|
Article Index
Articles by Author
Articles by Groups
|
by Jacqueline Melissa
Powell
PDF format also available
When Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species in
1859, he broke the final barrier holding the disciplines of science
to the framework of the Bible. The theory of biological
evolution originally proposed by Darwin has, in this century,
been developed into a theory governing the origins of the universe.
Its roots are in three major disciplines of science: biology,
geology and astronomy. Evolution theory proposes a universe
that either created itself or has eternally existed and that
continues to change itself into a more complex system of processes.
The physical laws observed in operation today are assumed to
have always been in operation. The Laws of Thermodynamics,
however, govern all processes that operate in the universe and
the Second Law specifically forbids advancement in organization
of any natural process. Most importantly, the Bible clearly
teaches that God created the universe and all it contains: "By
the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host
of them by the breath of his mouth."[i]
The theory of evolution is diametrically opposed to both the
laws of science and the teachings of the Scriptures.
Evolution in Biology
The erosion
of the Biblical basis of science paved the way for an acceptance
of evolution based theories. New theories being developed
in many other disciplines of science, mainly physics, astronomy
and particularly geology, had carved inroads into traditional
thinking thus preparing the scientific world for Darwin's theory
of evolution.[ii]
During the Middle Ages, the Universe was viewed as being centered
on man and directed by God. In the 19th Century, Copernicus
transformed scientific thinking by proving the earth was not
the center of the universe.
Physical events were governed by natural
laws, and although God was still recognized as the author of
laws, his personal intervention was no longer required to explain
how things were made. The emphasis slowly shifted from
the supernatural to the natural. From the miraculous to
the mundane. And although the cosmos was still regarded
as something which had been created, it was also seen as a developing
process subject to scientific laws.[iii]
England's intellectuals, scientists, manufacturers,
inventors, etc., soon began to reject the Christian framework
of thought that established science had rested on. They
thought of nature as a manageable process governed by discoverable
laws instead of the supernatural; the theological significance
of the natural world was discarded.[iv]
This type of thinking proved fertile ground for Darwin's theory
of evolution.
Charles
Darwin revolutionized scientific thought when he published his
Origin of Species, but he did not do so single handedly;
the idea of biological descent through modifications in the species,
evolution, had been postulated by a number of scientists during
the century prior to his work.[v]
The French naturalist George Buffon published his book, Theory
of the Earth, in 1749 in which he rejected the accepted practice
of basing natural history on the interpretation of the Scripture.[vi] Almost 30 years later he published another
work, Epochs of Nature, in which he developed the idea
of "gradual change by observable causes"[vii] and tried to determine the chronological order
of the appearance of species. Due to the immense
popularity of his books throughout Europe, he was an important
figure in the promotion of the doctrine of descent with modification.[viii] The doctrine of descent through modification
was an affront to the well established idea of the fixity of
species. French naturalist and professor of Zoology in
Paris, Chevalier de Lamarck, continued the "attacks on the
doctrine of fixity of species."[ix]
He published his theory in 1801 claiming "it is the habit
that has shaped the organism. A duck was not made web-footed
to enable it to swim, but it became web-footed because new wants
attracted it to the water."[x] Although Lamarck's theories were later
rejected, their early influence upon Darwin was never completely
reversed.
The man
who most influenced Darwin was the great pioneer geologist George
Lyell. Lyell built on the earlier ideas of Scottish geologist
James Hutton who "maintained that the present is the key
to the past and that, given sufficient time, processes now at
work could account for all the geologic features of the Globe."[xi] Lyell published his Principles
of Geology in 1830. In it he attempted "to provide
for geology a comprehensive theory to account for all possible
past and present geological changes"[xii] and to show
that the forces working to transform the
surface of the earth in the past were the same as those that
could be seen in operation at present, and that these forces
were ordinary, regular, orderly, and lawlike. Lyell eschewed
the supernatural or spiritual origin of geological processes.[xiii]
Laporte
sums us Lyell's influence upon Darwin's theory by stating, "Lyell's
geology emphasized the antiquity of the earth, giving the essential
element of time so necessary to the Darwinian concept of evolution
by small, incremental change."[xiv]
The ideas
of modification with descent was firmly in place in the scientific
world by the early 1800's but it took Charles Darwin's treatise,
On the Origin of Species, to fully develop the theory
and make it acceptable. "Charles Darwin's quintessential
contribution to evolutionary theory, therefore, is not the idea
of evolution, but rather his statement of the mechanism by which
animal and plant species change into other distinct species."[xv] The views of Darwin's predecessors, although
popular during their day, were only theories, not scientific
facts. There was no empirical data to substantiate them,
yet they were a major influence upon the young Darwin who signed
aboard the H.M.S. Beagle in December of 1832 for a five year
voyage of research and exploration around the world. During
this voyage, Darwin collected animal and plant specimens and
filled notebooks with observations of everything from tropical
fauna to geological strata. He would later use these observations
to formulate his theory of natural selection.
Darwin
did not set out to hypothesize a theory of evolution but rather
he "started out to discover the origin of species."[xvi] He soon "became convinced
that it was impossible to bound, or discover, the loci of species"[xvii] and unable to find their beginning,
he formed "a theory of continual minute variations winnowed
by natural selection."[xviii] It has been acknowledged by
scientists that Darwin lacked a complete "understanding
of the nature of species"[xix] and considered the term species "as
one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set
of individuals closely resembling each other."[xx] Today the origin of species still remains
"one of the cardinal problems in the field of evolution."[xxi] The correct definition of a species
will be a major step toward solving this problem.
The species
is considered "the cardinal unit in the process of evolution"[xxii] and must be correctly defined to understand
evolution. Unlike Darwin, evolutionists today realize that
a species is "not just a matter of judgement but has a quite
definite objective reality; it is a category which is not simply
a convenience in classification."[xxiii] Geneticist and leading neo-Darwinian
Theodosius Dobzhansky defined a species as being a group of individuals
who shared a common gene pool of hereditary traits, produced
fertile offspring when crossed with each other and most importantly,
are separated and protected from other species by a reproductive
gap.[xxiv] The reproductive
gap constraint is echoed by taxonomist and foremost evolutionist
Ernest Mayr as he claims "species [biological] are groups
of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively
isolated from other such groups."[xxv] The reproductive gap between species
limits the number of variations that can result in a cross.
Limited variation coupled with a common gene pool suggest stability
in the species. Every member of a species shares certain
common traits with all other members of the species which uniquely
identifies the species. Variations within individual members
of the species will not change these common traits.
How do
the evolutionists' definition of a species compare to the Genesis
kinds of Scripture? Dr. Henry Morris, leading creationist
author and teacher, says
It is significant that the phrase "after
his kind" occurs ten times in the first chapter of Genesis.
Whatever precisely is meant by the term "kind" (Hebrew
min), it does indicate the limitations of variation.
Each organism was to reproduce after its own kind, not after
some other kind.[xxvi]
Dr. Frank L. Marsh, biologist and foremost
creationist, believes "if organisms cross they are members
of a single Genesis kind, I looked for a name for the created
unit"[xxvii]
and "finally I suggested (1941) the name baramin
from the Hebrew roots, bara, created, and min,
kind."[xxviii] A true cross produces hybrid
offspring: offspring are hybrid when they inherit traits from
both parents. This is an important requirement because
offspring may be produced which takes all their hereditary traits
from the female's side. These are not true hybrids and
hence not true crosses between Genesis kinds.[xxix] The baramin must be able to cross and
produce hybrid, fertile offspring.
The biological
species definition brings evolutionist thinking closer to the
idea of the Genesis kind. However, the reproductive-only
constraint can be used to name new species of individuals that
morphologically are the same. The classic example involves
Dobzhansky's work with the vinegar fly. He crossed two
races which produced semi-sterile daughters and completely sterile
sons. Based on the biological definition of a species,
the vinegar fly's offspring were a new species since the sterile
sons exhibited a "reproductive gap". Thus, the
experiment is considered a proof of evolution.[xxx] Marsh observes that "although
these groups are practically indistinguishable morphologically,
they behave as good species biologically."[xxxi]
How do
the biological species and the baramin relate to each other?
Dr. Marsh sums up the differences nicely as follows: "The
biological species to the evolutionist is first and last physiological,
while the created kind of the creationist is commonly first morphological
but lastly and more decisively physiological."[xxxii] The physiological species is synonymous
with the biological species definition and consists of individuals
which can cross and produce fertile offspring while the morphological
species is based entirely on form, structure and coloration without
regard to crossability. According to Dr. Marsh, the difference
between the baramin and the biological species is the morphological
constraint. Evolutionists consider morphological changes
as variations of the species while creationists think of them
as natural attributes of the species. Since variations
are a necessary ingredient for evolution, understanding the role
of the morphological changes is imperative.
Darwin's
treatise on the origin of species by natural selection, the theory
of evolution, presents the idea of variations between individuals
of a species as giving rise to a new and advanced species over
time. This process of new species arising from previously
existing ones is called speciation. Darwin based his theory
on the assumption that variations would easily arise among individuals
of a species. This view is confirmed by Mayr who declared
speciation was based "on the assumption that through the
gradual accumulation of mutational steps a threshold is finally
crossed which signifies the evolution of a new species."[xxxiii] Even geographic speciation, which
"is characterized by the gradual building up of biological
isolating mechanisms"[xxxiv] is said to have as a secondary factor "the
gradual accumulation of genetic differences."[xxxv] In order for the species to advance,
at least some of the variations must be good for the individual
member of the species. Thus, freely occurring variations
that increase the organizational complexity of the species are
a primary assumption of the theory of evolution.
Dobzhansky
states "the ultimate source of organic diversity is mutation."[xxxvi] A mutation is a change in the structure
of a DNA molecule, a gene, in the reproductive cells of the individual.
Dobzhansky calls mutations "the building blocks, the raw
materials,"[xxxvii]
of evolutionary changes. To him mutations were "the
ultimate source of evolution."[xxxviii] The evolution model depends on some
natural mechanism to produce upward progress in complexity and
the mutation is that mechanism.[xxxix] If mutations are really the "building
blocks" of evolution they would be expected to be primarily
beneficial and able to produce an upward or vertical change toward
a higher degree of order. Observations of the natural world,
however, do not bear out this theory.
Biological
systems preserve their identity from generation to generation
through the operation of the laws of inheritance. Much
has been learned about heredity through observation of living
systems. Gregor Mendel, the Austrian monk and horticulturalist,
did many experiments with peas in the later half of the 1800's
that determined the basic laws of inheritance. Through
experimentation, he determined there was a clear distinction
between the appearance of an individual (its phenotype) and its
genetic composition (its genotype). He also revealed that
inherited qualities are not a blend of those of the parents'
genetic traits. Instead, genetic traits are paired as dominant
and recessive. Only the dominant traits will be manifest
in the offspring's phenotype. The recessive traits, however,
are retained in the offspring's genotype and can be passed on
to their future offspring.[xl] Mendel's Theory of Particulate Inheritance
states that the qualities in the offspring is the result of some
"factor" in the parents. These "factors"
are now known as genes.[xli]
Mendel's
Laws of Inheritance insure conservation of variations.
Even Dobzhansky admits that "heredity is a conservative
force: the genes function as templates for the production of
their exact copies; by making the offspring resemble their parents,
heredity confers stability upon biological systems.[xlii] As shown already, "mutations are
caused by alterations within genetic materials."[xliii] An alteration would deviate from the
exact copies that the laws of inheritance enforce, therefore
a mutation only occurs in opposition to a well established law
of science. From the Genesis account of creation, conclusions
can be drawn supporting a divine institution of these laws of
inheritance. As stated earlier the phrase "after his
kind" occurs ten times in Genesis chapter one. Dr.
Morris summarizes by saying the "DNA molecule and the genetic
code contained in it has reinforced the Biblical teaching of
the stability of kinds."[xliv]
The net
effect of all mutations is harmful because they counteract the
stabilizing effect of the laws of inheritance. The laws
of inheritance act to preserve the genetic code from one generation
to the next. Any mechanism, whether natural or artificial,
that distorts this genetic code is harmful to the individual
and to the species. Dobzhansky says "mutations are
accidents, because the transmission of hereditary information
normally involves precise copying. A mutant gene is, then,
an imperfect copy of the ancestral gene."[xlv] Dobzhansky admits that "mutations
alone, uncontrolled by natural selection, would result in the
breakdown and eventual extinction of life."[xlvi]
Mutations
are the key ingredient in evolutionary thought because they provide
a means to attain the variations necessary for species to make
vertical progress in organization. While readily admitting
the harmfulness of mutations, evolutionists still believe Darwin's
theory of natural selection will advance a species, via mutations,
rather than degenerate it.
To evolutionists,
mutations are the engine of evolution and natural selection is
the steering wheel. Darwin developed the theory of Natural
Selection in the years following his stint aboard the H.M.S.
Beagle. In defining it he says, "this preservation
of favorable individual differences and variations, and the destruction
of those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection,
or the Survival of the Fittest."[xlvii] Darwin contends that
The ultimate result is that each creature
tends to become more and more improved in relation to its conditions.
This improvement inevitably leads to the gradual advancement
of the organisation of the greater number of living beings throughout
the world.[xlviii]
The theory of natural selection rests on
the basic assumption of a struggle for existence between living
things. Darwin developed this integral part of the theory
after reading a treatise on population growth by the English
economist Thomas Malthus. Malthus believed population increased
faster than food supplies thus producing a struggle for the food
supplies among living things.[xlix] The struggle for existence ensures
only a limited number of living things survive. Natural
selection acts as a sieve through which all mutations must pass
and only those that promote the upward progress of the individual
are allowed to filter through. The ability to adapt to
a changing environment and obtain necessary food is the filtering-factor.
Those individuals which adapt survive and pass their newly acquired
traits on to their offspring while those individuals which are
unable to adapt die and produce no offspring. Only the
most fit survive thus guaranteeing vertical progress in organization.
Evolutionists do not all agree on the ability of natural selection
to direct progress. Even Darwin's most staunch supporter,
Sir Julian Huxley, believed that "natural selection does
not guarantee progress."[l] Going even farther in his critique of
natural selection, modern day evolutionist J.B.S. Haldane declares
that "most evolutionary change has been degenerate."[li]
Darwin's
theory of natural selection contradicts clearly established scientific
laws. To re-emphasize, Darwin believed the ultimate result
of natural selection was an improvement of the individual and
an overall advancement of the species.[lii] This implies that evolution requires
an advancement of order. Many biologists believe in this
"inherent tendency towards higher organization,"[liii] but advancement in order is just the opposite
from what is observed in the natural world. The two basic
laws of science, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics,
describe all processes which occur in the universe. These
laws are experimentally tested and proven and are not based on
speculation.
The Second Law (Law of Energy Decay) states
that every system left to its own devices always tends to move
from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed
into lower levels of availability, finally reaching the state
of complete randomness and unavailability for further work.[liv]
With the Second Law as the governing agent,
two criteria must be met for a change from disorder to order
to occur: 1) there must be a pattern, blueprint or code to direct
the growth and, 2) there must be a power converter to energize
the growth.[lv]
"Natural selection is not a code which directs the production
of anything new; it serves merely as a screen which sifts out
unfit variants and defective mutants. It certainly is not
an energy conversion device."[lvi] To propose a theory of naturally occurring
advancement in organization in a universe governed by a law of
naturally occurring disorder is a serious flaw in logic.
The laws of science preclude natural selection, as defined by
Darwin, from ever having occurred.
Not only
is Darwin's theory of evolution scientifically incorrect, but
more importantly, it is opposed to the teachings of the Scriptures.
Evolution teaches living things came into being via naturally
occurring processes. The Bible teaches the earth and all
living things were created supernaturally by God.[lvii] Genesis 1:1 is the foundation for the
entire Bible: "In the beginning God created the heaven and
the earth." The existence of God is never proved in
the Scriptures.[lviii]
God simply says "I AM THAT I AM."[lix] The Psalmist later reflects that only
a fool could say "there is no God."[lx] The name of God used in this verse is
the Hebrew Elohim; it is the name of God the Creator and
is uni-plural suggesting the Godhead. The word "created"
(Hebrew, bara) means to "call into existence that
which had no existence."[lxi] The writer of Hebrews beautifully declares
that "the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that
things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."[lxii] Evolution depicts man as a conqueror
having won out in the struggle for existence. The Bible
teaches man was created in the image of God Himself: "God
created man in his own image, in the image of God created he
him; male and female created he them."[lxiii] Evolution teaches death is just part
of the struggle for existence, but the Bible plainly shows death
was not part of the original creation; there was no death until
Adam sinned.[lxiv] Death was the penalty God placed
on Adam for his disobedience.[lxv]
Evolution in Geology
Darwin
pointed to the fossil record as evidencing his theory of natural
selection. In his Origin of Species, he states "if
my theory be true, numberless intermediat varieties, linking
closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly
have existed"[lxvi]
and that the "evidence of their former existence could be
found only amongst fossil remains."[lxvii] David Clark, evolutionist writer,
explains that "in 1859, Darwin published his theory of organic
evolution and it was recognized that fossils were the primary
evidence for this theory."[lxviii] Darwin pushed aside the long accepted
view that the fossil record was produced by the Genesis flood
of Noah's day. The Bible based explanation for fossils
"limited the explanation for their existence to a single
catastrophic event in history."[lxix] Darwin, however, had completely embraced
Lyell's uniformitarian view of the earth's past which left no
room for geologic catastrophes.
George
Lyell's theory of uniformitarianism presents the idea that the
earth's processes have always operated at a constant or uniform
rate. Lyell built his theory of uniformitarianism on the
work of Scottish geologist James Hutton. Dr. Morris, in
quoting Carl Dunbar's standard textbook on geology, Historical
Geology, explains Hutton's views:
The uprooting of such fantastic beliefs
[that is, those of the catastrophists] began with the Scottish
geologist, James Hutton, whose Theory of the Earth, published
in 1785, maintained that the present is the key to the past,
and that, given sufficient time, processes now at work could
account for all the geologic features of the Globe. This
philosophy, which came to be known as the doctrine of uniformitarianism
demands an immensity of time; it has now gained universal
acceptance among intelligent and informed people.[lxx]
Until Hutton's time, geology had been based
on a catastrophic framework. The Biblical flood of Noah
was accepted as true and the features of the earth's surface
were attributed to the actions of the great flood. Lyell's
firm view of uniform process rates precluded any geological formations
resulting from catastrophic processes. He rejected completely
the Biblical account of the flood:
Never was there a dogma more calculated
to foster indolence, and to blunt the keen edge of curiosity,
than this assumption of the discordance between the ancient and
existing causes of change. It produced a state of mind
unfavorable in the highest degree to the candid reception of
the evidence of those minute but incessant alterations which
every part of the earth's surface is undergoing, and by which
the condition of its living inhabitants is continually made to
vary. For this reason all theories are rejected which involve
the assumption of sudden and violent catastrophes and revolutions
of the whole earth, and its inhabitants.[lxxi]
Lyell attributed
the features of the earth to the "minute but incessant alterations"[lxxii] that it has undergone instead of to a single
catastrophe such as the Genesis flood.
The theory
of uniformitarianism is an antipodal view of the earth's processes
as described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The laws
of thermodynamics have been experimentally proven true but there
are "no scientific basis for assuming such uniformity of
process rates."[lxxiii]
Some evolutionists even realize the problem with uniformitarianism
as Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, influential paleontologist, admits
"substantive uniformitarianism (a testable theory of geologic
change postulating uniformity of rates or material conditions)
is false and stifling to hypothesis formation."[lxxiv] Dr. Harold Slusher, creationist research
scientist, gives insight to the false assumption underlying uniformitarianism:
The second law of thermodynamics says that
all natural processes are deteriorative or degenerative.
Natural processes are changing the universe in a way similar
to the unwinding of a clock spring that loses organization by
the ticking of the clock . . . It is not possible to work backwards
in a situation where there is a disordering effect continually
taking place and arrive at a unique description of past conditions.
The scientific method is not applicable when working back into
the past where there were no observations.[lxxv]
Uniform process rates cannot exist in a
universe where all natural processes degenerate. Dr. Slusher
goes on to completely invalidate uniformitarianism by declaring:
Many data around the earth indicate that
the rates of the processes operating in the past have been radically
different from those of the present. . . 'The present
is the key to the past' statement, if referring to rates
of activity, certainly has no scientific foundation.[lxxvi]
The present can never accurately describe
the past due to the disordering effect of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The theory
of uniformitarianism rests on an old age for the earth.
Lyell acknowledged with the earlier geologists of his day that
the short age of the earth could not have produced the current
surface of the earth by gradual change; this led him to conclude
the earth was extremely old.[lxxvii] Dr. Duane T. Gish, noted creationist
scientist, gives insight into Lyell's reasoning explaining that
many millions of years would be required to form the thick sediment
deposits, hundreds of feet thick, that dot the earths' surface
hence, "the age of the earth as estimated by evolutionary
geologists began to increase at an astounding rate."[lxxviii] The extreme age of the earth postulated
by Lyell's theory was necessary for Darwin's theory of evolution
to be valid. Darwin admitted this dependency in his Origin
of Species when he stated anyone who read Lyell's Principles
of Geology and "does not admit how vast have been the
past periods of time, may at once close this volume."[lxxix] Darwin's evolution is based on Lyell's
uniformitarianism which, in turn, depends on a great age of the
earth.
Since an
old age for the earth is a direct prediction of uniformitarianism,
empirically determining the age of the earth would be an authoritative
test of validity. Men have always known the inner earth
was hot. Moses declared that the Lord had "set on
fire the foundations of the mountains."[lxxx] Scientists of the later century determined
the age of the earth by determining the earth's cooling rate,
estimating its initial and current temperature and calculating
how long it would have taken to cool to the current temperature.
William Thomson, more commonly known as Lord Kelvin (for whom
the Kelvin temperature scale is named), used this method in his
studies of the earth. Dr. Slusher relates that shortly
after the theory of uniformitarianism was published, Kelvin accused
the uniformitarians of having ignored the
established laws of physics and as a result brought great mistakes
into the ranks of geology. Kelvin supported his arguments
by the thermodynamic laws . . . and the age of the earth based
on its cooling.[lxxxi]
Dr. Slusher states "The cooling times
[of the earth's interior] appear quite small (thousands of years)
if the initial temperature of the earth was on the order of that
for a habitable planet for any of the models."[lxxxii] As a worst case scenario, Dr.
Slusher uses the evolutionists model of an originally molten
earth and still disproves uniformitarianism by showing "the
cooling times are vastly less than evolutionist estimates."[lxxxiii] Dr. Slusher concludes by saying,
"It would seem that the earth is vastly younger than the
"old" earth demanded by the evolutionists."[lxxxiv]
In this
century, scientists have developed an alternate method of determining
the age of the earth called radiometric dating. This method,
developed by evolutionists, is used to date rocks and from them
the age of the earth is determined. The basis of radiometric
dating, as described by staunch evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson,
is radioactive decay of isotopes of elements (called parent elements)
into another element (called daughter elements). The rate
of decay is expressed in a time unit known as the half-life.
It is the time it takes one-half of the parent element to decay
into the daughter element.[lxxxv] There is a uniformitarian based assumption,
however, that the decay rates are constant. Simpson stress
"there is no reason to believe that these rates have changed
in the course of geologic time."[lxxxvi] Only rocks containing the radioactive
isotopes used in the dating process can be dated. The current
amounts of the parent and daughter elements is measured, but
the initial amounts are assumed. The current rate of decay
is used to calculate how long it would have taken the initial
estimated amounts of the parent and daughter elements to decay
into the current amounts. Using these methods, geologists
estimate the earth to be abut 4.5 billion years old.[lxxxvii]
Dr. Slusher,
in his critique of radiometric dating, cautions that the method
is based on "questionable" assumptions, the majority
of which involve the beginning amounts of the parent and daughter
elements.[lxxxviii] Dr. Gish stresses these assumptions
are unverifiable and contain inherent "factors that assure
that the ages so derived, whether accurate or not, will always
range in the millions to billions of years."[lxxxix] The other assumption is that the
decay rates have remained steady. Recent research on rates
of atomic processes has show this assumption may be false.
For sixteen
years, Dr. Thomas Van Flandern of the U.S. Naval Observatory
measured the atomic clock against the time it took the moon to
complete an orbit of the earth. Astronomers call time kept
by the heavenly bodies dynamic time. Dr. Van Flandern's results
show that the atomic clock has slowed when compared to the dynamical
standard. The atomic clock uses the radioactive decay of
Caesium to measure time.[xc] The slowing of the atomic clock is only
a symptom of a root cause. The important issue is that
all atomic process rates are slowing down. This is another
example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics at work. Creationist
researchers Trevor Norman and Barry Setterfield have written
a technical paper on atomic process rates. They ascertain
that "all forms of dating by the atomic clock are subject
to the effect. This includes radiometric dating."[xci] Radiometric dating is an unreliable
indicator of the age of the earth because it is based on a uniformitarian
concept of atomic process rates which is contrary to the Second
Law of Thermodynamics.
Uniformitarianism
provided the time necessary for the theory of evolution to be
plausible. With these two theories in place, the fossil
record could be used as proof of evolution. Simpson reflects
that the establishment of paleontology, the study of fossils,
hinged upon the recognition that fossil rocks were deposited
in an ordered sequence and that this sequence displayed a change
in the organisms in the fossil record.[xcii] This vein of thinking quickly led the
19th century geologists to formulate the idea of the geologic
column. Since then, the geologic column has joined with
uniformitarianism in supporting the theory of evolution.
As defined by evolutionists, the geologic
column is the arrangement of rock strata, according to the sequence
of the fossils they contain, from invertebrates, to fish, amphibians,
reptiles and finally mammals and representing the whole of geologic
time.[xciii] Lyell
originally introduced this idea "that the successive groups
of sedimentary strata found in the earth's crust are . . . distinguishable
from each other by their organic remains."[xciv] Each rock strata has a different name
and corresponds to a certain period in geologic time. Using
the principle of superposition, which says lower strata levels
are older than surface strata levels,[xcv] the geologic column is considered "the
main proof of evolution."[xcvi]
Far from
being a generally occurring natural phenomena, the geologic column
is an artificial sequence of fossil deposits, designed to promote
evolution, imposed on the earth's rock strata. Although
a prime teaching tool for evolutionists, the geologic column
is an idea only; it exists nowhere in nature.[xcvii] The Grand Canyon is the best example
of consecutive layers of exposed strata, yet it does not represent
the whole geologic column. Rather, the geologic column
has been pieced together from partially observed sequences.[xcviii] Creationists Richard Bliss, Gary
Parker and Duane Gish have done much work in the realm of fossils.
They show that "all real rock layers include gaps and even
reversals from this perfect sequence."[xcix] Lyell even admitted "that great
violations of continuity in the chronological series of fossiliferous
rocks will always exist."[c] Darwin used the gaps in the fossil record
to account for the missing transitional forms that his theory
of evolution predicted, but were not observed in nature:
But just in proportion as this process
of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the
number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed,
be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation
and every striation full of such intermediate links? . . . The
explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfections
of the geologic record.[ci]
The geologic column, as defined by evolutionists,
is not a natural phenomenon and hence can not be used as proof
for the theory of evolution since all scientific proof must rest
on experimentally tested evidence.
Although
the geologic column is an artificial construction formulated
by evolutionists, the fossil bearing sediment layers is a true
geological observation. Bliss, Parker and Gish, however,
believe "it is an important idea, because it does show a
trend for rock layers or strata to be found in a vertical sequence."[cii] How can
they be explained outside the context of evolution? Dr.
Morris reasons that
If evolutionary uniformitarianism is invalid
as a framework for historical geology, there must be a better
framework. If the orthodox Geological Time Scale is really
based on circular reasoning and the assumption of evolution,
then there must be a better explanation for the sedimentary rocks
and their fossil sequences. The Biblical record of primeval
earth history does, indeed, provide a far more effective model
for correlating all the real data of geology, and the main key
is the flood in the days of Noah, described in detail in Genesis
chapters 6 through 9.[ciii]
Could the Genesis flood have produced the
results seen today in the geologic column? Based on observation
alone, the geologic column is the arrangement of rock strata
as identified by their fossil contents. Hence, the origin
of the fossils determines the origin of the geologic column.
Simpson says, "the word fossil, which originally meant anything
dug up, has come to mean just the remains and traces of ancient
organisms viewed as records of the history of life."[civ] Note the
phrase "viewed as records of the history of life" assumes
evolution to be true! Bliss, Parker and Gish give a more
objective definition of a fossil as "the remains or traces
of plants and animals preserved in rock deposits."[cv] Fossils
must be formed by a rapid burial process otherwise they would
quickly decay upon death. Heavy loads of water-borne sediments,
such as accompanies a flood, are good candidates for the rapid
burial process.[cvi]
Dr. Gish concludes "the fossil record, rather than being
a record of transformations, is a record of mass destruction,
death, and burial by water and its contained sediments."[cvii]
The sequence
of the fossil containing rock strata, the geologic column, is
foundational to both Lyell's uniformitarianism and Darwin's evolution.
Although evolutionists claim it demonstrates organic evolution,
a careful examination reveals it to be fragmentary, non-existent
as a whole entity and often randomly ordered.[cviii] Whitcomb and Morris declare
these observations deal a death blow to the theory of uniformity,
but are "just what one would expect in the light of the
Biblical record!"[cix]
In the tremendous movements of water that would occur as the
flood waters abated, sediments would be expected to be deposited
depending on the landscape and water current flow.[cx] A general
pattern may be observed, but it would not be the same worldwide.
This is exactly what is observed. The geologic column is
a general pattern, but not an observed certainty, of the earth's
strata deposits. The theories of uniformitarianism and
evolution are based on the ordering of the geologic column.
If the ordering is not constant in all observations, the theories
fail. Contrastingly, layered rock strata is one of several
predicted outcomes of the flood. Since the reality of the
flood does not rest on this ordering, observations indicating
other order sequences do not affect the reality of the flood.
Lyell's
theory of uniformitarianism, based on Hutton's idea that the
present is the key to the past, revolutionized geology and provided
the foundation for Darwin's forthcoming theory of evolution.
Together these theories seemed to disprove the basic Bible doctrines
of Creation and the judgement of Noah's flood. In actuality,
they serve as examples of the surety of God's Word because they
fulfill the prophecy of the Apostle Peter.[cxi] Peter prophesied of the last days when
the world would be taken with these doctrines:
Knowing this first, that there shall come
in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and
saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the
fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from
the beginning of the creation. [uniformitarianism]
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word
of God the heavens were of old, [creation] and the earth
standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world
that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. [flood][cxii]
Evolution in Astronomy
An evolutionary
view of the origin of life on earth invariably led to an evolutionary
view of the earth itself and eventually to the entire universe.
Although biological evolution has never been proven, cosmology,
the science of the origin of the universe, has grown tremendously
in this century. George Gamow, professor of theoretical
physics, insists
we must reject the idea of a permanent
unchangeable universe and must assume that the basic features
which characterize the universe as we know it today are the direct
result of some evolutionary development which must have begun
a few billion years ago."[cxiii]
Cosmologists describe the universe as constantly
developing and their model of origins "presupposes that
the universe can be completely explained . . . in terms of natural
laws and processes . . . without need of external preternatural
intervention."[cxiv]
The two main cosmological theories of the origin of the universe
are the Big Bang and Steady State theories. Both these
theories contradict the laws of thermodynamics and defy the Biblical
account of the origin of the universe.
The Big
Bang theory assumes an expanding universe. In the early
1900's, astronomers discovered that the spectral lines of distant
spiral nebulae and galaxies were shifted toward the red end of
the spectrum. This shift toward the red is called the Doppler
shift or Doppler effect and usually indicates the object is moving
away from the observer.[cxv] It is comparable to the dying wail of
a train whistle as the train moves away from the station.
The sound waves emitted from the train whistle are being shifted
toward the longer wavelengths as the train moves, thus producing
the wail. Similarly, light waves are shifted toward longer
wavelengths as the galaxy moves, thus producing the color of
red. Based on observed Doppler shifts of distant nebulae
and galaxies, astronomers concluded these objects were moving
away from the earth. It was soon accepted that "the
entire space of the universe, populated by billions of galaxies,
is in a state of rapid expansion, with all its members flying
away from one another at high speeds."[cxvi] The Big Bang theory was developed to
explain this expansion of the universe.
In general, evolutionist astronomers propose
that the origin of the universe resulted from an explosion (the
Big Bang) which formed a state of chaos. Evolutionary processes
then began to act, supposedly bringing about a progression from
disorder to order, or from chaos to a highly ordered, complex
universe.[cxvii]
The Big
Bang theory is scientifically unsound because it contradicts
an established law of science and it is based on an assumption
concerning the nature of light. First, it contradicts the
Second Law of Thermodynamics. "The Second Law of Thermodynamics
argues that as a result of the explosion the entropy would increase
and there should be no ordered systems formed."[cxviii] Also,
the speed of light is assumed to have always been the same throughout
time past. This is a uniformitarian view of the universe
as a whole. Interpreting the Red Shift of distant galaxies
as movement away from the observer is only valid if the speed
of light has remained constant. As discussed earlier, Dr.
Van Flandern has shown experimentally that the atomic clock has
slowed compared to dynamical time. Norman and Setterfield
draw the astounding conclusion that
If atomic time is drifting against the
dynamical standard, then other atomic quantities measured in
dynamical time should also show the effect. . . One of the prime
candidates is the speed of light. All light comes from
atomic processes . . . If atomic processes were faster in the
past, the speed of light would have been faster.[cxix]
If the speed of light, denoted by C,
is actually decaying over time, then all of modern cosmology
rests on a false assumption. Norman and Setterfield describe
the result on cosmological thought
The reason for believing that the universe
is expanding actually turns out to be evidence for a decay in
the speed of light! As C decays, a red shift will
consequently occur in light from distant objects. The further
away those objects are, the more C has decayed and the
greater will be the resultant red-shift. Far from indicating
an expanding universe, the red-shift gives evidence for slowing
C and atomic processes.[cxx]
Like the
Big Bang theory, the Steady State theory, first proposed by Herman
Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle, presupposes an expanding
universe and universal uniformitarianism. Their cosmological
model says
Not only does the universe appear the same
from any vantage point, it appears the same at all times - past,
present, and future. The motion of the expansion of the
universe is retained, but as galaxies move apart matter is spontaneously
created to fill the void.[cxxi]
Gamow says that "while this point
of view provides for the origin and evolution of individual galaxies,
it considers the universe itself as being eternal, though with
a constantly changing galactic population."[cxxii] There is no scientific evidence
for this theory. As the Big Bang theory contradicts the
Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Steady State theory contradicts
the First. Dr. Slusher explains "this whole concept
is a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. This
law says that the total amount of energy and the total amount
of matter in the universe is a constant. It would forbid
the creation of energy out of nothing."[cxxiii]
British
biologist and lifetime defender of Darwin, Sir Julian Huxley
defined evolution as "a single process of self-transformation."[cxxiv] Since natural transformations
require energy, the laws that govern energy transformations,
the laws of thermodynamics, must also govern evolution.[cxxv] These
scientifically proven laws have profound implications concerning
origins.
The First Law (Law of Energy Conservation)
states that nothing is now being "created" or destroyed.
It therefore teaches quite conclusively that the universe did
not create itself . . . The Second Law (Law of Energy Decay)
states that every system left to its own devices always tends
to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed
into lower levels of availability, finally reaching the state
of complete randomness and unavailability for further work.[cxxvi]
This final state of the universe is called
a "heat death." Since the universe is not dead
yet, it is not eternal; it had a beginning.[cxxvii] Dr. Morris concludes "The Second
Law requires the universe to have had a beginning; the First
Law precludes its having begun itself. The only possible
reconciliation of this problem is that the universe was created
by a Cause transcendent to itself."[cxxviii]
The creationist's
position is that God created the universe ex nihilo (from
nothing). This stand is based on the authority of the Scriptures,
not the facts of science. As previously stated, Genesis
1:1 is the foundational verse of the Bible. It is also
the foundation of science. What did God call into existence
that had not existed before? The universe! The physical
universe is composed of three dimensions: space, mass, time.
This phrase is popularly shortened to space-time. The word
"heaven" (Hebrew shamayim) has an essential
meaning of "our modern term space, such as when we speak
of the universe as a universe of space and time."[cxxix] Also,
"in like manner the term "earth" refers to the
component of matter in the universe."[cxxx] Finally, this verse speaks of the creation
of time since all this occurs "in the beginning."[cxxxi] God is eternal and is outside
of time. Viewed in this way, God called the space-mass-time
universe into existence in Genesis 1:1. The universe is
not eternal; it had a beginning. Nor did it begin itself.
God created it "by the word of his power."[cxxxii]
The laws
of thermodynamics, which govern all processes in the universe,
forbid evolution from ever occurring. Although these two
laws have been experimentally tested and formulated, the purpose
behind them can only be found in God's word. The First
Law says nothing can be created or destroyed. The reason no energy
can now be created is because the Creator "ended His work
which He had made."[cxxxiii] Also, the reason no energy can be
destroyed is because the Lord Jesus is presently "upholding
all things by the word of His power."[cxxxiv] The Second Law says all processes
move from order to disorder. It is a law of universal decay.
When God finished His creation, He pronounced it "very good."[cxxxv] The
laws of conservation were built into the original created universe,
but the law of decay could not have been part of an original
good creation. As the First Law provided for the conservation
of energy, the Second Law provided for the conservation of entropy.
Now, however, the Second Law shows entropy is constantly increasing.
Something happened after the original creation to cause this
change. "The Biblical answer is Man's sin and God's
curse."[cxxxvi]
When Adam choose to disobey God, he brought death into the world.
The curse God placed upon Adam and Eve in Genesis chapter three
is the Second Law as it is known today. "Man had brought
spiritual disorder into his own dominion; God appropriately imposed
a principle of physical disorder on that dominion as befitting
its spiritual condition."[cxxxvii]
Both the
Scriptures and science point to God as the Creator of all things.
The theories of evolution and uniformitarianism, as formulated
by Darwin and Lyell, have no scientific basis and blatantly defy
the teachings of the Bible. Those who hold to these theories
do so out of rebellion against God instead of any superior scientific
reasoning. God describes them perfectly in His word:
For the invisible things of him from the
creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so
that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God,
they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became
vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.[cxxxviii]
[i] Psalm 33:6
[ii] Jonathan Miller,
Darwin for Beginners (New York: Pantheon Books, 1982),
26.
[iii] Ibid., 27.
[iv] Ibid., 49.
[v] Benjamin Farrington,
What Darwin Really Said (London: Macdonald, 1966), 62.
[vi] Ibid., 63.
[vii] Ibid., 63.
[viii] Ibid., 63.
[ix] Ibid., 63.
[x] Frederick Wollaston
Hutton, Darwinism and Lamarckism (New York: G.P. Putnam's
Sons, 1899), 38-39.
[xi] Henry M. Morris,
Scientific Creationism 2nd ed. (El Cajon, California:
Master Books, 1985), 92.
[xii] Barry G. Gale,
Evolution Without Evidence (Albuquerque: University of
New Mexico Press, 1982), 38.
[xiii] Ibid., 38-39.
[xiv] Leo F. Laporte,
Evolution and the Fossil Record (San Francisco:
Wilt Freeman and Company, 1978), 4.
[xv] Ibid., 5.
[xvi] Frank L. Marsh,
Variation and Fixity in Nature (Mountain View, California:
Pacific Press Publishing Assoc., 1976), 19.
[xvii] Ibid., 20.
[xviii] Ibid.
[xix] Ibid.
[xx] Ibid.
[xxi]
Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1942), 147.
[xxii] Ibid.
[xxiii] Alister Hardy,
Darwin and the Spirit of Man (London: Collins, 1984),
83.
[xxiv] Marsh, 26.
[xxv] Ibid.
[xxvi] Henry M. Morris,
The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976),
63.
[xxvii] Marsh, 36.
[xxviii] Ibid.
[xxix] Marsh, 37.
[xxx] Ibid., 32.
[xxxi] Ibid.
[xxxii] Marsh, 33.
[xxxiii] Mayr, 67.
[xxxiv] Ibid, 187.
[xxxv] Ibid.
[xxxvi] Theodosius
Dobzhansky, Genetics of the Evolutionary Procsess (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1970), 41.
[xxxvii] Ibid., 65.
[xxxviii] Ibid.
[xxxix] Morris, Scientific
Creationism, 54.
[xl] Farrington, 68.
[xli] Ibid., 69.
[xlii] Dobzhansky,
30.
[xliii] Ibid., 43-44.
[xliv]
Morris, The Genesis Record, 63.
[xlv] Dobzhansky, 92.
[xlvi] Ibid., 65.
[xlvii] Charles Darwin,
The Origin of Species 6th ed. (London:
Watts & Co., 1929), 59.
[xlviii] Ibid.,
92.
[xlix] Miller, 112-114.
[l] Farrington, 72.
[li] Ibid.
[lii] Darwin, 92.
[liii] Hutton, 67.
[liv] Morris, Scientific
Creationism, 25.
[lv] Ibid, 43-44.
[lvi] Ibid., 45.
[lvii] Ex. 20:11
[lviii] Morris, The
Genesis Record, 38.
[lix] Ex. 3:14
[lx] Psalm 14:1
[lxi] Morris, The
Genesis Record, 40.
[lxii] Heb. 11:3
[lxiii] Gen. 1:27
[lxiv] Rom. 5:12
[lxv] Gen. 3:19
[lxvi] Darwin, 131.
[lxvii] Ibid.
[lxviii]
David L Clark, Fossils, Paleontology, and Evolution 2nd
ed. (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown
Company Publishers, 1976), 5.
[lxix] Ibid., 4.
[lxx] Henry M. Morris,
The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1984), 303. Emphasis is his.
[lxxi] George Lyell,
Principles of Geology, 2 vols. (New
York: D. Appleton and Company, 1887), 1:318.
[lxxii] Ibid.
[lxxiii] Ibid., 304-305.
[lxxiv] Ibid., 305.
[lxxv] Harold S. Slusher,
Critique of Radiometric Dating 2nd ed. (San
Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1981), 2.
[lxxvi] Ibid.
[lxxvii] Lyell, 317.
[lxxviii] Duane T.
Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record
(El Cajon, California: Creation-Life Publishers, 1986), 47.
[lxxix] Darwin, 253.
[lxxx] Deut. 32:32
[lxxxi] Thomas P. Gamwell
and Harold S. Slusher, Age of the Earth (El Cajon,
California: Institute for Creation
Research, 1978), 6.
[lxxxii] Ibid., 87.
[lxxxiii] Ibid., 87-88.
[lxxxiv] Ibid., 88.
[lxxxv] George Gaylord
Simpson, Fossils and the History of Life (New York: Scientific
American Books, Inc., 1983), 67-68.
[lxxxvi] Ibid., 68.
[lxxxvii]
Gish, 47.
[lxxxviii] Slusher,
Critique of Radiometric Dating, 53.
[lxxxix] Gish, 51.
[xc] Trevor Norman
and Barry Setterfield, The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time
(Menlo Park, California: Stanford Research Institute International,
1987), 79-80.
[xci] Ibid., 85.
[xcii] Simpson, 58.
[xciii] Gish, 47.
[xciv] Lyell, 303.
[xcv] Simpson, 62-63.
[xcvi] Morris, Scientific
Creationism, 120.
[xcvii] Richard B.
Bliss et al., Fossils: Key to the Present (El Cajon, California:
Creation-Life Publishers, 1980), 13-14.
[xcviii] Simpson, 63-65.
[xcix] Bliss et al.,
14.
[c] Lyell, 313.
[ci] Darwin, 251.
[cii] Bliss et al.,
14.
[ciii] Morris, Biblical
Basis for Modern Science, 312-313.
[civ] Simpson, 9.
[cv] Bliss et al.,
4.
[cvi]
Ibid., 6.
[cvii] Gish, 50.
[cviii] Henry M. Morris
and John C. Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood (Phillipsburg,
New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1961),
271-272.
[cix] Ibid., 272.
[cx] Ibid.
[cxi] Ibid., 451-453.
[cxii] 1 Pet. 3:3-6
Emphasis mine.
[cxiii] George Gamow,
The Creation of the Universe (New York: The Viking Press,
1952), 20.
[cxiv] Morris, Scientific
Creationism, 17.
[cxv] Gamow, 23.
[cxvi] Ibid.
[cxvii] Harold S.
Slusher, The Origin of the Universe (El Cajon, California:
Institute for Creation Research, 1980), 2.
[cxviii] Ibid., 34.
[cxix] Norman and
Setterfield, 80.
[cxx] Ibid., 85.
[cxxi] Slusher, Origin
of the Universe, 43.
[cxxii]
Gamow, 32.
[cxxiii] Slusher,
Origin of the Universe, 46.
[cxxiv] Emmett L.
Williams, "Thermodynamics and Evolution: A Creationist View,"
in Thermodynamics andthe Development of Order, ed. Emmett
L. Williams (n.p.: Creation Research Society, 1981), 10.
[cxxv] Ibid.
[cxxvi] Morris, Scientific
Creationism, 25.
[cxxvii] Ibid.
[cxxviii] Ibid., 26.
[cxxix] Morris, The
Genesis Record, 40.
[cxxx] Ibid., 41.
[cxxxi] Ibid.
[cxxxii] Psalm 33:6
[cxxxiii] Gen. 2:2
[cxxxiv] Heb. 1:3
[cxxxv] Gen. 1:31
[cxxxvi] Henry M.
Morris, "Thermodynamics and Biblical Theology," in
Thermodynamics and the Development of Order, ed. Emmett
L. Williams (n.p.: Creation Research Society, 1981), 129.
130 Ibid., 130.
[cxxxviii] Rom. 1:20-22
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The Bible. King
James Version.
Bliss, Richard B. et
al. Fossils: Key to the Present. El Cajon,
California: Creation-Life Publishers, 1980.
Clark, David L. Fossils,
Paleontology, and Evolution. 2nd ed. Dubuque,
Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Company, 1976.
Darwin, Charles.
The Origin of Species. 6th ed. London: Watts &
Co., 1929.
Dobzhansky, Theodosius.
Genetics of the Evolutionary Process.
New York: Columbia University Press, 1970.
Farrington, Benjamin.
What Darwin Really Said. London:
MacDonald, 1966.
Gale, Barry G.
Evolution Without Evidence. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press, 1982.
Gamow, George.
The Creation of the Universe. New York: The
Viking Press, 1952.
Gamwell, Thomas P. and
Slusher, Harold S. Age of the Earth. El
Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1978.
Gish, Duane T.
Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record.
El Cajon, California: Creation-Life Publishers, 1986.
Hardy, Alister Clavering,
Sir. Darwin and the Spirit of Man.
London: Collins, 1984.
Hutton, Frederick Wollaston.
Darwinism and Lamarckism. New
York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1899.
Laporte, Leo F.
Evolution and the Fossil Record. San Francisco:
Walt Freeman and Company, 1978.
Lyell, George.
Principles of Geology. 2 vols. New York: D.
Appleton and Company, 1887.
Marsh, Frank L.
Variation and Fixity in Nature. Mountain View,
California: Pacific Press Publishing Assoc., 1976.
Mayr, Ernst. Systematics
and the Origin of Species. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1942.
Miller, Jonathan.
Darwin for Beginners. New York: Pantheon
Books, 1982.
Morris, Henry M.
The Biblical Basis for Modern Science. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984.
---. The Genesis
Record. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976.
---. Scientific
Creationism. 2nd ed. El Cajon, California:
Master Books, 1985.
---. "Thermodynamics
and Biblical Theology." In Thermodynamics
and the Development of Order Ed. Emmett L. Williams.
n.p.: Creation Research Society, 1981.
Morris, Henry M. and
Whitcomb, John C. The Genesis Flood.
Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing, Co., 1961.
Norman, Trevor and Setterfield,
Barry. The Atomic Constants,
Light, and Time. Menlo Park, California: Stanford
Research Institute International, 1987.
Simpson, George Gaylord.
Fossils and the History of Life. New
York: Scientific American Books, Inc., 1983.
Slusher, Harold S.
Critique of Radiometric Dating. 2nd ed. San
Diego: Institute for Creation Research,
1981.
---. The Orgin
of the Universe. El Cajon, California: Institute
for Creation Research, 1980.
Williams, Emmett L.
"Thermodynamics and Evolution: A Creationist
View." In Thermodynamics and the Development of
Order. Ed. Emmett L. Williams.
n.p.: Creation Research Society, 1981.
|
