Volume 11, Number 4
Volume 11, Number 4
Was Evolution Really Possible?
The theory of evolution was propounded by Charles Darwin, who claimed about 100 years ago that all existing life on earth - animal and vegetable - developed from lower creatures, in a continuous chain of adventitious processes. The first life forms - the living cell - had come forth supposedly out of non-living material. Despite widespread acceptance of this doctrine in scientific and lay circles, it contains much that is imaginary and it will not stand critical examination in the light of modern science.
Evidence For The Existence
Of An Intelligible Genetic Code
Research results are presented that strongly support the Creationist viewpoint. The genetic code, which evolutionists consider to be the highly degenerate product of random mutations, has been shown to function as the blueprint for the three-dimensional structure of proteins. This code is generally accepted to be universal, and the way it is translated into proteins by ribosomes is basically identical from the most "primitive" microorganisms to man. Scientific evidence is reviewed for a self-correcting genetic code which edits out mutational errors under normal conditions.
The genetic code has been shown, by scale model building of antigen and antibody reactive sites to be capable of distinguishing between "self" and "not-self" protein conformations.
This demonstrated orderliness in the genetic code indicates that it was formulated as an intelligible code by the Creator.
Perpetuation Of The Recapitulation
Recapitulation, or the biogenetic "law" is shown to be held in disrepute by many biologists. Evidences from embryology as well as logical implications of the "law" if it were true are used to show that recapitulation cannot be a valid biological principle. Quotations from several modern textbooks are given to illustrate that some biologists are unwilling to reject in toto the views of Haeckel, in spite of the evidence to the contrary. In fact, many authors continue to refer to fishlike gill slits in mammalian embryos, thereby perpetuating the myth of recapitulation.
Is A Fixed Chronology Of
Egypt Back To c. 2000 B.C. Mistaken?
Scientists should always check the reliability of their instruments. Examples of what happens from failure to check are well known. At one time several astronomers believed that they had found rings around some of the outer planets besides Saturn, but an optical defect in their telescopes was involved. Again, Huxley's "Bathybius" arose from a flaw in techniques.
Creationist scientists use Scripture as an instrument, so to speak. Scripture is taken to be reliable. If any error is found in Scripture, then some doubt could be cast on other parts. This would be especially true were errors to be found in the historical and chronological parts of Scripture.
Such errors have been claimed, on the grounds that the chronology of Scripture disagrees with other chronologies, especially that of Egypt, which many claim has been determined by astronomical methods. It is shown here that there is abundant reason to believe that the Scriptural chronology is valid, and that chronologies which disagree are really based, not on astronomy, but on questionable assumptions.
Lichens: A Dilemma For The
Lichens are a class of organisms in which a fungus and an alga live together in an association frequently cited as the classic example of symbiosis. Only certain fungi and certain algae form lichens. No naturalistic means has been found for supposed evolutionary development of such an association, and attempts to synthesize lichens from component organisms have usually led to death of the algae. Where lichenization has actually occurred in the laboratory, conditions have been carefully and intelligently contrived to bring about the association. The creationist view of the lichen association is the one which best fits the lichen data.