DR. WERNHER VON BRAUN ON VISUALIZING GOD (leading scientist in the US space program until his death in late 1970's. Remarks from Applied Christianity published in The Bible Science Newsletter May 1974, p. 8)

"One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all… The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based… To be forced to believe only one conclusion - that everything in the universe happened by chance - would violate the very objectivity of science itself… What random process could produce the brains of a man or the system of the human eye?… They (evolutionists) challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?… They say they cannot visualize a Designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron?… What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him?… It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life, and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance."

James Watson, discoverer of the pairing mechanism of DNA, said (perhaps to his chagrin), "In contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow minded and dull but also just stupid." Scientists hold prejudices and function on presumed evidence, in this they are like theologians, there are those who are better than others.

QUOTE: On the sixth day, God created the platypus. And God said:
"Let's see the evolutionists try and figure this one out."

Scientists have shown that the moon is moving away at a tiny, although measurable distance from the earth every year. If you do the math, you can calculate that 85 million years ago
the moon was orbiting the earth at a distance of about 35 feet. This would explain the death of the dinosaurs... the tallest ones, anyway.

THE PROBLEM OF IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY Dr. David Foster Saturday Evening Post Jan/Feb 2000 p. 62-63

Earlier I have given an example of a 3 legged table, which will be of use only on 3 legs but of no use on 2 legs. Now I think my reader will agree that a 3 legged table is "complex" compared with a 2 legged table and that it is just that extra leg which enables it to function correctly. The question is whether such an analysis also applies to the world of organic nature and living things. But the fact is, that irreducible complexity can be applied to any system. For example, consider a motorcar. A motor car will not go unless it has an engine with a carburetor, an ignition system, a crankshaft, pistons, valves and a camshaft. Take any one away or have one component behave in a substandard fashion, and the engine will not go; it is a victim of irreducible complexity!

It is obvious that this principle applies to all systems, whether man-made or of nature. Therefore it will apply to the contents of micro-molecular systems…

Darwin himself stated, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Some tourists in the Chicago Museum of Natural History are marveling at the dinosaur bones. One of them asks the guard, "Can you tell me how old the dinosaur bones are?"
The guard replies, "They are 3 million, four years, and six months old."
"That's an awfully exact number," says the tourist. "How do you know their age so precisely?"
The guard answers, "Well, the bones were three million years old when I started working here, and that was four and a half years ago."

GET YOUR OWN DIRT

A group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. They picked one scientist to tell God they were done with Him.

The scientist walked up to God and said, "We’ve decided we no longer need you. We can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don’t you just go and get lost."

God listened patiently and then said, "Let’s have a man making contest just like in the days of Adam."

The scientist agreed and bent down to grab himself a handful of dirt. God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no – get your own dirt."

EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY STRIKES AGAIN – RAPE Michael Precker in The Dallas Morning News 2/13/00

Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer, the authors of A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion… argue that rape is rooted in biological impulses of all men to procreate. Because all men could be potential rapists, they argue, women should consider dressing and acting more conservatively to reduce their risk of being raped.

… Rape, the authors contend, should be viewed "as a natural biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage." That doesn’t make it right, they add and "in no way excuses the rapist."

Males who are driven to procreate – and frustrated that females don’t select them as partners – might resort to copulation by force, or rape. Such behavior can be found in many species, from scorpion-flies to orangutans, according to the authors.

A rather talkative young man had much to say to a clergyman at a dinner they were both attending. He droned on and on about Darwin's Origin of the Species. At one point he said, "I can’t see what difference it would make if my grandfather was an ape."

"I can’t see that it would make any difference to you either," said the clergyman, "but it must have made a great deal of difference to your grandmother."

A young woman was studying in a science class that was discussing the evolution of man. As they considered how each part of the human anatomy must have evolved, they came upon the eye and spent a great deal of time discussing it because it was so complicated that it was difficult to explain its evolving in a simplistic fashion. Though the student was not a Christian, it seemed to her that perhaps Evolution might not be the best way of explaining this phenomenon and said so. The teacher became irritated as he responded: "Young lady, we're not here to talk about God!"

Although the existence of God had never entered her mind in this discussion, she realized that without evolution, God was required.

A BATHTUB TALE WITH A RING Bits and Pieces 3/2/95 4/27/95 p. 4ff

The following facts about the invention of the American bathtub have been dutifully recorded in the Congressional Record:
1. The 1st American bathtub was introduced by Adam Thompson on December 10, 1842, to a group of derisive friends in Cincinnati, Ohio.

2. Doctors all around the country immediately denounced the bathtub as a menace to general health, and Boston banned it.

3. Virginia hastily levied a tax of $30 on every bathtub sold within its borders, and a bill

banning the use of bathtubs entirely in Philadelphia from November 12 to March 31 was

defeated by a narrow margin of 2 votes.

4. No bathtub was allowed inside the White House until 1851, when President Millard Fillmore bravely dunked his limbs in one of the fiendish contraptions.

There is only thing wrong with these interesting statistics: they are completely untrue from beginning to end. The editor and writer, H.L. Mencken, in one of his more playful moods, had invented them from whole cloth for a piece he wrote for the New York Evening Mail that appeared December 28, 1917.

The "facts" were widely circulated in magazine and newspaper articles, speeches in the Congress, etc. When Mencken saw to his amazement that his little joke was begin taken seriously, he tried desperately to convince everybody he had perpetuated what he thought would be a harmless hoax. But he was too late. Nobody would believe him. He had done his job so well that he was never able to undo it. Some of his "Facts" have even persisted to this day.

1. Homology: Animals having similar body structures are thought to be related by

common evolutionary ancestor (e.g., man is related closely to mammals because the bones of his limbs match the limbs of mammals in number and general shape and organization).

* Similar body structures could also mean that the same designer created both, because parts that work well for a task can be used in a variety of animals. Besides, there are numerous similar organs existing in animals that are not considered related by evolutionists (e.g. eye of man and octopus).

2. Mutations: Since mutations occasionally give rise to changes in offspring, it is considered the source of raw material for new and complex design in animal and plant evolution.

* Laboratory experiments show that no beneficial mutations occur that increases the likelihood of survival for offspring. In fact, all mutations are harmful or at best neutral. All that mutations do is to rearrange existing genetic material or to damage it; never to create new genes or improve them.

3. Microevolution: Changes in plants and animals that are observed when selective breeding is done, are taken as evidence that species can change from amoebae to man, if enough time is allowed.

* "Microevolution" does indeed take place, but it is only variation within a species. It cannot be taken as evidence for "macroevolution" (change from a less complex life form to a more complex one). In all examples of selective breeding, the animal or plant being experimented on is still the same animal or plant, only larger, smaller, or a different color, etc. (e.g., dog family).

4. 'Primitive' Human Fossils: Evidence for a progression of fossils from ape to man have been claimed to show that man has evolved.

* All such fossils can be interpreted as either true man, or some species of apes, baboons, gorillas, or chimps. So many once acclaimed 'ape-man' ancestors have now been shown false, and the amount of fossil evidence so sparse, that final judgement should await more finds.

5. Radiometric Dating: Radioisotope decay of several elements, such as uranium decaying to lead at a certain fixed rate reveal that the earth is billions of years old. This is taken as evidence that evolution has enough time to happen.

* A large age for the earth is not evidence for evolution, but it is necessary for the theory's survival. Creation however can survive whether the earth is old or young. The preponderance of known geoastro- and bio-chronometers overwhelmingly support the model of a young earth and universe (over 300 as of this writing). Only a few chronometers give old ages, and even these give contradictory dates that are seldom reported.

6. 'Origin of Life' Experiments: Laboratory experiments of Stanley Miller and Sidney Fox show that the chemical building blocks of life can be easily made under conditions simulating the environment of the early earth. These amino acids were initiated by an electrical spark which represented lightning.

* These experiments don't tell all of the story. The amino acids made in Miller's experiment for example, were a mixture of 'right' and 'left handed' molecules whereas all amino acids necessary for life (about 20) have to be strictly 'left handed' molecules. Also the same energy source that made these amino acids will destroy them if left in the container. So Miller conveniently removed them. Also the spark that he urged was mild, whereas lightning would have destroyed all the chemicals. Numerous other faults with the experiment can be cited which render the whole experiment meaningless - which even evolutionists now admit. All scientists are mystified as to how chemicals can arrange themselves to form life.

7. Progression of Complexity of Fossils in Rock Strata: The belief that in the geological column (which presumably was slowly laid down over hundreds of millions of years) one can find a progression of life from simple to complex, from bottom to top, shows that evolution took place.

* The progression of life assumes that a long period of time is responsible for the strata. But another interpretation is possible: The sedimentary deposits were laid down rapidly by a flood. Marine creatures would be on the bottom, amphibians next, according to their ability to escape the rising waters. Intelligent and swift animals, and man would be the last to be buried in the water-born sediments. That the strata do reflect a flood is born out by many 'wrong' fossils being found in the 'wrong' strata; locations where 'old' strata rests undisturbed on top of 'younger' strata; fossils trees going up through many layers of strata; and physical signs that show that fossil animals died a violent death and often carried distances before being buried in sediments. In addition, laboratory experiments and field studies show that floods quickly produce the same type of strata that one sees in the 'geologic column' (eg., Mt. St. Helens in Washington, and the Bijou Creek flood in Colorado).

8. Transition Fossils: Most now admit that there are no indisputable transition fossils between the various families of plants and animals. A few feel that archaeopteryx and mammal-like reptiles may be examples of intermediate forms. More and more scientists however are believing that large changes took place relatively quickly and therefore did not leave any evidence for evolution in the fossil record.

* There is certainly no evidence of transition fossils, and there is likewise no evidence that species can make large jumps in body structure. Over the years, fossils that have been claimed to be transitional have sooner or later proved to be either a separate species or the reconstruction was faulty. Also, almost any postulated in-between transitional stage of a body part; or the molecular structure of body chemicals, such as enzymes, would leave animals and plants non-functioning and helpless (eg., limb to wing; 2-chambered heart to 3-chambered heart to 4 chambered heart; simple eye to complex eye; hemoglobin, insulin; etc.).

9. Recapitulation: The belief that embryos go through stages of appearance similar to their supposed evolutionary ancestors has now been totally discounted by evolutionists. However some books still propagate this myth.

10. Vestigial Organs: Evolutionists no longer point to 'useless' organs as evidence of evolution because at least 178 of these once so called useless organs are now considered useful. Occasionally however, one will still find this argument in popular articles on evolution written by someone who is unaware of the change in scientific belief.

May be reproduced if credit is given: Creation Education and Evangelism

Paul McDorman

1029 Seneca Ave.

Mason, Ohio 45040

513-398-7091

1. "Mosaic" Organs: body parts that are very similar appear sporadically among species that are apparently unrelated (e.g., the eyes of the octopus and of man) . Also, the protein structure of "unrelated" species show the same mosaic pattern (i.e., hemoglobin).

2. "Living Fossils ": Animals that were long thought of as being extinct have suddenly turned up in virtually an unchanged form as their fossil counterparts. This shows that numerous mutations that statistically should have taken place over millions of years have not changed their form at all (e.g., tuatara lizard, cockroaches, starfish, gingko tree, coelacanth fish, bats, etc.).

3. "Mixed-Up Strata" : In numerous places in the world (Lewis Overthrust In Montana and Canada, Grand Canyon, Matterhorn, etc.) a layer of "old" rock is lying on top of "younger" rock, with no signs of any earth movement having taken place. Such mixed up strata indicates that these layers of rocks do not show evolutionary progression and old age at all, but a rapid deposition of sediments. Overthrusts of one layer of rock over another are known to have taken place, but they are always small and leave tremendous scars because of the great pressures involved.

4. Anomalous Fossils: There have been fossils found in rock strata where they should not be, because they were not supposed to have evolved yet. Yet they are there, and they show that the rock strata do not indicate a progression of life through evolution (e.g., evidence of human artifacts and skeletons imbedded in Coal seams, pollen in Cambrian strata, etc.).

5. Polystrate Fossils: In various localities, there can be found fossil trees standing up-right through several layers of rock strata. This indicates that the strata were not laid down over thousands or millions of years, but that the trees were buried rapidly before they could decay. This negates the geological column with its vast ages as well as evolution.

6. No Transitional Fossils: For evolution to be true, one should be able to find various in-between stages between "related" species. None have been found to date that are undisputed among evolutionary scientists. Invariably, history shows that what was once thought to be a transitional fossil, turns out to be no transition at all. Many "ape-men " fossils, and even the famous "horse series" and archaeopteryx has been discounted.

7. Complexity of Organisms: Even the simplest of cells or even the proteins that are necessary for life are so complex that mathematically they would be impossible to form by chance even allowing many times over the 5 or so billions of years that the earth is supposed to have been in existence. Such was the conclusion of a symposium of mathematicians and evolutionists at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology in 1966.

8. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics- A basic fundamental law of physics and chemistry is that everything naturally tends to run down and to become more disordered with time. Evolution is in direct conflict with this because it says that life tends to become more complex and ordered as time goes on. Things as complicated as life can only become ordered and complex if there is a "factory" or ordering mechanism already in existence (e.g., enzymes, DNA, RNA, etc.) that can put the critical parts together in the right order. And even a "machine" cannot become more complex than the "factory" that makes it. With evolution there is no known mechanism that can do this. Matter itself is not capable of arranging itself in the complex orderly fashion that we see in even the simplest forms of life.

9. Evidences of Catastrophism: Fossil graveyards of huge numbers of trapped animals are found throughout the world. Some animals, such as clams, fish, mammoths, and dinosaurs show signs of being killed suddenly with an influx of sediment and water. Other fossils show signs of being transported distances by water. These widespread fossils indicate that fossilization is a catastrophic process taking place rapidly and not due to the slow deposition of sediments pictured in books. With no slow deposition of sediments, there are no vast ages in the geological column, and no evolution.

10. Anomalous Radiometric Dates: Many examples of "false readings" have been given by radiometric dating methods. For example, lava flows in Hawaii that have solidified no earlier than 200 years ago give dates of being over a thousand million years old; and rocks on top of the Grand Canyon give dates that are older than those at the bottom of the canyon. It is a typical practice among those who date rocks to throw out dates that do not agree with evolutionary dating schemes. Since evolution depends upon old ages, the dependability of the radiometric method gives evolution no support.

11. "Unworkability" of Transition Forms: For many organs a half-way transition is an unworkable organ. Therefore, evolution can not take place by gradual transitions. Also, it is expecting the impossible to believe that one organ can transform suddenly into another fully functioning organ. Some examples of unworkable transition organs would be the eye; the bombardier beetle's "gun"; the woodpecker's bill, tongue, and tongue sheath; the Venus fly trap; and the giraffe's circulatory system.

12. Over 300 Chronometers Giving Young Ages for the Earth: Far more dating methods give young ages for the age of earth than old dates: the decaying magnetic field of the earth; the lack of helium in the atmosphere; the lack of extraterrestrial nickel on the earth; the abundance of comets and meteors; the smallness of the deltas of the world; the lack of minerals in the oceans; the presence of oil gushers; ocean sediment thickness; the slowing of the earth's spin; population statistics; the mutational load in genes, etc. etc. If

the earth is young, then evolution could not have happened.

May be reproduced if credit is given:

Creation Education & Evangelism

Paul McDorman

1029 Seneca Ave.

Mason, Ohio 45040

513-398-7091

1. "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student...have been debunked." * Dr. Dered V. Ager (Department of Geology, Imperial

College, London), "The Nature of the Fossil Record" Proceedings of the Geological Association, Vol. 87(2), 1976, pp. 132-l33

2. "Well we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded ...ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." * Dr. David Raup (Curator, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago), "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Vol. 50(1), 1979, p. 25

3. "...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustrations of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly would have included them...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...I will lay it on the line - there is not one such

fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." * Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland

4. "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process to study." * Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), Natural History, Vol. 85(5), May 1977, p. 14

5. "...if man evolved from an apelike creature he did so without leaving a trace of that evolution in the fossil record." * Lold Solly Zuckerman, M.A.,M.D.,D.Sc., (Anatomy) in

"Beyond the Ivory Tower," Taplinger Pub. Co., New York, 1970, p. 64

6. "The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hardheaded pragmatism. * J. E. O'Rourke, 'Pragmatism versus materialism in stratigraphy", American Journal of Science vol. 276 Jan. 1976, p. 7

7. "In conventional interpretation of K-Ar age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon." * A. Hayatsu (Department of Geophysics, University of Western Ontario, Canada), K-Ar isochron age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia'. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 16, 1979, p. 974

8. "A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a human like creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone

becomes a hominid bone." * Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley), as quoted by Ian Anderson in "New Scientist", April 28, 1983, p. 199

9. "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it." * H. S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, Univ. of Manchester, UK), 'A physicist looks at evolution', Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, 198O, p. 13B

10. "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grownups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." * Prof. Louis Bounoure (Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research), as quoted in The Advocate, Thursday 8 March 1984, p. 17

11. "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has." * Malcolm Muggeridge (world famous journalist and philosopher), Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

l2. "Once we see that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate....it is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect...the idealized limit of God." * Sir Fred Hoyle (English Astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Camblidge University) and Chandra Wickramasingne (Professor of Astronomy and Applied Mathematics at University College, Cardiff) in "Evolution From Space," Dent, London, 1981

13. "To suppose that the eye...could have been formed by natural selection, seems,

I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." * Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species", 1859, p. 133

14. "The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts." * Richard Dickerson, Ph.D. (Physical Chemistry) (Professor, California Institute of Technology),

"Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life", "Scientific American", Sept. 1978, p. 70

15. "To insist...that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts."

* Pierre-Paul Grasse (past-President, French Acadamie des Sciences) "Evolution of Living Organisms", Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 107

16. "In general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained." * R L Mauger, Ph.D. (Geology) (Associate Professor, East Carolina University), "K-Ar Ages of Biotite From Tuffs In Eocene Rocks of the Green River, Washakie and Uinta Basins, "Contributions to Geology" Wyoming University, Vol. 15(1), 1977, p. 37

17. "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." * Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?- Palebiology, vol. 5(1), January 1980, p. 127

18. "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." * Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and paleontology, Harvard University), -Evolution's erratic pace'. "Natural History", vol. LXXXVI (5), May 1977, p. 14

19. "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between

species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." * David B. Kitts, Ph.D. (zoology), (School of Geology and Geophysics, Department of the History of Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA) 'Paleontology and evolutionary theory'. Evolution, vol. 28, September 1974, p. 467

20. "The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table...the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present." *John Reader (photo-journalist and author of "Missing Links", 'Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus? "New Scientist", 26 March 1981, p. 802

21. The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.'" * Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in 'Hoyle on Evolution'. "Nature", vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105

22. "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctualionist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." *Mark Ridley (zoologist, Oxford University), 'Who doubts evolution?' "New Scientist," vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831

23. "The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgement, is overwhelming. The belief that there is 'something behind it all' is one that I personally share with, I suspect, a

majority of physicists." * Paul Davies, 'The Christian perspective of a scientist'. "New Scientists", 2 June 1983, p. 638

24. "Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants."

* Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia), 1980 Assembly Week address

TWO LOOPHOLES IN KNOWING AGE OF UNIVERSE Time March 6, 95 p. 80

Astronomers have known since Hubble's heyday in the1920s that you need only two pieces of information to deduce the age of the universe: how fast the galaxies are flying apart and how far away they are. The ratio of these two numbers tells you how fast the cosmos is expanding (a rate known as the Hubble Constant; it's expressed, for those who insist on the proper terminology, in units of kilometers Per second of recessional speed per mega-Parsec of distance). A simple calculation then tells you how long it's been since the expansion started. "There are these two loopholes, though," notes University of Oklahoma astrophysicist David Branch. "What's the right distance, and what's the right speed?"

NO LIVING LINKS From: Will There Ever Be a World Without War? page 4 & 5(1992 Watch Tower) Should Evolution Be Taught?, 1970, pages 9, 14.

Professor of natural science John Moore reported on the results of an extensive study made by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals...Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. There is not a trace of a common ancestry, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.

BIG BANG THEORY, Science News vol 137 p. 184 ff. March 24, 90

...uniformity is difficult to reconcile with the obvious clumping of matter into galaxies, clusters of galaxies and even larger features extending across vast regions of the universe, such as "walls" and "bubbles" (SN: 11/25/89 p. 340) At the same time, the detection of extremely distant quasars means that some galaxies must have already existed when the universe was less than a billion years old. Furthermore, large groups of galaxies seem to be streaming in particular directions - as if pulled by large mass concentrations - at significant fractions of the rate at which galaxies in general are spreading apart as the universe expands (SN: 1/27/90, p.60).

These observations pose considerable difficulties for those wedded to the idea of a uniform, explosive beginning. They force theorists to come up with a structure-forming mechanism that creates features as large as 5% the size of the whole universe from perturbations in the density of matter that a few 100,000 years after the Big Bang could deviate from complete uniformity by only a few parts in 100,000....

In its simplest form, the Big Bang scenario doesn't look like a good way to make galaxies. It allows too little time for the force of gravity by itself to gather ordinary matter - neutrons, protons, and electrons - into the patterns of galaxies seen today. Yet the theory survives for want of a better idea.

CREATIONIST DENIED GRADUATE WORK - AFA Journal May 1990, p. 20

Tom Jungmann, for example, was denied admission for a Ph.D. in biology in spite of his excellent work at the Master's level. He was at a loss to explain this denial until his admission file inadvertently fell into his hands. In his file he found a letter of recommendation written by Dr. Gregor Cailliet, stating his belief in creation would be a "major barrier" to his earning a Ph.D.

CREATION DENIED AWARD DEGREE (same source & page)

Dr. Erville Clark was denied his Ph.D. in biology at Stanford U. despite an excellent record and above-average qualifications. He was forced to complete his doctorate at Oregon State U.. The department chair there, in evaluating Clark's admission papers, contacted Stanford and learned that Mr. Clark was denied the Ph.D. because he was a creationist.

WEAKNESS OF ACLU ARGUMENT (same source, page 6)

One method used successfully is to attack a statute or policy as unconstitutional on the basis that the motivation for the statute is religious. For example, the State of Louisiana enacted what was termed the Balanced Treatment of Creation and Evolution Act. During oral argument before the Supreme Court, the ACLU argued that this law was nothing more than the product of religious fundamentalist lobbying. Justice Scalia asked ACLU counsel a hypothetical question: Suppose that a school system taught the view that during the time of Christ the Roman empire did not extend into Palestine. If a group of Christian fundamentalists opposed this teaching and persuaded the school to allow the opposing view to be taught, would that be unconstitutional? The attorney responded, "No, your Honor, that would merely be a quest for truth." Scalia: "Then, how does that differ from this situation?

SCIENCE HAS BEEN WRONG BEFORE Time 3/20/1989 p. 70

In 1965, a study of violent criminals in a Scottish high security mental institution found that a surprisingly high percentage had a particular chromosomal abnormality: in addition to the X and Y chromosomes normally found in men, each carried an extra Y or "male" chromosome. The press and public seized on the idea that these so-called supermales were genetically predestined to a life of crime. That interpretation proved false. Further investigations showed that the vast majority of men with the XYY pattern - an estimated 96% - lead relatively normal lives. But before the matter was put to rest, a variety of measures were proposed to protect society from the perceived threat. One group of scientists urged massive prenatal screenings, presumably to allow parents to arrange for abortions. Others initiated a long-range studies to identify XYY infants and track their progress over the years through home visits, psychological«tests and teacher questionnaires. These dubious efforts were eventually abandoned, but not before a group of innocent youngsters had been unfairly labeled as somehow inferior.

MAN'S OPINION ON CREATION VS EVOLUTION U.S. News 12/23/91 p.59

Those believing in a strict creationist view (November Gallup Poll)

All Americans- 47% Men- 39% Women- 53% College Grads- 25%

No High School Diploma- 65% Income $50,000+- 29% $20,000- 59%

Those believing in a Centrist view (man evolved w/ God's help)

All Americans- 40% Men- 45% Women - 36% College Grads - 54%

No High School Diploma- 23% Income $50,000+- 50% $20,000 - 28%

Those believing in a Evolutionary view (man evolved - no God)

All Americans- 9% Men- 11.5% Women- 6.6% College Grads- 16.5%

No High School Diploma- 4.6% Income $50,000+- 17% $20,000 - 6.5%

SCIENCE'S DEPENDENCE ON CHRISTIANITY (same as above, p. 58)

In the West, early science grew out of a decidedly religious impulse: to understand God and his relationship with man. The biblical picture of an orderly creation by a dependable God gave impetus to scientific inquiry. The universe "made sense" because it was overseen by a Supreme Intelligence who made mathematical description and prediction possible. Throughout Christianity's early history, theologians like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas did most of the scientific pondering, and their inquiries were seen as a religious quest.

THE POWERFUL INFLUENCE OF VOLCANOS R.Digest 3/92, p. 101 by Lowell Ponte

... Without volcanic and other forces to build mountains, weather would erode the land, and the entire world would slip below sea level. Second, rainfall is constantly washing key elements of life, such as carbon and sulfur, into the world's oceans. Other carbon is taken from the water by oceanic plankton and converted into calcium carbonate before it sinks to ocean bottoms to become chalk. If nothing reversed theses processes, the world's carbon would be locked up on ocean floors, and all of Earth's carbon based life forms - from daisies to fish to human beings - would become extinct. Bereft of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, our world might cool until whatever remained above water was frozen into a permanent Ice Age.

QUOTE: Ed Dussault comments: "If evolution really works, how come mothers still have only two hands?"

EVOLUTIONARY EXCUSE FOR ADULTERY Time, August 15, 1994 pp. 45ff.

An excuse for adultery is available now at the hands of a supposedly scientific discipline known as "evolutionary biology" which goes from the premise that we are "human animals" and can look to the realm of other animals for reasonable models for the underlying rational for how we behave. According to the Time article, "it is to man's evolutionary advantage to sow his seeds far and wide. Women instead seek mates with the best genes and the most to invest in offspring. These strategies can put the sexes in conflict and undermine love." As an example, these scientists point to the ape culture: "Among Apes, the greater the difference in size between Male and Female, the less monogamous the Male." This then forms the basis for understanding infidelity and promiscuity in the human race - thus understandable to a race of animals that have evolved into its present higher form.

FOSSIL FINDS ARE MILES APART!! Creation Research, Science Education Foundation Newsletter, Nov./Dec. 1995

Donald Johanson, of Stanford University, is well known for the 1974 discovery of "Lucy", the famous 3 and 1/2 foot tall partial fossil skeleton that was found in the Hadar region of North central Ethiopia. Dr. Johanson and others make the claim that Lucy is an important link in human evolution.

This notoriety of Lucy and Johanson is what led Tom Willis, President of the Creation Science Association for Mid-American, Cleveland, Missouri, and several other members, to the University of Missouri at Kansas City, to hear this well known anthropologist give a lecture. During his talk Johanson gave this reasoning of why Lucy should be considered ancestral to modern man:
1. Lucy's femur and pelvis were more robust than most chimps, indicating that she "could have walked upright."

2. A slide picture showing the "evolutionary progression" of three knee bones (lower ends of femurs): the first one, a chimpanzee; the second one, Lucy; and the third one, a modern human. This slide was presented as showing that Lucy was on her way to assuming an upright posture.

These two "evidences" were sufficient, he felt, to convince anyone that Lucy was a bonified "Missing Link." The first line of evidence was pretty weak however. In most vertebrates there is enormous variation in skeletal robustness due to genetic, and dietary differences. So it means little that a fossil pelvis and femur were found that were more robust than the average chimp.

The second line of evidence however, although perfectly capable of being explained several ways in non-evolutionary terms, is of more concern. Unfortunately, a picture such as this can be quite deceptive. It seems that when any scientist places a few bones in a left to right sequence, people seem to somehow believe it as proof of evolution. They forget that it is the scientist, with his or her preconceived notions, that is doing the arranging of those bones and not nature.

Nevertheless, during the question and answer period after the lecture, one of the CSA members asked Johanson, "How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?" With difficulty in remembering, Johanson replied "60 to 70 meters (over 200 feet) lower in the strata and 2 to 3 kilometers (1.24 TO 1.86 MILES) away."

To the best of Tom Willis's reckoning, this confession of Donald Johanson has not appeared anywhere in print (at least in popular publications). Dr. Wayne Frair, a biologist and creationist, later wrote to Dr. Johanson about this matter and after a couple of attempts, received essentially the same answer.