creation science 2008

8/7/2019 Creation Science 2008

1/44

The Creation Science

1

Biggest weaknesses of evolutionary theory

The big issues!

Two of the biggest weaknesses of evolutionary theory are:

1. There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even thesimplest life form is tremendously complex.

2. The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred inthe past, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first

present. The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So called

pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical

frauds.


2/44


2

Origin of Life: Overview

Life is often portrayed as spontaneously arising from some sort of "primordial soup".

There it is ... quiet, tranquil, warm nutrients in a primitive sea, a lightning strike in thedistance is imparting the energy of life ... soon life will be emerging to the shores...

Hold it, not so fast here! To go from a barren lifeless planet to a one filled with living

things, we would have to pass through a number of stages:

1. EARLY ATMOSPHERE -For starters we need a favorable environment for life to evolve and be sustained.

2. SIMPLE ORGANIC MOLECULES -We need a means of constructing the building blocks of life.

3. LARGE MACRO-MOLECULES (proteins, DNA, RNA, etc.) -Some the simple molecules must be assembled into biologically useful large

molecules.

4. BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS -Biological systems such as energy conversion must be constructed.

5. LIVING CELL -And finally, all these molecules and systems must be assembled together to form

a highly complex living cell.

When each of these steps are examined scientifically, we see that each has tremendous

problems and requires large leaps of faith to believe that they ever happened. To explain

the origin of life by non-supernatural means we must have a plausible explanation for

each of these steps. An artist's conception of lighting striking a sea of organic soup andthen jumping to self-replicating life is woefully inadequate. In fact, it is very

misleading.

Although the origin of life by mechanistic means is routinely taken for granted by the

popular press, it is, in reality still a mystery to evolutionary scientists.


3/44


3

Origin of Life: the Early Atmosphere

Our current atmosphere consists primarily of oxygen (21%) and nitrogen (78%) and is

called oxidizing because of chemical reactions produced by oxygen. For example, iron

is oxidized to form iron oxide or rust.

The presence of oxygen in a hypothetical primordial atmosphere poses a difficult

problem for notions of self-assembling molecules. If oxygen is present, there would be

no amino acids, sugars, purines, etc. Amino acids and sugars react with oxygen to form

carbon dioxide (CO2) and water.

Because it is impossible for life to evolve with oxygen, evolutionists theorize an early

atmosphere withoutoxygen. This departs from the usual evolutionary theorizing where

a uniformistic view is held (i.e. where processes remain constant over vast stretches of

time). In this case the present is NOT the key to the past.

Instead, they propose a "reducing" (called thus because of the chemical reactions)

atmosphere which contains free hydrogen. Originally, they postulated an atmosphere

consisting of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia

(NH3), free hydrogen and water vapor. Newer schemes exclude ammonia and methane.

There is a problem if you consider the ozone (O3) layer which protects the earth from

ultraviolet rays. Without this layer, organic molecules would be broken down and life

would soon be eliminated. But if you have oxygen, it prevents life from starting. A

"catch-22" situation (Denton 1985, 261-262):

Atmosphere with oxygen => No amino acids => No life possible!

Atmosphere without oxygen => No ozone => No life possible!

In must be noted at this point that the existence of a reducing atmosphere is theoretical

and does not rely on physical evidence. To the contrary, there are geological evidences

for the existence of an oxidizing atmosphere as far back as can be determined. Among

these are: the precipitation of limestone (calcium carbonate) in great quantities, the

oxidation of ferrous iron in early rocks (Gish 1972, 8) and the distribution of minerals in

early sedimentary rocks (Gish 1984T).


4/44


4

Origin of Life: Constructing the Building

Blocks

Before you can assemble the large macro-molecules necessary for life you must have aready supply of basic organic molecules. Imagine a primitive ocean. You need tons of

sugars, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, etc. There are a number of severe obstacles

that must be overcome in getting a suitable ocean:

Quantities - The first problem is overcoming the diluting effect of a vastprimordial ocean. For example, a study which assumed use of the entire

atmospheric supply of nitrogen for molecular formation indicates insufficient

concentrations would result (Gish 1972, 10-11).

Synthesis vs destruction - For chemical bonds to form there needs to be anexternal source of energy. Unfortunately, the same energy that creates the bonds

is much more likely to destroy them. In the famous Miller experiment (1953)

that synthesized amino acids, a cold trap is used to selectively isolate the

reaction products. Without this, the would be no products. This poses a

challenge to simplistic early earth schemes where lightning simply strikes a

primitive ocean. Where is the "trap" in such an ocean? Also, the creation of

amino acids by a chemist in a laboratory is still much different from forming

self-replicating life.

This point has not escaped the attention of evolutionists. "The physical chemist,

guided by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics,

cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist, who needs an ocean full oforganic compounds to form even lifeless coacervates [blobs]" (D. E. Hull,

Nature, 186, 693 1960)(Gish 1972, 13)

Incompatibility - Another problem is that different molecules will react with oneanother. For example, amino acids and sugars combine and destroy each other.

In lab experiments the component chemicals are neatly separated from one

another. How is this possible in a primitive ocean?


5/44


5

Origin of Life: Constructing the Proteins

and Nucleic Acids

Any plausible theory of the origin of life must include the formation of complicatedmacro-molecules like proteins, DNA and RNA. In addition, there are other necessary

components of life such as lipids, carbohydrates, hormones, enzymes, etc. that must be

formed and be utilized to produce life.

The syntheses of proteins from DNA is very complicated (see any biology textbook),

and experiments to produce life in a test tube fall woefully short of creating life. There

are a series of obstacles to the notion of life arising spontaneously from a sea of

chemicals:

CHEMICAL ENVIRONMENT - Some of the necessary component chemicals react

with one another is counter-productive ways. For example, phosphoric acid which

would be necessary to form DNA would form an insoluble salt with calcium (calcium

phosphate), sink to the bottom of a primordial sea, and be unavailable to make DNA.

(Gish 1972, 23).

POLYMERIZATION - How are the polymers formed in proteins and nucleic acids? Abasic problem is that monomers never become polymers unless energy is supplied - they

don't spontaneously arise. Protein formation in the laboratory requires a number of

deliberate steps by a chemist. Experiments with catalysts and heating of dry amino acids

have not demonstrated anything close to realistic life macro-molecules. (Gish 1972, 17-

23)

SEQUENCES - This detail is at the center of the origin of life problem. Assuming that

there WAS a large supply of molecular building blocks, how do you get the specific

sequences necessary in proteins and in DNA? Consider proteins: the sequence of amino

acids determines the way the molecule will "fold up", which gives it physical properties.

For a particular function, an exact sequence is required. What are the odds of this

occurring by accident? The odds of forming a specific molecule with 100 amino acids is

(1/20) ** 100 = 10e130 (the number 10 with 130 zeros following it) to 1. Forget it!

Along these lines, the famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Chandra

Wickramasinghe (both atheists) calculated the probability of life forming by chance infive billion years on earth. The answer is 10e40000 to 1 (a number so close to zero as to

effectively be zero). They then considered the universe with 100 billion galaxies each

with 100 billion stars and 20 billion years. Still no chance. Hoyle said the probability of

life evolving anywhere in the universe is as likely as a tornado sweeping through a

junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747!

OPTICAL ISOMERS - Amino acids are found in L-amino (left) or D-amino (right)

types and are formed in equal proportions in synthesis experiments. Animals and people

are made of almost exclusively L-animo types. How is this selection made? ... Still an

open question.


6/44


6

Origin of Life: Biological Systems

To go beyond proteins, DNA and RNA, and to assemble them into a working biological

system is another mystery. We must go from disjointed molecules to complex

interrelated systems that are capable of self-maintenance and self-replication.

One approach (Oparin's Coacervate Theory) is to try to construct coacervates (large

blobs of colloidal particles) from molecules. Unfortunately, this merely holds together

random molecules by electrostatic chemical bonds. (Gish 1972, 27).

Another scheme uses microspheres (Fox's Proteinoid Microsphere Theory) by the

pyrocondensation of amino acids. But these are only random polymers of amino acids

that are inherently unstable. There are no energy-utilizing systems, no replicating

systems, etc. (Gish 1972, 30)

A biological system is more than a collection of molecules thrown together - these blobs

have to be able to do something, they have to act as little machines with input and

output related to some greater purpose in the cell. How a biological system could arise

still remains in the realm of "science fiction".


7/44


7

Origin of Life: the Living Cell

Now we cross the line from the molecular to the living. Whether bacteria, animals,

plants or people, we all have cells.

Cells consist of many biological elements that are enclosed in a cell membrane thatallows certain molecules to pass out of it and let others in. It must be able to perform

many functions: self-replicate, maintain itself by the construction of new proteins,

regulate it's functions, etc.

Cells are tremendously complex and more complicated than any machine man has ever

built. Even the smallest bacterial cell has 100 proteins, DNA, RNA, and contains one

hundred billion atoms.

The simplest cells are not more primitive than, or ancestral of, larger ones. This poses

an immediate problem. How do you get all the complicated machinery to work at the

same time? It either all works or nothing works. For example, the information to

construct the apparatus to synthesize proteins is stored in the DNA. But the extraction of

this information requires the apparatus to be in place already (Denton 1985, 269).

To explain the evolution of the cell requires imagining simpler "proto-cells". One such

idea by Francis Crick (Denton 1985, 265) uses a proto-cell that is allowed to make

mistakes in protein formation (termed "statistical proteins") to create new systems. This

is challenged by the knowledge that even small errors cause devastating biological

consequences.

In short, explaining the origin of life is a big problem for evolutionists. It is such a

problem that mainstream scientific literature even considers the possibility of life

dropping in from outer space, called the theory of "panspermia" (Scientific American,

Feb 1992). But even this only moves to problem one step outward.


8/44


8

Fossil Record Overview - Missing Transitional

Forms

A severe problem for evolutionists is the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. By

transitional forms, we mean intermediate forms of life appearing in the fossil record that are "in-

between" existing types of organisms found today or in the past.

If slow, gradual evolution occurred, you would expect to observe a continuum of

change in the fossil record. After all, if life took millions of years to arrive at its' present

state of development, the earth should be filled with fossils that could be easily

assembled into a number of series showing minor changes as species were evolving.

The opposite is true - no continuum! When fossils are examined they form records ofexisting and extinct organisms with clearly defined gaps, or missing transitional forms,

consistent with a creationist's view of origins. Below are some of the gaps in the fossil

record.

Consider...

The Cambrian explosion - At the bottom of the geological column in the so called

Cambrian rocks are found highly complex creatures: trilobites, worms, sponges,

jellyfish, etc., all without ancestors. It's as though you "turned the light on" in the fossil

record. These are highly complex life forms appearing on the scene without forerunners.

Trilobites for example, have compound lenses in their eyes that make use of Fermat'sprinciple and Abbe's Sine Law. This is like entering the highway of life without an

entrance ramp.

Insects - When found in the fossil record, they are already developed without ancestors.

Dragonflies are dragonflies, cockroaches are cockroaches. Instead of an evolutionary

tree, we have only the leaves without the trunk or branches. To compound this problem

the question of flight arises... when did they develop the ability to fly? There are no

fossil intermediates in the record.

Invertebrates and vertebrates - Transitional forms leading to vertebrates are absent even

though the transition supposedly took millions of years. It is theorized that life passed

through a stage where a creature possessed a simple rod-like notochord. This has not

been found.

Fish to Amphibian - Fin to feet... Evolutionist glibly cite a Fish --> Amphibian -->

Reptile --> Mammal progression in their theory, however there is a large gap in the

fossil record between fish and amphibians. Among other differences, fish have small

pelvic bones that are embedded in muscle and not connected to the backbone unlike

tetrapod amphibians which have large pelvises that are firmly connected to the vertebral

column. Without this anatomy, the amphibian could not walk. The morphological

differences in this gap are obvious and profound.


9/44


9

Amphibian to Reptile -The skeletons of amphibians and reptiles are closely related

which makes this an ambiguous case.

Mammals - Mammals just appear in the fossil record, again without transitional forms

(Gish notes 32 such orders of mammals).

Marine Mammals - whales, dolphins, and sea cows also appear abruptly. It has beensuggested that the ancestors of the dolphins are cattle, pigs, or buffaloes.

Also consider the enigma of flight - supposedly, insects, birds, mammals (bats), and

reptiles, each evolved the ability to fly separately. In each of the four cases there are no

series of transitional forms to support this assertion.

The primates - lemurs, monkeys, apes and man appear fully formed in the fossil record.

The proverbial "missing link" between man and ape remains elusive and periodically

changes with the thinking of the day.

And finally, dinosaurs. Again there is the absence of transitional series leading to these

giants.

The most often cited "example" of a transitional form is the Archaeopteryx which has

been touted as a reptile to bird transition. However, this creature is controversial and

enveloped in dispute.

Sometimes evolutionists suggest that the transitional forms haven't been found because

there has not been enough fossils unearthed to accurately portray life as it existed long

ago. However, since Darwin's time there has been a hundred-fold increase in the

number of fossils found and a systematic problem still remains. There are fewercandidates for transitional forms between major divisions of life than for minor

divisions, the exact reverse of what is expected by evolutionary theory.

In summary, instead of getting a phylogenetic "tree" in the fossil record, you get vertical

patterns indicative of creation, conflicting with the notions of gradual evolution and

supporting the creationist position.


10/44


10

The origin of man in the fossil record

Early Man Fossils are Contemporaries!

When the fossil evidence is viewed from a creationist's point of view, the major classes

of fossils are found to exist at the same time and also some at the same places. Instead

of having an orderly progression from lower primates to man, where one species

changes into another, we find contemporaries, contradicting the theory of evolution with

regard to man.

SAME TIME:

Consider the following:

1. Modern humans have existed for 4.5 million years, which is before theaustralopithecines existed by the evolutionists time scale.

2. Homo erectus maintains the same appearance over its two million year history(again, the evolutionary time scale)

3. Modern Homo sapiens, Neanderthal, archaic Homo sapiens and Homo erectusall lived as contemporaries at one time or another. There is no trend for robust

forms evolving into more gracile forms. In the case of Neanderthals and archaic

Homo sapiens, the more robust forms are the more recent.

4. Homo habilis and Homo erectus are contemporaries; no evolution here.5. Humans appear in the fossil record as already human. By virtue of being humancontemporaries, the Australopithecines are disqualified as human ancestors.

(Lubenow, 1992, 178-179)

At the bottom of Bed I in the Olduvai gorge is a circular stone structure 14 ft. in

diameter made by humans, similar to those in use today by the Okombambi tribe of

Southwest Africa. That means true humans were around 2 million years ago by the

evolutionist's time scale, before Homo erectus and the Australopithecines (Lubenow,

1992, 172-173).

Evolutionists resist these conclusions. Fossils of KNM-ER 1470, KP 271 (Human

elbow), Laetoli (human) footprints are attributed to other species.

SAME PLACE:Many of the fossils were found in the same locality and at the same stratigraphic level

(depth in the Earth), but according to the theory of evolution they should be separated

by vast amounts of time. We find modern Homo sapien fossils being found with

Neanderthals, archaic Homo sapiens and Homo erectus. This problem, for evolutionists,

is independent of the dating schemes (Lubenow, 1992, 180-181).


11/44


11

Early Man Vocabulary

Sometimes a lay person can find it difficult to deal with scientific topics because of the

terminology used. The area of the supposed evolution of man is no different. The fact

that "scientific sounding" names are applied to pre-men fossil remains tends to makethese findings seem more than what they really are. Here are some of the terms you will

find being used and what they really stand for. Creationists regard each of these

classifications as either fully ape (the Australopithecines) or fully human (the reminder

listed).

Types of Australopithecines:o Australopithecus afarensis = southern ape from Afar, Ethiopiao Australopithecus africanus = southern ape from Africa.

Gracile form with smaller jaws and teeth.

o Australopithecus robustus = southern ape, robust.More massive teeth and boney ridges (sagittal and supramastoid crests).

o Australopithecus boisei = southern ape named after Charles Boise, Louisand Mary Leakey's financier.

Formerly Zinjananthropus bosei (Zinj is ancient Arabic word for East

Africa).

Homo erectus = erect man."Pithecanthropines" are homo erectus.

Homo sapiens = wise man."Neanderthaloids" and "Cro-Magnon man" are homo sapiens.

Homo habilis = handy man


12/44


12

Early Man: Australopithecines

Australopithecines (southern apes)

In 1924 Raymond Dart discovered the first in a series of ape-like creatures that havebecome one of the most popularized "ape-men". Dart examined the creature and placed

it in the lineage of man, creating a controversy. Others such as Robert Broom, John T.

Robinson, and Mary and Louis Leakey have made similar discoveries.

Australopithecines have been discovered in two types: the A. robustus which has

massive teeth and boney ridges (sagittal and supramastoid crests), and the A. africanus

which is a gracile form with smaller jaws and teeth. Their weight is estimated at 60-70

lbs. Both types are characterized by an ape-like cranium with a brain capacity of about

500 cc, which is about the size of a gorilla and about one third that of a human.

The dental arcade is more parabolic than "U" shaped and the front teeth (incisors and

canines) are relatively small. However, their pre-molars and molars are massive, and in

the case of A. africanus are as large as those found in 400 lb. gorillas.

From some fragments of pelvis and limbs it is the consensus of most evolutionists that

these creatures walked upright habitually. This view was disputed by Solly Lord

Zukerman, distinguished British anatomist. For 15 years, Zuckerman led a team that

examined Australopithecine fossils, monkeys, apes and man. His conclusion was that

Australopithecines were not ancestral to man, nor habitually walked upright.

To date, this creature plays a key role in the evolutionary explanation of origins.


13/44


13

Early Man Fossils: KNM-ER 1470

KNM-ER 1470 (Kenya National Museum - East Rudolf)

In 1967, at the age of 23, Richard Leakey the son of Louis and Mary Leakey discovereda rich collection of fossils east of Lake Rudolf in northern Kenya. More than 40

Australopithecines and many stone tools were found on that site. Of particular interest

was the skull KNM-ER 1470 found in 1972.

It has a very modern appearance and a brain capacity of 800 cc, within the human range.

The skull was reconstructed from hundreds of pieces, and had a Australopithecine slant

to the face. This reconstruction has been questioned by those in the field. As it turns out,

there is no reason for the skull to not be classified as Homo sapiens (true humans) based

on morphology (Lubenow 1992, 165).

What makes this find interesting is that it was found under a three foot layer of volcanic

ash, the KBS (Kay Behrensmeyer Site) Tuff. Since the ash lends itself to the potassium-

argon method of radiometric dating, it is assumed that the stone tools found in that

location and the Australopithecine fossils found above and below the Tuff can be dated.

In 1969 the first attempt at dating placed the age of the Tuff at 212 to 230 mya (Millions

of years ago) - early dinosaur times. Since this did not square up with evolutionary

theory (i.e. fossils are the final authority) it was assumed that this was an erroneous

date. Researchers than concluded that whole-rock samples from these sedimentary rocks

that showed signs of weathering or alteration should be removed from the samples to

get an accurate date. More samples of "fresher" pumice lumps and feldspar crystalswere supplied by Leakey and an age of 2.61 +- .26 mya was established (Lubenow

1992, 250).

Before the skull was found the Tuff was dated at 2.6 mya, but because of the modern

appearance of the skull, Richard Leakey commented, "Either we toss out this skull or

we toss out our theories of early man. It simply fits no models of human beginnings"

(Lubenow 1992, 162, 249). What followed next is decades of wrangling over the date

and interpretation of the find. Several radiometric studies have been performed with the

final pronouncement being 1.88 mya, largely calibrated by a fossilized pig sequence

from Southern Ethiopia. In the final analysis, it is not radiometric dating, but the fossils

in an evolutionary framework that wins out.


14/44


14

Early Man Fossils: KP 271

KP 271 (Elbow of a Homo sapien)

In 1965 Bryan Patterson of Harvard University found the lower end of a left upper armbone in Kanapoi, southwest of Lake Rudolf in northern Kenya, Africa. It was well

preserved and was dated at 4.5 million years.

Patterson and Howells compared the bone to modern humans, chimpanzees and

Australopithecines. Their analysis revealed that it was "strikingly close" to modern

humans but their conclusion was that is was an Australopithecine. Later, others such as

Henry Mc Henry (University of California, Davis) stated "The results show that the

Kanapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is indistinguishable from modern

Homo sapiens ...". (Science 190 (31 October 1975):428)(Lubenow 1992, 53)

As it turns out, for this type of fossil it is relatively easy to discriminate between

humans and other primates. It tests out to be human but is classified as an

Australopithecine. Howells in 1981 gave the reason "We suggested that it might

represent Australopithecus because at that time allocation to Homo seemed

preposterous, although it would be the correct one without the time element"[1].


15/44


15

Early Man: Lucy

Lucy and the First Family (Australopithecus afarensis)

In 1974 Donald Johanson and associates discovered about 40% of a skeleton of a short(3-4 foot tall), small brained (380-450cc) creature. This find was named "Lucy" since

the Beatles' "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" was playing on tape recorder in the tent

where Johanson was examining the fossils. Johanson announced that Lucy was 3.5

million years old and walked upright.

In the following year, 1975, Johanson's team unearthed 13 more individuals; four

juveniles and nine adults. They were declared to be ancestors of man (hominids) and

were named the "First Family". With names like Lucy, First Family, Lucy's Child, etc.,

how can these finds be anything but human ancestors? Lucy and her associates were

portrayed as walking upright, with small human bodies and ape-like heads. This view

has been widely publicized.

Lucy, et. al. have been given the designation "Australopithecus afarensis" and their

claim to fame is walking upright. It should be noted at this point that apes sometimes

walk upright - in fact there has even been a case of an ape which almost always used

bipedal locomotion (Gish 1985, 162-163).

The view of Lucy habitually walking upright is not a universal consensus; it is

challenged by some in the field. Note here that Zuckerman and Oxnard declared that

Australopithecines did not walk upright, and they were examining specimens that were

supposedly 2 million years younger. If anything, they should have evolved a more erectposture.

In an extensive study by Stern and Susman, they determined that the creatures walked

upright, but not necessarily in a fully human manner and that they were adapted to an

arboreal (tree climbing) mode of locomotion. From the creationist standpoint, these

creatures were apes and no more adapted to bipedal locomotion than chimpanzees or

gorillas (Gish 1985, 162).


16/44


16

Early Man: Neanderthal Man (Homo

neanderthalensis)

In 1856 workers quarrying for limestone in the Neander Valley near Duesseldorf,Germany came across a skull and bones. In the succeeding years many other specimens

were found, not only in the Neander Valley, but in countries such as France, England,

Italy, Iraq and as far south as Israel.

Controversy surrounded the interpretation of these fossils. German Anatomist Rudolf

Virchow examined the first discovery and concluded that it was a Homo sapien with

rickets, caused by a Vitamin D deficiency. He also theorized that his flattened head was

due to powerful blows. As more finds were made, also with the appearance of rickets,

this was considered too coincidental and they were now considered sub-human.

In the early 1900s, after many skeletons were found, the French paleontologist

Marcellin Boule, determined that Neanderthals could not fully extend their legs, walked

stooped over, and had his head thrust forward. This notion would be the popular image

for about fifty years.

In 1957 researchers re-examined the skeleton Boule had examined and concluded thatNeanderthals walked upright and that the stooped posture suggested by Boule's

specimen was due to a case of arthritis.

More evidence from various digs have shown that Neanderthals "wielded simple tools,

wore body ornaments, had religious rites and ceremoniously buried their dead" (Time,3/14/94, p. 87). Today he is classified as totally human - Homo sapien.


17/44


17

Early Man: Homo Erectus (Erect Man)

In the quest to explain human origins it is necessary to find a species that bridges

modern man (Homo sapiens) with the apes. To fill this gap evolutionists have set forth

Homo erectus, having lived by their time scale between approximately 400,000 and 1.6million years ago. Although their definition is somewhat vague the following

characteristics are generally accepted.

Skull low, broad and elongatedCranial capacity 750-1250 cc

Median sagittal ridge

Supraorbital ridge

Postorbital constriction

Receding frontal contour

Occipital bun or torus

Nuchal area extended for muscle attachment

Cranial wall unusually thick

Brain case narrower than zygomatic arch

Heavy facial architecture

Alveolar (maxilla) prognathism

Large jaw, wide ramus

No chin (mentum)

Teeth generally large

Post-cranial bones heavy and thick

(Lubenow 1992, 132-133)

At least 222 fossils of Homo erectus have been found to date throughout Africa, Asia,

Australia and Europe. When considering these fossils as candidates for human

ancestors, three key questions should be asked:

1. Does Homo erectus have a form that is so different as to place it in a distinctspecies outside of the Homo sapiens?

There is no clear boundary between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. Below the

neck, Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are virtually identical. The head

resembles the Neandertals but smaller. A number of evolutionists have stated

that although Homo erectus is a bit different they are not so far apart that theyshould be classified as separate species. In the opinion of Lubenow, Homo

erectus, Homo sapiens and Neandertals form one continuum.

2. Are Homo erectus fossils found at the right time (i.e. after apes and beforeHomo sapiens) so as to establish them as legitimate ancestors to modern man?

When the ages of the fossils are compared using the dates ascribed to them by

evolutionary investigators, it appears that Homo erectus and modern man are

contemporaries. In an exhaustive listing of man-like fossils, Lubenow (Lubenow

1992, 121-123, 128) finds that 106 of the 222 the fossils have dates earlier than

their assumed age of disappearance of 300,000 years ago. Of these 106, 62 aredated more recently than 12,000 years ago, effectively modern history. When


18/44


18

evolutionists are confronted with this evidence, they reply that they must be

Homo sapiens, since they have recent dates, despite what they look like

(Lubenow 1992, 132).

In addition, in more than half the sites where these fossils have been discovered,

stone tools have also been discovered. At eleven sites, there was exhibited thecontrolled use of fire. These are very human characteristics. (Lubenow 1992,

140).

3. Are there adequate non-evolutionary explanations for the appearance(morphology) of Homo erectus?

Yes, rickets. This disease causes deformation of the bones and skull in children

due to a lack of vitamin D, which is caused by diet and absence of ultraviolet

light (sunlight). One model of a post-flood world predicts the Ice Ages and a

decrease in sunlight due to atmospheric particulate matter lofted by volcanoes.

There may be a connection. Homo erectus is closely related to Neandertal.

Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902), professor of pathology at the University of Berlin,

was a distinguished physician and is considered to be the father of the science of

pathology. Virchow diagnosed the first Neandertal as having a case of rickets.

Virchow, living in the 1800's had the advantage of seeing cases of rickets

firsthand, unlike recent physicians.


19/44


19

Early Man: Java Man (Pithecanthropus

erectus)

In the late 1800s a Dutch anatomist, Eugene Dubois, joined the Dutch army as a meansto bring him to Asia to hunt for the "missing link". He received an assignment in the

Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) where he assumed man had evolved and was given

support for digging for fossils from two engineers and fifty forced laborers.

In 1891 Dubois' laborers found a skull cap along the Solo river near the village Trinil,

Java. A year later and approximately 50 ft. away from the skull cap he found a femur.

At the time the authorities were of divided opinions; they regarded the find as from a

man, ape, or ape-man. Dubois promoted the find as a the missing link and allowed

others to examine the fossils until about 1900 when he withdrew the fossils and refused

to allow anyone to see them.

Prior to this, two human skulls had been found at Wadjak (Wajak) about 65 mi. away

from Trinil. Wadjak I was found by a Dutch mining enginner in 1888 while prospecting

for marble. Wadjak II was found by Dubois in 1890. These finds were only reported in

the quarterly and annual reports to the Dutch East Indies government but not to the

scientific community at large (Lubenow 1992,103-104). This throws red flags, for if the

human skulls could be associated with the Trinil finds, their credibility would be

severely diminished. Dubois did publicly announce skulls in much later in 1920 when

another researcher claimed to have discovered the first "pro-Australian".

A later expedition to the Trinil site conducted by Frau Selenka in 1907-8 excavated10,000 cubic meters, down to 40ft. below the surface at the same location as the original

Trinil site without finding any more remins of Pithecanthropus. In the same stratum in

which P. was found, splinters of bones and tusks, foundations of hearths and pieces of

wood charcoal were discovered. About two miles away from the Dubois' original

discovery was found the crown of a human molar (Lubenow 1992, 116).

Today Java man is classified as Homo erectus but questions still remain, one of which is

whether the skull cap and femur are from the same specimen. Recent opinions suggest

that the femur is a modern type which leads to a dilemma for evolutionists. If the skull

cap and femur belong together, how do you maintain a species difference between

Homo erectus and Homo sapiens? If however, the skull cap belongs to Homo erectusand the femur to Homo sapiens it shows that the two forms were likely contemporaries

(Lubenow 1992, 98).


20/44


20

Early Man: Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus

dawsoni)

In 1908 a workman at a gravel pit in Piltdown, England found a portion of a humanskull and gave it to an amateur geologist by the name of Charles Dawson. Subsequent

digging by Arthur Smith Woodward of the British Museum and Catholic paleontologist-

priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin revealed more skull fragments and the lower jaw of

Piltdown man. The Piltdown pit also produced fossil bones of elephant, mastodon,

rhinoceros, hippopotamus, beaver and deer.

Most scientists accepted this find as a genuine subhuman ancestor of man. For forty five

years, until 1953, this find was considered to be a missing link between man and ape.

The only problem was that this was a total hoax! Someone had taken a human skull cap

and a jaw of an orangutan, filled the teeth and planted the evidence. This fossil might

still be considered legitimate today, had it not been for the popularity of

australopithecines as candidates for human ancestors, which caused a more detailed

investigation in the 1950's.

This raises some interesting questions. Why was the fraud so successful? Could it be

that evolutionary theory demanded the missing links so scientists found them. It is often

claimed that science is objective and self-correcting, however in retrospect we see that

the evidence to reject this find as legitimate was there all along. The file marks on the

teeth of the lower jaw were clearly visible, the molars were misaligned and filed at two

different angles. The canine teeth had been filed so far down that the pulp cavity had

been exposed and plugged (Lubenow 1992, 43).

Much literature was written on Piltdown and it is estimated that more than 500 doctoral

dissertations were based on this "find".


21/44


21

Early Man: Nebraska Man

(Hesperopithecus haroldcookii)

In 1922 a single tooth was found in Pliocine deposits in western Nebraska. Dr. HenryFairfeild Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural

History, determined that this tooth had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus

(Java man), and man. From this he concluded that this was a missing link. In England

Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, F.R.S., Professor of Anatomy of Manchester, fully supported

Osborn (Bowden 1977, 46).

At the time a politician from Nebraska, W. J. Bryan, was campaigning in the courts

against man being descended from the apes. Osborn stated;

...the Earth spoke to Byran from his own state of Nebraska. The Hesperopithecus tooth

is like the still, small voice. Its sound is by no means easy to hear... This little tooth

speaks volumes of truth, in that it affords evidence of man's descent from apes.

(Bowden 1977, 46)

In 1922 the Illustrated London Times ran an artist's interpretation of Hesperopithecus

and his wife, all from the remains of one tooth! A few years later more evidence wasfound and the tooth was determined to be from an extinct pig! Little publicity was given

to the error.

In this case you see some of the ingredients of the pre-man game. A discovery is made,

a prominent scientist(s) interprets the data in the framework of current scientificthinking. The popular press bridges the gap between the scientist and the lay person,

and in the process "fills in" a few details. The man on the street is presented with an

image, that will be retained, that man arose from apes.

In this case, how many people read the Illustrated London Times and were influenced

by it? Probably many.


22/44


22

Early Man Summary

When the evidence for the evolution of man is examined, we see that it is more hype

than substance. Consider this:

MAN AND APE REMAIN DIFFERENT SPECIES: When all is said and done the

fossil evidence can be justifiably divided into two buckets, man and beast. The

Australopithecines, (A. africanus, A. afarensis, A. robustus, A. boisei, Lucy, etc.) are all

apes. Homo erectus and Neanderthal used tools and have brain sizes that overlap with

humans. One has to ask, what's the difference?

MAN AND APE LIVED AT SAME TIME AND PLACE: Modern humans have

existed for 4.5 million years (by evolutionists reckoning), which is before the

Australopithecines existed. Modern Homo sapiens, Neanderthal, archaic Homo sapiens

and Homo erectus all lived as contemporaries at one time or another. Looking at a

timeline chart of these, all the supposed pre-man and apes lived together.

And further, many of the fossils were found in the same locality and at the same

stratigraphic level, but according to the theory of evolution they should be separated by

vast amounts of time (and therefore appear at differentlevels in the Earth).

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS NOT CONVERGING: We see in the human

origins business an unstability over time. Instead of converging on a coherent pathway

to man, a single fossil find throws the entire picture into disarray. In fact, it has even

been suggested that apes evolved from man! (Gish 1985, 207-209).

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: Fossils only record bone structure. What about the

fact that apes have 48 chromosomes and man only 46? This is a significantdifference

that is rarely mentioned.

Apes have a bacculum or os penis (a hard bone in the penis) and man does not. Given

that this had to work right the first time to propagate the race, how could such a change

have occurred? (Taylor 1984, 254)


23/44


23

The Scientific Method

The benefits from science are dramatic and widespread. By using scientific principles,

man has pulled back the curtain of ignorance and advanced the quality of life for

millions of people. With these achievements, science justifiably deserves a goodreputation.

Taking a closer look, the essence of science is the scientific method where a hypothesis

is tested by experiment. That is,

1) State the question

2) Form a hypothesis

3) Do experiments

4) Interpret data and draw conclusions

5) Revise theory (go back to step 2)

Instead of endless philosophical discussions to prove a point, experiment becomes the

final arbitrator of truth - a successful approach. The issue becomes a bit sticky when

discussing origins. How do we test the theory of evolution? We don't have the luxury of

having a miniature universe with eons of time in the corner of a laboratory.

So this leaves both evolutionists and creationists in same the boat. No absolute way to

objectivity test their assertions. No eyewitnesses... Both are left to propose a model and

then compare it with nature for consistency.

Notice too, that good theories are falsifiable. Now consider the theory of evolution ...How can it be proved false? What fraction of the theory of evolution is open to

invalidation, some small detail, or the entire principle? The approach seems to be, "look,

you're here and there is no intelligent designer so evolution must be true!". Is this

science or something else?


24/44


24

Two Models of Origins

Two models form the basis of the debate on origins as summarized below. Life arose...

CREATION MODEL EVOLUTION MODEL

By the acts of a Creator. By naturalistic mechanistic processes due

to properties inherent in inanimate

matter.

Creation of basic plant Origin of all living things from a single

and animal types with living source which itself arose from

characteristics complete inanimate matter. Origin of each kind

from

in first representatives. an ancestral form by slow gradual change.

Variation and speciation Unlimited variation. All forms

genetically

limited within each kind. related.

Predictions concerning the fossil record:

Sudden appearance in great Gradual change of simple forms into more

variety of highly complex and more complex forms.

forms.

Sudden appearance of each Transitional series linking all

categories.

created type with No systematic gaps.

characteristics complete.

Sharp boundaries separating

major taxonomic groups.No transitional forms

between higher categories.


25/44


25

What do Creation Scientists Believe?

Scientists who call themselves "creation scientists" are professionals, typically withadvanced degrees from major universities, who are generally involved in the same types

of work as the average scientist. The difference is that creation scientists have a "world-

view", or "model" for their science which is based on the belief that an intelligent

designer ("God") exists who created our universe and the natural things in it. The

creation events were one-time events and are not taking place today. A large subset of

creation scientists could be called "Biblical creationists", who take the first eleven

chapters of the Bible to be real history, including the creation of all things in six 24-hour

days, the existence of Adam and Eve as the first man and woman, the unnatural

introduction of "death" into the perfect creation because of the disobedience of Adam

and Eve, and the occurence of a world-wide flood (Noah's flood) which destroyed most

life and greatly affected the processes operating on the earth. Most creation scientists

believe that the earth is "young" (on the order of ten thousand years), but this is a

secondary issue. Biblical creationists believe that the Bible and true science are in full

harmony with each other - there is no need to "check your brain at the door" when

entering a church.

A major goal of creation science is to point out the weakness of evolutionary theory,

because basically there are only two alternatives for how we got here, and if naturalistic

processes are incapable of the task, then special creation must be the correct answer. On

the positive side, creation scientists are developing alternative models and theories in

many areas to help our understanding of how the universe works. It should be noted thatmuch of day to day scientific activity is not heavily influenced by either evolutionary or

creation assumptions, but much scientific energy has been wasted over the last century

in the search for evolutionary evidences and experimental proofs, which have been

unsuccessful so far and will continue to be. How much further might we be in some

areas of scientific understanding if a model of special creation had been the working

hypothesis?


26/44


26

How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong?

The idea that evolution may be false is a difficult idea for many people to accept,

particularly when a lot of well-educated, smart people, and well-respected organizations

say it is true. How can it be that so many people are so wrong?

Most people are taught in school, and from television shows and museums, thatevolution explains our universe and all living things, and that evolution is a

proven fact. They have not been told about the problems with the theory of

evolution, nor have they been given the opportunity to study the concept of

"special creation" as a legitimate alternative.

Much of the confusion around the concept of "evolution" is that this word iscommonly used to describe two very differentthings:

1. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things have a built-invariability which allows them to adapt to small changes in the

environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven fact, they

mean that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist disputes

this. Indeed, this ability to adapt would be expected as a part of "good

design". Textbook examples of "evolution in action" almost always

describe this type of small change, such as the "peppered moth" story, or

the development of resistance to pesticides. What is happening in these

cases is not the creation of something new, but merely the emphasis of

an already existing trait.

2. Macro-evolution refers to the type of change which has created peoplefrom hydrogen gas. Evolutionists say that large scale change is possible

because we have seen small scale change in action. However, the flaw inthis reasoning is that living systems have limits beyond which no further

change can take place.

Some other considerations include:o Much of day to day scientific activity ("practical science") does not

directly depend upon evolutionary assumptions, and so progress is made.

o Scientific fields of study have become very narrow. A scientist canbelieve that the evidence for evolution is found in "some other field",

even if it is not obviously seen in his own.

o Since scientists know that other scientists believe in evolution, theybelieve it also, even though they may not know much about the details

themselves.o Scientists want to have an answer for everything, and so the "best"

theory is the accepted theory, regardless of its absolute merits.

o Non-naturalistic ideas (like special creation) are regarded as outside thescope of scientific study. Can we equate "what is true" only with "what

can be seen and measured"? Is the physical dimension "all there is"?

Many scientists have been taught to believe that religious and scientific

beliefs are separate things which should be kept separate. However,

many of the well-known scientists of the past (such as Louis Pasteur,

Issac Newton, and Michael Faraday, among many others) operated with

their religious and scientific ideas working together.


27/44


27

What is the Theory of Evolution?

Common usage of the word "evolution" is the idea that living things in our world have

come into being through unguided naturalistic processes starting from a primeval mass

of subatomic particles and radiation, over approximately 20 billion years.

A more precise understanding of the above statement divides the "atoms to people"

transition into four realms:

1. Cosmology is the branch of astronomy which deals with the origin andformation of the general structure of the universe.

2. Abiogenesis refers to first life - the production of living organisms frominanimate matter.

3. Micro-evolution or speciation refers to populational and species change throughtime. There are many published examples of speciation, if by the development

of a new "species" we mean the development of a new population of individuals

which will not breed with the original population to produce fertile offspring.

Micro-evolution is a scientific fact which no one, including creationists, dispute.

4. Macro-evolution or general evolution refers the progression to more complexforms of life. The mechanisms of macro-evolution, including whether or not

micro-evolution over a long enough time leads to macro-evolution, can be

regarded as a "research topic" (Berra 1990, 12).

The popular mechanisms for explaining micro-evolution are "mutation" and "natural

selection".

Mutations are "mistakes" introduced into the genetic material used for reproduction,

which can occur for example as a result of exposure to radiation. Naturally occurring

mutations are very rare, and it is acknowledged that of those that do occur, almost all

have a negative effect (in fact, some creationists argue there is not a single known case

of a truly positive mutation, one having no negative side-effects). The occasional

positive mutation, giving some benefit to the organism, provides the "new material" for

natural selection to operate on.

Natural selection is based on the observation that there is variation among individuals in

a population. Natural selection states that those individuals which posses someadvantage in the environment (such as being a faster runner) are more likely to leave

more offspring, thereby increasing the probability of passing the advantage on to future

generations. Natural selection is what "retains" the occasional positive mutation and

causes the population to "advance" is some way. Creationists note that this mechanism

can only "select" among already existing traits - it cannot create something new.

A classic example of natural selection is the peppered moth changing its predominant

color in response to environmental pollution from in industrial era of England. Here, the

predominance of white moths was shifted to dark moths, allowing for camouflage

against predatory birds, as the trees darkened. Before the population shift occurred bothlight and dark moths were present. The environment allowed one shade to flourish.


28/44


28

However, what if the pollution covering the trees on which they rested was a bright

purple, making both the light and dark moths highly visible. Would the moths become

purple?

Experiments and knowledge to date demonstrate that adaptation has limits beyond

which no more change is possible. Selective breeding of roses has never been able toproduce a blue-colored rose


29/44


29

History and Ramifications of

Evolutionary Thought

The concept of evolution has had great influence in the world, not just in the scientific

community or in the academic study of origins.

History of Evolution

Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace

Known around the world is the name of Charles Darwin and his history changing book

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" subtitled "the Preservation of

Favored Races in the Struggle for Life" published in 1859. As a young man Charles

Darwin was always interested in nature, but since his father saw no future in being a

naturalist, he was sent to the University of Edinburgh to study medicine. At 16 he left

Edinburgh without a degree and enrolled in Christ College at Cambridge University to

become a clergyman, since most naturalists of the day were clergyman. He Received his

B.A. degree in 1831 in theology and was recommended by the Reverend John Henslow,

professor of botany, to Captain Robert Fitzroy of the HMS Beagle to participate in a

surveying voyage around the world.

Darwin was 22 years old when they sailed from England in December 1831 with the

primary mission of charting sections of the South American coastline. While the crew

charted the coastline, Darwin observed the distinctive nature of South America and was

puzzled by the geographic distribution of species. At the Galapagos Islands Darwin

came across several types of finches that although were very similar had apparent

adaptations to their particular environments. By the time they had sailed from the

Galapagos Darwin had read Lyell's Principles of Geology, and began to doubt the

Church's position that the earth was only a few thousand years old. Later Darwin would

theorize that these new forms were the result of the accumulation of adaptations to a

different environment (Campbell 1990, 428-429).

By the 1840's Darwin had worked out the major features of the theory of natural

selection as a mechanism for evolution but did not publish it immediately. Incidentally,

Darwin spent most of his adult life in a semi-invalid condition whose cause, either

organic or psychological, to this day remains unclear but he did nevertheless write

extensively and pursue his research.

The idea of natural selection as a source of new species was later to be co-discovered by

Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913). Wallace, unlike Lyell and Darwin was raised in

poverty and had no formal higher education at all, learning his knowledge of biology by

extensive field experience in the Amazon and East Indies. He also held native people ofthe tropics in high regard in contrast to the frequently held views of racial superiority of


30/44


30

Caucasians held at that time. At 21 Wallace was introduced to spiritualism and would

later become a leader in the spiritism movement and write on the subject. Wallace wrote

a two part article on the subject and later the definitive textbook, "Miracles and Modern

Spiritualism" in 1876. (Morris 1989, 171).

In 1855 Wallace published a paper on the origin of species which made Lyell andDarwin realize how close Wallace was to Darwin's research. While Darwin was

procrastinating on the publication ofOrigin, Wallace made a very curious contribution

to science while in the Malayan Jungles.

"I was then (February 1858) living at Ternate in the Muluccas, and was suffering from a

rather severe attack of intermittent fever, which prostrated me every day during the cold

and succeeding hot fits. During one of these fits, while again considering the problem of

the origin of species, something lead me to think of Malthus' Essay on Population..."

(Morris 1989, 172 quoting Wallace - The Wonderful Century...)

"Then it suddenly flashed upon me that this self-acting process would necessarily

improve the race, because in every generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off

and the superior would remain - that is, the fittest would survive. Then at once I seemed

to see the whole effect of this..." (Morris 1989, 173 quoting Wallace - My Life)

Further,

"... the whole method of species modification became clear to me, and in the two hours

of my fit I had thought out the main points of the theory. That same evening I sketched

out the draft of a paper; and in the two succeeding evenings I wrote it out, and sent it by

the next post to Mr. Darwin." (Morris 1989, 173 quoting Wallace - The WonderfulCentury)

At that point Darwin was persuaded by his friends Lyell and Hooker to stop work on the

"big book" and quickly publish an abstract, a shorter version instead. Lyell and Hooker

then presented Darwin's 1844 sketch and Wallace's 1858 paper to the Linnean Society

on July 1, 1858. Darwin's "abstract" of 490 pages was published in 1859 as On the

Origin... and the rest is history. (Taylor 1991, 130-131).

Had it not been for Wallace to act as a stimulus, Darwin may not have written Origins

and the course of history could have remained unchanged. Morris summarizes this best

...

"Herein was a marvelous thing! A theory that Darwin had been developing for twenty

years, in the midst of a world center of science and with the help and encouragement of

many scientific friends, was suddenly revealed in full to a self-educated spiritist,

halfway around the world, alone on a tropical island in the throes of a two hour malarial

fit. This is not the usual route to scientific discovery." (Morris 1989, 173)


31/44


31

Prominent People in the History of

Evolution

Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778)

Linnaeus was a Swedish physician and botanist who is regarded as the father of taxonomy (the

classification of organisms in categories based on common characteristics). His system of

classifying plants and animals is still in use today. Linnaeus was a pious and Bible believing

man who sought to delineate the basic "kinds" set forth in Genesis as species. He realized that

variation can take place within a "kind" but not from one "kind" to another. His quest for order

in the world of diversity was ad majorem Dei Gloriamm "for the greater glory of God". A

century later Linnaeus' system would be used to argue for evolution. (Morris 1982, 49),(Campbell 1990, 425)

Geoges Cuvier (1769 - 1832)

Another Bible believing scientist was Geoges Cuvier who was a great French anatomist and

considered to be one of the chief architects of the science of paleontology. He believed that

different fossils in strata were due to catastrophes, with the Flood being the last in a series. He

was a firm creationist and participated in (and won) debates in creation vs evolution. (Morris

1982, 57,58), (Campbell 1990, 426,427)

Thomas Malthus (1766 - 1834)

Malthus believed that human suffering by war and famine were the inevitable consequence of

the population increasing much faster than the supply of food. This concept was outlined in his

classic work "Essay on the Principle of Population" (1798). Darwin's notions of the struggle for

existence were influenced by Malthus' work. (Campbell 1990, 431,432)

James HuttonHutton was a Scottish geologist who believed that the features of the earth could be explained

by slow processes over time - gradualism. For example, canyons could be cut by rivers running

down their lengths, or sedimentary rocks with marine fossils were made from particles that

eroded from land and were carried by rivers into the sea. Hutton was educated as an

agriculturalist. (Morris 1989, 161)(Campbell 1990, 427)

Charles Lyell (1797 - 1875)

Lyell carried Hutton's gradualism farther, into uniformitarianism, the notion that geological

processes are uniform through time. For example, the processes that built mountains werebalanced by the erosion of mountains. Lyell was educated as a lawyer, wrote "Principles of


32/44


32

Geology" and had strong influence on Charles Darwin by acting as a mentor of sorts. Darwin

remarked "I always feel as if my books came half out Lyell's brain, and that I never

acknowledge this sufficiently". (Morris 1989, 167 quoting Himmelfarb), (Campbell 1990, 427)

Jean Baptiste Lamarck (1744 - 1829)A significant figure on the road to evolution was the French botanist Jean Baptiste

Lamarck who held the position of curator of the invertebrate collection at the natural

history museum in Paris. Instead of seeing life as a static ladder, he viewed it more as an

escalator. On the bottom were microscopic organisms that were continually being

formed and driven by an innate tendency to greater complexity, until finally complex

plants and animals were at the top. Lamarck believed that change in organisms was in

response to sentiments interieurs, or "felt needs". Lamark is best known for two notions:

a) Use and disuse - Organs that are used increase in size and strength. For example the

biceps of a blacksmith would get larger and stronger (legitimate) or by stretching for

leaves a giraffe got a long neck (bogus). Other examples are birds who lived in water

got webbed feet, moles became blind by living underground, or rams got their horns by

getting mad.

b) Acquired characteristics - Lamarck believed the changes acquired in an organisms

lifetime could be passed to the next generation. By this reasoning, the long neck of the

giraffe was the gradual result of many generations of stretching and stretching. Biology

has disproved these notions, by experiments such as the cutting off the tails of mice and

noting there is no decrease in tail length observed in offspring (Weismann's experiment

in the year 1891), or considering circumcision's effect over four thousand years.

(Campbell 1990, 427) (Taylor 1991, 45-48)


33/44


33

How much of the despair in the world can be attributed to the promotion of a world-

view whose slogan is "survival of the fittest". After all, if we are nothing but a higher

form of an animal, why should we not behave as an animal? Natural selection

eliminates the weak and those "less fit", but if applied to society opens the door to racial

and political exploitation. In addition, if man is viewed as a product of merely time and

change, do morals or absolutes have any meaning? The following essays discuss someof the effects which evolutionary thought has produced over the years.

Evolution and Racism

An abysmal chapter in the history of evolutionary thought involves the notion that

certain races weren't quite as advanced as others. Consider the complete title of

Darwin's famous book: "The Origin of Species by Natural Selection" with the subtitle,

"The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life". By this he meant human

races as well as animal subspecies.

In the 1800's the scientific community believed that Negroes were lower on the

evolutionary chain that Caucasians. Not only were Darwin and Thomas Huxley racists,

but virtually all the leading evolutionists and anthropologists - Osborn, Hooton,Hrdlicka, and Haeckel. (Morris 1989, 61, 63) Consider this quote:

"The Negroid stock is even more ancient that the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be

proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the body characters, such

as teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but the instincts, the intelligence. The standardof intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth

of the species Homo Sapiens." (Henry Fairfield Osborn, "The Evolution of Human

Races", Natural History Jan/Feb 1926. Reprinted in Natural History 89 (April

1980):129) (Morris, 1989, 62)

H. F. Osborn was the most prominent American anthropologist of the first half of the

twentieth century and director of the American Museum of National History. These

remarks were not based on innate prejudice, but on the evolutionary science of the day.

(Morris, 1989, 62)

The idea that some races had progressed further than others was rationalized by Ernst

Haeckel's "recapitulation theory" or "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" where stages ofembryonic development express the evolutionary sequence. Here the activities of

children (of advanced races) were equated to the activities of adults of the lower races.

(Morris 1989, 61, 62)

It should be noted that today anthropologists agree that the different human races have a

common origin - a Biblical doctrine. (Morris 1989, 64)


34/44


34

Evolution and Racism: Bodysnatching

Bodysnatching and the Australian Aborigines

In the late 1800's and early 1900's many in the scientific community viewed non-

Caucasian races as evolutionary ancestors, human subspecies, and/or not quite human.

As a result of this thinking humans of certain races were treated as laboratory

specimens. The Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. holds the remains of

15,000 individuals of various races and it appears that 10,000 Australian Aborigines

were shipped to the British museum in an attempt to determine if they were the "missing

link".

Some of the leading evolutionists of the day, including anatomist Sir Richard Owen,

anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith and Charles Darwin himself wanted samples. Museums

were not only interested in bones, but of fresh samples and pickled Aboriginal brains,

and good prices were being offered. Tragically, there is evidence that Australian

Aborigines may have been killed for use as specimens. Consider these notes:

"A death bed memoir from Korah Wills, who became mayor of Bowen, Queensland, in

1866, graphically describes how he killed and dismembered a local tribesman in 1865 to

provide a scientific specimen".

Edward Ramsey, curator of the Australian Museum in Sydney (1874-1894) published a

museum booklet that appeared to describe Aborigines as "Australian animals". It alsogave instructions on how to rob graves and plug bullet wounds in freshly killed

"specimens". He complained in the 1880s that a Queensland law to stop slaughtering

Aborigines was affecting his supply.

Amalie Dietrich, a German evolutionist (nicknamed the 'Angel of Black Death') came to

Australia and asked that Aborigines be shot for specimens, so their skin could be stuffed

and mounted. "Although evicted from at least one property, she shortly returned home

with her specimens."

"A new South Wales missionary was a horrified witness to the slaughter by mounted

police of a group of Aboriginal men, women and children. Forty-five heads were thenboiled down and the best 10 skulls were packed off for overseas."

The above quotes and paraphrases are from (Creation ex nihilo, Vol 14, No. 2, March -

May 1992, pg. 17).

This perverse tale of human debauchery can only be regarded as another bad fruit of

evolutionary thought.


35/44


35

The Case of Ota Benga

In 1906 the crowds thronged the monkey house exhibit at the Bronx Zoo (New YorkZoological Park). Here were man's "evolutionary ancestors" - monkeys, chimpanzees, a

gorilla named Dinah, an orangutan named Dohung and an African pygmy tribesman

named Ota Benga.

Ota Benga was brought from the Belgian Congo in 1904 by noted African explorer

Samuel Verner along with other pygmies and displayed in an exhibit in the 1904 St.

Louis world's Fair. Ota Benga (or "Bi", which means "friend" in his language) was born

in 1881, had a height of 4 ft. 11in. and weighted 103 lbs. Although he was referred to as

a boy he had been married twice. His first wife had been captured by a hostile tribe and

his second wife died by a snake bite.

After the St. Louis exhibit, Ota found himself at the Bronx Zoo which at that time was

under the direction of Dr. William T. Hornaday, who was considered a bit eccentric.

Hornaday believed animals had nearly human thoughts and personalities, and he could

read the thoughts of zoo animals. He "apparently saw no difference between a wild

beast and the little Black man" and insisted he was only offering an "intriguing exhibit".(Jerry Bergman, Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol 16, No 1 Dec 1993-Feb 1994 p. 49, quoting

Carl Sifakis, "Benga, Ota: The Zoo Man", in American Eccentrics, Facts on File, New

York, 1984, p. 253)

The exhibit was immensely popular and controversial; the black community wasoutraged and some churchmen feared that it would convince people of Darwin's theory

of evolution. Under threat of legal action, Hornaday had Ota Benga leave his cage and

circulate around the zoo in a white suit, but he returned to the monkey house to sleep.

In time Ota Benga began to hate being the object of curiosity. "There were 40,000

visitors to the part on Sunday. Nearly every man, woman and child of this crowd made

for the monkey house to see the start attraction in the park - the wild man from Africa.

They chased him about the grounds add day, howling, jeering, and yelling. Some of

them poked him in the ribs, others tripped him up, all laughed at him." (Creation Ex

Nihilo, quoting Phillip V. Bradford and Harvey Blume, "Ota Benga: The Pygmy in the

Zoo", St. Martins, 1992, p. 269, from the "New York Times" Sept. 18, 1906) At onepoint, he got hold of a knife and flourished it around the park, another time he produced

a fracas after being denied a soda from the soda fountain. Finally, after fabricating a

small bow and arrows and shooting at obnoxious park visitors he had to leave the park

for good.

After his park experience, several institutions tried to help him. He was placed in

Virginia Theological Seminary and College but quit school to work in a tobacco

factory. According to Hornaday (who probably had evolutionary racist views) "he did

not possess the power of learning" (Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol 16, No. 1 Dec. 1993-Feb

1994, pp. 48-50).


36/44


36

Growing homesick, hostile, and despondent Ota Benga borrowed a revolver, and shot

himself in the heart, ending his life in 1916.

Evolution and Communism

Another interesting facet of history is the connection between evolution and

communism. With communism the struggle of "race" is replaced by the struggle of

"class" as history is viewed as an evolutionary struggle.

Both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were evolutionists before they encountered

Darwin's "The Origin of Species" - (Dec 12, 1859) Engels wrote to Marx: "Darwin who

I am now reading, is splendid" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Zirkle). Like Darwin, "Marx

thought he had discovered the law of development. He saw history in stages, as the

Darwinists saw geological strata and successive forms of life... In keeping with the

feelings of the age, both Marx and Darwin made struggle the means of development"

(Morris 1989, 83 quoting Borzin). "There was truth in Engel's eulogy on Marx: 'Just as

Darwin had discovered the law of evolution in organic nature so Marx discovered the

law of evolution in human history'" (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Himmelfarb).

"It is commonplace that Marx felt his own work to be the exact parallel of Darwin's. He

even wished to dedicate a portion of Das Kapital to the author of The Origin of Species"(Morris 1989, 83 quoting Barzum). Indeed, Marx wished to dedicate parts of his famous

book to Darwin but "Darwin 'declined the honor' because, he wrote to Marx, he did not

know the work, he did not believe that direct attacks on religion advanced the cause of

free thought, and finally because he did not want to upset 'some members of my family'"

(Morris 1989, 83 quoting Jorafsky).

Other Soviet Communist leaders are evolutionists as well. Lenin, Trostsky, and Stalin

were all atheistic evolutionists. A soviet think tank founded in 1963 developed a one-

semester course in "Scientific Atheism" which was introduced in 1964. Also, a case can

be made that Darwinism was influential in propagating communism in China.

Interestingly, according to Morris, Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University, the co-

founder of the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution is a Marxist in philosophy,

along with other distinguished Harvard evolutionary scientists and university professors

across the country. One has to ask - could a person espouse the Marxist view and

tolerate creationism?


37/44


37

Why Not Genesis? - the Creation Events

The first chapter of the Bible, Genesis, tells of the major creation events. Many people,

even Christians, regard the creation account as something other than actual history - a

nice story that conveys some truths but which is not to be taken literally. The main

reason for this view is the incorrect assumption that "science" has proved that it was

really evolution that got us here. But why not start with the view that Genesis is true?,

especially if you already believe that an all-powerful creator exists or could exist. There

is no fundamental conflict between what is said in Genesis and what we absolutely

know to be scientifically true.

Genesis says that the creation events were carried out over six days. Most (but not all)

creationists believe these to be 24-hour days. Some have tried to make them into long

periods of time in an attempt to reconcile Genesis with the supposed old age of the

earth. That these are intended to be taken as 24-hour days is made clear from the phrase

used following the description of each day: "there was evening, and there was

morning". To make it even more clear, the terms used are defined in Genesis 1:5 where

"God called the light 'day' and the darkness he called 'night'". Only one 24-hour day has

one period of light and darkness, one morning and evening. One other important point

to note is that some of the creation events are not in the expected order if long periods of

time were involved: plants are created on day three, while the sun was not created until

day four, and animals needed for pollination of plants were not available until day five.

The creation days activities are as follows:

Creation Day 1

The universe, earth matter, light, day and night (Gen 1:1-5):

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and

empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering

over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light", and there was light. God saw that

the light was good, and separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day"

and the darkness he called "night". And there was evening, and there was morning - the

first day.


38/44


38

Creation Day 2

Sky (Gen 1:6-8):

And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from

water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the

water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky". And there was evening,

and there was morning - the second day.

Creation Day 3

Separation of seas and land, creation of plants (Gen 1:9-13):

And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry groundappear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land", and the gathered waters he

called "seas". And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let the land produce

vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it,

according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants

bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to

their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was

morning - the third day.


39/44


39

Creation Day 4

Sun, moon, stars (Gen 1:14-19):

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the

night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be

lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two

great lights - the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.

He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth,

to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that

it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning - the fourth day.

Creation Day 5

Sea creatures, birds (Gen 1:20-23):

And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the

earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and

every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and

every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed

them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let

the birds increase on the earth." And there was evening, and there was morning - the

fifth day.


40/44


40

Creation Day 6

Land creatures, man and woman (Adam and Eve) (Gen 1:24-31):

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock,

creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind."

And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock

according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to

their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over

the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over

all the creatures that move along the ground."

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male andfemale he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth

and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living

creature that moves on the ground." Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing

plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They

will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and

all the creatures that move on the ground - everything that has the breath of life in it - I

give every green plant for food." And it was so. God saw all that he had made, and it

was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning - the sixth day.


41/44


41

Creation Day 7

God rested from creating (Gen 2:1-3):

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh

day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from

all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested

from all the work of creating that he had done.


42/44


42

Early World History

This essay outlines very briefly some of the most important events in early world

history, as described in the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Following the days of

creation we find:Adam and Eve live in the garden of Eden.

Adam and Eve disobey God; they are punished and have to leave Eden.

The perfect creation is cursed - God allows death to enter the world.

Adam and Eve have children; Cain kills his brother Abel.

Everyone becomes bad (except Noah's family).

God sends a worldwide flood, saving only Noah's family and selected representative

animals.

God scatters the growing population at Babel by confusing their language.

People and animals spread across the earth.

Physical separation leads to the formation of different races and cultures.

When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, he cursed the perfect world he had made (Gen

3:17). From then until now the world has been in a state of decay, both physically and

morally. This physical decay is known in science as the "Second Law of

Thermodynamics", which says that the energy in the universe is becoming less useful

for work - that the universe will ultimately die a "heat death" (the entire universe will be

the same temperature). The first death in the world occurred when God himself killed an

animal to make garments for Adam and Eve after they sinned (Gen 3:21). Adam and

Eve lived for a long time had many children. The children married each other, but this

was ok at the time, as they were no genetic imperfections yet. But in the very first

family, Cain kills his brother Abel, and all the people in the world become bad, exceptfor a man named Noah, and his family.

God sends a worldwide flood as punishment. God specially picked the animals brought

onto the ark (Gen 7:9) to ensure that the genetic makeup of these animals would allow

all the variation we see today to be derived. Two or seven animals of each "kind" were

saved. For example, a dog was probably a kind from which all dogs and wolves today

are descended. Most of the animals would be young, to not take up as much space on

the ark. By only needing to take representative specimens of a limited number of

"kinds", and not of each species (of which there are very many), it has been shown that

the ark would have had more than enough space. Baby dinosours were among the

animals on the ark.

The worldwide flood created the "geologic column" that scientists point to as "proof" of

evolution (most evolutionary scientists don't believe that a worldwide flood ever

happened - evolution assumes that the past has been more or less "uniform" in terms of

the operation of physical processes). The column tends to show smaller/simpler living

creatures at the bottom (the oldest "age"), and larger/more complex creatures at the top.

The explanation for the appearance of the column (only a small part of which typically

exists in any one place) can be explained in two ways. First, the water action had a

sorting effect on the creatures, causing the smaller ones to fall to the bottom and the

larger ones stay on the top (like what you see when opening a bag of potatoe chips!).

Second, all of the creatures of the same kind would tend to die at the same time as theirsuitability to the rapidly changing environment was exceeded. For exam

creation science 2008

Documents