Scientific_Evidence_For_Creation

Scientific_Evidence_For_Creation - wamnossonmcacnsmow ’...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–7. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: wamnossonmcacnsmow ’ «‘- MayIJune 1981 Nos. 95-96 — SUMMARY OF SCIENTIFIC ' EVIDENCE FOR CREATION _ By Duane T. Gish, Ph.D. ,_ Scientist” Richard B. Bliss, Ed.D-. , Science Educator" Reviewed by Wendell B. Bird, J.D. , Attorney*" Emil-i m-m Introduction Public schools in many localiéies are teaching two scientific models—the creation model and the evoluti n model—pf the origin of the universe, of life, and of man. There is apparent, scientific evidence for creation, which is summarized in this pamphlet, just as there is apparent scientific evidence for evolution. The purpose of this pamphlet is to summarize the evidence that shows that: Tfislmpnl paniphhlwasuwinrnbyauimfist.mdasci- are water. and "viewed by an Ilium. to provide a mtwdimmnfimwm The text material: and mime: [medal Ihemdiogemu give a more momgh discussion of this scientific evidence. This scientific evidence for both models can be taught in public schools without any mention of religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto. There are text materials and teacher handbooks that have been prepared for a fair presentation of both models, creation and evolution. There are also seminars and audiovisuals for training teachers to offer both models of origins. ' ‘ “This scientific evidence both for creation and for evolution can and must be taught without any religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto." “Creation-science proponents want public schools to teach all the scientific data, censoring none, but do not want any religious doc- trine to be brought into science classrooms.” Definitions oi: the -' ~ I ‘ - 1.. Creation Model and the p&i Evolution Model " -- . fibeifififi _ " The scientific model of creation, in summary, includes the scientific evi~ dence for a sudden creation of complex and diversified kinds of life, with sys- tematic gaps persisting between different kinds and with genetic variation occurring within each kind since that time. The scientific model ofevolution, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a gradual emergence of present life kinds over aeons of the. with emergence of complex and diversi- fied kinds of life from simpler kinds and ultimately from nonliving matter. The creation model questions vertical evolution, which is the emergence of com- plex from simple and~ change betWeen kinds, but it does not challenge what is often called horizontal evolution or microevolution, which creationists call genetic variation or species or subspecies formation within created kinds. The following chart lists seven aspects of the scientific model of creation and of the scientific model of evolution: ‘ The creation modelincludesthe The evolution model includes scientific evidence and the re- the scientific evidence and the lated inferences suggesting related inferences suggesting that: that: I. The universe and the solar l. The universe and the solar system were suddenly system emerged by natu- created. ralistic processes. ' Life was suddenly created. ll. Life emerged from nqnlile ' A“ present 5mg Huck of by naturalistic processes. \ animals and plants have re- Hi. All present kinds emerged maimed fixed since crea- from simpler earlier kinds. tion. other than extinctions. so that single-celled organ- and genetic variation in ori- isrns evolved into inverte- ginally created kinds has brates. then vertebrates. only occured within nan-ow then amphibians, then rep- .limits. tiles. then manmtals. then . Mutation and natural selec- pmra’ Minding m' tion are insufficient to have . Mutation and natural selec- brought about any emer‘ non have brought about the gence of present living emergence of present com- ldnds lrornasirnple pri- plexkindsiromasimple mordlal organism. primordial organism.‘ ' . Man and apes have a sepa— ' V. Man and apes emerged rate ancostry. from a con-moo ancestor. . The earth's geologic lea- V1 The earth's geologic fea- tures appear to have been tures were fashioned large- lashionedlargelybyrapid, lybyslow.gradualproc- catastrophic processes that cesses. with infrequent allecred the earth on a catastrophic events re- global and regional scale stricted to a local scale - (catastrophism). {uniformitarianism}. --VII. The inception of the earth - W. The biception of the earth and of living kinds may and then of life must have have been relatively re- occurred several billion cent. years ago. ‘ i. The Universe and the Solar .r ' System" Were Suddenly I," 1}; -‘ ' ' if?) I _ . ll" ' Created. { j l ',,' ' The First Law of Thennodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics . states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created. . _ The “big-bang" theory of the origin of the universe contradicts much phy- . sical evidence and seemingly can only be accepted by faith.l This was also the case with the past cosmogonic theories of evolufionists that have been dis- carded, such as Hoyle's steady-state theory. The universe has “obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design." Similarly, the“electron' is materially inconceivable andyet it is so perfectly known through its effects," yet a “strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable elections as real while refusing-to actept the reality of a Designer.” “The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction," in the words of Dr. Wernher von Braun, the renowned late physicist in the NASA space pmgram. ll. Life Was Suddenly Created. Life appears abruptly and in complex fomis in the fossil record} and gaps appear systematically in the fossil record between various living kinds.-1 These facts indicate that basic kinds of plants and animals were created. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things tend to go from order to disorder (entropy tends to increase) unless added energy is directed by a conversion mechanism (such as photosynthesis), whether a system is open or closed. Thus simple molecules and complex protein, DNA, and RNA molecules seemingly could not have evolved spontaneously and naturalisti- cally into a living cell;‘ such cells apparently were created. The laboratory experiments related to theories on the origin of life have not even remotely approached the synthesis of life from nonlife, and the ex- tremely limited results have depended on laboratory conditions that are artificially imposed and extremely improbable}i The extreme improbability of these conditions and the relatively insignificant results apparently show that life did not emerge by the process that evolutionists postulate. “One example of the scientific evidence for creation is the sudden appearance of complex fossilized life in the fossil record, and the systematic gaps between fossilized kinds in that record. The most rational inference from this evidence seemingly is that life was created and did not evolve.” iii III. All Present Living Kinds of Animals and Plants Have Remained Fixed Since Cre- ation, Other than Extinco tions, and Genetic Variation in Originally Created Kinds Has Only Occurred within Narrow Limits. Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record.5 None of the intermediate fossils that would be expected on the basis of the evolution model have been found between single-celled organisms and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, be- tween amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds or mammals, or between “lower” mammals and primates? While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the hundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links. The few suggested links such as Archaeopteryx and the horse series have been rendered ques- tionable by more detailed data. Fossils and living organisms are readily sub- jected to the same criteria of classification. Thus present kinds of animals and plants apparently were created, as shown by the systematic fossil gaps and by the similarity of fossil forms to living forms. A kind may be defined as a generally intertertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not inter- breed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances. Any evo- lutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene poolover time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set (which the creation model recognizes). IV. Mutation and Natural Selec- tion Are insufficient To Have Brought About Any Emergence of Present Liv- ing Kinds from a Simple Pri- mordial Organism. ‘ The mathematical probability that random mutation and natural selection ultimately produced complex living kinds from a simpler kind is infinitesimally small even after many billions of years! Thus mutation and natural selection apparently could not have brought about evolution of present living kinds from a simple first organism. ' ' Mutations are always harmful or at least nearly always harmful in an organ- ism’s natural environment? Thus the mutation process apparently could not have provided the postulated millions of beneficial mutations required for progressive evolution in the supposed five billion years from the origin of the earth until now, and in fact would have produced an overwhelming genetic load over hundreds of millions of years that would have caused degeneration lv '1‘) and extinction. _ Natural selection is a tautologous concept (circular reasoning), because it simply requires the fittest organisms to leave the most offspring and at the same time it identifies the fittest organisms as those that leave the most off- spring. Thus natural selection seemingly does not provide a testable explana- tion of how mutations would produce more fit organisms.m V. Man and Apes Have a-Sepa ‘. _' _ :- - rate Ancestry. ' ' Although highly imaginative “transitional forms” between man and ape- like creatures have been constructed by evolutionists based on very frag- mentary evidence, the fossil record actually documents the separate origin of primates in general,11 monkeys,l2 apes,Ll and men. In fact, Lord Zucker- man (not a creationist) states that th'ere are no “fpssil traces” of a transforma- ' tion from an ape-like creature to man.“ ' The fossils of Neanderthal Men were once considered to represent a primi- tive sub-human {Homo neondertholensis), but these “primitive” features are __ now known to have resulted from nutritional deficiencies and pathological conditions; he is now classified as fully human.15 Romopithecus was once considered to be partially man-like, but is now known to be fully ape-like.“5 Austrolopithecus,in the view of some leading evolutionists, was not inter- mediate between ape and man and did not walk upright.” The strong bias of many evolutionists in seeking a link between apes and man is shown by the near-universe] acceptance of two “missing links" that were later proved to be a fraud in the case of Piltdown Man (Eoonthropus) and a pig’s tooth in the case of Nebraska Man {Hesperopithecus}. 1' ' VI. The Earth’s Geologic Fea- .‘ tures Were Fashioned Largely by Rapid, Catas- ', trophic Processes that Af- fected the Earth on a Global ' and Regional Scale (Catas- _ ‘ _ trophism). ' " ¥ ' - Catastrophic events have characterized the earth’s history. Huge floods, massive asteroid collisions, large volcanic eruptions, devastating landslides, and intense earthquakes have left their marks on the earth. Catastrophic events appear to explain the formation of mountain ranges, deposition of thick sequences of sedimentary rocks with fossils, initiation of the glacial age, and extinction of dinosaurs and other animals. Catastrophism (catas- trophic changes), rather than uniforrnitarianisrn (gradual changes), appears to be the best interpretation of a major portion of the earth’s geology. Geologic data reflect catastrophic flooding. Evidences of rapid catas- trophic water deposition include fossilized tree trunks that penetrate nu- merous sedimentary layers (such as at Joggins, Nova Scotia), widespread pebble and boulder layers (such as the Shinarump Conglomerate oi the southwestern United States), fossilized logs in a single layer covering ex; V 33' tensive areas (such as Petrified Forest National Park), and whole closed clams that were buried alive in mass graveyards in extensive sedimentary layers (such as at Glen Rose, Texas). Uniform processes such as normal n'ver sedimentation, small volcanoes, slow erosion, and small earthquakes appear insufficient to explain large por- tions of the geologic recbrd. Even the conventional uniformitarian geologists are beginning to yield to evidences of rapid and catastrophic processes.” Vii. The Inception, of the Earth and o‘F Living Kinds May. Have Been Relatively Re- cent. ' ' Radiometric dating methods (such as the uranium-lead and potassium- argon methods) depend on three assumptions: (a) that no decay product (lead or argon) was present initially or that the initial quantities can be accu- rately estimated, (b) that the decay system was closed through the years (so that radioactive material or product did not move in or out of the rock), and (c) that the decay rate was constant over time.” Each of these assumptions may be questionable: (a) some nonradiogenic lead or argon was perhaps present initially;21 (b) the radioactive isotope (uranium or potassium iso topes) can perhaps migrate out of, and the decay product (lead or argon) can migrate into, many rocks over the years;22 and (c) the decay rate can perhaps change by neutrino bombardment and other causes.” Numerous radio- metric estimates have been hundreds of millions of years in excess of the true age. Thus ages estimated by the radiometric dating methods may very well be grossly in error. _ Alternate dating methods suggest much younger ages for the earth and life. Estimating by the rate of addition of helium to the atmosphere from radio- active decay, the age of the earth appears to be about 10,000 years, even allowing for moderate helium escape. Based on the present rate of the earth’s cooling, the time required for the earth to have reached its present thermal structure seems to be only several tens of millions of years, even assuming that the earth was initially molten.3‘_Extrapolating the observed rate of apparently exponential decay of the earth’s magnetic field, the age of the earth or life seemingly could not exceed 20,000 years.25 Thus the inception of the earth and the inception of life may have been relatively recent when'all the evidence is considered.26 “There is scientific evidence for creation from cosmology, thermo- dynamics, paleontology, biology, mathematical probability, geol- ogy, and other sciences.” ‘ - “There are many scientists in each field who conclude that the sci- entific data best support the creation model, not the evolution model." 34' References _ 1. Huber. Harold 5.. The Origin of the Universe, San Diem: Imfitlne for Creation Research (ICE). 197a. " 2. 5.5.. Kay, Marshall 8: Colbert. Edwin 1-1.. Stratigraphy and Life History, New York: John Wiley 8: Sons. 1965. p. 102: . Smpson. George (3., The Mahr Features of Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press. 1953. p. 360: f [Pal'eontologists recognize] thatntostnetvspecieS.generaandlarnilies.andthatnearlyallcate- goriesabovethelevelotfamfies.appearintherecordsuddenlyandaremtleduptobylmown. yadual. completely continuous transitional sequel-tees. 3. Note 6 infra. " ' 4. Es" Smith. Charles J. “Problems with Entropy in Biology." Blosjrstems. V. ‘l'. 1975. pp. 259. 264. ‘The earth. moon. and sun constitute an essentially closed thermodynamic system. . ." Simpson. George G.. in Heel-it. Mart A. 8: Steeres. William C-. eds.. Essays in Evolution and New York: Appletdn-Cmtirry-Crofls. 1970. p. 43. 5. Gish. Duane T.. Speculatim and Experinient‘s Related to the Origin Of Life (A CritiQuej. San Diego: lCR. 1972. - ' I _ _ _ 6. 5.9.. Simpson. George G'.. "The Henry of Life." in Tait. Sol. ed.. Evolution after The Evolution of Life. ChicagmUniv. of Clficagp Press. 1960. pp. 117. 149: ' Gaps among known orders. classes. and phyla are systematic and almost always large. . 7. 15.9.. Kins. David 3.. "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory." Evolution. V. 28. 1974. PP- 458, 4-67: . Evolution requires intermediate torn-s betwem species and paleontology does not provide them For examples ol the lack oi transitional fossils. Omntaney. F.D.. The Fishes. New York: Tune-Life. Inc., 1964. p. 60 (invertebrates to vertebrates}; Homer. Alfred 5.. Vertebrate Paleontology. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Prue. 3d ed.. 1966. p. 36 (vertebrate fish to amphibians); Swinton. WEE. Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds. Marshall. 8.3.. ed.. New York: Academic Press. V. 1. 1950. p. 1 (reptiles to birds); Simpson. George G.. Tenant: and Mode in Evolution. New York: Columbia Univ. Pras. 1944. p. 115 {reptiles to mammals]; Sin-tons. El... Annals NY. Acad. Science. V. 157. 1969. p. 319 (mam-rials to prirnates). B. 5.9.. Eden. Murray. “hudequacirs of Nap-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory.” in Moorhead. Paul S. 8: Kaplan. Martin M.. eds... Mom Chaflenges to the Neo-Danur'nian Interpretatan of \Euolutfan. Philadelphla: Wistar Inst. Press. 1967.13. 109: . ’ I l - --—-......._.._.__.. .Itisowcontenfionthatil"random'issivenaseriousandcrucialinta-pretationtrorna ‘ probabilistic pom: _ol m. the random-less postulate is highly unplamihle and that an adequate scientific meowofevolufionmtotawaitdtediscmyandehtddafionotmnatmalhws. . . - 9. 5.9.. Martin. C.P.. “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution.” American Scimtt'st. V. ‘1. 1.954. p. 103. 10. 59.. Popper. Karl. Objective Knowledge. Oxford: Cflarendon Press. 1975. p. 242. ‘_ ' 11. 5.9.. Kelso. Ail" Physical Anthropolog. 2nd ed. Pl'n'ladelphia: .13. Uppincot't. me, p. 142. 12. £19.. told. pp. 150. 151. " 13. 5.3.. Simona. El... Annals N. 1’. Acod. Science, V. 102. 1962. p. 293: Sin-tom. EL, 'The Early Relatives ol Man.” Scientificfimericm. V. 211. July 1964. p. 50. 14. 5.9.. Zuclterrnan. Sir Sally. Beyond the Ivory Tower. New York: Tapinger Pub. Co.. 1970. p. 64. 5- 15. Eva. Ivanhoe. Francis. "Was Vaclav Right about Neandert[h]al?". Nam. V. 22?. 1970 p. 577. _ .. 16. 5.5.. Zuckerman. pp. 75—94; Eclthardt. Robert 3.. 'Population Garetics and Hun-an Origins." Scientific American, V. 226. 1972, pp. 94. 101. -_ —:_ 17. 13.5.. Oxnard, Charla E.. “Human Fussils: New Views of Old Bones.“ American Bion Teacher. 7 . 41, 1979. p. 264. . . ‘ 18. 59.. Straus.-Williarn L. “The Great Pilth Hoax." Seance. V. 119. 1954. p. 265 (Piltdown Man]: ‘ Gregory. Willem K.. ‘Hespempithecm Apparently Not an Ape Nor a Man." Sclmoe. V. 66. 1927. p. 579 (Nebraska Manl- ; 5.9.. Bhattacharyya. A. Sarkar. 5. 8r Chanda. 5.1L. "Ston'n Deposits in the Late Proterozoic Lower . Bhander Sandstone of. . . India." Journal of Sedmentory Petrology, V. 50. 1930. p. 1327: l Until recently. noncatastrophic uniformitarianism had dominated sedimeruologic thought reflecting i that sediment formation and dispersal awe their genes'u chiefly to the operation of day-to—day 'I geologic events. As a result. catastrophic events. :9... storms. earthquakes. etc. have been denied ‘ their rightful place in ancient and Recent sed'mentary records. 0! late, hmmer. there has been a welcome rejuvenation of [the] concept of catastroph'tnn in geologic thought. .._ J. Harlen Bret: recently stated. on receiving the Penrose Medal (the highest geology award in America}. I"li'erl-taps. 1 can be credited with reviving and demystilying legendary Catastrophism and Ichalle-nging a too rigorous Unilannitarian'sm.’ Geological Society of America. “GSA Medals and Awards." GSA News & Information, V. 2. 1980. p. 40. 19. ml ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/14/2009 for the course MCDB 20 taught by Professor Cooper during the Summer '08 term at UCSB.

Page1 / 7

Scientific_Evidence_For_Creation - wamnossonmcacnsmow ’...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 7. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online