Copyright © 1988,
2000 by the Creation Research Society. All rights reserved.
Volume 23, Number 3
A Review of Problems Confronting
Erich A. von Fange, Ph.D.
Biblical archaeology as
a scholarly discipline is introduced. The problems of interpretation
of field evidence are discussed. Further source materials are listed.
Typically the major area of disagreement between humanistic and conservative
archaeologists is that of chronology.
Creation Research Society
Studies on Precambrian Pollen: Part I - A Review
George F. Howe, Ph.D.
In the last 20 years considerable
interest has centered on a 1966 Creation Research Society Quarterly
(CRSQ) paper in which C. L. Burdick presented photographs and descriptions
of pollen grains isolated from Precambrian Hakatai shale and various
other strata of the Grand Canyon, Arizona. Burdick produced this paper
based on research he conducted at the University of Arizona. He relied
as well on assistance from W. E. Lammerts in manuscript preparation.
In defense of the macroevolutionary origins model, some workers immediately
argued that these discoveries were merely contaminant modern pollen
grains and not true microfossils.
At the prompting of the
CRS Board of Directors, C. L. Burdick solicited the help of A. V. Chadwick,
a creationist, to undertake further analysis of new rock samples from
the Grand Canyon. At that time, Chadwick was associated with Loma Linda
University, Loma Linda, CA. Based on this work, Burdick reported in
a short article (1972) that the first discoveries had been replicated
by utilizing essentially the same methods as he had originally used
at the University of Arizona. While not altogether denying the 1972
pollen discoveries in Hakatai shale, A. V. Chadwick in 1973 wrote in
a letter for publication in CRSQ that a more careful analysis of these
rocks would be necessary before definitive statements could be made
about the presence of microfossils in Grand Canyon strata.
Eight years later (1981)
Chadwick, in a brief paper, indicated that by taking unusual precaution
in field and laboratory to avoid contamination, and by using a different
extraction procedure involving hydrofluoric acid (as well as hydrochloric
acid), he had been unable to recover any pollen grains from samples
of Hakatai shale.
Since contamination of the
rock in the field and on the microscope slides in the laboratory is
the usual claim of both creationists and evolutionists who discount
the Burdick discoveries, W. E. Lammerts volunteered to determine just
how easy or difficult it might be to recover contaminant pollen grains
in nature. At about the same time, in Spring, 1983, the CRS Research
Committee authorized E. L. Williams, G. F. Howe, G. T. Matzko, and W.
E. Lammerts to collect new rock samples and perform pollen extraction
by the old Burdick method to see if perhaps the differences in the chemical
processing between Burdick's method and Chadwick's would influence the
final results. We recovered what are apparently pollen grains and other
cellular objects from Hakatai shale by using the Burdick techniques.
The methods, results, and conclusions of these recent studies will be
presented in Parts II and III of this present series of papers.
Diluviology and Uniformitarian
Geology - A Review
A. W. Mehlert, Dip.Th.
Interpretation of the fossil
record from Flood and uniformitarian geology are compared. The different
approaches of Morton and Woodmorrappe to Flood geology are considered.
The Flood model is superior to the uniformitarian model. Likewise the
fossil record does not support any long-age concept.
Properly Defining "Evolution"
John N. Moore, Ed.D.
Creationists should set
an example for scientists, students and other non-scientists by (a)
differentiating "evolution" from genetic variational change
by appropriately using the terms micro-evolution versus macro-evolution,
and (b) avoiding any mixing of theism with supposed naturalistic concepts.
Correctly Redefining Distorted
Science: A Most Essential Task
Robert E. Kofahl, Ph.D.
From a correct philosophically
neutral definition of science the rules of the scientific method and
the freedoms of scientists logically follow. Since Darwin's time the
scientific community has distorted science by injecting into its definition
a particular metaphysical belief system, i.e., materialistic monism.
Thus science has been by definition biased against creation, with the
result that "unbelievers" are denied their freedoms as scientists,
teachers and students and are subjected to discrimination and injury.
A reformation of science at the definitional level is an essential task
for Christians engaged in science and education.
© Copyright 2001-2013, Creation
Research Society. All rights reserved.
Copyright & Permissions