involved. This is exactly what one would expect in a controversial field where religion and personal philosophy are the basis for interpreting the small amount of existing data.

Creationism an alternative

One more definition and an introductory statement should be made about creationism as an alternative to all forms of macroevolutionism. Anyone who holds that a designer produced many separate types of life rapidly is a creationist in the broadest terms. Creationists differ from theistic evolutionists, who also believe in a hands-on designer, in that creationists feel the designer made many groups which were not organically related to each other, and that he did this without recourse to macroevolution or microevolution. Creationists do believe, however, that after the creation event microevolution was the means by which the created life forms were fine-tuned in response to environmental changes.

Creationism can be analyzed by interpreting religious documents like the Bible. This is an important side of creation study and I suspect most creationists do this. But in the format of public education, creationism should be discussed largely upon its scientific merits as an alternative to macroevolutionism. This is the way creationism can and should be handled in public school science classes for example, and this is how I shall deal with it now.

I believe that it is impossible to “disprove” evolutionism or to “prove” creationism by recourse to scientific data. Thus I make no attempt to “prove creation by science.” One must try instead to establish creationism as a viable alternative to evolutionism and to demonstrate that it has a good degree of fit with the evidences from natural science. Concerning its scientific features, creationism has at least five main tenets.

First, design is evident in nature, especially in living organisms, and this design makes it reasonable to suppose that a designer was directly active in origins. Theistic evolutionists also use design in nature as evidence for the existence of a designer. Design is strong evidence which can be found in all areas of biology, including the amazing sequence by which Hox genes regulate the formation of limbs and other organs. It is so compelling that the design motif has led non-creationists like Michael Denton,² Michael Behe,⁶ and Phillip Johnson⁷ to produce major treatises against the idea that evolution could develop such a degree of “irreducible complexity” by random processes. As Tom Willis has recently surmised, these gentlemen are “evolutionists who don't believe in evolution.”⁸

Secondly, living forms appear to have been created rapidly. The complex interplay of systems present in even one bacterial cell supports the belief that the array of cellular equipment was manufactured quickly, not gradually. Richard Lumsden stressed this feature as he expounded on the intricate anatomy of bacterial flagella. The existence of the bacterial cell or any other cell fits with a rapid origins scenario because the various cellular components, such as membranes and organelles, are closely interdependent. The main evolutionary explanation for the origin of such linked cellular systems is the theory of endosymbiosis, which cannot be substantiated and has many problems and internal inconsistencies. It looks as if cells needed to have all items present at once for proper function.

Thirdly, from the very onset, there were many separate created types or kinds that were never related to each other. This creationist tenet fits with the evidence from genetics and paleontology. Sometimes the organ systems of these separate kinds can be arranged in a series of increasing complexity, as is the case with eyes from different animals. But the presence of a series of eyes does not demonstrate that those animals are all related by descent and common ancestry.

Fourthly, the designer created in relatively recent time. Not all creationists agree on this point, as some assume that creative work occurred sporadically across billions of years in a type of creationist punctuated equilibrium model. Many other creationists, however, (myself included) assert that origins occurred thousands (not billions, millions, or even hundreds of thousands) of years ago. Many articles and books by creation scientists have been written in which the results and assumptions of various long-age dating methods have been seriously challenged. The brand new tome by Woodmorappe is the latest.⁹ Scientists have also pointed out in these articles that there are other dating methods which support a very recent creation.

Young-earth creationists serve a very important watchdog function in science because of their critical stance on all long-age speculations by their colleagues. It is not my purpose here to debate or discuss this issue thoroughly, but simply to note that creationism offers a scientifically-based alternative to the long-age speculations of macroevolutionists. Whether we look at astronomy, radiochemistry, or other fields, assigning vast dates involves major assumptions that lie far outside the respective scientific disciplines. The whole “geologic column,” for example, is a theoretical construct and is open to serious question. Within the last five years, Froede, Reed, and other creationist geologists have established a creation-oriented format for interpreting geologic history, a format that does not presuppose the long eras, periods, or epochs of uniformitarian biostratigraphy.¹⁰ They believe that the long-age geologic column is closer to historical fiction than it is to earth science.

And finally, some time after creation there was at least one great catastrophe. There is likewise a divergence of opinion on this fifth point among creationists. Certain of them believe in the geological column that formed gradually over long ages, assigning no geological role to catastrophism. Many other creationists, myself included, hold that much of what can be seen by way of sedimentation, canyon formation, and other geologic features was formed catastrophically. This aspect of creationism has been supported extensively by research papers appearing in creationist journals and other creationist science publications. Many of the geologic features that uniformitarians attribute to gradualistic activity across long “ages” of geology are viewed by catastrophists as the expected consequences of a worldwide deluge.

Teaching origins in public schools

It should first be noted that it is possible in a secular situation to refer only to the scientific aspects of creationism without referring to Biblical history or specific religious dogmas. In some courses the topic of origins seldom if ever comes up. But in classes of science, history, and certain other fields there is frequent mention of macroevolutionism in both textbooks and lectures. When teachers express their own macroevolutionary opinions, they have laid upon their students more than just interpretations of scientific evidence. They have also conveyed heavy doses of personal theology and philosophy, whatever those may be. If such teachers promote macroevolutionism in class, they ought to take additional time to explain or at least mention alternate origins theories. It is hoped that teachers will communicate respect for the origins views of students and colleagues who differ on these controversial matters. Also, students should be allowed to freely take issue with their instructors’ origins conclusions without censure.

Keep in mind that we are unable by means of science to retrace, observe, and verify any particular view of origins history, be it evolutionism or creationism. Remember also that when it comes to an evolutionary mechanism, there are many conflicting and divergent proposals. Let’s all admit that we really cannot empirically know the origin of the universe, life, and man.

References

1. Williams, Emmett L. 1981. Thermodynamics and the Development of Order. Creation Research Society Books, St. Joseph, MO. (This author, a creationist metalurgical chemist, demonstrates the thermodynamic unlikelihood of the origin and evolution of life.)
2. Denton, Michael. 1985. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Adler and Adler. Bethesda, MD. (A scientist but not a creationist, this author takes most aspects of neodarwinism to task and shows that the data have better fit with a pre-darwinian philosophy of biology called typology in which many distinct types of life appear to be unconnected by linking forms.)
3. Gish, Duane T. 1996. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA. (Dr. Gish participated in a Nobel prize winning research effort in biochemistry at U.C. Berkeley. He has written numerous books and papers on such topics as the biochemical problems facing the origin of cells by evolution, the fossil evidence against evolution, and the teaching of origins in public schools.)
4. Both Hoyle and Crick produced books favoring the astronomical theory of pangenesis. See reviews: Howe, George F. 1983. Review of Life Itself (by Francis Crick). Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ) 20:190-191. Howe, George F. 1982. Review of Evolution from Space (by Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickamasinghe). CRSQ 19:191-192. (Hoyle is heralded as the greatest living astronomer, and Crick must be considered the world's greatest living biochemist. Both reject the idea that life arose and evolved on earth.)
5. Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen. 1984. The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories. Philosophical Library, New York.
6. Behe, Michael. 1996. Darwin's Black Box. Free Press, New York. (Behe, a biochemist, believes that there is irreducible complexity in many aspects of life's chemistry and that this is a tribute to design in nature.)
7. Johnson, Phillip. 1995. Reason in the Balance. Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL. Johnson, Phillip. 1997. Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL. (The author is a famous lawyer who speaks out against the oppressive dogmatism by which macroevolutionism is promoted at colleges and universities.)
8. Willis, Tom. 1998. Deism again. CSA News 15:1-3. (An independent scholar, Willis notes that Behe and Johnson are both “evolutionists who don’t believe in evolution.”)
9. Woodmorappe, John 1999. The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.
10. Froede, Carl R., Jr. and John K. Reed. 1996. A Biblical Christian framework for earth history research: Introduction to the series. CRSQ 32:228-229. Reed, John K. 1996. A Biblical Christian framework for earth history research: II. Foundation and method of historical analysis within the Biblical Christian system. CRSQ 33:210-216. Reed, John K. and Carl R. Froede, Jr. 1997. A Biblical Christian framework for earth history research: III. Constraining geologic models. CRSQ 33:285-292.

Acknowledgement: I thank Mrs. Edna Benzel for typing the many drafts of this manuscript.

Dr. Howe is Professor Emeritus of Biology, The Master’s College. He has held many positions in the CRS, including President, Vice-President, Chairman of Research Committee, and Quarterly Editor.

Orlando-based Ministry “Wreaking Havoc for God”
by Vinnie Conte

When referring to his frequent missionary trips to Russia, Ukraine, South Africa, and the United Kingdom, Dr. Grady McMurtry likes to tell people, “I can wreak a lot of havoc for God!” Dr. McMurtry, founder of Creation Worldview Ministries, has a vision to seriously challenge the worldview of citizens in countries where they’ve been fed evolution and theistic evolution as fact for generations. “The teachings of evolution are the ruination of any nation that embraces them,” Dr. McMurtry explains. “In England they’ve taught these principles for seven generations, in Russia for four, and in communist-governed South Africa for two. It’s also happening in the United States. We have only a generation and a half to turn the tide in our own nation.”

Individuals familiar with the work of creation scientists understand why their studies are so vital to the health of a nation. However, many Christians have never been taught that evolution corrupts the philosophical underpinnings of any people. It affects every aspect of life, from politics and economics, to medicine and the family. “They don’t understand,” Dr. McMurtry adds, “that evolution is the taproot of communism. Marx read Darwin before he wrote Das Kapital. He was so inspired by Darwin’s theories that he wanted to dedicate his work to the Englishman. Survival of the fittest, natural selection, and Darwin’s views on nature were used by Marx to justify his economic policies.” Darwin’s family convinced him to decline Marx’s offer, but the connection had been made.

Twentieth century history, of course, is filled with examples of evolutionary theory as the springboard for anti-human government policies. “Hitler was very evolutionary in his thinking. The Holocaust was simply an expression of those views.” The world is still filled with so-called “ethnic cleansing,” and we’re even now at war due to this evolution-inspired philosophy. Yes, bigotry has always existed, but evolution lends credibility to these types of racist policies.

How does one individual think he can make a difference in these countries with a long history of evolutionary teaching? “Nothing has ever changed without somebody doing something,” Dr. McMurtry points out. For example, on his most recent trip to Kiev, Ukraine, he spent two weeks teaching in local universities during the daytime, and in churches and seminaries at night. He reached 1200 out of 2500 students at the medical university. “There I challenge their whole concept. I tell them that evolution teaches that humans are nothing but thinking animals. If they believe this, then when they become doctors, they’re really only becoming veterinarians. Without using the Bible I can scientifically prove that every human is priceless. If I can’t convince them to become Christians, I can change the way they’ll treat their patients. I can change how they live their lives and look at life in the future.” There’s no telling what kind of impact that can have on a society.

When Dr. McMurtry speaks at churches he usually reaches 200 to 1500 people each time. “They’re very receptive,” he explains. “They know they’ve been lied to all their lives, so when they hear the truth, they really respond to it.”

When he’s not on foreign soil, Dr. McMurtry travels around the United States with this same message, hoping to stem the tide in our own country. His travel schedule, as his family will attest, is exhausting, but he’s truly a man on a mission. His future foreign teaching plans include another visit to Russia this fall, as well as a return visit to South Africa tentatively scheduled for early in 2001. “I have open invitations to visit China, Japan, the U.K., Ukraine, and Russia,” he reports, “but currently lack the funds to follow-up on these.” In the meantime, he’ll continue to work hard to be that someone who truly makes a difference.

Vinnie Conte, Certified Financial Planner and Registered Investment Advisor, is a member of the board of Creation Worldview Ministries. It has been his privilege to support and work with Dr. McMurtry and his ministry for nearly a decade.  Creation Worldview Ministries can be contacted at 407-678-8234.

Letters

Report on the 1998 ICC

I greatly appreciated the informative overview of the 1998 ICC by Richard and Virginia Overman in the November / December 1998 issue of Creation Matters.

However, one of his observations, though accurate, may give a misleading impression. He was saddened that “most of the prominent popularizers of creation science” were not at the conference. The implication was that such popularizers were either (a) not interested in keeping up with the issues raised at the conference or (b) because they were not there, would be prevented from keeping up. Or more likely, both.

Speaking for Answers in Genesis popularizers (e.g., Ken Ham, Don Batten and myself), neither of these impressions would be fair or representative. And I am sure the same would be true for ICR popularizers. First, there was Answers in Genesis representation at the conference both in the presenting of papers and taking in the teaching. Second, all popularizers have access to the published papers.

The item was perfectly correct in stating that “everyone who speaks on creation science has an obligation to keep current on creationist research.” But let’s not forget that there is more than one way to achieve this goal.

— Dr. Carl Wieland
Answers in Genesis

Erratum

Mars Global Surveyor Confirms Creation (Creation Matters, May/June, p. 8). There was an error in reference 4. The correct citation is: Connerney, J.E.P., et al. 1999. Magnetic lineations in the ancient crust of Mars. Science 284(5415):794-798.

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

© Copyright 2001-2008, Creation Research Society. All rights reserved.