Baraminic Placement of Homo heidelbergensisBased on Molecular Data
by Matthew Cserhati
The consensus of creationist opinion places Homo heidelbergensis within the human holobaramin. This is based on morphological data, but what do the molecular data say? Can we build a stronger holistic case for this fossil by adding molecular data? Further evidence for the humanity of Homo heidelbergensis comes from the sequence analysis of the mitochondrial genome of several dozen primate species. Nuclear data has also been isolated from Homo heidelbergensis fossils from Sima de los Huesos. These sequencing reads and sequencing data from an archaic (“Paleolithic”) human were mapped to the genomes of modern human, Neanderthal, and chimpanzee. Based on the proportion of mapping reads and the sequence similarity of these reads when mapped to the human genome, Homo heidelbergensis can confidently be placed in the human holobaramin. Both morphological and genetic evidence additively support this conclusion.
Why the Sediments Are There Part 2: A Flood Regression Model
by Michael J. Oard, John K. Reed, and Peter Klevberg
Global sedimentary thickness (isopach) maps show their distribution on continents and in oceans. Underlying numbers provide volume and average thickness estimates. Of particular interest are thick accumulations on continental margins. For some diluvialists, they represent deposition during the Recessive Stage of the Flood, reinforcing a high post-Flood boundary. A Flood Regression Model proposes that the post-Flood boundary is a time-transgressive geomorphological boundary that links upstream erosion to downstream transport and deposition.
Spinoza’s Ghost in the Evangelical Closet
by John Doane
Scientists, the media, and the courts routinely reject critiques of evolutionary ideas by arguing that such critiques are religious. Conversely, critiques of the straightforward reading of Genesis texts assert that such texts are not scientific. We show that this situation developed from the ideas of Baruch Spinoza, a 17th-century philosopher who argued that philosophy (including science) must be separated from theology. For him, the goal of philosophy is to determine truth, while the goal of theology is piety. Spinoza correspondingly denied the supernatural inspiration of Scripture and developed his own philosophy, which can be identified as a form of pantheism. Spinoza’s ideas strongly influenced the Enlightenment and maintain a grip on intellectuals to the present. A pantheism similar to Spinoza’s is now effectively an established religion in our culture. This pantheism masquerades as science, while denying any supernatural deity. Spinoza’s legacy in today’s society is consequently a conflict between two religions: pantheism versus Biblical Christianity. Christians should recognize this influence and eschew compromises with pantheistic religion.
The uniqueness of ruminants (Ruminantia) among the even-toed ungulates (Artiodactyla) Part I: Molecular baraminology studies
by Jean K. Lightner and Matyias Cserhati
Though evolutionists routinely assume universal common descent of life, observational evidence militates against this unsubstantiated belief. In contrast, creationists recognize limited common descent where originally created kinds of organisms have reproduced to fill the earth. As they have done so, there has been considerable diversification and adaptation, though not enough to transmute them into a fundamentally different type of organism (e.g., from a rodent to a bat). Organisms that are not related by common descent can be recognized by significant holistic discontinuity between them. In this paper we begin an investigation of ruminants (Ruminantia), members of the order Artiodactyla, to determine if there is significant discontinuity between them and other species within this order. In this first paper, two molecular baraminology techniques were applied to available data to determine the relationship of ruminants to other artiodactyls. The results support the hypothesis that ruminants do not share common ancestry with other artiodactyls
On July 22–23, 2022, the Creation Research Society held its eleventh conference on the campus of Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia. There were nearly 190 registered, plus CRS staff. This was the largest CRS conference to date. Great fellowship was enjoyed by all attendees, especially during the opening reception on the evening of July 21. Professor Andy McIntosh delivered the Henry M. Morris Memorial Lecture the evening of July 22. His talk was entitled, The Legacy of Henry M. Morris in Uncertain Days. This presentation was open to the public and was received very well.
11th Annual CRS Conference Review: 2022 CRS Conference Abstracts
In addition, there were four separate workshops or field trips on Thursday, July 21. An astronomy workshop led by Danny Faulkner, a biology/genetics workshop by Rob Carter, an education workshop by Mike Riddle. and a geology field trip to several local sites led by Marcus Ross.
The opening plenary session was given by CRS Board member Robert Carter on Friday morning, July 22. The title of his talk was A Revised, 4D Baramin Concept. Saturday’s plenary session was co-authored by Ying Liu and Robert Carter, entitled, Multiyear Changes in the Genome of SARSCoV-2 Reveal a Trend of Degeneration.
The primary purpose of the meeting is to provide a venue where people can present preliminary research and gain valuable input from their peers. We hope that some of the research presented at these meetings will eventually be published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly as full papers. Since these are works in progress, no attempt was made to record them. However, below are the abstracts from the 2022 meeting as submitted. Any typographic or grammar mistakes are the responsibility of the authors.
The Geology Workshop group went on a geology field trip, exploring the Precambrian-to-Cambrian metamorphic rocks of the Lynchburg, Virginia area. Over 30 participants joined the trip, which included visiting a local greenstone/ metabasalt quarry for mineral collecting. The Biology Workshop group discussed topics that ranged far and wide, covering topics like population modeling, problems in baraminology, genetic entropy, the meaning of “information” in biology, and the ethical issues involved in stem cell and cloning research, specifically as this relates to the use of fetal cells derived from abortion.
The Education Workshop group discussed why the Church is losing the education wars and how to fight back with well-prepared, engaging, and informative presentations that ensure students are equipped to defend their faith.
Next year, the CRS will not host the annual conference in support of the International Conference on Creationism to be held at Cedarville University in Ohio (https://www. internationalconferenceoncreationism.com/).
All meetings were well-attended. Following the plenary talks, Friday’s and Saturday’s conference sessions featured twenty-four, 30-minute presentations followed by questionand-answer periods and breaks that allowed time for networking and encouraged the free flow of ideas among fellow creation scientists.