Creation Matters Vol. 13 No. 1 January/February 2008

1.4 MB·English

by  Creation Research Society

Volume 13, Number 1 January / February 2008
— A publication of the Creation Research Society —
Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez — A Case of Intolerance in Science
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
D r. Guillermo Gonzalez is an assistant Problems Begin
professor of astronomy at Iowa State
In 2004, Dr. Gonzalez co-authored the
University (ISU). Born in Havana,
book The Privileged Planet: How Our
he and his family fled from Cuba to
Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Dis-
the United States in 1967, where he earned
C
covery, which presents empirical evidence
a Ph.D. in astronomy with honors from the
E for the hypothesis that the universe is the
University of Washington in 1993.
N product of intelligent design (Gonzalez
Several of his colleagues have conclud- and Richards, 2004). It was this book, and
S
ed that in 2007 Gonzalez was denied tenure a film made from the book, that got him
at ISU as a result of his support for intelli- O into trouble. The book critiques the
gent design. Tenure denial often means the R “Copernican principle,” the idea that
kiss of death in academia, making it very “everything we see around us is common-
E
difficult to find an academic position else- place in the universe, that we are average
where. Although the story was first broken D beings in a run-of-the-mill planetary sys-
publicly in the Iowa paper, Ames Tribune, tem in an average galaxy populated by
on May 12, 2007, the actual decision took scores of other mediocrities” (Gingerich,
place earlier in the spring (Dillon, 2007).
Dr. Gonzalez had just bought a house, ... continued on p. 3
married a local woman, and wanted to start
a family and continue his very promising God Created Earth and Heaven
career as an astronomer at ISU. He tends to
keep to himself, focusing on his highly
(a Creation Hymn)
productive research program, which would
continue if he were allowed to stay at the
by Ralph Gillmann
university. His supporters have argued that
this is what ISU does not want, because of
Editor’s note: Please go to page 6 for the actual hymn. I asked Mr. Gillmann for this
his alleged scientific heresy.
introduction to provide insight into his writing of this song praising the God of creation.
According to ISU’s Department of
M any hymns mention the Creator or creation but I could not find one with the
Physics and Astronomy, the tenure process,
creation story of Genesis. I’ve written poetry over the years so I decided to
as outlined on page 4 of its Procedures and
write such a hymn. Writing it proved to be enlightening about the nuances
Promotion and Tenure Policy and Proce-
of Genesis — there is more subtlety there than first appears.
dure, requires “excellence sufficient to lead
to a national or international reputation ... The hymn turned out to be long, particularly by modern standards. I started with
[that] would ordinarily be shown by the a stanza for each day, but so much happened on the sixth day that it required two.
publication of approximately fifteen papers Then I realized that, as a Christian hymn, it needed a final stanza on the new creation,
of good quality in refereed journals.” Hav- which then meant a stanza on the Fall, too. I thought I was done until I realized it
ing produced 68 refereed scientific papers, should have a beginning stanza to set the stage, just as the first two verses of Genesis
Dr. Gonzalez has exceeded by more than do.
350 percent his own department’s standard The meter is 87.87.77.88, which is not common, but is used with several Lutheran
for “excellence” requirement for tenure. hymns. I suggest the majestic tuneDer am Kreuz, which accompaniesOn My Heart
ISU considered 66 faculty for tenure during Imprint Thine Image and is available in a Lutheran hymnal or in The Hymn Fake
the past academic year, and only Gonzalez Book (chords and melody) published by Hal Leonard Corp. More common tunes
and two others were denied tenure (Dillon, that are 87.87 D such as Harwell may be adapted for example by repeating the last
2007). note.
... continued on p. 6
Math Matters
by
Don DeYoung, Ph.D.
How Did Charles Babbage Babbage suggested that God had care-
Explain Miracles? fully programmed the physical Creation
with built-insingularities, analogous to n=5,
E nglish mathematician Charles Bab- which revealed themselves as miracles in
bage (1792–1871) pioneered the de- nature.
velopment of mechanical calculators.
Babbage also illustrated his ideas with
Hisdifference andanalytical engines graphs. The accompanying figure shows a
consumed 50 years of his life. The faith of graph of an unusual function. A smooth
Babbage is displayed in his contributions to curve results except for the isolated point
the Bridgewater Treatises. The Earl of at x = 2. Babbage saw this singular point
as an analogy to a miracle through master
Bridgewater funded this series of classic
programming of nature (Eves, 1969).
books in the 1830s. They were dedicated to A graph of the function y2=(x-2)2 (x-3). The Babbage’s technical ideas for miracles are
illustrating the “power, wisdom, and good- single isolated point (x = 2) on the graph was interesting, but they are also deficient. Mir-
ness of God as manifested in the works of used by Charles Babbage to illustrate the oc- acles are clearly supernatural and not ex-
Creation.” currence of miracles. plainable by natural laws. Miracles are
exceptions to the known laws of science
Babbage suggested several mathemati-
example sequence where n = 0, 1, 2, …, and math and not subject to detailed analysis.
cal explanations for how God performed
miracles. Babbage wrote formulas for cer- with an infinite value for n = 5: Reference
tain arithmetic sequences which change
22 Eves, Howard W. 1969.In Mathematical Circles.
nn
uniformly except for specific numbers ==00,,--00..2255,,--11..33,,--44..55,,--1166,,¥¥,,3366,,2244..55,,KK Prindle, Weber, and Schmidt, Inc., Boston.
nn--55
which become infinitely large. Consider an
Contents Take advantage
Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez: A Case of Intolerance............1 of the members’
God Created Earth and Heaven (a Creation Hymn)......1
discount at the CRS
Math Matters:
How Did Charles Babbage Explain Miracles?.............2
online bookstore
Letters:
Pre-Flood/Flood Boundary: Not in the Grand Canyon!7
A Reply to M. J. Hunter..................................................8
www.CRSbooks.com
Speaking of Science
Hidden Messages Found in DNA..............................................9
A Step Closer to Gecko Adhesive.............................................9
Of All the Nerve: Functional Intron Discovered.......................9
The Evolutionary Inference.....................................................10
Life Influences Dating Method................................................10
Mouse Grows Long Finger, Takes Off Like a Bat..................11
Blind Cave Fish Can See Again..............................................11
Creation Matters
All by Design: Chemical Signaling in the Honeybee..12
ISSN 1094-6632
Volume 13, Number 1
January / February 2008
Copyright © 2008 Creation Research Society
Membership Matters
All rights reserved.
by Glen Wolfrom, Ph.D. General Editor: Glen W. Wolfrom
For membership / subscription information,
F rom time to time we receive letters is long overdue. advertising rates,
and information for authors:
which are an encouragement to us. May God richly bless and use
Glen W. Wolfrom, Editor
your and your wife’s creation ministry.
Here is one we received a while back: P.O. Box 8263
Sincerely, St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263
Thank you so much forCreation Mat-
BL
Email: [email protected]
ters. You produce a unique and excep-
Westfield, NJ Phone/fax: [phone]
tionally interesting update on creation
information. Also, please express my We are truly grateful that the Lord has Creatiwown wR.ecsreeaatricohn rSesoecaierctyh .oWrgebsite:
appreciation to all the people who provided us this opportunity to produce a Articles published inCreation Matters represent the
work on this publication, and the au- publication which many people find useful. opinions and beliefs of the authors, and do not necessarily
reflect the official position of the CRS.
thors of the papers. My thank you note To our faithful readers, “Thank you!”
2 Creation Matters
college-level astronomy book,Observation- ated from the University of Arizona with
Gonzalez
al Astronomy, published by Cambridge Uni- high honors, and in the same year his first
...continued from page 1
versity Press, a work that is now in its refereed paper was published inSolar Phys-
2006, pp. 13-14). Esteemed Harvard profes- second edition (Birney, Gonzalez, and Oes- ics. He received his Ph.D. in astronomy in
sor Owen Gingerich (2006, p. 16) wrote that per, 2006). Publication of a major book has 1993 from the University of Washington.
critics of the film based on Gonzalez’s book been considered by many universities to be
In 1995 he conducted postdoctoral re-
merit for promotion to a full professor
raised the alarm that the showing of search on solar eclipses at the Indian Insti-
(Smith, 1973).
the filmThe Privileged Planet at the tute of Astrophysics in Bangalore, an
Smithsonian Museum would some- Gonzalez’s research on stars was high- experience that motivated him to formulate
how constitute an endorsement of lighted on the National Geographic Chan- what would later become the Privileged
Intelligent Design. I suppose that few nel. His work has also been cited inScience, Planet hypothesis. He also did a postdoc at
of the critics actually saw the film, Nature, and many other leading scientific the University of Texas. The director there,
for it contains no explicit mention of journals (for example see Murray, 1998). A David Lambert, said: “He proved himself
Intelligent Design. It did, however, citation search by the author’s name located very quickly” and was “one of the best
contain implicit criticism of the Co- 1,638 citations in peer-reviewed science postdocs I have had” (quoted in Brumfiel,
pernican principle, for the film ar- journals as of July 2007. This is an astound- 2007, p. 364).
gued that the earth is indeed a very ing number of citations for an untenured
In 1999 he was appointed research
special place, something that we junior faculty and more than most of the
assistant professor at the University of
would all intuitively agree with, faculty in his department.
Washington. I was told by one of his sup-
since it is, after all, our home.
portive colleagues at the University
But the film carried its assertions
of Washington that they would not
to a cosmic level, in proclaiming A citation search by the author’s
grant him tenure due to his views
how very special, how unique, in
name located 1,638 citations in
about intelligent design. He left the
fact, our planet’s location and
circumstances are. The implicit peer-reviewed science journals as University of Washington in 2001
to become Assistant Professor of
message of the film was that ... of July 2007. This is an astounding
Astronomy at ISU. In 2001 Gon-
Homo sapiens have been en-
number of citations for an zalez also co-authored the cover
dowed with a highly unusual en-
vironment, not only conducive to untenured junior faculty and more story in Scientific American
our existence here, but also re- than most of the faculty in (Gonzalez, Brownlee, and Ward,
markably well suited as a vantage 2001) and, in 2002, a feature story
point from which to investigate his department. on his research was published in
the cosmos itself. Who can fail Nature (Chapman, 2002).
to be thrilled by the idea that we About this same time he began con-
have inherited a place uniquely situ- His research led to the discovery of two structing his new telescope attachment to
ated for surveying the universe? new planets, and he is now developing new discover extrasolar planets. In 2004 a feature
techniques to discover even more extrasolar
Gonzalez is described as an easy-to-get- story on Gonzalez’s research was published
planets. Gonzalez also served on the NASA
along-with, easygoing intellectual, who is in Science (Irion, 2004). Soon after The
Astrobiology Institute Review Panel, the
well liked by students and faculty alike. A Privileged Planet was published in late
National Science Foundation Advanced
colleague of Dr. Gonzalez at ISU, Dr. John 2004, Dr. Gonzalez began working on a
Technologies and Instruments review panel,
Hauptman (2007), wrote that Professor series of projects examining stars with plan-
and as a referee for Astronomical Journal,
Gonzalez is ets to determine their properties. So far he
Astronomy & Astrophysics, Astrophysical
has published twelve articles in peer-re-
very creative, intelligent and knowl- Journal (and Letters), Icarus, Monthly No-
viewed science journals on this topic alone,
edgeable, highly productive scientif- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society,
and continues to research new planets and
ically and an excellent teacher. Nature, Naturwissenschaften, Publications
planet systems.
Students in my Newspaper Physics of the Astronomical Society of Japan, Pub-
class like to interview him. I have lications of the Astronomical Society of the Dr. Gonzalez’s research led him and
always been fascinated by his ideas, Pacific, Origins of Life, Evolution Bio- his associate researchers to discover what
for example, that the first few milli- spheres, and Science. is known as the Galactic Habitable Zone, a
meters of moon dust contain pieces term Dr. Gonzalez coined (Irion, 2004). He
His Background
of ancient Earth, the circling moon concluded from his research that our star,
acting as a vacuum cleaner scooping In 1970 Gonzalez received his first tele- the sun, is one of the few stars in the Milky
up impact debris, or that numerous scope. After graduating from high school in Way Galaxy capable of supporting complex
but precise and delicate conditions 1983, he studied astronomy at the University life. The sun’s composition and its orbit
allow life on our Earth. Where else of Arizona on a full-tuition scholarship. He around the galactic center are both just right
is life allowed? These are great ques- was featured in theMiami Herald at age 19, to sustain life. Our solar system is also far
tions. as one of five South Florida finalists in the enough away from the galactic center to
national Westinghouse science competition, protect life from disruptive levels of gravi-
Besides being the author of nearly 70
for building a device that measured changes tational forces and from the high levels of
peer-reviewed scientific papers, Gonzalez
in water’s conductivity as it moves from its radiation found at the galactic core. When
is the co-author of a major, peer-reviewed,
solid to its liquid states. In 1987 he gradu- all of these factors exist together as a set,
No. 1 January / February 2008 3
they create a Galactic Habitable Zone. Dr. reject efforts to portray intelligent gent design by many ISU faculty alone
Gonzalez concluded that every form of life design as science. documents that Gonzalez has been evaluated
on our planet — from the simplest bacteria It is clear from this statement that Dr. unfairly. Academic freedom is squarely at
to the most complex animals — owes its Gonzalez’s beliefs were central to the an- stake, and the eyes of the nation are on ISU
existence to the balance of these unique tagonism that he faced. to see whether it genuinely believes in aca-
conditions. demic freedom. There is also a First-
The logical conclusion from this cam-
Amendment, free-speech issue involved,
Dr. Gonzalez has also made novel con- paign against Dr. Gonzalez came in the
since all of Guillermo’s activities in support
tributions from his discovery that the moon spring of 2007 when ISU President Gregory
of intelligent design took place off campus
functions as “Earth’s lunar attic,” by serving Geoffroy denied Dr. Gonzalez’s application
in his capacity as a private citizen.
as a repository for meteorites that originally for tenure. By this time Gonzalez had pub-
came from nearby planets. For this reason, lished almost 70 peer-reviewed scientific John G. West, associate director of the
our moon serves as a museum for our solar papers. He had also earned a research grant Center for Science and Culture, concluded
system’s history, and he believes that its from the Templeton Foundation for his that this case involves clear-cut “ideological
further exploration could yield much insight book, which has earned praise from eminent discrimination,” and that “the statement
into our planet’s own history. scientists including David Hughes, vice against intelligent design drafted at ISU
Soon after the book was released, the president of the Royal Astronomical Soci- played a large part in the denial of
university and the ISU Atheist and Agnostic ety, Harvard astrophysicist Owen Ginger- Gonzalez’s tenure” (Dillon, 2007). He
Society cosponsored a campus forum that, ich, and Cambridge paleobiologist Simon asked, “What happens to the lone faculty
in essence, attacked The Privileged Planet, Conway Morris.The Privileged Planet was member who doesn’t agree and happens to
in spite of the fact that Gonzalez’s book is developed into a documentary and shown be untenured. That is practically, with a
clearly based on science, a fact that even on PBS stations around the nation. wink and a nod, a call to deny him tenure”
(quoted in Dillon, 2007).
his critics, such as ISU professor John
Patterson, acknowledged This conclusion is based
(Grundmeier, 2004). The event fea- It is clear that Gonzalez has not on the statements of those per-
tured ISU religious studies professor sons who voted to deny Gonzalez
only met, but has far exceeded
Hector Avalos, a militant atheist and tenure. One of Gonzalez’s oppo-
faculty advisor to the campus Atheist ISU tenure requirements, and this nents at ISU, Dr. John Hauptman
and Agnostic Society, who launched denial is directly a result of the (2007), after first listing some of
a campaign attacking Dr. Gonzalez’s the many conditions that allow
opposition on his campus to his
academic freedom to support intelli- the possibility of life, admitted
gent design. support for intelligent design. the reason was Guillermo’s views
on intelligent design:
Although Dr. Gonzalez never
introduced intelligent design into his Why are these conditions so
classes, Avalos helped to spearhead a fac- Dr. Gonzalez appealed on the basis that “perfect” for us, allowing humans to
ulty petition urging all ISU faculty to his beliefs, not the quality of his work, were exist, and above all, to ask these
“uphold the integrity of our university” by the reason for his tenure denial (Brumfiel, questions? Intelligent design is the
rejecting all efforts to portray intelligent 2007). The specific grounds of his appeal notion that a supreme being arranged
design as science. Avalos later conceded to were that (1) he met the university’s stan- it for us. The Greeks thought in a
a local newspaper that the key motive for dards for receiving tenure, and (2) the uni- similar way. Grains grew, so there
his petition was to attack Gonzalez. The versity discriminated against him based had to be a god Ceres who managed
petition, signed by 120 faculty, stated that upon his views about intelligent design. this. ... We are past this way of
claims for intelligent design The university president upheld the denial, thinking about nature. ... Intelligent
leaving Guillermo one option, to appeal to design is not even a theory. It has
are premised on (1) the arbitrary
the Board of Regents, which was also un- not made its first prediction, nor
selection of features claimed to be
successful. It is clear that Gonzalez has not suffered its first test by measurement.
engineered by a designer; (2) unver-
only met, but has far exceeded ISU tenure Its proponents can call it anything
ifiable conclusions about the wishes
requirements, and this denial is directly a they like, but it is not science. ...this
and desires of that designer; and (3)
result of the opposition on his campus to tenure decision ... is purely a question
an abandonment by science of meth-
his support for intelligent design. of what is science and what is not,
odological naturalism. Whether one
and a physics department is not ob-
believes in a creator or not, views Given what can only be described as
ligated to support notions that do not
regarding a supernatural creator are, the vociferous antagonism toward intelli-
even begin to meet scientific stan-
by their very nature, claims of reli- gent design on ISU’s campus, his only hope
dards.
gious faith, and so not within the for a successful appeal is if enough people
scope or abilities of science. We, raise concerns that the denial of tenure to Another colleague of Gonzalez, Dr.
therefore, urge all faculty members Gonzalez will harm the university’s public Curtis Struck, a professor at ISU for 24
to uphold the integrity of our univer- reputation and thus impact fund raising. years, opined that he was not surprised by
sity of ‘science and technology,’ Only then will the Board of Regents be ISU’s decision to deny tenure, adding that
convey to students and the general willing to go against the university faculty (quoted in Bergin, 2007): “Some of
public the importance of method- and render a decision based on the evidence. Guillermo’s papers on astronomy he would
ological naturalism in science, and be proud to have written. Some others that
The attitude expressed toward intelli-
4 Creation Matters
is not the case ... [because he took] a coin- magazine’s Adam Rutherford (2007) wrote, Science Education.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541
cidence too far.” Specifically, the chair of “Farewell, I hope, to the scientific career of
_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp
the ISU Department of Physics and Astron- Guillermo Gonzalez” because as a
Bergin, M. 2007. Publish and perish: Iowa State de-
omy, Eli Rosenberg, admitted that the book, vocal supporter of the demonstrably nies tenure to an intelligent design advocate
The Privileged Planet, played heavily into unscientific guff that is intelligent with impeccable credentials.World 22(19):24.
the decision-making process. Birney, D.S., G. Gonzalez, and D. Oesper. 2006.Ob-
design, Gonzalez displays ignorance
servational Astronomy, 2nd edition. Cambridge
Two of the five active tenured astrono- of the scientific process, and appears University Press, New York.
my professors in the department are con- to willfully defy it. And for that Brumfiel, G. 2007. Darwin skeptic says views cost
nected to a widely publicized statement that reason, he neither deserves the use tenure.Nature, 447:364.
denounces intelligent design (West, 2007). of the facilities of a university to Chapman, C. 2002. Earth’s attic.Nature. 419:791-
The statement, created by the anti-intelli- conduct scientific research, nor the 794.
gent-design National Center for Science privilege of teaching the next gener- Dillon, W. 2007. Proponent of intelligent design de-
nied tenure by ISU.Ames Tribune, May 12.
Education, declares that “it is scientifically ation of scientists.
Gingerich, O. 2006.God’s Universe. Harvard Uni-
inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsi- He adds, believing that versity Press, Cambridge, MA.
ble for creationist pseudoscience, including Gonzalez G, D. Brownlee, and P. Ward. 2001. Ref-
13 billion years ago ... “God made
… ‘intelligent design,’ to be introduced into uges for life in a hostile universe.Scientific
the science curricula of our nation’s public it” is not falsifiable and therefore not American. 285:60–67.
science. I know that, were I in a Gonzalez, G. and J.W. Richards. 2004.The Privi-
schools” (Anonymous, 2003).
position to offer Guillermo Gonzalez leged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is
This fact is important because Dr. tenure, I would deny it for the precise Designed for Discovery. Regnery Publishing,
Inc., Washington, D.C.
Gonzalez’s tenure application was first re- reason that his, yes, religious views
Grundmeier, L. 2004. A universal debate.Iowa State
jected at the department level, and the ten- about purpose in the universe explic-
Daily. October 13.
ured faculty members in one’s academic itly mean he is a crap scientist, re- Hauptman, J. 2007. Rights are intact: vote turns on
area typically have the most weight in tenure gardless of his ability to generate question, “What is science?”Des Moines Reg-
recommendations (West, 2007). The denial valid data. ister, June 2.
of tenure to Gonzalez clearly was related to Irion, R. 2004. Are most life-friendly stars older than
his views on intelligent design. It is critical Believing that “God made it,” which is the sun?Science 303:27.
a tenet of all religions that accept the original Monastersky, R. 2007. Intelligent design vs. tenure:
to note that the ISU faculty handbook spe-
autographs of the Old Testament as God’s was it antireligious bias when Iowa State took a
cifically states that the department’s stan-
word, has become a justifiable reason to be pass on a scientist with controversial views?
dards “must not impinge upon the academic The Chronicle 53(39):A9.
terminated from a university and, unfortu-
freedom of the probationary faculty” Murray, N., B. Hansen, M. Holman, and S. Tre-
nately, reflects the current situation in aca-
(Anonymous, n.d.). maine. 1998. Migrating planets. Science
demia. 279:69.
Not unexpectedly, some of Gonzalez’s Rutherford, Adam. 2007. Wrong by Design.Guard-
Postscript: Since this article was written,
many supporters have feared that speaking ian Unlimited, Comment Is Free, July 11.
on February 8, 2008 the Iowa Board of
out could hurt their own careers. One as- http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/adam_ruthe
tronomer, who concluded, “It looks to me Regents voted 7 to 1 to uphold the tenure rford/2007/07/wrong_by_design.html
denial. Having exhausted the available op- Smith, B. 1973.The Tenure Debate. Jossey-Bass,
like discrimination ... They can’t say that
tions within the university system, his only San Francisco.
he doesn’t have a decent publication record,
alternative now is the courts. West, J. 2007. Two astronomers at Iowa State tied to
because he absolutely does,” did not want statement denouncing intelligent design as
to be named, fearing that openly speaking References “creationist pseudoscience.”Evolution News &
up in favor of an “intelligent-design propo- Views, Discovery Institute.
nent” would damage his career Anonymous. n.d.Faculty Handbook. Office of the http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/two_astr
Executive Vice President and Provost, Iowa onomers_at_iowa_state.html
(Monastersky, 2007).
State University.
http://www.provost.iastate.edu/faculty/handbook
The commentary about this case by
/faculty_handbook/
others is especially revealing. Nature
Anonymous. 2003.Project Steve. National Center for
To call this evolution, let’s see them experiment with one blind
SOS
population, and find out whether functioning eyesight, complete with all
...continued from page 11 the brain wiring, emerges from scratch via genetic mutations alone.
Darwin is good at breaking things, not designing them. Random mutation
Getting eyes back without the input of complex specified information, or is the way an eye goes blind — and a Mercedes bends.
getting a new TV to emerge from the snow, is a completely different
1. Anonymous. 2008. Progeny of blind cavefish can ‘regain’ their sight.Sci-
claim. Creationists might ask an additional question that did not occur enceDaily (8 January).
to these researchers. How plausible is it that useless but costly genetic www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080107120911.htm
information was retained for a million years, only to become fully func- 2. Borowsky, R. 2008. Restoring sight in blind cavefish.Current Biology 18(1):
tional again in one generation? R23–R24.
3. Handwerk, B. 2008. Blind cavefish can produce sighted offspring.National
The only way these fish were able to see again was that the genetic
Geographic News (8 January).
information for eyes and all the brain wiring was available in the union
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080108-cave-fish.html
of data sets from the two populations, and could be reconstructed by the
elaborate quality control mechanisms designed into development. The
40% who could see were the lucky ones who got all the information in
their zygotes.
No. 1 January / February 2008 5
...continued from page 1
God Created Earth and Heaven
(a Creation Hymn)
by Ralph Gillmann
G O E
od created earth and heaven n the fourth day of creation arth and Heaven were completed;
To begin all history. God said, Let there be two lights, God ceased work and took a rest.
Angels shouted out with joy when One to rule each day in motion, So the seventh day was hallowed;
He laid out the world to be. One less bright to rule the nights. The Creator called it blest.
Dark and shapeless came the earth, God created stars besides, Every facet God surveyed:
Wet and moving toward its birth. And the planets to be guides. Very good was all He made.
God’s own Spirit softly hovered Evening shadows in rotation Evening shadows in rotation
Over waters as they quivered. Gave to morning day’s duration. Gave to morning day’s duration.
P O G
iercing through the silent blackness, n the fifth day of creation od gave man and woman freedom
God exclaimed, Let there be light! God said, Waters bring forth life, But with one condition made.
He divided light from darkness, Birds and fish and great cetaceans, They took outlawed fruit and ate some,
Called light Day and darkness Night. All their kinds and free of strife. Hid themselves, and were afraid.
God saw that the light was good; God declared their blessed state God provided clothes of skin
Solely on His Word it stood. To abound and procreate. For their labor under sin.
Evening shadows in rotation Evening shadows in rotation Shadows grew in each direction
Gave to morning day’s duration. Gave to morning day’s duration. Through the night of lost reflection.
O O O
n the next day of creation n the sixth day of creation n the day of new creation
Waters swelled in full supply. God said, Bring forth from the Earth God’s own Son arose from death.
God said, Let there be expansion Cattle, creeping things in action, He fulfilled mankind’s devotion,
Separating low from high. Beasts, and all their kinds to birth. Sacrificed with His last breath.
Call it Heaven on display; Lastly God said, Let us make Trust in Him for life renewed
It was so the second day. In our image man awake. By His blood and body food.
Evening shadows in rotation Let them have dominion regal Day eternal brings salvation,
Gave to morning day’s duration. Over all from ant to eagle. Light seen now by revelation!
O G
n the third day of creation od created the first couple,
God said, Let the waters flow Told them multiply and fill ————————————
Into Seas and call the region All the Earth, subdue and sample
Earth appearing from below. Herbs and fruit on field and hill.
Grass and herbs and fruit trees grew; Creeping thing and bird and beast: The author may be reached at:
God declared their mass debut. All were given herbs to feast. [email protected]
Evening shadows in rotation Evening shadows in rotation
Gave to morning day’s duration. Gave to morning day’s duration.
T he Creation Science Fellowship and the Institute for
ANNOUNCEMENT
Creation Research are proud to announce the Sixth
International Conference on Creationism. This premier sci-
Sixth International entific conference features more than 40 original, peer-re-
viewed papers and special evening presentations by the
Conference on Creationism world’s leading creation science researchers and speakers.
For more information:
(ICC)
Creation Science Fellowship, Inc.
August 3-7, 2008, Radisson Greentree Hotel, Pittsburgh, PA P.O. Box 99303
Pittsburgh PA 15233-4303
Developing and Systematizing
or
the Creation Model of Origins Email: [email protected]
www.icc08.org
6 Creation Matters
Letters
The pre-Flood/Flood Boundary: Presumably the authors believe that Austin
Not in the Grand Canyon! and Wise’s five “discontinuity criteria” for
identifying the pre-Flood/Flood boundary
F
roede and Oard (2007), in their recent
are similarly based on “reasonable deduc-
article Defining the Pre-Flood/Flood
tions of what is expected in a global Flood.”
Boundary within the Grand Canyon…, use
the Austin and Wise (1994) five “diagnostic Care should be taken in making
criteria” to propose a pre-Flood/Flood “reasonable deductions” about an event de-
boundary in the Grand Canyon, at the scribed as “so dramatic that it can hardly be
“Greatest Unconformity” at the base of the imagined.” The development and applica-
Bass Limestone, just above what they call tion of ad hoc “reasonable deductions”
the “igneous/metamorphic basement.” Ad- (Oard, 2007) and “discontinuity criteria”
ditionally, they describe my contention (Austin and Wise, 1994; Van Wingerden,
(Hunter, 1992) that the pre-Flood/Flood 2003) for the pre-Flood/Flood boundary,
boundary might not be exposed in the visible though seemingly reasonable and logical,
geological record, but located below the have tended to preclude consideration of
Earth’s crust in the mantle, as “such a dra- additional, probably supereminent, geolog-
matic proposal.” ical processes which may have dominated
the initiation and development of the Flood
The authors’ description of my Flood
and the formation of a pre-Flood/Flood
model as “such a dramatic proposal” is, in
boundary, and which are only evident in a
my view, surprising given their description
global view of the Precambrian.
of the Flood event, in the same article, as
not merely “dramatic” but “so dramatic that For instance, regarding Austin and
it can hardly be imagined.” Surely, if the Wise’s “palaeontological discontinuity,” the
authors’ description of the Flood is correct, authors state that “The pre-Flood rock re-
as I believe it is, then the real model of the cord is viewed as containing little by way
Flood, when finally deciphered, might also of fossilized organic materials. Flood depos-
be “so dramatic that it can hardly be imag- its would contain an abundance of fossilized
ined.” life remains” (Froede and Oard, 2007).
Subsequent to my 1992 paper (Hunter, This can only be valid if 1) there was
1992) regarding the Archean, referred to by pre-Flood deposition of strata, with preser-
the authors, I have developed the gravita- vation of fossils, 2) these strata are preserved
tional decompression model of the Flood, in the presently observable geological re-
proposing that the Flood was initiated by a cord, and 3) there are no valid alternate
Figure 1. Selected Precambrian Subdivisions
sudden decompression of the Earth, due to explanations for a lack or paucity of fossils
(after Plumb, 1990; reproduced by permission).
a temporary reduction of gravitational force in the earliest Flood strata. The authors
facilitated by a temporary increase, by God, provide no evidence for either 1) or 2), and
the Neoproterozoic (Salop, 1982), thereby
of the value of the distance parameter in I and others have provided valid explana-
implying that some 26% of the geologic
Newton’s Inverse Square Law, which result- tions for 3) (Hunter, 1992, 1996, 2004;
record was deposited prior to the Flood.
ed in decompression melting and differen- Hedtke, 1971).
tiation of the Earth’s mantle, and extrusion Cas and Wright (1987) give insight into
In my opinion the authors do seriously
of the Archean dominantly volcanic se- the geological environment in which the
err in developing and applying ad hoc cri-
quences (Hunter, 1996, 2000, 2004). The Precambrian strata were deposited, asking
teria to characterise the pre-Flood/Flood
pre-Flood/Flood boundary is considered to “How different were physical processes in
boundary from observations of extremely
occur at the 660 km discontinuity in the the Precambrian from those operating dur-
limited exposures of the global geological
Earth’s mantle, where this differentiation is ing the Phanerozoic,” and note:
record in the Grand Canyon, where such
first apparent in the Earth’s density profile. exposure, particularly of the Precambrian, The geothermal gradient may have
Such a model might seem “so dramatic is in no way representative of the stratigra- been different and the tectonic re-
that it can hardly be imagined” and may phy, aerial distribution, or character of the gime was also almost certainly dif-
change some perceptions of the magnitude global geological record. ferent. Nevertheless, the basic
of the hydrological and geological processes physical principles…should be as
Figure 1 gives a global stratigraphic
which occurred during the Flood. applicable to Precambrian volcanic
context of Precambrian Proterozoic and un-
successions as they are to more re-
Oard (2007) describes Froede’s (1995) derlying Archean strata.
cent volcanics. Lavas of all types
“biblical geological model for the Flood”
The authors place the pre-Flood/Flood (basaltic, andesitic and rhyolitic) in
as being based on: “reasonable deductions
boundary at the base of the Grand Canyon all physical forms (pillowed, massive
of what is expected in a global Flood.”
Supergroup, which is at or near the base of and dome-like) have been described
No. 1 January / February 2008 7
in Precambrian successions. It is lin Heidelberg. nic rock across the surface of the planet. He
clear that the physical volcanic pro- Tyler, D.J. 2005. Revisiting Precambrian geology. thus places the pre-Flood/Flood boundary
CRSQ 42(2):127–128.
cesses were therefore similar to those at the 660 km discontinuity in the mantle
Van Wingerden, C. 2003. Initial Flood deposits of
operating in modern volcanic set- (Hunter 2000). This is a very complex so-
the western American Cordillera: California,
tings… Utah and Idaho.In: Ivey, R.L. (Ed.)Proceed- lution; the question should not be “is it
The Archean contains volcanic se- ings of the Fifth International Conference on possible?” but “is it necessary?” Like Cata-
quences up to 20 km thick (Hunter, 1996), Creationism: Technical Symposium Sessions. strophic Plate Tectonics, Hunter’s model
Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA,
not the ideal environment for preservation pp.349–358. raises more problems than it solves. Where
of fossils, nor what one would expect during are the Precambrian strata in the oceanic
Creation Week or the “antediluvian” period, basins? Why did this decompression event
but certainly supportive of Tyler’s sugges- only generate Precambrian volcanic strata
A Reply to M. J. Hunter
tion that “The time is right … for the emer- across the continents? What happened to the
gence of new explanatory models of the In a recent article (Froede and Oard, 2007), hydrosphere, atmosphere, and life aboard
basement rocks” (Tyler, 2005, p.128). we proposed that all of the sedimentary/ the Ark when Earth’s upper mantle and
overlying crust melted? Why is this compli-
metasedimentary strata seen in the Grand
M. J. Hunter
cated solution necessary, when simpler
24 Prior St. Canyon, including some of the crosscutting
models suffice to explain the biblical and
CHARTERS TOWERS igneous basement strata, were probably
geological data?
Queensland, Australia 4820 formed during the Flood. As such, the pre-
[email protected] Flood/Flood boundary in the Grand Canyon 3) Why does Hunter suggest such a
would occur along the Greatest Unconfor- model in defense of the Flood? One obvious
References
mity and could include some of the injected reason is that he accepts as a basic assump-
CRSQ = Creation Research Society Quarterly crosscutting basement rocks (e.g., Zoroaster tion the global evolutionary geologic col-
Austin, S.A. and K.P. Wise. 1994. The pre- Granite). While not completely in agreement umn (with a compressed timeframe) as a
Flood/Flood boundary: as defined in Grand
with the discontinuity criteria as proposed true model of the arrangement of crustal
Canyon, Arizona and eastern Mojave Desert,
California.In: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.)Proceedings by Austin/Wise (1994) for defining the pre- rocks. From this perspective, Hunter defines
of the Third International Conference on Cre- Flood/Flood boundary, we included them all “Precambrian” basement rock beneath
ationism.Technical Symposium Sessions.Cre- to draw what we believe are reasonable the Greatest Unconformity in the Grand
ation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, conclusions. Obviously, what may seem Canyon as being necessarily post-Flood. But
pp.37–47.
reasonable to some is unacceptable to others. what is the scientific or philosophical basis
Cas, R.A.F. and J.V. Wright. 1987.Volcanic Succes-
for the classification and global correlation
sions, Modern and Ancient: A Geological Ap- In his reply, Mr. Hunter (2008) chal-
proach to Processes, Products and Successions. lenges several of our ideas and believes that of all of this igneous and metamorphic
Allen & Unwin, London. “Precambrian” rock? Unlike sedimentary
our conclusions are unreasonable. We will
Froede, C.R., Jr. and M.J. Oard. 2007. Defining the strata, there are no lithological or biostrati-
broadly address his issues, as space does
pre-Flood/Flood boundary within the Grand
graphic criteria that can be applied either
Canyon: were all the pre-Flood sediments not allow for a detailed response.
locally or globally.
scoured down to basement during the Flood?
1) Hunter wastes space playing with
Creation Matters 12(4):2–3, 6. The answer is based on the pronounce-
words. Yes, the Flood was a singular geo-
Froede, C.R., Jr. 1995. A proposal for a creationist
ments from the International Commission
geological timescale.CRSQ 32(2):90–95. logic event beyond the experience of mod-
on Stratigraphy (ICS). This group of geol-
Hedtke, R. 1971. A geo-ecological explanation of the ern science. Yet biblical truth and geological
ogists has simply picked geochronologic
fossil record based upon divine creation.CRSQ observation allow forensic investigation and
7(4):214–221. reasonable deduction. We never claim sci- boundaries that can be compared to radio-
Hunter, M.J. 1992. Archean rock strata: Flood depos- metric dates, and they defined the various
entific certainty for our proposal, simply
its — the first forty days.In:Proceedings of Precambrian eras, such as “Archean” by
that it is historically reasonable given the
the 1992 Twin-Cities Creation Conference.
thesearbitrary numbers. In other words, the
Twin-Cities Creation Science Association, biblical and geological data. When all is
Archean is nothing more than any radiomet-
Northwestern College, Genesis Institute. Ro- said and done, Hunter’s (2008) only objec-
seville, MN, pp. 153–161. tion to our proposal is that it does not coin- rically dated rock defined between 2,500
Hunter, M.J. 1996. Is the pre-Flood/Flood boundary Ma and 3,800 Ma (see Gradstein et al.,
cide with his own model. However, we are
in the earth’s mantle?CEN Technical Journal 2004).
comfortable with the existence of multiple
10(3):344–357.
Hunter, M.J. 2000. The pre-Flood/Flood boundary at working hypotheses, and encourage him to Does Hunter accept the validity of ra-
the base of the earth’s transition zone. develop his theory. Nothing in Hunter’s diometric dating? Does he accept the impri-
CEN Technical Journal 14(1):60–74. reply directly counters what we have pro- matur of the ICS? If not, then he has no
Hunter, M.J. 2004. Is there a Genesis Flood heat dis- posed. Rather, he focuses on our selection logical basis to even define the “Archean”
sipation problem?CRSQ 40(4):221–225. of words and the lack of specificity regard- much less build a model of biblical history
Oard, M.J. 2007. Defining the Flood/post-Flood
ing the geologic energy released during the on its existence. All of the purported under-
boundary in sedimentary rocks.Journal of Cre-
Flood. Therefore, we cannot defend our lying Precambrian strata (both igneous and
ation 21(1):98–110.
Plumb, K.A. 1990. Subdivision and correlation of the proposal beyond what we already presented. metamorphic) shown in his chart are merely
Australian Precambrian. In: Hughes, S. D. a composite of many geologic sections of
2) Hunter believes that a miraculous
(Editor)Geology and Mineral Deposits of Aus- basement rocks held together by the glue of
gravitational decompression of the Earth
tralia and Papua New Guinea. Vol. 2. The
their purported radiometric age — an age
Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. initiated magmatic flow within the mantle.
not accepted by any young-earth creationist
Salop, L.I., 1982.Geological Evolution of the Earth This ultimately resulted in the extrusion of
— derived from a methodology likewise
During the Precambrian. Springer-Verlag, Ber- tremendous volumes of Precambrian volca-
8 Creation Matters
unacceptable. by Austin and Wise (1994) — that might scoured down to basement during the Flood?
Creation Matters12(4):3–4, 6.
move the boundary lower than the exposed
We believe that creationists should Gradstein, F.M., J.G. Ogg, and A.G. Smith. 2004.A
geological section in the Grand Canyon. But
adopt a more empirical approach to stratig- geologic time scale 2004. Cambridge Universi-
raphy (even “Precambrian” stratigraphy) presently, no means exist to draw a defini- ty Press, New York, NY.
tive contact in the Earth’s interior with Hunter, M.J. 2008. The pre-Flood/Flood boundary:
and ignore the dictates of geologists who
anything other than the pen of speculation. Not in the Grand Canyon!Creation Matters
advocate a system built on uniformitarian-
13(1):7–8.
ism, even if that system rejects deep time, References
and evolutionary assumptions. Defining the
Austin, S.A. and K.P. Wise. 1994. The pre- Carl R. Froede Jr., P.G.
rock record at specific locations (as pro-
Flood/Flood boundary: As defined in Grand Michael J. Oard, M.S.
posed in our original article) avoids this trap. Canyon, Arizona and eastern Mojave Desert,
California.In Walsh, R.E. (Editor). Proceed-
Despite all the protests about our defin-
ings of the Third International Conference on
ing the pre-Flood/Flood boundary at the Creationism (technical symposium sessions),
Greatest Unconformity in the Grand Can- pp. 37–47. Creation Science Fellowship, Pitts-
yon, Hunter offers nothing of real substance burgh, PA.
to back his claim that we are incorrect. Froede, C.R., Jr. and M.J. Oard. 2007. Defining the
pre-Flood/Flood boundary within the Grand
Perhaps other criteria can be identified in
Canyon: Were all the pre-Flood sediments
the future — beyond those five identified
Speaking of Science
Editor’s note: All S.O.S. (Speaking of Science) items in this issue are kindly provided by David works only on smooth, clean surfaces, but requires no pressure and
Coppedge. Opinions expressed herein are his own. Additional commentaries and reviews of
resists sliding. It lifts off easily and leaves no residue. Both gecko
news items by David, complete with hyperlinks to cited references, can be seen at:
www.creationsafaris.com/crevnews.htm. Unless otherwise noted, emphasis is added in all feet and the new tape work by employing intermolecular forces
quotes.
called van der Waals forces that only become significant at close
Hidden Messages Found in DNA range. The tiny fibers create a large surface area for these forces
D to act on.
NA contains the language of life, but what would
happen if someone found hidden messages in the Next, the team wants to improve it so that it can work on rough
genetic code? Such a thing actually happened, reported or dirty surfaces and clean itself. Geckos are still way out in front
The New York Times.1 When Craig Venter’s lab produced in this technology. Their spatulae, being much smaller (200
an artificial organism, they inserted hidden “watermarks” nanometers in diameter), resist contamination because large dirt
into the genome: his name, the names of co-workers, and particles are more likely to stick to the surface than to the foot.
the name of the Venter Institute.
It was only after 2000 that scientists began to understand the
Wired Science took up the puzzle and found the hidden physics of gecko feet. Immediately, they set out to imitate them.
messages.2 The sequences of DNA translated into the letters for Products inspired by this technology will soon find wide applica-
amino acids, which in turn spelled out English words. tion. Science inspired by nature’s designs — biomimetics — is
on the forefront of research that, unlike evolutionary theory, is
This was not the first genetic puzzle to be coded and deci-
poised to improve our daily lives.
phered. The New York Times article said that in 2003, a German
1. O’Quinn, J.C. 2006. Defying gravity.Creation Matters 11(4):12.
biotech company inserted a line from Virgil into the DNA for a
2. Anonymous. 2008. Climbing the walls? New adhesive mimics gecko toe
laboratory plant.
hairs.ScienceDaily (30 January).
No doubt Venter would be quite upset if children were taught www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080129201546.htm
in school that these messages evolved by random mutation and
natural selection over millions of years. Of All the Nerve: Functional Intron Discovered
1. Pollack, A. 2008. Synthetic genome: Signed, sealed, decoded.The New York
A n intron vital to the production of nerve cells has
Times(29 January). www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/science/29genome.html
2. Madrigal, A. 2008. Wired Science reveals secret codes in Craig Venter’s arti- been discovered, reported ScienceDaily.1 It acts
ficial genome.Wired Science (28 January). as a “gatekeeper” to guide the messenger RNA for local
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/venter-institut.html control of gene expression in dendrites, the spindly arms
of neurons. The discovery was made by a research
A Step Closer to Gecko Adhesive team at University of Pennsylvania School of Medi-
cine. According to the article,
S cientists are getting closer to imitating the
The group surmises that theintron maycontrol how
amazing wall-climbing ability of geckos (see
many mRNAs are brought to the dendrite andtrans-
also O’Quinn, 20061). ScienceDaily reports that a
lated into functional channel proteins. The correct
team from UC Berkeley manufactured tape with hard
number of channels isjust as important for elec-
polymer fibers just 600 nanometers across that mimic
trical impulses ashaving a properly formed chan-
the spatulae on gecko feet.2
nel.
This latest attempt at imitating the gecko
No. 1 January / February 2008 9
Introns had long been assumed to be junk that the spliceosome emerged that could not survive unless it followed its mother. Over
cuts out of a transcribed messenger RNA. The team found that millions and millions of years, these became chickens and babies.
knocking out the intron in this case, however, produced abnormal Isn’t science wonderful?
electrical properties in the nerve cells. “This is the first evidence
If the publishers of science fiction or children’s books reject
that an intron-containing RNA outside of the nucleus serves a
your manuscript, the elite intellectuals at the National Academy
critical cellular function,” said James Eberwine, senior author.
will welcome you with open arms, and the NCSE will bless you
Eberwine also added this comment: “Just because the intron for adding to the mountains of evidence for evolution with which
is not in the final channel protein doesn’t mean that it doesn't have to bury the creationists.
an important purpose.” In fact, the article says, they may have
1. Simion, F., L. Regolin, and H. Bulf. 2008. A predisposition for biological
hit on a general mechanism for the regulation of RNAs. motion in the newborn baby.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-
ences, USA, published online before print (3 January).
The treasures being found in “junk DNA” are good for
10.1073/pnas.0707021105.
business. A company named Rosetta Genomics is hoping to cash www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0707021105v1
in on the new discoveries to be made about micro-RNAs
(miRNA).2 Noting the steep rise in articles about treasure in junk
Nuke Sand, Get Life
DNA, reporter Ohad Hammer said, “Rosetta Genomics’ impressive
pipeline, unparalleled discovery capabilities and intellectual prop- G lowing sand was your cradle, claimed
erty make it one of the most exciting biotech companies out there.” The Telegraph.1
Those interested in more technical detail about introns and The sifting and collection of ra-
alternative splicing may find revealing new ideas about intron dioactive material by powerful
function in a paper published by a team of European scientists in tides could have generated the
Nature last month.3 The abstract says, for example, “In multicel- complex molecules that led to
lular eukaryotes, long introns are recognized through exon defini- the evolution of carbon-based
tion and most genes produce multiple mRNA variants through life forms — including plants,
alternative splicing.” animals andhumans.
They also serve who only stand and wait — John Milton. The article acknowledged that
These introns should not have been assumed to be junk, even if “radiation may seem an unlikely
all they did was stand and wait. Apparently they are doing much candidate to kick-start life because
more than that. it breaks chemical bonds and splits
large molecules,” but it was thought that
1. Anonymous. 2008. Some ‘junk’ DNA is important guide for nerve-cell chan-
nel production.ScienceDaily (5 February). some of the energy could be used productively. Radioactive grains
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080205115800.htm in the sand could provide the chemical energy to build sugars,
2. Hammer, O. 2008. Rosetta Genomics: Mining genes from junk (Part I).Seek- amino acids, and soluble phosphates needed for life as we know
ing Alpha (28 January). it.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/61724-rosetta-genomics-mining-genes-from-
junk-part-i This scenario is the brainchild of Zachary Adam, an astrobi-
3. Jaillon, O.et al. 2008. Translational control of intron splicing in eukaryotes,” ologist at the University of Washington. His idea can “be added
Nature 451:359–362. doi:10.1038/nature06495. tothe existing long and varied list of hypotheses.” Reporter Nic
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7176/full/nature06495.html Fleming listed the usual suspects: Oparin, Miller, the clay hypoth-
esis, panspermia, “and the intervention of a divine, intelligent
The Evolutionary Inference designer.”
The article is accompanied by a picture of humans at the
This Darwinian Just-So Story comes from a paper in
beach. No claim was made whether the energy from sunlight
PNAS.1 Three Italian scientists did experiments on
was helping them evolve.
the perception of two-day old human infants. They
found that the babies tended to pay more attention Somebody else needs a kick-start. At least intelligent
to biological motion than to non-biological design wasn’t excluded from the list of possibilities this
motion, and they looked longer at right-side- time. It’s the only contender that isn’t deaf, dumb, blind,
up displays than at upside-down ones. Their and lazy from the starting gate. (Clarification: speaking
conclusion: of the hypotheses, not their proponents).
These data support the hypothesis that detec- 1. Fleming, N. 2008. Life on Earth ‘began on a radioactive beach.’
tion of biological motion is an intrinsic ca- Telegraph.co.uk (9 January).
pacity of the visual system, which is www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml;jsessionid=K1VHPR2AH3GWTQ
presumably part of an evolutionarily FIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/earth/2008/01/09/scibeach109.xml
ancient and nonspecies-specific system
predisposing animals to preferentially attend Life Influences Dating Method
to other animals.
T
he rate of calcium carbonate precipitation can double if
Previously, the inborn disposition to watch biological motion had
microbes are present, says an article inPhysOrg.1 Scientists
only been demonstrated in one other animal: the chicken.
studying hot spring deposits in Yellowstone made this “surprising
Observation: babies prefer looking at biological motion. discovery about the geological record of life and the environment.”
Conclusion: Once upon a time, in an ancient swamp, an animal The article adds, “Their discovery could affect how certain se-
10 Creation Matters