It’s amazing to me how true God’s Word really is. Biblical creation, and the biblical flood are being denied and scoffed at by the mass majority in the last days just as the Bible said:
2 Peter 3:3-6 “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. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:”
“That a maker is required for anything that is made is a lesson Sir Isaac Newton was able to teach forcefully to an atheist-scientist friend of his. Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton’s home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences.
Newton’s atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. ‘My! What an exquisite thing this is!’ he exclaimed. ‘Who made it?’ Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, ‘Nobody.’
Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: ‘Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this. Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone. ‘Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has.’ ‘You must think I am a fool!’ the visitor retorted heatedly, ‘Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is.’
Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: ‘This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?”
Sir Isaac Newton Solar System Story (from the book: ‘The Truth: God or evolution?’ by Marshall and Sandra Hall, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI)
Below graph taken from remnantofGod.org
Is Evolution a fact, a theory, or a Law?
ESSAYS ON ORIGINS: Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, Or a Law? -- Or, None of the Above? by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D. This version copyright (c) 1994 by: Missouri Association for Creation _____________________________________________________________________ [No. 4 in a series] October 1993, Vol. 3, No. 10 _____________________________________________________________________ I have heard many Christians say that evolution doesn't concern them because, after all, it's "_only a theory_." Presumably they think that the word "theory" means about the same thing as a "pipe dream." But the term _theory_, at least as it applies to experimental science, has a much nobler meaning than that. A scientific theory is a careful attempt to explain certain observable _facts_ of nature by means of experiments. Since many Christians have concluded that evolution is incompatible with the Biblical account of creation, we would do well to investigate if evolution is a fact or a theory -- or perhaps neither. There is a widespread misconception that good theories grow up to be facts and that the really good ones finally become laws. But these three categories of scientific description are neither directly related nor mutually exclusive. It often occurs that a single natural phenomenon can be described in terms of a theory, a fact, and a law -- all at the same time! Consider the well-known phenomenon of gravity. First, there is a _fact_ of gravity. While we cannot actually see gravitational force itself, we do observe the effects of this force every time we drop something. There is also a _theory_ of gravity that addresses the question of how this force we call gravity really works. While we don't know how gravity works, there are theories that attempt to explain it. Finally there is the well-known _law_ of gravity. This law, first formulated by Isaac Newton, a believing Christian and creationist, is a mathematical equation that shows a relationship between mass, distance and gravitational force. So, in summary, a _scientific fact_ is an observable natural occurrence; a _scientific theory_ is an attempt to explain how a natural occurrence works; and a _scientific law_ is a mathematical description of a natural occurrence. Science itself is the whole process of making careful observations of certain facts of nature and then constructing and testing theories that seek to explain those facts. Scientists call these attempts to test their theories experiments. Experimental science, better known as _empirical science_, is the kind of science that is responsible for the marvelous technological achievements that make our life easier. One has only to consider what it would be like to endure surgery without anesthesia to appreciate the contributions of empirical science to our lives. The most important requirement of empirical science is that any object or phenomenon we wish to study must first be _observable_. While we may assume the existence of events not witnessed by human observers, such events are not suited to study by empirical science. Secondly, the event we wish to study should be _repeatable_. Unique and unrepeatable events, such as the Babylonian Empire, are the subject of history, not empirical science. Finally, any theory we might propose as an explanation for an observable and repeatable event must be _testable_: we must be able to conceive of an experiment that could refute our theory if it were wrong. If one were to propose an explanation for an event in such a way that no one could conceive of any way to test or refute it, it wouldn't be a theory at all, but rather a _belief_. Beliefs, of course, are not necessarily wrong, they just aren't well suited to study by empirical science. What then shall we say of evolution? First, evolutionists tell us that major evolutionary changes happen far too slowly, or too rarely, to be _observable_ in the lifetime of human observers. The offspring of most living organisms, for example, are said to remain largely unchanged for tens of thousands, or even millions, of years. Second, even when evolutionary changes do occur, evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky tells us they are by nature "_unique, unrepeatable_, and _irreversible_." Dobzhansky concludes that the "applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted." Finally, evolutionist Paul Ehrlich concedes that the theory of evolution "cannot be refuted by any possible observations" and thus is "outside of empirical science." Still, the occurrence of evolution is widely believed by the scientific community to be a "fact" and those who dare to doubt it are not endured gladly. The _Encyclopedia Britannica_ confidently assures us that "we are not in the least doubt as to the fact of evolution." In his textbook _Evolution_, Joe Savage says "we do not need a listing of the evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution any more than we need to demonstrate the existence of mountain ranges." In another textbook, _Outlines of General Zoology_, H. Newman arrogantly declares that evolution has no rival as an explanation for the origin of everything "except the outworn and completely refuted one of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudicial." What exactly is the "observable fact" of evolution? First you should be aware that evolutionists recognize two types of "evolution" -- _microevolution_, which is observable, and _macroevolution_, which _isn't_. So called "microevolution" is a process of _limited_ variation among the individuals of a given species that produces the sort of variety we observe among dogs. Macroevolution, on the other hand, is a hypothetical process of _unlimited_ variation that evolutionists believe transforms one kind of living organism into a fundamentally different kind such as the transformation of reptiles into birds or apes into people. Obviously, no one has ever observed anything remotely like this transformation. The very name "microevolution" is intended to imply that it is this kind of variation that accumulates to produce macroevolution, though a growing number of evolutionists admit there is no evidence to support this. Thus, an observable phenomenon is extrapolated into an unobservable phenomenon for which there is no evidence, and then the latter is declared to be a "fact" on the strength of the former. It is this kind of limitless extrapolation that comprises much of the argument for evolution. In conclusion, macroevolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator. Similarly, the Biblical account of creation is not observable, repeatable or refutable by man. Special creation is accepted with faith by those who believe that the Bible is the revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient Creator whose Word is more reliable than the speculations of men. Both evolution and creation, however, can be compared for their _compatibility_ with what we _do_ observe of the facts of nature. In future essays we will see that creation by intelligent design is a vastly more reasonable explanation for the origin of the complexity we see in living things than is evolution by mere chance and the intrinsic properties of matter. _______________________________________________________________________ Dr. Menton received his Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University. He has been involved in biomedical research and education for over 30 years. Dr. Menton is President of the Missouri Association for Creation, Inc. Originally published in: St. Louis MetroVoice PO Box 220010 St. Louis, MO 63122 _______________________________________________________________________ Corrections and revisions have been made by the author from the original published essay. This text file prepared and distributed by the Genesis Network (GenNet). Origins Talk -- (314) 821-1078, Walt Stumper, Sysop. FidoNet, 1:100/435; FamilyNet, 8:3006/28; GenNet, 33:6250/1 email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org Voice: (314) 821-1234 Genesis Network I -- (407) 582-1972, Jim Johnston, Sysop. FidoNet, 1:3609/11; FamilyNet, 8:3111/0; GenNet, 33:6150/0 CompuServe: 73642,2576 Voice: (407) 582-1880 Contact either of the above systems for information about file distribution and echos.
The law against Evolution
There Ought to Be a Law Against Evolution -- And There Is! by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D. This version copyright (c) 1994 by: Missouri Association for Creation _____________________________________________________________________ [No. 3 in a series] September 1993, Vol. 3, No. 9 _____________________________________________________________________ Perhaps the reason so many people continue to reject the notion of evolution is that it seems contrary to ordinary experience. Things left to chance just don't get done. Random changes in anything simply do not produce higher levels of organization and complexity. Rather, all complex machines and devices with which we are familiar are the result of intelligent design and manufacture. Random changes can only destroy them. None the less, the essential claim of evolution is that random change and natural selection do make simple things spontaneously transform into more complex things without recourse to intelligent purpose or design. The famous evolutionist Julian Huxley has defined evolution as a "directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products." In his book _Evolution in Action_, says that nowhere in the process of evolution "is there any trace of purpose, or even of prospective significance." Huxley says that evolution is driven solely by "blind physical forces" engaged in what he calls a great "chaotic jazz dance of particles and radiations." Incredibly, Huxley concludes that evolution is a process in which "the only over-all tendency we have so far been able to detect is that summarized by the second law of thermodynamics -- _the tendency to run down_." Now think about this -- one of the most highly respected spokesman for evolution tells us that evolution produces an increasingly high level of organization in things by means of a chance process whose only over-all tendency is to cause things to break down! The whole notion that random change over a long period of time can transform simple systems into ever more complex systems runs precisely contrary to one of the most fundamental laws of nature -- the second law of thermodynamics. The Second Law states that with time, everything in the universe tends to undergo progressive _degradation_. With the passing of time, things do not naturally increase in order and complexity -- they _decrease_. Think of what spontaneous change over a thousand years will do to an automobile, or your own body. Scientists tell us that with enough time, this natural degradation process will lead to the "heat death" of the whole universe when virtually everything in nature will run down to the point that even molecular motion will cease! Evolutionists have tried to get around this formidable obstacle by arguing that the Second Law only applies to _closed_ systems that do not receive energy from the outside. The earth, they remind us, is an _open_ system that receives energy from the sun. Evolutionists believe that as long as energy flows into such a system, simple things will just naturally transform into more complex things. They believe that the immense complexity we see in all the living things here on earth has occurred at the expense of our sun. While the sun is burning up, and thus decreasing its free energy and complexity in accordance with the Second Law, the sun's energy promotes a local _increase_ in complexity here on earth. To illustrate how all this is supposed to work, evolutionists often give simple examples such as the earth's water cycle. The Second Law predicts that in a closed system, water will naturally flow _down_ hill and will not flow _up_ hill. But the earth being an open system, receives energy from the sun which can in effect make water flow "up hill." Specifically, the sun's energy can evaporate water which has accumulated on the earth causing water vapor to rise up again into the atmosphere. Having made a small investment in fact, evolutionists hope to gain a wholesale return by huge extrapolation. They would have us believe that just as a little energy from the sun can cause water to evaporate and go "up hill," so a lot of energy impacting on the earth over 4.5 billion years can cause a mixture of the gases methane and ammonia to transform into people. The evolutionist cannot get around the Second Law, as it applies to evolution, with such trivial examples. All observed cases in which complex things are derived from less complex things demand an already existing machine that is at least as complex as that which it produces. While this machine requires energy to do its work, energy by itself is not enough. Energy and raw materials, for example, are used in an automobile factory to make complex automobiles, but nothing would come of these resources were it not for the even more complex machines, designs, and intelligent workers associated with the factory. Like factories, living animals and their cells are comprised of extraordinarily complex machines that use energy and raw material in the form of food to do work, produce complex products, and even make identical copies of themselves. The food that sustains life is ultimately a product of living green plants. Such plants uses energy from the sun to convert water and carbon dioxide into sugar and starch. This process, known as photosynthesis, involves still other complex machines called chloroplast in the cells of green plants. It is important to emphasize that all the different kinds of energy consuming machinery in living cells are not the chance products of mere energy and raw material, but are constructed according to extraordinarily complex and precise "blueprints" in the genes of each cell. Copies of these "blueprints" are read and implemented by still other complex machines in the cell called ribosomes. When all of this genetic information and machinery is present and working properly, in say an acorn, it has everything it needs to use sunlight and simple raw material to grow into an oak tree. But if the same sunlight shines on a dead oak tree, it will eventually break it down into dust. Creationists are convinced then that there is a law against the theory of evolution -- the second law of thermodynamics. Evolutionists, on the other hand, continue to reject the idea that thermodynamics is in any way incompatible with evolutionary theory. They insist that creationists simply don't understand thermodynamics. But the great physical scientist Lord Kelvin, who was the very founder of the second law of thermodynamics, was a Bible-believing Christian and a creationist! Kelvin, a contemporary of Charles Darwin, was convinced that the science of dynamics was incompatible with evolution. In one of his published lectures, Kelvin said: "I need scarcely say that the beginning and maintenance of life on earth is absolutely and infinitely beyond the range of all sound speculation in dynamical science. The only contribution of dynamics to theoretical biology is absolute negation of automatic commencement or automatic maintenance of life." The Bible tells us that "every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything."(Heb. 3:4) It requires less faith to believe this eminently reasonable statement about the origin of complex things as revealed in the sure Word of God than it does to believe in the unreasonable speculations of men. _______________________________________________________________________ Dr. Menton received his Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University. He has been involved in biomedical research and education for over 30 years. Dr. Menton is President of the Missouri Association for Creation, Inc. Originally published in: St. Louis MetroVoice PO Box 220010 St. Louis, MO 63122 _______________________________________________________________________ Corrections and revisions have been made by the author from the original published essay. This text file prepared and distributed by the Genesis Network (GenNet). Origins Talk -- (314) 821-1078, Walt Stumper, Sysop. FidoNet, 1:100/435; FamilyNet, 8:3006/28; GenNet, 33:6250/1 email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org Voice: (314) 821-1234 Genesis Network I -- (407) 582-1972, Jim Johnston, Sysop. FidoNet, 1:3609/11; FamilyNet, 8:3111/0; GenNet, 33:6150/0 CompuServe: 73642,2576 Voice: (407) 582-1880 Contact either of the above systems for information about file distribution and echos.
The Human tail, and tales of Evolution
The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D. This version copyright (c) 1994 by: Missouri Association for Creation _____________________________________________________________________ [No. 7 in a series] January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1 _____________________________________________________________________ In the May 20, 1982 issue of _The New England Journal of Medicine_, Dr. Fred Ledley, M.D. presented a clinical case report titled "Evolution and the Human Tail." Ledley's report concerned a baby born with a two inch long fleshy growth on it's back, bearing a superficial resemblance to a tail. Ledley strongly implied that this growth (called a caudal appendage) was essentially a "human tail," though he admitted that it had virtually none of the distinctive biological characteristics of a tail! All true tails have bones in them that are a posterior extension of the vertebral column. Also, all true tails have muscles associated with their vertebrae which permit some movement of the tail. Ledley conceded that there has never been a single documented case of an animal tail lacking these distinctive features, nor has there been a single case of a human caudal appendage having any of these features. In fact, the caudal appendage Ledley described is merely a fatty outgrowth of skin that wasn't located in the right place on the back to be a tail! Still, Ledley saw his caudal appendage as providing compelling proof for the evolution of man from our monkey-like ancestors. He said that: "even those of us who are familiar with the literature that defined our place in nature (Darwinism) -- are rarely confronted with the relation between human beings and their primitive ancestors on a daily basis. The caudal appendage brings this reality to the fore and makes it tangible and inescapable." Is there any branch of science, other than evolution, where such trivial data can be extrapolated into such profound and "inescapable" facts? The "human tail" is just one example of what evolutionists call a "vestigial organ." As the name suggests, these organs are supposed to represent useless remnants of what were once functional and useful organs in our primitive ancestors. As recently as 1971, the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ claimed that there were more than 100 vestigial organs in man. Even critically important organs such as the thymus and parathyroid glands were once considered to be vestigial simply because their functions were not understood. As biomedical science has progressed, there are fewer and fewer claims of functionless organs. Despite their diminishing numbers, vestigial organs are still mentioned in textbooks as one of the strongest evidences for evolution and against intelligent design by a Creator. The most frequently cited examples of vestigial organs in man are the coccyx and the appendix. The human coccyx, or "tail bone," is a group of four or five small vertebrae fused into one bone at the lower end of our vertebral column. Most of us never really think about our "tail bone" until we fall on it. Evolutionists are dead certain that the coccyx is a vestige of a tail left over from our monkey-like ancestors. The coccyx does occupy the same relative position at the end of our vertebral column as does the tail in tailed primates, but then, where else would it be? The vertebral column is a linear row of bones that supports the head at its beginning and it must end somewhere. Wherever it ends, evolutionists will be sure to call it a vestigial tail. Most modern biology textbooks give the erroneous impression that the human coccyx has no real function other than to remind us of the "inescapable fact" of evolution. In fact, the coccyx has some very important functions. Several muscles converge from the ring-like arrangement of the pelvic (hip) bones to anchor on the coccyx, forming a bowl-shaped muscular floor of the pelvis called the pelvic diaphragm. The incurved coccyx with its attached pelvic diaphragm keeps the many organs in our abdominal cavity from literally falling through between our legs. Some of the pelvic diaphragm muscles are also important in controlling the elimination of waste from our body through the rectum. Another common evolutionary claim found in textbooks is that the human appendix is really a vestigial cecum left over from our plant-eating evolutionary ancestors. The cecum is a blind-ending pouch near the beginning of the large intestine which provides additional space for digestion. In some plant-eating animals, such as cows, the cecum contains special bacteria which aid in the digestion of cellulose. The appendix is clearly not a vestigial cecum because almost every mammal has a cecum and many of these _also_ have an appendix! Man, for example, has both a cecum _and_ an appendix -- neither is vestigial or useless. The appendix, like the once "vestigial" tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body's immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary "left over," many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice. There are organs in the body which have no known function in the adult but are still not vestigial in the evolutionary sense. For example, poorly developed and inactive mammary glands are found in adult males of all mammals, including man. Even evolutionists do not believe that these rudimentary glands are vestigial mammary glands left over from female ancestors of males, nor do they believe that males once nursed their young. There is a much better explanation for the male mammary gland. Males and females develop from nearly identical embryos which, at an early stage of development, become either male or female under the influence of genes in the sex chromosomes. The same parts of an embryo may produce either male or female sex organs and mammary glands. In humans, almost every component of female sex organs can be found in a rudimentary form in the male; and the reverse is also true. Thus, the presence of rudimentary organs in the adult do not tell us something about evolution, but rather tell us something about embryology. In conclusion, the "vestigial" status of many organs has often been merely a way of covering up our ignorance of their true function. Unfortunately, there is little inclination to investigate the functional significance of organs believed to be "useless." There are now few, if any, organs that are considered to be functionless in both embryo and adult. Even if vestigial organs were to exist they would not provide evidence for evolution but rather for _devolution_. The problem for evolutionists is not how useful organs are lost, but how evolution produces new useful organs with all their integrated complexity. It is here that we find true evolutionary tales. _______________________________________________________________________ Dr. Menton received his Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University. He has been involved in biomedical research and education for over 30 years. Dr. Menton is President of the Missouri Association for Creation, Inc. Originally published in: St. Louis MetroVoice PO Box 220010 St. Louis, MO 63122 _______________________________________________________________________ Corrections and revisions have been made by the author from the original published essay. This text file prepared and distributed by the Genesis Network (GenNet). Origins Talk -- (314) 821-1078, Walt Stumper, Sysop. FidoNet, 1:100/435; FamilyNet, 8:3006/28; GenNet, 33:6250/1 email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org Voice: (314) 821-1234 Genesis Network I -- (407) 582-1972, Jim Johnston, Sysop. FidoNet, 1:3609/11; FamilyNet, 8:3111/0; GenNet, 33:6150/0 CompuServe: 73642,2576 Voice: (407) 582-1880 Contact either of the above systems for information about file distribution and echos. (taken from jesus-is-lord.com - I do not subscribe to this site'e exact theology, I am just using their creation facts)
A Decade of Creationist Research
----------------------------------------------------------- Copyright 1995 by the CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY (CRS), Inc. ----------------------------------------------------------- ... continued from 12_1a1.txt ... A DECADE OF CREATIONIST RESEARCH ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (Part II) by DUANE T. GISH, Ph.D. Creation Research Society Quarterly 12(1):34-46 June, 1975 *New Guinea Communities and the Migration Dispersion Model* The origin of the peoples of New Guinea is a subject of dispute among anthropologists. Regardless of their origin, New Guineans in the past have tended to isolate themselves in small groups which have become diversified both linguistically and genetically. R. Daniel Shaw compiled data on the ABO, MNS and Rh blood groups for natives of New Guinea in 37 areas spread over the entire island in an attempt to discover any relationships that might aid in correlating these genetic data, (31) and which might provide some basis for postulating bow these diverse groups arose. Although the data are insufficient to validate any theory, Shaw maintained that his data supported a Migration-Dispersion model for the origin of these New Guinea population groups. According to this model, as individuals migrate in small numbers from a common gene pool, the new group becomes more distinct than the source group. This is so because new generations come from only a limited gene pool and are isolated from the normalizing effect of interbreeding within a large gene pool where all genetic factors are available. Genetic traits peculiar to the group are thus rapidly and strongly expressed because of a high degree of inbreeding. It is postulated that "Papua-Melanesians" migrated to New Guinea in relatively large numbers. After settling on the coasts of what was probably an uninhabited island, population growth forced these people to migrate up river valleys and into the highlands. These groups became reproductively isolated from one another due to geographic, linguistic and cultural barriers. This gave rise to populations that were genetically diverse from one another, since each migratory group had carried with it only a fraction of the total gene pool. While evolutionists generally propose that the origin of races required gradual processes over a vast length of time, creationists postulate that a process similar to the one above could have caused the origin of races in a short period of time. The rapid dispersion that took place following the confusion of tongues at Babel (32) would have resulted in the isolation of relatively small groups. Furthermore, the manner in which God bestowed various languages among this previously monolingual human population may have been so directed as to isolate genetically similar individuals in the same language group. Thus, those individuals having a higher proportion of genes for Negroid features, or for Caucasian features, etc., may have been given a common language. Once the race itself was established through isolation and inbreeding, further migrations and other isolating mechanisms, such as those described above, could account for the diversity within each major racial group. *Pine Cone Spirals and the Fibonacci Series* A curious, but seldom observed, pattern runs through much of nature. (33,34) The reproduction of male bees, the number of spiral floret formations visible in many sunflowers, spiraled scales on pine cones and pineapples, the arrangement of leaves on twigs, and many other structures fit the Fibonacci series. This series, developed by the Italian mathematician Leonardo of Pisa, also known as Fibonacci (1170-1230), is 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, . . . , with each number the sum of the two previous numbers. Harry Wiant's study of the cones of the major southern pines confirmed that, almost without fail, the number of spirals around the cones at a selected point, to the right and left, were adjacent numbers in the Fibonacci series. (34) Some exhibited counts of 5 and 8, others of 3 and 5. Preliminary studies indicated that approximately 50% of the cones give the maximum count to the right and 50% show the maximum to the left. Wiant suggested that these patterns in nature, in both the plant and animal world, rather than reflecting a random evolutionary process, are indicative of the design of a Creator-God. *Stability of Bacterial Populations* Basic to the orthodox evolutionary model is the belief that the population of an organism is constantly undergoing change due to mutations and pressures brought on by changes in the environment. Jerry Moore studied a pure culture of _Proteus mirabilis_, a bacterial species belonging to the Enterobacteriaceae family of the Eubacteriales order, which he had isolated from a clinical source, in order to determine its stability or variability over a period of time under markedly different conditions. (35) The organism was serially transferred onto 10 randomly-selected laboratory media and the cultures were held at temperatures ranging from 20-37C. for a period of three months. The conditions of culture and incubation were thus quite varied, yet remaining favorable enough at times for hundreds of bacterial generations to occur. After 62 serial transfers, 30 biochemical and antibiotic sensitivity characteristics had not changed from those initially observed, except for a minimal and variable response to Penicillin G. The variable response to the latter may have been due to cell wall damage from exposure of the bacteria to noxious components in the culture media rather than to exposure to Penicillin G. Moore's experiment, although admittedly limited in scope and duration, does support a natural biologic stability. In his paper, Moore reviewed some examples in the scientific literature of tremendous biologic stability, including a study which indicated that a bacterium had retained its rigid biological characterization during the 150 years it has been subject to investigation. NATURAL SELECTION As mentioned earlier in this article, fundamental to evolutionary thinking is the concept that new varieties within each species are constantly arising via mutations or other genetic variations. The genetic variants that arise by these processes, due to differences in viability, fertility, etc., contribute, via reproduction, differentially to the gene pool of subsequent generations, some leaving more offspring than others. Those that reproduce a larger proportion of offspring which, in turn live to reproduce in larger numbers, are said to be the most fit. They are said to have been selected by nature, and the evolutionary process is thus a process of mutation with natural selection. Another concept that is fundamental to evolutionists is the belief that these minor changes, or micromutations, accumulate in such a way that one basic kind of an organism can change into a basically different kind of an organism, and simple organisms will change or evolve into more complex organisms. Creationists recognize that all organisms have an ability to vary, but they insist that all empirical evidence indicates that this ability is restricted within relatively narrow limits, and that there is no evidence that one kind of an organism has ever arisen from a basically different kind of an organism. They further believe that this ability to produce normal variants (distinguished from pathological variants) was built into each kind by the Creator to enable each kind to survive under a great variety of conditions, and thus to be perpetuated even though conditions may change. Creationists are interpreting biological data according to this concept rather than within evolutionary concepts. *Galapagos Island Finches* Darwin and other evolutionists have supposed that the varieties of finches now living in the Galapagos Islands, a group of islands lying 600 miles and more west of South America, have arisen from migrants from South America. The original migrants, it is believed, were more or less uniform, but mutation with natural selection has given rise over a long period of time to finches that now inhabit the various islands and which possess differences (mainly in size and shape of the bill) in response to variations in the type of food supply found on the several islands. Creationists interpret these data in much the same way, with some important exceptions. They point out, first of all, that the variation that has apparently occurred among these finches is very limited, for these finches are not only still birds, but they are still finches. Neither the molecule-to-man idea of evolution, nor the idea that basically different kinds of birds, such as ducks, hummingbirds, and vultures, have arisen from a common ancestor is supported by such evidence. Secondly, creationists believe that the genetic potential, or gene pool, carried to the Galapagos Islands by the migrant finches from South America was sufficient to permit the variation that has occurred. This variability did not arise via mutations, but the potential was already present in the original migrants, which diverged into various forms as a result of the chance arrangement of their original variability potential (the fact that this variability potential existed was not by chance!). Finally, as the study of these finches by Walter Lammerts (36) showed, the actual divergence that has occurred among these finches is considerably more limited than represented in much of evolutionary literature. Dr. Lammerts studied the large collection of Galapagos Island finches (sometimes called "Darwin's finches") at the California Academy of Science. He particularly noted: 1) the length of each bird from tip of bill to end of tail, 2) the height from belly to top of back, 3) total length of bill, and 4) width of the ventral side of the lower mandible of the bill. These finches have been classified into four genera, _Geospiza_, _Camarhynchus_, _Cactospiza_, and _Certhidea_. Those studied by Lammerts bore 17 different species labels. While Lammerts held that the _Certhidea_, or Warbler finches, are distinctive from the other genera, he stated that the four species within this genera are hardly more than color variations, and should be placed in a single group with species rank rather than genus rank. Lammerts further observed that if all the species labels were removed from the remainder of the Galapagos Island finches and they were arranged according to body and bill size, complete intergradation would be found. The same is true of bill length and width and plumage coloration. Lammerts noted that the range in variation among these finches, although they are classified into several genera and many species, is exactly comparable to the variation found within a single species of song sparrow, _Melospiza melodia_. He further pointed out that these finch "genera" are in no way comparable in distinction to the genera _Rosa_ (roses), _Frageria_ (strawberries), and _Pyrus_ (pears), members of the family Rosaceae. Lammerts considered that it would be much more realistic to classify these finches into a single species. He also emphatically rejected the idea that the variations in size of bill are "adaptive divergences" resulting from natural selection. Present feeding habits, Lammerts emphasized, are the *result* of the particular types of bills which happened to occur among these birds, rather than the bills developing slowly as an adaptation to differences in the types of food available. *Crowding and Reproductive Rates in Planaria* E. N. Smith has reported on his study of the effect of crowding on asexual reproduction of the planaria _Dugesia dorotocephala_. (37) As Smith pointed out, there are two possible mechanisms for regulating population densities. Individuals within a population might reproduce maximally near their physiological limit, with the population density being regulated by negative outside forces (predation, disease, starvation, etc.). Those individuals which are better able to compete against these outside forces and reproduce more offspring are said to be more fit and thus to be selected. Alternately, the individuals within a population might possess some internal regulating force which in some way regulates population density and maintains a form of density homeostasis. Evolutionists generally prefer the former view. Natural selection is said to favor the individuals that can leave the most reproducing offspring. On the other hand, if the alternate view is correct, there would be no real competition between populations and no selection. The postulated cause of the evolutionary process would fail. The freshwater planaria, _Dugesia dorotocephala_, reproduce asexually by fissioning. Smith maintained the planaria in identical containers, and conditions in each experiment were the same in each container, except the population density was maintained at different levels. Smith found that crowding clearly reduced the fissioning rate of the planaria. This reduction did not appear to be due to slime, oxygen depletion or carbon dioxide build-up, but appeared to be due to some water-soluble inhibitor produced by the planaria. The planaria thus appeared to have a built-in density-dependent reproduction regulatory mechanism. Smith postulated that these creatures (and other animals) regulate their own numbers without the necessity of outside forces such as predation, starvation, and disease. He pointed out that built-in density dependent reproduction rates were mandatory after creation and before the fall, and that it is quite conceivable that living organisms bad a mechanism for regulating their numbers without intervention of external conditions such as predation, starvation and disease. *Plant Succession Studies* Walter Lammerts and George Howe used plant succession studies to observe the effect of natural selection under widely divergent conditions. (38) Repeated field analyses were made of variation in five plant species populations including the California poppy, lupine, thistle sage, owl's clover, and a yellow pansy, representing five different plant families. Observations were made over a period of five growing seasons at staked localities in the vicinities of Newhall and Corralitos, California. Despite great variation in annual precipitation during the study, no gradual shifts or evolutionary trends were evident. The natural selection observed actually restricted the amount of variation, bringing populations back to a typical or normal form during years of moisture stress. Lammerts and Howe concluded that these studies indicated no evidence for natural selection of the type required by evolution theory. Origin of the great range in variation found in many species of plants were discussed. It was the conclusion of one of the authors, namely Dr. Lammerts, that plant variations were supernaturally derived from the originally small populations of plants of the various kinds which survived the Flood. The alternative possibility exists, however, that a sufficiently diverse gene pool within each plant family survived the Flood to give rise to the many plant varieties existing today. The experiments by Howe discussed in the next article have shed some light on this question. GENERAL BIOLOGY *Seed Germination and Plant Survival Following Submersion in Salt and Fresh Water* George Howe undertook a study of the effect of prolonged submersion of seeds of flowering plants in sea and fresh water as an aid in understanding bow plants were able to survive the Flood. (39) Seeds from the fruits of five different species and families of flowering plants were tested for germination after soaking in sea water, fresh tap water, and an equal mixture of sea and tap water. Soaking was continued for a maximum of 140 days, which corresponds roughly to the 150 days during which water prevailed upon the earth during the Flood. At intervals of 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 weeks after initiation of soaking, seeds of each plant species were removed from the various treatments and placed under favorable germination conditions. Ability to survive the soaking varied among the plant species tested, but even after a soaking period of 140 days in each of the solutions mentioned above, seeds from three out of the five species tested germinated and grew. The first suggestion that Howe made in answer to the question of plant survival during the Flood was that many plants did not survive! He pointed out that much destruction of plant life would be expected during a prolonged global flood and that extinction of many species would thus be a predictive consequence of such a flood. Paleobotanical studies have revealed that numerous kinds of plants are found as fossils but which are not found living today. Howe reviewed several other mechanisms for plant survival during the Flood in addition to resistance to soaking by seeds. Vegetation, including trees, have been known to have been torn away by storms and carried out to sea still embedded in soil masses. Survival during prolonged periods of such a process would be possible. Plant material has been known to have been transported while embedded in icebergs. Seeds that were contained in the carcasses of dead birds floating in sea water have been known to germinate and grow. No doubt many seeds would have been carried on the ark, as well. From his data and those of others, Howe concluded that a variety of mechanisms were available to account for the survival of plants during the Flood. *Flora and Fauna of the Galapagos Islands* John Klotz visited the Galapagos Islands, made famous by Darwin, and has published an extremely interesting review of the plants and animals which now inhabit these islands, particular attention being given to finches, tortoises, cacti, and iguanas. (40) About a half dozen of these islands measure 10 to 20 miles across, and one, Albemarle, is 80 miles along. Mountains on these islands rise 2,000 to 3,000 feet above sea level, the highest point being 4,000 feet on Albemarle. Generally the islands are arid and the landscape harsh. Inland and at higher altitudes, there is humid forest with rich black soil and tall trees covered with ferns, orchids, lichens, and mosses. In the very highest areas there is open country with grass, ferns, mosses, and occasional thickets. Floral and faunal types are relatively few in number. The fauna include only six passerine forms of birds and one species of cuckoo; two types of land mammals (a bat and a rat); and five types of land reptiles, which include a giant tortoise, a lizard, a gecko, a snake, a land iguana, and a marine iguana. There are no amphibians. Domesticated animals have been introduced by settlers. Klotz devoted a large section of his paper to the finches. He stated that there seems to be no reason to question their origin from a common ancestor. As Klotz noted, evolutionists have generally assumed the origin of all the finch species from a single gravid female, a single pair, or at most a very small number reaching the islands together. Klotz discussed the suggestion of Lammerts (1966), mentioned earlier in this paper, that migration of finches to the Galapagos Islands might have included many pairs, although he did not seem to favor that view. Klotz, in contrast to Lammerts, maintained that most of the Galapagos Island finch species are actual species rather than mere varieties. There seems to be good evidence on each side, although Lammerts presented some especially convincing evidence. Klotz believes there is no reason to doubt that new species arise or that new species of finches actually did arise on the Galapagos Islands. Klotz emphasized that origin of species is comparatively only a minor problem for evolutionists. Finches are still finches and there is no evidence of the changes in magnitude required for macroevolution, that is, increase in complexity with origin of one basic kind from another. He thus asserted that the evidence presented by the fauna and flora of the Galapagos Islands did not constitute any real support for amoeba-to-man evolution. TAXONOMY *Molecular Approaches to Taxonomy* Taxonomy is the science of classification of plants and animals. It is obvious that there are recognizable groups of organisms in the present world which have many similar characteristics. Such groups have always existed as evidenced both by the fossil record and the Genesis reference to "kinds." The father of taxonomy, Carolus Linnaeus, was a strong believer in creation, and believed, as do modern creationists, that similarities among organisms exist not because of their origin from a common ancestor but because God based His creation on a complex of plans with an underlying thread of unity. Wayne Frair's approach to taxonomic studies avoids evolutionary presuppositions, his assumption being that the world of life is to be viewed as having risen from certain stem organisms which constitute the original "kinds" mentioned in Genesis. He views the problem of grouping organisms within the kinds and of establishing relationships among the kinds to be the proper function of taxonomists. Frair's interests as a biologist have included serology and herpetology. He combined elements of both in his taxonomic studies, utilizing antibodies to the serum of turtles as an aid in establishing the taxonomic relationship of these turtles. (41) He injected the blood sera of the turtles into rabbits or chickens in order to establish antibodies to the serum proteins. The antibody-containing serum, or antiserum, was obtained from the rabbits or chickens and mixed with serial dilutions of the serum from the various turtles. The sera from closely related turtles would be expected to give a strong cross-reaction, while sera from distantly related turtles would cross-react weakly or not at all (a cross-reaction is said to be obtained if antiserum generated by injection of serum of species A also reacts, or gives a precipitate, with serum from species B). Frair's studies did not support the widely held view that snapping turtles belong to a separate family related to the Kinosternidae, but rather should be placed within the Emydid family group. Such a switch is probably minor enough to pose no problem for the evolutionary biologists. Creationists maintain, of course, that taxonomic classification should be established without reference to a supposed evolutionary origin or phylogeny, but should be based strictly on degree of similarity. THERMODYNAMICS Many papers have been published in the _CRS Quarterly_ which were concerned with the relationship of the laws of thermodynamics to the creation-evolution problem. Emmett Williams, in his most recent paper on this subject, presented an excellent review of the papers on this subject. (42) To review these papers here, or even to review in detail Dr. Williams' outstanding series of papers on this subject (43-46) would exceed the scope of this paper. To omit any mention of this work from the present paper, however, even though such work did not involve collection of any new and original data as such, would be a serious omission. I will, therefore, briefly review Williams' series of papers. Those who hold to the general evolution model postulate that the present universe and all that it contains began in some primordial disordered state. Evolutionary forces have been at work throughout the billions of years since that state existed, it is believed, and have acted in such a way that the highly structured universe and a vast array of incredibly complex organisms have arisen here on the earth. Thus, there has occurred, according to this thinking, at least in the observable part of our universe and particularly on the earth, an immense increase in order and complexity. This supposedly has taken place solely according to mechanistic, naturalistic processes which can be attributed to properties inherent in matter. If the above were true, then matter obviously must have possessed an inherent ability for organization into higher and higher levels of order and complexity. Scientists should have been able to recognize this universal inherent property of matter and to construct natural laws which describe it. As a matter of fact, scientists have *not* been able to recognize any such property of matter. However, scientists have recognized just the opposite tendency in matter. The more probable state of matter is always the more random state. Every change in nature that takes place *spontaneously* always results in a *loss* of order. Natural processes always occur in such a way that the complex tend to become less complex, ordered states tend to become disordered. Therefore, this universe is constantly becoming more disordered. This tendency is so universal and so unfailing it can be expressed as a law - the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The operation of the natural forces which has resulted in man's description of these forces in the form of the Second Law of Thermodynamics has a number of consequences, and thus the Second Law may be defined in several ways. These consequences include the loss of usable energy, the loss of order, and the loss of information. The Second Law may thus be defined in several ways so as to emphasize these several consequences. In discussions of this Law and its relationship to the creation-evolution problem, the loss of order and information consequences are usually emphasized. In Williams' first paper on this subject, (43) he discussed the operation of the Second Law from the viewpoint of classical thermodynamics (loss of usable energy) and the viewpoint of statistical mechanics (loss of order). Entropy is a thermodynamic quantity which can be defined, in a non-technical sense, as a measure of the randomness of a system - the greater the randomness or disorder within a system the greater the entropy. An increase in order requires a decrease in entropy, while the reverse is true. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is thus sometimes referred to as the law of increasing entropy. In his first paper, which was the more technical of the series, Williams discussed entropy and the solid state. Following an excellent introduction, including a thorough definition of terms and of the Second Law in thermodynamic and statistical terms, Williams discussed the effect of entropy on the solid state. Contrary to what is commonly believed, crystalline solids are not structurally ordered. There are many imperfections in the lattice structures of such solids, and these imperfections are thermodynamically stable because the entropy of the solid is increased by their presence. Williams emphasized that the principle of increasing entropy is opposed to evolution and to certain aspects of ruin-reconstruction interpretations of Genesis 1. A simplified explanation of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics was given in non-mathematical language in Williams' second paper. (44) That the total amount of energy in the universe is a constant is expressed in the First Law. Since matter and energy are interchangeable, and therefore equivalent, everything in the physical universe is a form of energy and neither increases nor decreases, in perfect agreement with the Biblical pronouncement of a finished creation. Williams explained that evolution could not have occurred unless both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics were violated many times. He shows that the three arguments which are usually offered by evolutionists to circumvent the laws of thermodynamics are invalidated by the evidence. In his third paper (45) Williams asked the question, "Is the universe a thermodynamic system?" One would have to know the answer to that question before one could assert with authority that the laws of thermodynamics apply to the entire universe in addition to our readily observable portion of the universe, where these laws have been tested. Williams asserted that there is no way scientifically to determine the extent of the universe or its thermodynamic character at the present time. He pointed out, however, that statements in Scripture support the fact that the laws of thermodynamics do apply to the entire universe. The applicability of the First Law is asserted in Genesis 2:1-3 and in 11 Peter 3:7, and the applicability of the Second Law is made plain in Psalms 102:25, 26, and Romans 8:20-22. Since the universe is subject to these laws of thermodynamics, and no matter or energy exchange can be observed, it is *assumed* that the universe is an isolated thermodynamic system. But whether the universe is open, closed or isolated, it is definitely degenerating. No matter what type of a thermodynamic system is chosen, the entropy of the system always increases with the occurrence of an irreversible process. Williams therefore asserted that evolutionists, who demand a decrease in entropy, are in an indefensible position in the face of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In his fourth paper (46) Dr. Williams offered an extremely interesting and thorough consideration of the applicability of the laws of thermodynamics to living systems. There is a rather general impression, often stated by evolutionists, that living systems somehow circumvent the Second Law, since the development of a seed or fertilized egg into the adult organism seems to result in an increase in complexity. As Williams pointed out, this increase in complexity is only apparent and not real. The fertilized egg is as complex, or more so, than any cell in the growing or adult organism. All of the information needed for the production of the adult is present in the egg. No new information is needed or added. As a matter of fact, almost from the moment of conception, loss of information and order via mutations, injuries, and disease begins. This loss of order, or the rate of increase in entropy, slows during development, but never ceases. The rate of entropy increase accelerates during the aging process and finally results in death, whereupon the organism reaches its maximum entropy state - a pile of dust. If living things circumvented the Second Law of Thermodynamics, they would live forever. As indicated early in this section, Williams' most recent paper (1973) on thermodynamics in the _CRS Quarterly_ was a review of creationist literature on the relationship of the laws of thermodynamics to the subject of creation and evolution. Publications by Henry M. Morris, R. E. D. Clark, D. Penny, T. G. Barnes, George Mulfinger, Walter Lammerts, I. McDowell, Bolton Davidheiser, G. C. Lockwood, and A. E. Wilder-Smith were cited in this respect. Dr. Williams concluded his 1973 paper with a discussion of evolution in the light of probability considerations, showing that evolution, on the basis of these probability considerations alone, can be shown to be impossible. A RESEARCH CHALLENGE In 1970, Larry Butler, then Chairman of the Research Committee of the Creation Research Society, issued a research challenge to creationists in the form of a list of proposed research projects. (47) These included: (a) experimental demonstration that coal can be formed rapidly under catastrophic conditions (This has actually been demonstrated since then by a University of Utah scientist - see reference 17.); (b) experimental formation of fossils under a variety of conditions in order to demonstrate that fossilization can take place relatively rapidly; (c) experimental determination of optimum conditions for rapid growth of coral reefs; investigation of caves, mine shafts, and tunnels of recent origin (100-200 years) to determine growth rates of stalactites and stalagmites; (d) anthropological measurements of variations in thickness, shape, etc., of contemporary human skulls. Other suggested research included: (a) consideration of the thermodynamic effects of the Flood; (b) surveys of geological formations from high altitude (40,000 feet) and interpretations of the broad features revealed within the context of Flood geology; (c) continuation of Howe's investigation of the effect of soaking in sea water on the viability of seeds; (d) a reinvestigation of alleged examples of species formation; (e) further research to verify the claim that radioactive decay of uranium and thorium has actually produced only a minute fraction of the helium that should have been produced in 4.5 billion years. Further projects listed were: (a) research to determine the true origin of cultivated plants; (b) carbon dating of samples of organic material that is supposed to be millions of years old and which should thus be devoid of radiocarbon (C-14); (c) taxonomic studies in an attempt to determine the limits of the "kinds" described in Genesis; (d) a formulation of a list of "living fossils," that is, a list of plants and animals once believed to have been extinct for millions of years but now known to be living; (e) finally, an investigation of settling rates to, see if differential settling by water action, as proposed by Whitcomb and Morris (48) can account for the way fossils are distributed in the geological formations. The list of proposals by Dr. Butler is certainly not exhaustive, of course. For instance, there is the need for: (a) Dr. Barnes to continue his fascinating study of the magnetic field of the earth, (b) a continued need for the search for remains of the ark on Mount Ararat, (c) further investigations of alleged overthrusts, (d) research into the processes and procedures used in radiometric dating, etc. Butler nevertheless posed a real challenge to creation scientists; and he gave some idea of the important need for creationist research and the possible direction of such research. As is evident from this review, creationists have not been idle during the past decade, and readers can expect that creation scientists will have gained significant insight into many of the problems posed by Dr. Butler before the end of the present decade. *References* CRSQ = _Creation Research Society Quarterly_ (1) Creation Research Society is a non-profit organization incorporated in the State of Michigan. (2) Slusher, H. S. 1966. Supposed overthrust in Franklin Mountains, El Paso, Texas, CRSQ 3(1):59-60. (3) Lammerts, W. E. 1966. Overthrust faults of Glacier National Park, CRSQ 3(1):61-62. (4) Burdick, C. L. 1969. The Lewis overthrust, CRSQ 6(2):96-106. (5) Burdick, C. L. and H. S. Slusher. 1969. The Empire Mountains - a thrust fault?, CRSQ 6(1):49-54. (6) Lammerts, W. E. 1972. The Glarus overthrust, CRSQ 8(4):251-255. (7) Rusch, W. H., Sr. 1971. Human footprints in rocks, CRSQ 7(4):201-213. (8) Films for Christ, Route 2, Eden Road, Elmwood, Illinois 61249. (9) Meister, W. J., Sr. 1968. Discovery of trilobite fossils in shod footprints of human in "Trilobite Beds" - a Cambrian formation, Antelope Springs, Utah, CRSQ 5(3):97-102. (10) Burdick, C. L. 1973. Discovery of human skeletons in Cretaceous formation, CRSQ 10(2):109-110. (11) Cousins, F. W. 1966. Fossil man. Evolution Protest Movement. 110 Havant Road, Stoke, Hayling Island, Hants, England; and 1557 Arrow Road, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Pp. 47-61. (12) Burdick, C. L. 1966. Microflora of the Grand Canyon, CRSQ 3(1):38-50. (13) Burdick, C. L. 1972. Progress report on Grand Canyon palynology, CRSQ 9(1):25-30. (14) Rusch, W. H., Sr. 1968. The revelation of palynology, CRSQ 5(3):103-105. (15) Burdick, C. L. 1967. Ararat - the mother of mountains, CRSQ 4(1):5-12. (16) Coffin, H. G. 1969. Research on the classic Joggins petrified trees, CRSQ 6(1):35-44. (17) Gish, D. T. 1972. Acts and Facts, 1(4):1-4. (Institute for Creation Research). 1973. Creation: Acts, Facts, Impacts Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego), pp. 15-19. (18) Coffin, H. G. 1974. (in) Challenge to Education II-B. The Bible-Science Association, Caldwell, Idaho, pp. 36-41. (l9) Northrup, B. E. 1969. The Sisquoc diatomite fossil beds, CRSQ 6(3) : 129-135. (20) Peters, W. G. 1971. The cyclical black shales, CRSQ 7(4):193-200. (21) Nevins, S. E. 1972. Is the Capitan limestone a fossil reef?, CRSQ 8(4):231-248. (22) Nevins, S. E. 1974. Post-Flood strata of the John Day Country, Northeastern Oregon, CRSQ 10(4):191-204. (23) Barnes, T. G. 1971. Decay of the earth's magnetic moment and the geochronological implications, CRSQ 8(1):24-29. (24) Barnes, T. G. 1972. Young age vs. geologic age for the earth's magnetic field, CRSQ 9(1): 47-50. (25) Barnes, T. G. 1973. Electromagnetics of the earth's field and evaluation of electric conductivity, current, and joule heating in the earth's core, CRSQ 9(4):222-230. (26) Barnes, T. G. 1973. The origin and destiny of the Earth's magnetic field. The Institute for Creation Research, San Diego. (27) Lammerts, W. E. 1965. Planned induction of commercially desirable variation in roses by neutron radiation, CRSQ 2(1):39-43. (28) Lammerts, W. E. 1967. Mutations reveal the glory of God's handiwork, CRSQ 4(1):35-41. (29) Lammerts, W. E. 1969. Does the science of genetic and molecular biology really give evidence for evolution?, CRSQ 6(1):5-12. (30) Tinkle, W. J. 1971. Pleiotropy: extra cotyledons in the tomato, CRSQ 8(3):183-185. (See also a relevant article in this issue.) (31) Shaw, R. D. 1972. Why genetic variation between New Guinea communities (Migration-dispersion model applied), CRSQ 9(3):175-180. (32) Genesis 11: 1-9. (33) Time (April 4, 1969), pp. 48 and 50. (34) Wiant, H. V. 1973. Relation of southern pine cone spirals to the Fibonacci series, CRSQ 9(4):218-219. (35) Moore, J. P. 1974. A demonstration of marked species stability in Enterobacteriaceae, CRSQ 10(4):187-190. (36) Lammerts W. E. 1966. The Galapagos Island finches, CRSQ 3(1):73-79. (37) Smith, E. N. 1973. Crowding and asexual reproduction of the planaria, Dugesia dorotocephala, CRSQ 10( 1 ):3-10. (38) Lammerts, W. E. and G. F. Howe 1974. Plant succession studies in relation to micro-evolution, CRSQ 10(4):208-228. (39) Howe, G. F. 1968. Seed germination, sea water, and plant survival in the great Flood, CRSQ 5(3):105-112. (40) Klotz, J. W. 1972. Flora and fauna of the Galapagos Islands, CRSQ 9(1):14-22. (41) Frair, W. 1967. Some molecular approaches to taxonomy, CRSQ 4(1):18-22. (42) Williams, E. L. 1973. Thermodynamics: a tool for creationists (Review of recent literature), CRSQ 10(1):38-44. (43) Williams, E. L. 1966. Entropy and the solid state, CRSQ 3(3):18-24. (44) Williams, E. L. 1969. A simplified explanation of the laws of thermodynamics, CRSQ 5(4): 138-147. (45) Williams, E. L. 1970. Is the universe a thermodynamic system?, CRSQ 7(1):46-50. (46) Williams, E. L. 1971. Resistance of living organisms to the second law of thermodynamics: Irreversible processes, open systems, creation, and evolution, CRSQ 8(2):117-126. (47) Butler, L. G. 1970. A research challenge, CRSQ 7(2):88-89. (48) Whitcomb, J. C. and H. M. Morris 1964. The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia. More information about creationist research can be obtained by writing to: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Creation Research Society + + P.O. Box 969 + + Ashland, OH 44805-0969 + + USA + + (email: CRSnetwork@aol.com) + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ----------------------------------------------------------- Copyright 1995 by the CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY (CRS), Inc. ----------------------------------------------------------- COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS: This data file is the sole property of the Creation Research Society and may not be altered or edited in any way. It may be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware." All reproductions of this data file must contain the copyright notice listed at the beginning of this file [i.e., "Copyright 1995 by the CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY (CRS), Inc."]. This data file may not be used without the permission of the Creation Research Society for resale or the enhancement of any other product sold. This includes all of its content with the exception of a few brief quotations not to exceed more than 500 words in total. If you desire to reproduce fewer than 500 words of this data file for resale or the enhancement of any other product for resale, please give the following source credit: Copyright 1995 by the Creation Research Society, P.O. Box 376, Chino Valley, AZ 86323. (taken from jesus-is-lord.com - I do not subscribe to this site'e exact theology, I am just using their creation facts)