APPENDIX 2

CREATION AND EVOLUTION



In one short essay we can hardly hope to provide even an adequate outline of the controversy between evolutionists and creationists, let alone resolve any of the issues in detail. It is a complicated argument, touching the fields of Biblical exegesis, interpretation of the fossil record, biology, chronological methods, anthropology, astronomy, historical geology, genetics, flood geology, and more. All that we shall attempt in these few pages is to show how significant the controversy is, and how impossible it is to try to bridge the gap between the two ideologies.


Competing views of our morally-mixed universe

When one reads the account of creation in Genesis, interpreting the language in a natural and straightforward manner, one is led to believe that God personally designed the world and its systems, executed His design in six days, and then quit creating any new forms or systems. This creation, as we saw in the second and third chapters was originally in a condition of paradise, but was cursed and then modified by God after the great rebellion of man and Satan, first through the introduction of death and then through a world-wide catastrophic flood that altered many of the original systems on this planet. The one who trusts this revelation from God about our origins looks out at the present creation with full understanding of its mixed nature: of order and yet decomposition, of tranquility and yet violence, of life and yet death, of exquisite beauty and yet hideous deformity. This mixture makes perfect sense to the believer of the revelation, because he has been taught the history that is recorded and reflected in the present creation: the original perfection that was drastically altered (though not obliterated) by the curse upon man's sin.


However, it is only by revelation that we can know there was an historical sequence: original perfection, then sin, then destructive judgment. Not believing that revelation, unbelievers have drawn a different conclusion about the history behind this mixture. They look out upon a universe that, to them, was never "created," never fell, was never judged, and which reflects no moral history; it has always been like it is now: a mixture. They believe that living things came into being because of the coincidental coming together of the factors necessary to originate a living organism; that this organism developed into increasingly complex organisms, until finally man came into being -- all because of chance occurrences, beneficial mutations and "natural selection" (that is, domination by those in greatest harmony with their environment -- the most prolific, the most intelligent, the fastest, the strongest, the most isolated from natural enemies, etc.).


Does the Earth reveal its own history?

Now the believer and the unbeliever are both looking at the same physical world; the trouble is, however, that the history of the earth cannot be clearly deciphered simply by observing the current conditions at work in the earth. There are signs that a history has definitely occurred,1 but unless one allows the testimony of God's revelation, the exact nature of that history can only be deduced from the clues provided by those conditions.


Let's create an example of how complex this deduction from clues can be. Suppose you come upon a home that has obviously burned down. You see a burned-out gas can on what used to be the front porch, the burned wreck of an airplane a few dozen feet away, and a charred water heater -- that had obviously exploded -- standing in the rubble. All you have are the clues themselves: no one is around who saw the fire. The possibilities are many: the gas can presents the possibility of arson -- perhaps someone splashed the front porch with gasoline and simply lit a match. But then, even if you detected the smell of gasoline in the wood, it would not prove that such is what happened -- the fire could have started elsewhere, and its heat could have exploded the gas can, spewing the gasoline on the already burning wood. Well then, there's the airplane -- perhaps it crashed, and a burning part ignited the house. But then perhaps the house set the plane on fire -- it could have crashed days, weeks or months before. Well then, look at the water heater -- lots of fires start from malfunctioning heaters; perhaps it developed a gas leak and exploded, setting off the fire. But then, perhaps the fire caused the heater to explode (isn't this getting frustrating?). Who knows: maybe they are all involved somehow, like one of those Rube Goldberg improbable chain of events. Somebody was working in the attic, fell through the ceiling on to the water heater, knocking its gas line loose, the loud sound distracted somebody carrying the gas can, causing them to trip and spill the gas all over a hibachi, the fire caused the heater gas line to explode, shooting the top of the furnace through the ceiling hole that had been created by the falling man, and high into the air, where it knocked out the pilot of the passing plane, causing him to crash. But then, perhaps it was the plane that crashed first, causing... The possibilities are endless, aren't they? And there is no clear proof of which caused what to happen. And while you are pondering whether the plane, the gas can or the water heater set off the blaze, along comes the owner of the house and informs you that lightning hit the house last night and set it afire, igniting also the airplane that he had towed from the local airport -- where it had crashed -- to salvage for its parts.


Do you understand what we are up against when trying to figure out the history of the earth by looking only at the residue of its past events? And the problem is horribly more complex than the problem of the house fire described above; the possible reconstructions are virtually endless. The possibilities of being led far astray by erroneous basic assumptions are very great. And if perhaps the earth's clues simply are not sufficiently detailed or numerous enough to provide any certain answer at all, then you will run the risk of having people grasp at a solution because they cannot stand the thought of there being none. And that kind of solution, since it is not at all required by indisputable evidence, may well turn out to be the one that a man wants to believe for other than scientific reasons.


The child of God is in a wonderful position: he possesses the report of the builder and owner of the house, Who was there while its history all took place. The Creator has given a brief but concise testimony of the universe's origin and history. With this guide, the interested believer can look at all the remnants of the earth's history, and the present condition it is in, with full confidence that all observations of its past and present (that is, all observations that are clearly factual) will be able to be interpreted harmoniously: all because we have the divinely-given key to interpret the clues. By themselves, and apart from that key, these "fact-clues" are capable of many different interpretations, like our house fire illustration above. Armed with that key, however, all indisputable facts will be found to harmonize with each other and with the key itself. There will still be much searching and sifting and arranging of data to do before being able to put all the pieces together, but it will be able to be done.


How scientific are evolutionary scientists?

In this reconstruction process, however, it is vitally important that we know what are truly facts, what are merely the most statistically-probable causes, what are "educated opinions," and what are presumptions posing as facts. And, pilgrim, it is precisely in this area that "John Q. Public" has been subjected to a massive deception. Regarding evolution, you and I have grown up -- if we went to typical schools -- being told that many things are proven facts which in fact are educated opinions or presumptions that have had acceptance for so long that they are now passing for facts.


Look, for example, at that work which has the reputation of unimpeachable integrity, The Encyclopaedia Britannica. They hire the best in their field to write the essays touching upon that field. In the revised Britannica of 1975 the author on the essay "Evolution" is Sir Gavin de Beer, a world famous British scientist -- a former professor of Embryology in the University of London, and Director of the British Museum of Natural History in London -- and a dedicated evolutionist. Listen to the confidence with which he asserts the certainty of evolution:


Evolution is accepted by all biologists, and natural selection is recognized as its cause by English-speaking biologists and others, though not widely in western continental Europe. Objections to evolution have come from theological and, for a time, from political standpoints.

Darwin did two things. he showed that evolution was a fact contradicting Scriptural legends of creation and that its cause, natural selection, was automatic with no room for divine guidance or design. Furthermore, if there had been design, it must have been very maleficent to cause all the suffering and pain that befall animals and men.2


Earlier in the essay, Sir Gavin asserted even more dogmatically that Darwin had "established evolution as an inescapable fact" (p. 7). Please note carefully what Sir Gavin is asserting: all biologists accept evolution; objections to evolution may have come from (ignorant) theologians and politicians, but not from scientists; Darwin proved evolution to be certain; and if there were any intelligence underlying this present order it would have to belong to a being who is evil, because of the suffering that occurs within this created order.


If Sir Gavin had to stand in a court of law and try to defend this statement, he would be "cut to ribbons" by any competent attorney. Darwin never "proved" anything, as he himself was careful to admit: he knew the difference between an hypothesis and a fact. Furthermore, objections to evolutionary concepts have come from some very qualified and competent scientific circles.3 Sir Gavin is deliberately perpetuating the fanciful impression that evolution has been proven, when it is admitted by evolutionary scientists among themselves that not only has it not been proven, but that the theory is one of the most unproductive and unverifiable hypotheses that has ever existed in the community of scientists. After well over one hundred years of existence, those who are its proponents have as yet to even agree upon a method by which this alleged changing of species conceivably could have occurred.


There is so much disagreement over fundamentals that while some are insisting that countless millions of years combined with an accumulation of small adaptations and mutations are still the proper way to account for evolution, there are others like the highly respected geneticist Richard Goldschmidt who insisted that there is no fossil evidence for the gradual changes insisted upon by the classical evolutionary approach, and that what actually "must have" happened was a gigantic genetic leap from one species to another.4 More recently, two very eminent astronomers, Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, after joining in the agreement that the fossil record, mathematical probability theory and the overwhelmingly adverse nature of genetic mutations all work against classical evolutionary theory, propose the theory that what "must have"5 happened was the purposeful introduction by a higher intelligence to earth from intergalactic space of all the necessary and complex building blocks for a subsequent upward evolution (including viruses, bacteria and even insects).6 How "factual" can this evolutionary theory be when the mechanism by which it supposedly occurs can be capable of such extremely diverse explanations?


A point of great importance is that among scientists no other theory than that of evolution would be tolerated when, after more than a century, there was no agreement upon the most fundamental element of the theory -- and no sign of an agreement ever coming to pass. But is not the reason why this theory is continuing to be propagated that the only other reasonable alternative is all too obvious and far too repugnant to be allowed: the theory that creative intelligence planned and executed the entire creation in a manner such as the Scriptures present? The creators and proponents of the evolutionary hypothesis have been shown by Clark and Bales' historical study, Why Scientists Accept Evolution, to have known that the creation theory is the only realistic alternative to their theory.7 Hoyle and Wickramasinghe express well the common attitude among unbelieving biologists:


...to involve purpose [as an explanation of the origins of creation] is in the eyes of biologists the ultimate scientific sin, worse even than to express doubt of the validity of Darwinism."8


Those who have propagated the evolutionary hypothesis have come under the criticism of logicians for using invalid logic in "proving" the hypothesis. I would heartily recommend reading Norman Macbeth's short work Darwin Retried as an excellent example of this kind of criticism.9 Macbeth is a lawyer, trained at Stanford and Harvard, and shows no signs in his book of being a Christian, let alone a believer of the Scriptures. Yet he demonstrates compellingly time after time, how bankrupt and invalid is the reasoning of the most eminent of the evolutionists. He begins with Darwin himself:


He took the micro changes observed by the breeders (which in themselves did not begin to fill the gaps) and he extrapolated them. He said, in brief, that twenty years of breeding often achieved substantial changes; therefore, if nature continued the work for a hundred million years, it could close all the gaps... Extrapolation is a dangerous procedure. If you have a broad base of sound observations, you can extend it a little at the ends without too much risk; but if the base is short or insecure, extension can lead to grotesque errors. Thus if you observe the growth of a baby during its first months, extrapolation into the future will show that the child will be eight feet tall when six years old. Therefore all statisticians recommend caution in extrapolating. Darwin, however, plunged in with no caution at all (p. 31).


Macbeth then points out what is quite commonly known by evolutionists, that no one has ever observed a single major change occur, "whether in the breeding pens or among the fossils" (p.31). Darwin also knew this, but contended that the blame was to be placed on the incomplete fossil record; however, 100 years of digging have increased our samples enormously, and the charge still stands: there is not one single fossil in which one species is demonstrably on the way to becoming something else. Every fossil, including that of the much misused archeopteryx, has its parts all accounted for; they are not developing into something else.10 Yet if the random theory of evolution were true, for every well-constructed creature there would have to be thousands that had useless parts undergoing some kind of evolution (upward or downward) -- but the fossil record contains none of them. Any scientific theory other than evolution would be dismissed summarily because of such lack of evidence, but the evolutionary theory is the only alternative to admitting that the most probable source of life was creation by a pre-existing Intelligence.


Macbeth also describes the faulty reasoning that is used again and again by the most eminent of evolutionists to try to get people to believe that evolution is a plausible process. He deals with, among many others, George Gaylord Simpson, a noted evolutionary scientist:


Simpson's mind is operating in the same way when he says, "The origin of such an organ as the eye, for example, entirely at random seems almost infinitely improbable," then adds that "there must have been some additional factor or process" and that this must have been natural selection. He creates a vacuum, offers natural selection as the only remaining possibility, and regards this as a proof that natural selection can do anything. It is unnecessary for him to show what natural selection actually can do. A logician would call this begging the question (p. 91).


There is very little that can be done to actually prove or disprove evolution scientifically. The dating methods that are in common use actually assumed an aspect of evolution in establishing their measuring systems.11 There are dating methods which would establish a young earth -- such as the steadily declining strength of our magnetic field, the accumulation of sodium in sea water, the accumulation of meteorite dust on the ocean bottom, and many others -- but they are ignored by most of the scientific community.12


The fossil record cannot be used to scientifically prove or disprove evolution. All that it demonstrates is that there used to be many more abundant and more varied forms of life around than exist now, something that makes perfect sense in light of the Genesis flood. The fossil record does not, however, record slow evolutionary changes over long periods, for the fossil record is largely the history of catastrophes, as many evolutionists admit. For every one La Brea tar pit, with its slow and gradual accumulation of animals that died in it one by one, there are many examples of large scale catastrophe like the Old Red Sandstone in Scotland. Throughout that 10,000 square miles of former sea bottom, at thicknesses ranging from 100-300 feet, countless millions of fossilized fish are entombed in positions of struggle and fright, with no signs of having been peacefully entombed: one catastrophic event entombed the whole lot of them.13 We have all been bombarded with the imagery of the typical fossil site being like the tar pit; but when were we ever told that the Old Red Sandstone is the norm, and the tar pit is the exception? When were we informed that the flash-frozen mammoths found in Siberia, with undigested vegetation in their frozen stomachs, prove conclusively that the region was temperate in climate -- capable of producing enough food for herds of mammoths -- until changed permanently and suddenly by an icy invasion that brought with it temperatures of approximately -150 degrees Fahrenheit and overwhelmed these beasts, freezing their stomach acids and blood before there was time for the acids to dissolve the vegetation and for the water in the blood vessels to separate from the blood cells?14 The seasons in that region could not have slowly and gradually become colder, or else these mammoth carcasses would have rotted long ago: the weather changed abruptly and permanently.


The earth's fossil record abounds with evidence of one or more great catastrophes, and yet that is not communicated to the person being educated in our society. The majority of people have been brainwashed by those who do not seem to truly love facts or true science; their presentation has been prejudicial in extreme, seeking to bully people into accepting evolution lest they be thought non-scientific (as our encyclopedia article above exemplifies). This evolutionary theory is unworthy even as a scientific hypothesis, yet it is being passed off as if proven. If current truth-in-advertising policies were required of proponents of evolution they would be legally obliged to hedge their hitherto bold assertions with so many qualifications that people would be able to see how unsubstantial it is, even when only presented as an hypothesis: the whole theory would die the proverbial death of a thousand qualifications, to the well-being of true science.


Will mathematics come to the aid of evolution?

The only scientific discipline that actually can be used by way of true proof is that of probability theory. When Darwin and fellow founders of random evolutionary theory proposed that pure chance could account for the creation and evolution of life into increasingly complex forms it seemed believable enough to many, for there was no way of computing what "chance" was able to accomplish. But since then the science of mathematical probability theory has been developed as an amazingly precise method of dealing with chance events. It has been relied upon to send men to the moon and back. Probability theory has been used to establish the likelihood of chance, under the most favorable conditions, being able to account for the ordering of such things as an amino acid, a protein molecule, a DNA molecule, a gene, and the simplest possible living cell. It turns out that chance is an exceedingly stupid creator, and that it is mathematically impossible for even a single protein to have come into being by pure chance, let alone a countless host of living creatures.15 To get an idea of the stupidity of pure chance, Dr. Coppedge shows us its inability even to spell a simple phrase:


Suppose we put chance to a test which is less simple, yet something that would be quite easy for any school child. Let it spell this phrase: "the theory of evolution." Drawing from a set of twenty-six letters and one blank for the space between letters, what is the probability expectancy? ...let us imagine that chance is employing an imaginary machine which will draw, record, and replace the letters at the speed of light, a BILLION draws PER SECOND! Working at that unbelievable rate, chance could spell "the theory of evolution" once in something over 26,000,000,000,000,000 years on the average." ...a child could do it in a few minutes. Chance would take more than five million times as long as the earth has existed (if we use the five-billion-year rounded figure which some evolutionists now estimate as the age of the earth).


Again, a child can do this, using sight and intelligence, in a few minutes at most. Mind really makes the difference in the two methods. Chance really "doesn't have a chance" when compared with the intelligent purpose of even a child. "In the beginning, God..." begins to appear more scientific, as we see how limited are the abilities of mindless chance" (p. 52-53).


Dr. Coppedge goes on to demonstrate the absolute impossibility of chance being able to act as a creator of a single living cell. But let us suppose, just for the sake of argument, that such a cell were to appear; what would then happen to this manifestation of extremely complex order?


If you have a tremendous period of time, does this make it more likely to happen? It is still statistically improbable and unlikely... Let's suppose this unlikely event happens, and we have order created out of disorder. Now what is going to happen next? It is going to degenerate. This is the most statistically probable thing that would happen: not its becoming ordered again, but its going back to disorder. So you see that time is really not a solution. In fact, the longer time, the more statistically improbable.16


Does it not strike you as significant that the only method of objectively testing the theory of evolution proves the impossibility of it ever occurring by chance, and by such a wide margin that the idea becomes ludicrous? But of course, such a demonstration will not dissuade an already deceived evolutionist, because it is Satan's deception rather than logic's imperative that caused people to believe it in the first place. If something is discovered that finally forces evolutionists to concede that intelligence does underlie the natural order, most will probably prefer to believe something like what Hoyle and Wickramasinghe proposed17, than to believe what God has revealed, sad to say.


How did the theory originate?

The true reason why the majority of scientists prefer the hypothesis of evolution to the revelation of God is that unbelieving scientists are, like all carnal people, led more by sin than by reason. The average scientist is just as self-willed and rebellious against God as any other person, and is not really a lover of all truth; he has just as strong a desire to fit in with his scientific establishment as the typical person has to fit into his school or work environment. What Martin Luther is reputed to have said about demons applies to sinful men as well: When you educate a demon you don't get a saint; you just get a smart demon. A smart sinner is just as blind and rebellious against God as an ignorant one, but capable of far more ingenious (and therefore dangerous) rationalizations for his godless independence.


We are warned by the apostles against being seduced by the doctrines of demons (1 Timothy 4:1). Evolution, far from being a truly scientific theory, is such a demonic doctrine. While we fully expect unregenerate man to be swept away by various demonic teachings, what is truly scandalous to the name of Christ is for large blocks of Christendom to be swept away by the doctrine. We would consider a ten-year old child gullible if it were tricked into the clutches of a kidnapper who lured him into an alley by pulling on a string tied to a candy bar -- we would expect a ten-year old to recognize such obvious deception. Well, nothing demonstrates more the absence of the Holy Spirit from Christianity in general than the widespread popularity or silent acceptance of this demonic doctrine of evolution. To be possessed and guided by the Spirit of holiness would prevent us from traveling very far at all down the road of the evolutionary hypothesis: He would send off so many warning signals that we would know that something is dangerously wrong with the teaching; and that would motivate us to check out its scientific credentials with care, and enable us to discover its fraudulent basis.


"Theistic" evolution

When Christians get carried away with this deception they either get consistent and cease calling themselves Christians, or they tinker with the doctrine of evolution a little, and attribute a divine cause to the evolutionary process. They say that the God of the Scriptures created life upon the planet precisely through the evolutionary process. They say that while we do see chance and natural selection going on in this process of change, what is going on at a deeper level is the extremely slow creative activity of God (the slowness being necessitated by His use of random factors as the vehicle of evolution). These people actually think that the only part of the Scriptures they have to abandon in order to adopt such a compromised version of the doctrine of evolution is a few chapters at the beginning of Genesis. Yet the truth of the matter is that if one adopts any form of evolution, random or theistic, to account for the origin of life one has accepted the first step of a logic that must eventually force one to become an atheist, if one is logical and consistent.


The theistic and atheistic evolutionists both look at the same evolved world. The latter says, "it just happened;" the former says, "God made it happen." But in saying that God used evolution to create, the theistic evolutionist is committed to affirming things about God that he probably would not like to affirm. For our character and our intelligence are seen in our creative endeavors. What kind of character and intelligence creates through evolution, with its natural selection and struggle for existence? If we accept that God is responsible for the hypothetical evolutionary process, what else have we committed ourselves to believing?


We have committed ourselves to an image of a Creator who has set about His creative task using the most moronic of creative agents: pure chance. We can only conclude that such a God did not know for sure how to make a man or monkey or dolphin. The evolutionists' world is full of species that evolved into existence and then out of existence because of "overspecialization." God therefore has become like the laboratory experimenter who keeps trying to come up with the right combination of ingredients until He finally chances upon the right combination. Do you realize that the mythical god behind evolution is less competent than a modern computer-equipped scientist? If assigned the creator's task, the modern scientist would project all manner of experiments and possible combinations onto the computer, and sort out a good percentage of the misfits before they left the drawing board. Chance, random motion, and genetic extinctions are rather convincing evidence that the theistic evolutionist's god is not at all omniscient, don't you think?

God becomes the author of sin when you try to wed theistic evolution to Biblical theology. Paul teaches that death entered the creation because of sin, and that the sting of death is sin Romans. 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:56). The theistic evolutionist is required to believe that God created both death and sin, and then used them as creative principles. The destruction of the weak by the strong and the extinction of the less competitive and sickly were the chosen instruments of the God of love for creating life forms. Paul must be dismissed as a teacher of God's truth if they are consistent. They would have us believe that the God who could raise Jesus or the decaying Lazarus from the dead nevertheless chose to tinker around for hundreds of millions of years so that bacteria could, through violence and ruthless warfare, turn themselves into men.

The God revealed in Jesus is the same as the God who invented violence and planned extinction for the unfit: such is what the theistic evolutionist is forced to say by his own logic. The Scriptures tell us that Christ Himself was the creator (Romans 11:36, Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 2:10). The theistic evolutionist would have us believe that Christ spent hundreds of millions of years creating through the destruction of the weak and through violence, and then came down to teach us the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5). We should be merciful, for we will then receive mercy from the God who ruthlessly exterminated the weak creatures in order to advance the complexity of life. By being peacemakers we will demonstrate that we are children of God -- children of a God who invented the equivalent of war and made it inevitable. By being meek we shall inherit the earth -- although it was precisely the meek that were eliminated from it by God Himself for hundreds of millions of years. Jesus said, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). The theistic evolutionist would have us see the author of violence and extinction in Jesus. The Bible teaches us that "the struggle for existence among living organisms today is a result of sin entering a perfect creation and is not the method of bringing that creation into existence."18 Do you understand what a horrible perversion of God's character the theistic evolutionist has accepted? Rather than having a God who was mercifully willing to covenant with violent men, and reluctantly used man's own sinful ways to bring him into judgment and discipline, the god of the theistic evolutionist actually invented the perversion. To be a theistic evolutionist does not require us to cut away only the first chapters of the Bible. It forces us to abandon the Scriptures altogether, and create an entirely different God -- one who is cast too much in the image of sinful man. Fortunately for them, it seems that most Christians who embrace this doctrine are not logically consistent.


The attempt to wed evolution to the Scriptures in the form of theistic evolution creates an inferior hybrid that is utterly inconsistent not only with the Scriptures, but with evolutionary premises as well. Random evolutionary theory is more consistent within itself and more in harmony with observations of the present order of nature than is theistic evolutionary theory. Remember that evolutionary theory was erected in part on the basis of observing what goes on at present in nature.

At present in nature there is an observable adaptability of species to environmental changes, even though quite limited (e.g., local variations of the same species). There is also a form of change through the survival of the fittest (e.g., fastest runners and keenest eyesight survives). But neither of these sources of change shows any sign of planned intelligence behind them. It is random, unplanned change that we observe in nature, so the random theory has better harmony with natural observation than does theistic evolution.


Some theistic evolutionists (e.g., Teilhard de Chardin) believe that there is some innate quality in matter (a divine programming, as it were) that makes upward evolution of matter an automatic thing, a matter of inward compulsion. But if it were necessary for matter to evolve upward, why have cockroaches or the coelecanth fish stayed unchanged over so many millions of years of evolutionary time, and why has the lowly amoeba remained content with its humble existence for so long?

Theistic evolutionary theory does not harmonize with the violence and impersonal character of the natural order as well as does the random theory. Nature by itself shows many signs of order and intelligence, but far fewer signs of love or mercy. There is a ruthless struggle for existence in the present natural order. Orthodox evolutionary theory and orthodox Christianity both find it quite understandable, the former because of its amoral and godless outlook, the latter because of the doctrine of the fall and the curse; but it makes little sense on the basis of theistic evolution's principles.



NEXT CHAPTER



FOOTNOTES


1 Unless one believes such things as the earth being created with the fossils already in their present place, as some have asserted. <back>

2 "Evolution," The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia, Vol. VII (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1975), p.23. <back>

3 For more information on this subject one may write to the Institute for Creation Research; Henry M. Morris, Ph.D., Director, 2716 Madison Ave., San Diego, California 92116. <back>

4 This has been called the "hopeful monster theory" and popularized under the imagery of a reptile laying an egg and somehow -- through profound mutation -- a bird being hatched from it. See Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No! (San Diego: ICR Publishing Co.,1973), p.118f. More recently, this idea has gone under the name of "punctuated equilibrium." <back>

5 This term was not used by the authors. <back>

6 Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution From Space (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981). <back>

7 Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales, Why Scientists Accept Evolution (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1966). <back>

8 Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, op. cit., p. 32. <back>

9 Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1971). Macbeth believes in some form of evolution, but rejects the logic used by the dominant schools of thought within evolutionary circles. <back>

10 See Gish, op. cit., pp. 60-64. <back>

11 That is, they assumed that the atmosphere and rocks started with no carbon-14 and no non-radioactive leads respectively, and based their measuring methods on that assumption; that assumption will, of course, create readings of old dates. Those readings, however, are then used to add support to the evolutionary hypothesis. This is called "circular reasoning." <back>

12 See A Challenge to Education, II, Walter Lang, ed. (Caldwell: Bible-Science Association, 1974): Thomas G. Barnes, "Magnetic Evidence for a Young Earth;" and Henry Morris, "The Young Earth." Morris shows the possibilities and dangers of 37 dating techniques. <back>

13 See Immanuel Velikovsky, Earth in Upheaval (New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1955), p. 28-30. This work abounds in examples which demonstrate that the fossil record was formed by catastrophe, rather than slow change. <back>

14 See Donald Wesley Patten, The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch (Seattle: Pacific Meridian Publishing Co., 1966), p. 104-111. <back>

15 For a fascinating and thorough examination of these probabilities, see James F. Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973). At the time of the writing, Dr. Coppedge was the Director for the Center for Probability Research in Biology, Northridge, California. <back>

16 Coppedge, p.237; personal correspondence from Dr. Joseph Henson of Bob Jones University. <back>

17 The "celestial invasion" concept mentioned earlier in this essay. <back>

18 A.E. Wilder Smith, Man's Origin, Man's Destiny (Wheaton: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968), p. 180. This is a most excellent work. <back>