The Adam Quest - Tim Stafford

Tim Stafford is senior writer for Christianity Today and has written The Adam Quest (Thomas Nelson, 2013).  This book highlights the life, work and views of eleven scientists who are believers.  Thankfully, the first three are creationists (Creation In Six Days = CISD, YES = Young Earth Science, Global Flood).  Chapters 1-3 cover the stories of Kurt Wise, Todd Wood and Georgia Purdom.

Stafford is misinformed in that not all geologists buy into OEF’s – Old Earth Fallacies (p. 2).  Some YES supporters don’t want to be outed (as in Expelled with Ben Stein).  Geologist Steven Austin has superb credentials. Austin’s research on nautiloids in the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon and its catastrophic origin is unassailable.  A recent survey of 312 leaders of Christian colleges and universities showed that 57% of Science Dept. chairs support Young Earth Science (YES)‼

Stafford’s parents were open to the view that Noah’s Flood was local (p. 3).  In contrast,Sacred Cows in Science, edited by Norbert Smith (Ph.D. Zoology, Texas Tech), who appeared in a BBC documentary, has one chapter that defends the Global Flood.  Dr. Smith’s book covers many worldview issues (climate change, ID, gay marriage etc.).  Smith recently appeared on Today’s Issues (AFR radio), it starts at the 32:00 minute mark.

Tim’s parents were “not dogmatic about details of God’s creation” (p. 3), but Jesus was:

“from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female” (Mk 10:6).  Adam and Eve did not arrive billions of years after the start (Ge 1:1). 

"These are going to be hard days - nothing like it from the time God made the world right up to the present … (Mk 13:19, Msg).  Human suffering & the beginning both map to the start (no gap of billions of years).

“The blood of all the prophets shed from the foundation of the earth, from Abel to Zachariah…” (Lk 11:50,51, Philips).  Prophets and the Beginning are not separated by billions of years.

Stafford should follow the example of Intelligent Design (ID) pioneer Phillip Johnson (pp. 3, 70-72) who went to the Creation Museum (KY), accepts the possible change of fundamental constants (just like the RATE team) and went on a speaking tour with Flood Geologist Andrew Snelling in the UK.  How many of the scholars in Adam Quest (other than the first 3) have gone to the Creation Museum?  ID leader William Dembski now accepts the Global Flood!

I’m glad Stafford has decided to “pay closer attention” to origins (p. 3).  I would recommend the following:

1) read Coming to Grips with Genesis – Mortenson and Ury

2) read Earth’s Catastrophic Past – Snelling (~1100 pages)

3) watch the Ken Ham v. Bill Nye debate.

Additionally, I hope Stafford reads Persuaded by the Evidence which contain the testimonies of 37 scientists and scholars who became convinced of the traditional creation WorldView.

Microbiologist Bob Messing (p. 3), who is struggling with crevo, should contact Nathan Jeanson (Ph.D. Cell & Dev. Biol., Harvard) and Jeffrey Tomkins (Ph.D. Genetics, Clemson).  They are currently doing research at the Institute for Creation Research (icr) that supports the fixity of kinds.

Kurt Wise had a discussion with Stephen Jay Gould (d. 2002) who made an astonishing admission, “If what you are saying is true, then the Bible’s story about a Flood may be true, and that God who punished sin is likely still alive” (p. 18, emphasis added).  If only Gould had investigated the Scripture more deeply.

Stafford claims that “Conventional geologists and paleontologists have shown no detectable interest in the theory [Flood Geology], except to heap it with scorn” (p. 22).  In contrast, Stokes and Lee state in their Geology text Introduction to Geology (pub. by Prentice-Hall), that, "A catastrophist might contend that the twisting and breaking of strata, the transportation of huge blocks of rock, the violent cutting of canyons, and the wholesale destruction of life is within the power of a great universal flood - and he would be right." [1]  Stafford’s objection regarding fossil order has been dealt with in an earlier post (Dec. 2010).

Here are some Ph.D. scientists in Geology (or Earth Sciences) who hold to the Global Flood:

Of course, this list could be extended if we include Geophysics and Paleontology.  Terry Mortenson has a Ph.D. in the History of Geology from Coventry University (UK).

Stafford, who favors “Theo Evo” - theistic evolution (p. 205), should have spoken with professors of History of Science and Philosophy of Science.  Many of them freely confess that evolution is not proven.  Consider the words of David B. Kitts (d. 2010)who was a Professor of History of Science (and Geology) at the University of Oklahoma:

Evolutionary theory compels us to see the fossil record as evidence of evolution. The paleontological record supports evolutionary theory if you presuppose evolutionary theory. It is consistent with evolutionary theory, but it does not compel us to accept evolutionary theory. The fossil record is consistent with an astronomical number of theories [including traditional creation]. The fossil record does not prove evolution; nothing proves evolution. Evolution is a scientific hypothesis.

Kitts was no creationist and in fact debated Duane Gish and Henry Morris in 1973.[2]  Furthermore, hundreds of scientists have signed the Dissent from Darwin list.  It is likely that thousands of scientists reject evolution, but only a portion of those are willing to admit this publicly.  Slaughter of the Dissidents documents the tragic consequences of those who have.

Stafford seems to think that baraminology is a new thing (p. 23).  Frank Marsh (Ph.D. Plant Ecology, Univ. of Nebraska) actually coined the term baramin in 1941.  Marsh corresponded with leading evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky (d. 1975) in 1945 defining the limits of the Genesis kinds. [3]

Stafford breaks down the major views on origins as follows (p. 7):

1)  Young Earth Creationist.  We prefer OPGHN (“opgane”)- Orthodox Protestants who take Genesis as Historical Narrative.  This term was inspired by Harold Lindsell who said, “Believers in the view that Scripture and the Word of God are synonymous can always use an alternate label such as Orthodox Protestant …” [4]

2)  Intelligent Design Creationist.  ID also includes atheists who doubt or deny evolution.  The term creationist should be dropped.  Even Clinton Richard Dawkins admitted that ID is possible (in the film Expelled).

3)  Evolutionary Creationist.  A better term would be “Theo Evo.”  Sadly, theistic evolution is still popular among Christian academics.Francis Schaeffer said Theo Evo is not an option,

… I will now mention two limits that seem to me to be absolute. … The Bible gives a specific limitation:  Adam was created by God, and then Eve was made from Adam by God. … I have never heard anyone holding any form of theistic evolution who follows these two limitations [the 1^st was that bara means original creation]. …even if I were still an agnostic, as once I was, I would not accept the concept of evolution from the molecule to man in an unbroken line. …this concept is weak and certainly has not been proven … [5]

Is rejecting the traditional creation view going down the “path of ungodliness” (p. 2)?  Charles Templeton worked with Billy Graham in the 1950’s and preached to thousands (up to 30K).  Both Templeton and sociobiologist E.O. Wilson credit evolution for their walking away from the Lord.  Look at Princeton Seminary, look at Davis A. Young (DAY=yom) – the slippery slope is real.  Young once held to a Global Flood (a tranquil flood).

As a clear and present example of the Slippery Slope Syndrome, let’s examine Fuller Seminary.  At the beginning, Fuller was influenced by these scholars:  Carl F. H. Henry, Harold Lindsell (The Battle for the Bible), Gleason Archer (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties) and Charles Woodbridge, to name a few. [6]

Does taking a weak stand on the authority of Genesis lead to other errors?  Consider this bold stance from Harold Lindsell:

The simplest reading of Genesis and the rest of the Bible makes it plain that Adam and Eve are regarded as historic personages and the first parents of the human race.  The genealogical tables include them, and their sons and grandsons are named as though they too were real persons.  When critics declare that the biblical accounts here are myth or saga and not real history, they are allowing extrabiblical data and personal opinions or hermeneutical dodges to sit in judgment on the Bible. [7]

Gleason Archer said, “… The Battle for the Bible has put its finger upon the most urgent issue facing evangelicals today [inerrancy] …” [8]  Gleason Archer supports a global flood!

Lindsell’s prediction from the 1970’s still holds:

I asserted that once an institution surrenders biblical inerrancy it will sooner or later scrap other basic doctrines of the Christian faith.  I asserted in the 1976 book [The Battle for the Bible] that it has already happened at Fuller.  … I also said that down the road, Fuller Seminary will make further concessions and allow for other more marked departures from historic orthodoxy. [9]

Is the slippery slope a reality at Fuller?  Richard Mouw, former President of Fuller Seminary, spoke this shocker,“While I am not prepared to reclassify Mormonism as possessing undeniably Christian theology, I do accept many of my Mormon friends as genuine followers of the Jesus whom I worship as the divine Savior.”  Recently, Fuller officially sanctioned an openly homosexual student group (OneTable)!  What’s next in the slide downward?

If Genesis fails to teach us the truth about origins, then where else has the Bible deceived us?  Give careful thought to this wisdom from Francis Schaeffer:

… from Barth onward they [theological liberals] tried to say that you could have a Bible with mistakes in it, and yet a religious word broke through.  The older theological liberals pressed this; so they went from Barth to Brunner, to Niebuhr to Tillich to the “God is Dead” theology.  Just when it was proven bankrupt on the side of the liberals, some evangelicals seem to think that they’ve found something new, which is a bit curious. [10]

How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,”

when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped.

Since they have rejected the word of the Lord, what kind of wisdom do they have? (Jer. 8:8, 9, NIV)

You may contact us through the email in our profile.  Please follow us on twitter.  Will Tim Stafford go from The Adam Quest to Adam’s Lost Dream?

Notes

1) Introduction to Geology: Physical and Historical by William Lee Stokes and Sheldon Judson (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1968),p.296.

2)  Creation:  Acts, Facts, Impacts ed. by Henry Morris et al (Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, CA, 1974), pp. 1, 40, 41.

3)  Variation and Fixity in Nature by Frank Marsh (Pacific Press, Mountain View, CA, 1976), pp. 36, 37.

4)  The Bible in the Balance by Harold Lindsell (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1979), p. 321, emphasis in original.

5)  The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, Vol. 2, 2e (Crossway, 1996), pp. 136, 137.

6)  Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalismby George M. Marsden (Eerdmans, 1987), p. 1.

7)  Lindsell, p. 285.

8)  “The Right Battle” by Gleason Archer in Lindsell, p. 356.

9)  Lindsell, p. 184.

10)  Francis Schaeffer:  An Authentic Life by Colin Duriez (Crossway, Wheaton, IL, 2008), p. 206, from an interview in 1980.

James Hutton and the Lost Preface

              *** UPDATE ***

Be sure to catch our latest video.  We tackle a potpourri of topics:  Thunder & C-14, Tree Rings & Ammonites,  Norman Macbeth (Darwin Retried), OMNI magazine & censorship ... #Rubio #NormanMacbeth #Darwin #AltMed #TreeRings

James Hutton, the Father of Deep Time, wrote a preface to his Theory of the Earth (1788 and 1795) that was not published until 1975!  Although Hutton was a Deist and rejected Genesis, he held that man has been on this planet for only thousands of years‼ [1]   So, in one sense, Hutton supported Young Earth Science (YES). 

Hutton’s title for the preface is “Memorial justifying the present Theory of the Earth from the suspicion of impiety.”  Hutton understood that his innovations contradict Moses.

Hutton begins his preface as follows:

It belongs to religion to teach, that God made all things with creative power; that perfect wisdom had then presided in the election of ends & means, and that nothing is done without the most benevolent intention. But it belongs not to religion to give a history of nature, or to inform mankind of those things which actually are; it belongs not to religion, to teach that natural order of events, which man, in his science, may be able to unfold, and, in the wise system of intellect, find means to ascertain. The object of revelation and that of natural philosophy being thus perfectly different, it must be absurd to suppose that these can truly interfere; as this may only happen in supposing them not strictly adhering to their respective subjects and one or other of them as not being just. [2]

Notice how this is similar to Stephen Jay Gould’s NOMA position (Nonoverlapping Magisteria).

Hutton shows genuine candor in his preface:

… which of those two contradictory doctrines [“science v. religion”] should be of the highest authority, or command belief: the one is supposed to be divine revelation, the other to be the produce of natural philosophy. Such a question will not appear strange to a person who is truly pious, who acknowledges that all faculties are given him from above, that the laws of nature are true & steady as their author, and that man, made after the image of God, has been ordained to read the wisdom of his author in his works.

lt may perhaps he alledged, that as, from the fallibility of human reasoning, a physical disquisition may he erroneous, revelation, proceeding from a source which cannot err, should not only be reverenced as sacred, but must be received without dispute, and stand unaffected by every authority which is precarious.… it is not here meant either to impeach the authenticity of revelation, or to defend the fallibility of philosophic reasoning; these two things, as sources of human information, can only be compared properly when each, in its kind, is considered as perfect. [3]

Science is “perfect?”  Hutton capitalizes God, but not Author (hmm …). Science is based on fallible human reasoning.

Hutton gives this shocking admission:

It must be evident that if there be in the author of nature truth and in the author of men benevolence, the word of God, whether revealed by the common faculties of man, or given to human understanding in a preternatural [outside of nature] manner, must be always one.  Consequently it were impious to suppose that either one or other of those two different means of information had superior authority or that the proper result of each had not an equal right to be believed. [4]

Is Mother Nature the 67^th book of the Bible??  Where have I heard that before?

Hutton goes on,

The christian religion is founded upon what is contained in the ancient Jewish writings; and in those writings we find something which seems to have the appearance of natural history. But that this is not truly so, or, at least, that such a part of natural history has no concern whatever with the present theory of the earth, will appear from the following considerations. The mosaic history of the creation, in giving a most succinct account of the order in which things were made, contains no chronological description of the beginning of things, or such as might apply to our measure of time, which is by days & years. This will appear by considering, that the sun, by which we measure our time, was not formed until the fourth distinguished period of the creation; and that it would be unreasonable, or no less than absurd, to suppose the term Day, by which each of those periods is expressed, in this Jewish history, means any thing besides an indefinite period, or means any more than to signify that God made all things in a certain order. [5]

Hutton does not capitalize Christian or Mosaic.  Genesis clearly does give a natural history.  About sixteen centuries after Creation Week this globe was destroyed by a worldwide catastrophe (Gen. 9:11).  The Genesis days are real days (Ex. 20:11).

Hutton claimed that his theory, “… does not in any respect interfere with chronology of the Old Testament.” [6]  Genesis chapters 5 and 11 provide an accurate chronology that validates Young Earth Science (YES).

The Great Lisbon Earthquake (1755) occurred in Hutton’s time.  The earthquake and the associated tsunami almost destroyed Lisbon and the surrounding regions.  Seismologists estimate a magnitude 8.5 to 9 for this quake.  Despite such events, Hutton veered away from catastrophism.  Catastrophism is now in a Renaissance.  Writing in Megaflooding on Earth and Mars (Cambridge Univ. Press), Victor Baker states,

After centuries of geological controversy it is now well established that the last major deglaciation of planet Earth involved huge fluxes of water from the wasting continental ice sheets, and that much of this water was delivered as floods of immense magnitude and relatively short duration. [7]

Hutton held to fixity of kinds.  This biological stasis leads one to hold to a worldwide cataclysm. [3]   Biological essentialism => Catastrophism => Young Earth Science (YES).

“If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” (Jn. 3:12).

Graphics credit:  Francis Schaeffer Hall.

Notes:

1) “James Hutton on Religion and Geology:  the Unpublished Preface to his Theory of the Earth (1788)” by Dennis Dean, Annals of Science 32 (1975): 187-193, p. 191.
2) Ibid., p. 189.
3) Ibid.
4) Ibid., p. 190.
5) Ibid.
6) Ibid.
7) Megaflooding on Earth and Mars ed. by Devon Burr, Paul Carling and Victor Baker (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009), p. 1
8) “Huttonian Biology and Geologic Upheaval” by Jay Hall, Creation Research Society Quarterly (1984), 21:76-78.

Fossil Order - Exposed and Explained

              *** UPDATE ***

Be sure to catch our latest video.  We tackle a potpourri of topics:  Thunder & C-14, Tree Rings & Ammonites,  Norman Macbeth (Darwin Retried), OMNI magazine & censorship ... #Rubio #NormanMacbeth #Darwin #AltMed #TreeRings

Why is there an apparent order in the fossil record from simple life to more complex? A philosophical answer to this question is in chapter 12 of Rock Solid Answers ed. by Mike Oard and John Reed, is “Fossil Distribution and the Flood” by John Reed (pp. 207-215). A good summary on fossil order is found here. John Woodmorappe has shown that much of the fossil record is random.

There are places on the earth where ALL the geologic periods overlay the Pre-Cambrian (Pre-Flood). In fact, 23.2% of the Ordovician is directly on top of the Pre-Cambrian and 18.6% of the Devonian is directly on top of the Pre-Cambrian. [1]
How do we explain the order where it does exist (e.g. Grand Canyon and correlated deposits)? Harold Clark proposed his ecological zonation theory back in 1946 in his book The New Diluvialism - animals in habitats at higher elevations would be buried later during the Deluge. [2] Andrew Snelling deals with fossil order in chapter 31 of The Answers Book 2 as well as chapter 91 of Earth’s Catastrophic Past and explains these mechanisms:

· Pre-Flood Biogeography (Ecological Zonation)
· Early Burial of Marine Creatures (95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms)
· Hydrodynamic Sorting (diameter, sphericity and density)
· Behavior & Higher Mobility of Vertebrates (instinct and intelligence)

How do creationists predict the fossil sequence? Birds are found later in the record since they can escape a Flood more easily. Creation Geology Theory predicts the initial strata would show great diversity – that’s what the Cambrian Explosion is all about. Another important factor is that there are Pre-Flood, Deluge and Post-Flood deposits. Snelling places the start of the Post-Flood era around the KT boundary. [3]

In the evolutionary narrative, life started as a single cell so we should find the following in the fossil record:

In fact, we do not find 2-20 celled life in the fossil record.

The Cambrian Explosion, where a wide diversity of life appears suddenly, is consistent with Global Flood Theory, but is a great headache for anti-creationists – Darwin’s Dilemma. As Stephen Jay Gould (d. 2002) stated, “… if the true ancestors of Cambrian creatures lacked hard parts, why have we not found them in the abundant deposits that contain the soft-bodied Ediacara fauna?” [4]
Vertebrates have been found in the Lower Cambrian. [5] In 1969, it was thought that the first vertebrate appeared in the Middle Ordovician. [6] According to The Complete Encyclopedia of Fossils, jawless fish (Pteraspis) appear in the Cambrian. [7] Wikipedia still places them in the Devonian! In 1988, The Washington Post reported on jawless fish found in Bolivia and dated at 470M (Early Ordovician), 20 million years older than previously dated. The BBC reported on a jawless fish found in the Lower Cambrian in China! Apparent bird tracks have been found in Carboniferous strata, over 150M before Archaeopteryx! [8]

It is often claimed that primitive and complex life are not found together in the fossil record. What is meant by “primitive?” If we mean trilobites (not-primitive, e.g. their eyes), then they do coexist. The first mammal has been dated at 260M and the most recent trilobite existed 251M – so they overlap by nine million years by consensus dating. We would not expect them to be in the same rock layer since they live in different habitats.

Are there mammals in lower layers? Yes! In 1969 it was thought that the first mammals began about 170 million years ago. [9] Now it is accepted that the first mammal existed 260 million years ago – that’s a difference of 90M! Mammal footprints have been found in rocks at least 275M and, in similar fashion, horse hoofprints have been found in strata at least 350M (this would put horses at 300 million years older than previously thought). [10] Likewise, cuttlefish were found in the Lower Cambrian in 1974 thus extending their range back 400M! [11] In 1958 echinoids were thought to go back as far as the Middle Ordovician, but since then have been found in the Lower Cambrian – a change of tens of millions of years! Before 1963, it was generally accepted that Belemnoids first appeared in the Triassic. Actually, they were discovered in the Devonian in 1843. [12]
The chart above shows how fossil tracks of animals consistently appear before their body fossils. [13] During the Global Flood creatures fled the oncoming surge of destructive waters and left footprints. Later these same animals were buried during a later stage of the Deluge.
The Laetoli footprints that Mary Leakey found are clearly human. They are assumed to be an upright hominid because of the dating of the beds (3.75M).
There are many examples where the appearance or lack of fossils do not fit the evolutionary view of fossil order:

· Living Fossils (e.g. Coelacanth, Wollemi Pine)
· Lazarus species· Stratigraphic Range Extension (both older & more recent)
· Out-of-Place Fossils

Empire Mountain exhibits a reversal in the accepted order where the Permian rests on the Cretaceous (out-of-order) with no evidence of a thrust plane, but actually having an unconformity which indicates erosion:
There is even a reversal at Heart Mountain (WY) where a period repeats:

If we consider this as an overthrust, then only catastrophism associated with the Flood can explain such massive rock movements. John Morris tells how 50 large carbonate blocks moved over 30 miles at an incline of less than two degrees. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics may help power this mass movement. [14]

There are fossil reversals where we find a change from type A to type B then back to type A. Marvin Lubenow, known for his work with alleged “ape-men,” has compiled a few examples [15]:

James Beerbower, the author of a mainstream paleontology text, freely admits that Dollo’s Law (evolution has no reversals) is not valid. [16] There are also “condensed” sequences where fossils from many ages are found in a thin layer. There are examples of this for ammonites in the Alps, Bosnia, Greece, the Himalayas, Hungary and Italy. [17] In one case, seven ammonite zones (7-10 million years) are found in a deposit that is only three feet thick! The standard explanation that sedimentation was slow is not reasonable. The better explanation is that the entire layer was deposited at the same time and that the various ammonites lived concurrently. Fossil order favors the Flood and contradicts Darwinism.  Does the fossil order support ID and who actually is the Intelligent Designer?

How old is the Earth?  Is Darwinism valid?  How does the Renaissance of Catastrophism relate to the age of the world?  Is your favorite planet thousands or billions of years old?  Discover the shocking evidence in this powerful new book, YES – Young Earth Science by Jay Hall (at Amazon.com). 

Here are some cool Zazzle items on Young Earth Science (YES): 

Notes:
1) “The Essential Nonexistence of the Evolutionary-Uniformitarian Geological Column: A Quantitative Assessment” by John Woodmorappe, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 1, June 1981, pp. 46-71, p. 67.
2) "ecological zonation" "global flood" gets 727 hits on Google, 12-14-10.
3) Earth’s Catastrophic Past by Andrew Snelling (Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, TX, 2009, Vol. 2), pp. 751-761.
4) Wonderful Life by Stephen Jay Gould (W. W. Norton & Co., New York, 1989), p. 59.
5) Snelling, p. 352.
6) Historical Geology 3e by Carl Dunbar and Karl Waage, (John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1969), p. 208.
7) The Complete Encyclopedia of Fossils by Martin Ivanov, Stanislava Hrdlickova, and Ruzena Gregorova (Rebo Intl., Netherlands, 2001, 2002 ed.), p. 244.
8) Snelling, p. 356.
9) Dunbar and Waage, p. 364.
10) “An Anthology of Matters Significant to Creationism and Diluviology: Report 1” by John Woodmorappe, Creation Research Society Quaterly, Vol. 16, No. 4, Mar. 1980, p. 211.
11) “Significant Fossil Discoveries Since 1958: Creationism Confirmed” by Marvin Lubenow, Creation Research Society Quaterly, Vol. 17, No. 3, Dec. 1980, pp. 155-157.
12) “The Cephalopods in the Creation and the Universal Deluge” by John Woodmorappe, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 2, Sep. 1978, pp. 94-112, p. 101.
13) Snelling, p. 451.
14) “Catastrophic Superfaults and the Biblical Flood” by John Morris, Acts & Facts, April 2009, p. 23.
15) “Reversals in the Fossil Record” by Marvin Lubenow, Creation Research Society Quaterly, Vol. 13, No. 4, Mar. 1977, pp. 185-190, 230.
16) Ibid., p. 189.
17) “The Cephalopods in the Creation and the Universal Deluge” by John Woodmorappe, Creation Research Society Quaterly, Vol. 15, No. 2, Sep. 1978, p. 103.

Scientific American - Jan 2009

The January 2009 issue of Scientific American (SciAm) was dedicated to evolution (page references are from this issue). One article rightly attacks the errors of evolutionary psychology (p. 74). Supposed “talking with the dead” is also debunked (p. 36). Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch, both from the National Center for Science Education, write an attack piece on creationism (pp. 92-99).

Throughout this issue, good and evil, morality and ethics are mentioned. Yet, without a Moral Lawgiver and an ultimate Judgment Day (not the NOVA episode) morality makes no sense. Even Immanuel Kant (d. 1804) held that we must accept the existence of God for morality to have meaning. [1]

Atoms-to- Adam evolution and atheism are strongly linked. Darwin doubted the reality of God, “This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one…” (Autobiography p. 90). Darwin no longer doubts the reality of God (see prior post).

How is it that most of the world accepts God’s existence if evolution is so obvious? Consider these statistics of global adherents:
Christians 33.3%
Muslims 21.0%
Jews 0.2%
Total who believe in a Creator 54.5%
Atheists 2.3% [2]
Darwin was not fazed by these facts, “This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God…” (Autobiography p. 91). How many people believe that the Apollo landings on the moon were a fraud? Or consider prisoners who rationalize their crimes. Truth is not determined by universal assent.

A number of articles in this issue focus on natural selection. Edward Blyth, a creationist, published a paper on natural selection in 1835 long before Darwin’s The Origin of Species. Natural selection is a conservative process. What is needed for Bacteria-to-Brainiac evolution to take place is new information in the genetic code and Darwinists cannot explain this. New info is needed to make eyes, wings and other complex organs.

John Rennie, the editor in chief of SciAm, mentioned Stephen Jay Gould’s Wonderful Life on the Burgess Shale which contains the remains of many strange and unique creatures (p. 6). However, this issue has little of the provocative thought that Gould shares. Gould states that, “The history of life is… not the conventional tale of steadily increasing excellence, complexity, and diversity.” [3] Gould points out that the organisms represented in the Burgess Shale in British Columbia belong in 15 to 20 phyla (basic body plans) most of which are now extinct. Some estimates of life in the modern world reach up to 32 phyla. [4] Most of these phyla exist in the Cambrian and yet there is little in the Pre-Cambrian showing intermediate transitional forms from single-celled organisms. This Cambrian Explosion is a major problem for evolution. Both Gould and Darwin admitted that this is a major difficulty. [5] [6]

In an ad on page 11, Paul Davies is mentioned. Davies wrote Cosmic Jackpot that describes the fine-tuning of the universe. If certain physical constants were just slightly different, life itself would be impossible. Davies appeared in the pro-Intelligent Design film Privileged Planet, even though he is not an ID advocate. SciAm overlooks the evidence that the cosmos was made for life and scientific investigation.

SciAm should take Darwin’s advice and allow a creationist response. Darwin states in his intro to The Origin of Species that, “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question…” [7]

Here are some great sites from the “other side”:
Creation Moments
Creation Research Society (creationresearch dot org)
Institute for Creation Research (icr dot org)
Answers in Genesis (answersingenesis dot org)
Creation Ministries International (creation dot com)

SciAm may be contacted by email or snail mail:
editors@SciAm.com
Letters to the Editor
Scientific American
415 Madison Ave
NYC NY 10017


Notes:
1) Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler (Baker, Grand Rapids, 1999), p. 498.
2) Time Almanac 2008 (Encyclopædia Britannica , Chicago, 2008), pp. 600, 601.
3) Wonderful Life by Stephen Jay Gould (W.W. Norton, New York, 1989), p. 25.
4) Ibid., p. 99.
5) Ibid., pp. 56, 57.
6) On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (Mentor, New York, 1958 ed.), pp. 308-312, ch. 10.
7) On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (Mentor, New York, 1958 ed.), p. 28.

In whose hand is the life of every living thing, And the breath of all mankind. With Him are wisdom and strength, He has counsel and understanding. (Job 12:10, 13)