Creation Matters Vol. 22 No. 1 January/February 2017

0.97 MB·English

by  Creation Research Society

Creation Matters
Volume 22 Number 1
A publication of the Creation Research Society
January / February 2017
Is the Creationist Literature Loaded
with Experiential Thinking?
by Kevin Anderson, PhD
W hile a defense of creation is these do not fit creationists’ perceptions of brief description of how they selected the
almost never allowed in “secu- reality. In other words, creationists choose sampling of literature for analysis. They
lar” scientific journals, criti- anecdote and imagination over science. describe that the articles and books included
cism of Intelligent Design (ID) and creation in their evaluation were selected based upon
To demonstrate this situation, thePLoS
(in virtually any form) is generally consid- the writing’s visibility, impact, citations in
authors selected several journal articles,
ered fair game. One such example is a 2015 creationist and evolutionist texts, and pop-
internet essays, and books written by cre-
PLoS One article purporting to analyze the ularity on social media. They only vaguely
ationists and proponents of ID. They then
content of creation/ID literature (Nieminen explain the criteria they used to ascertain
evaluated each of these writings for various
et al., 2015). From their analysis the authors this information, and do not specify what
characteristics of experiential thinking.
conclude that creation and ID writings focus citation index or impact measurement mod-
From this analysis they determined what
on experiential thinking rather than scien- el they employed.
percentage of creationist writings exhibited
tific reasoning.
certain forms of this thought process. Also, social media popularity is cer-
Experiential thinking is the concept tainly not a very accurate indicator of the
Table 1 of this PLoS article lists the
that personal experience and observation value of specific writings. Social media
general sources of the publications they
are the primary or even only basis can easily become obsessed with
of knowledge. An example would trivial essays and bizarre conclu-
be concluding that the earth must Having revealed their rooted sions. This medium is also far
be stationary because I do not feel more likely to focus on emotional
prejudice, the authors cannot
it moving. Experiential thinking and geopolitical issues than tech-
fails to fully account for those claim to hold an objective nical scientific concepts. Often
phenomena not easily understood driven by those with minimal un-
position from which
simply by our limited personal derstanding of the topic being dis-
perspective. Instead, this type of to conduct their analysis. cussed, popularity on social media
thinking relies heavily upon per- is not a very balanced measure of
sonal intuition, emotion, and imag- the quality or scientific merit of
ination (Norris and Epstein, 2011). any book or article (creationist or evolu-
examined. Among these sources are papers
tionist).
People using experiential thinking may published in theCreation Research Society
often form opinions based upon anecdotal Quarterly (CRSQ) and Creation Matters, Additionally, there is no indication that
rather than analytical evidence — e.g., the as well as publications by sister organiza- the authors made any attempt to distinguish
referees are always biased against my team, tions, such as the Institute for Creation between theological, sociological, and sci-
or it rains every time I wash my car. Research and Answers in Genesis. How- entific writings. Rather, they seem to have
Because of this, the PLoS authors summa- ever, other than a generic listing of period- dumped all creation literature into one sam-
rize that “opinions based on experiential icals (e.g., CRSQ or Journal of Creation) ple set. Yet the criteria for evaluating
thinking are resistant to change and not and websites (e.g.,www.creationresearch.org writings from each of these diverse disci-
easily transformed by logical evidence” (p. orwww.icr.com), only some of the sampled plines would be dramatically different.
4). writings are specifically identified.
Content and style commonly found in
Accurate literature sampling? Even less identifying information is sociological writings would not necessarily
given for the source of the pro-evolution be appropriate for theological or scientific
In their paper, Nieminen and his co-authors
writings used for comparison in Table 2 of works. A theological writing is not likely
conclude that creationists rely heavily upon
the article. As such, it is not possible to to provide a hypothesis or experimental
experiential thinking. With this conclusion
completely retrace these authors’ analysis design, as would commonly be found in
they accuse creationists of ignoring the
or to offer many specific rebuttals.
scientific validity of certain experiments,
... continued on p.3
tests, and other forms of evidence because In addition, the authors only provide a
tions of component molecules. Atomic
clocks have been used for about one-half
by century. Precise time keeping is essential to
digital communication, computers, GPS,
Don DeYoung, PhD
optics, and other areas of technology.
The slight average increase in the
length of each day leads to a cumulative
Do you have a
difference from atomic clocks. Consider a
rough estimate of the difference accumulat-
second?
ed over fifty years: 5.5x10-8 sec + 11x10-8
sec+ 16.5x10-8 sec + …. These numbers
W hat is happening with leap sec- See the newest
represent the difference after the first day,
onds? An extra midnight second
second day, and so on, over fifty years’
was added to clocks at the end books and videos
worth of days, with 18,250 terms total. I am
of 2016, as has happened 26 times since
leaving out leap year
1972. The reason is
days since these
that the earth’s rota- Visit the CRS
numbers are esti-
tion is slowing due
mates. The sum of
to tidal braking, sim-
this linear or arith- Bookstore
ilar to slight friction
metic series is about
on a turning wheel.
nine seconds. More
Of course, this rota-
accurate measure-
tion period increase www.CRSbooks.org
ments of the earth’s rotation over the last
is very small. Over a century the length of
half century have resulted in a 26-second
a day increases about 0.002 seconds. This
difference with atomic clocks, necessitating 877-CRS-BOOK
figure is notoriously variable in the literature
this many leap second additions to earth
so I am using an average. The net result is
clocks.
that each day averages 5.5x10-8 seconds
longer than the previous day. With this The conclusion is that earth’s rotation
number, over a 6,000 year time scale, the is indeed slowing; however, not as rapidly
average day gains only about one-tenth as leap seconds might imply. Time is a
second, which is of little significance. fascinating part of our world, and the Cre-
ator controls this winding down of history.
The question remains, why are there
As Psalm 31:15 explains, our times are in
frequent leap-second additions to our
His hands.
clocks? The answer involves atomic clocks,
which provide a universal time standard.
These chemical clocks have nearly perfect,
error-free “ticks” due to the precise vibra-
Creation Matters
ISSN 1094-6632
Contents Volume 22, Number 1
January / February 2017
Copyright © 2017 Creation Research Society
All rights reserved.
Is the Creationist Literature Loaded with Experiential
Editor:
Thinking?.........................................................................1
Glen W. Wolfrom
Math Matters: Do You Have a Second?........................2 Assistant Editor:
Jean K. Lightner
The CRS Mission Is Model Building...............................5
For advertising rates and
Speaking of Science information for authors:
Animals Can Be Smarter Than You Think....................................6 Glen W. Wolfrom, Editor
Mammals Ate Dinosaurs..............................................................8
Creation Research Society
Matters of Fact:Were Mosquitoes on the Ark?..........10 6801 N. Highway 89
Chino Valley, AZ 86323-9186
Quarterly Research Matters.........................................11
Email: [email protected]
All by Design: Green Iguana........................................12 Phone: [phone]
Creation Research Society Website:
www.creationresearch.org
Articles published inCreation Matters represent the
opinions and beliefs of the authors, and do not necessarily
reflect the official position of the CRS.
2 | Creation Research Society
biased methodology to identify potential evolutionist literature. The PLoS paper
bias in creationist writings. provides a few possible examples (all from
Experiential Thinking?
creationist writings, of course), but some of
...continued from page 1 Authors’ prejudice?
these examples are not so evident when
As a description of their evaluation process, placed within the context of how the quota-
scientific writings. Thus, failure to distin- the authors state that they “analyzed the tion was used. Nieminen and his co-authors
guish between these various disciplines fur- overall context of the texts, i.e., if they ... further state that in most instances where
ther complicates any attempt at an objective discussed the ‘scientific’ claims for cre- creation/ID literature contains a quotation
and analytical evaluation of the sampled ationism” (p. 4). That the authors choose from an evolutionist, the quotation is intend-
papers. to place “scientific” in quotation marks ed to give “testimony about alleged fatal
reveals a clear prejudice that they view problems in evolutionary theory” or is “pre-
What is more, there are thousands of
creation as void of scientific argument or sented as ‘involuntary admissions’ of evo-
creation/ID writings available in print and
basis. They also describe “creationism” as lution being based on dishonest or biased
on the internet. Some are decidedly of
“religiously motivated” (p. 1), not allowing research” (p. 6). Most? By their own
higher quality than others, and some authors
for anyone to conclude that creation is cor- definition this is both an “over-generaliza-
are far more technically trained than are
rect because of the scientific evidence. tion” and “stereotyping.”
others. In all of these stacks of literature,
it would not be hard to find writings that Having revealed their rooted prejudice, An examination of the science articles
even I would admit are far less than stellar. the authors cannot claim to hold an objective within the two recent “Special Issues” of
In the absence of a clearly objective and position from which to conduct their analy- CRSQ(Vol. 51, no.4; Vol. 52, no. 4) reveals
concise method for choosing publications, sis. This is certainly significant since, as little use of quotations in most of these
on what basis do we accept that Nieminen mentioned, their study is extremely prone papers. Any quotations that do appear are
and his co-authors selected a truly represen- to subjective interpretation. So, authors offered strictly to verify that certain data or
tative sample of the creation and pro-ID with a clear bias against creation/ID employ interpretations are recognized by at least
literature for their evaluation? a decidedly subjective system for evaluating some in the evolutionist community. Quo-
papers that were selected based upon some tations are never used to replace scientific
Subjective analysis?
vague and nebulous criteria. No possibility discovery or evidence. Rather, they are used
ThePLoSauthors evaluated their sample of of “confirmation bias” there. to augment the evidence. Add to this list
writings for several factors that they suggest several other key science papers fromCRSQ
Supposed examples of
reveal the use of experiential thinking (p. (Davies, 2007; Herbert and Lisle, 2016a,b;
experiential thinking
4). These factors include: 1) the use of Humphreys, 2011;Humphreys et al., 2004;
“testimonies” as a replacement for data and 1. Testimonies Oliver and Chaffin, 2012; ReMine, 2006;
evidence; 2) “confirmation bias,” described The PLoS paper lists descriptions of what Rotta, 2006; Tomkins, 2014; Wood, 2006;
as ignoring or dismissing contradictory data the authors consider “testimonies.” These Whitmore, 2005), and the same conclusions
and seeking only data that are consistent include out-of-context quotations, appeals can still be drawn.
with the desired conclusion; 3) “pseudodi- to authority, and demonizing of evolution. No examples of out-of-context quota-
agnosticity,” the use of flawed or irrelevant They conclude that creationists use these tions or “testimonies to replace data” appear,
information and failure to include relevant types of testimonies as a means ofjustifying and I would challenge that thePLoSauthors
information; 4) downplaying complex or their flawed arguments — i.e., they resort could not legitimately find such errors either.
contradicting information with simplistic or to testimony in the absence of scientific Hence, their claim that all sampled creation
emotional responses that often involve evidence. The authors further claim to have writings contain “testimonies” indicates ei-
“over-generalization” and “stereotyping”; found such “testimonies” in 100% of the ther flawed data analysis or faulty literature
and 5) assigning moral significance to mor- creationists’ literature analyzed. selection.
ally neutral issues.
In their analysis, the authors identify In addition, many of the creationist
Note that each of these factors is highly the use of quotations as a “major form of writings analyzed by thisPLoSpaper appar-
subjective. Detecting them is certainly in- proof” for detecting these “testimonies” (p. ently focused upon historical, philosophical,
fluenced by the authors’ personal opinions 1). Yet, they later admit that “quoted testi- or theological topics where use of a broad
and prejudices. For example, how are tes- monials and personal observations or expe- range of quotations and appeals to authority
timonies, confirmation bias, and pseudodi- rience can belong to the scientific method” are often appropriate. The PLoS paper
agnosticity objectively identified and (p. 12). In fact, academic scholarship often appears to make no distinction of the type
measured? What the authors may consider involves quoting relevant writings and or usage of the quotation or the focus of the
as flawed data (i.e., pseudodiagnosticity), building upon an existing foundation of writing being analyzed. Thus, using the
might be considered proper data by someone knowledge. So when are quotations an mere presence of quotations as a means of
else. indication of experiential thinking and when detecting experiential thinking is itself high-
In fact, the extreme subjectivity of the are they an appropriate means of building ly misleading and a clear case of “confirma-
actual analytical process clearly creates a upon known information? Because the tion bias.”
authors clearly view creation/ID as void of
condition for possible bias within the study. 2. Confirmation bias
any merit, they apparently assume any quo-
Coupled with the potential for bias in the
ThePLoSauthors report finding “confirma-
tations in creationist writings are “testimo-
sampling of writings chosen for evaluation,
tion bias” in 100% of the sampled
nies” (p. 5).
by their own definition this study is highly
creation/ID writings. They suggest cre-
prone toward “confirmation bias” — finding Granted, some out-of-context quota- ationists consistently ignore conflicting data
what the authors want to find. Thus, it is tions can be found in both creationist and and promote flawed arguments. In compar-
ironic that the authors employ a potentially
Vol. 22 No. 1 January/February | Creation Matters|3
ison, they report such bias in only 27% of been fully refuted (p. 7). The authors con- experimental data, observation, or conclu-
pro-evolution papers evaluated (p. 1). Such tinue this erroneous claim in Table S1 of sion offered by creationists must be flawed
a discrepancy is not surprising. Considering their supplemental material, where they or anecdotal. It is little wonder, then, that
the flawed and subjective methodology em- state that creationists’ claims about the ex- they found experiential thinking in all the
ployed by Nieminen and his co-authors, istence of such tissue have been consistently creation/ID writings they examined.
their article becomes virtually the epitome rebutted.
Forum control
of experiential thinking.
Not only are the authors poorly in-
In a subtle way, the authors of this PLoS
Case in point, the PLoS authors offer formed about the evidence for the dinosaur
article are guilty of the type of ridiculing
Carter (2010) as an example of confirmation tissue, but they are guilty of ignoring all the
rhetoric described by Sullivan (2000). Such
bias. In his essay, Dr. Carter observed that dinosaur tissue literature. They cite outdated
rhetoric seeks to silence those with an op-
sequence analysis of the Y chromosome sources of information, with no apparent
posing view by engaging in “forum control”
challenges the arguments for a common attempt to include updated literature that
(Sullivan, 2000, p. 125). Sullivan (2000, p.
ancestry of human and chimpanzee. He effectively refutes their position. Thus, by
128) describes this type of control as “the
reasons that their respective Y chromosomes their own standard, this is a clear demon-
process of authorizing or de-authorizing
are so distinctly different that a close evo- stration of “confirmation bias” (and likely
speakers, writers, texts, and speeches.” By
lutionary lineage is not supported. In re- “pseudodiagnosticity” as well).
attempting to show that all creation and
sponse, the PLoS paper alleges that Dr.
The PLoS paper also cites Luskin and pro-ID writings involve experiential think-
Carter is guilty of ignoring contradictory
Gage (2008) for claiming that a large num- ing rather than scientific thinking, Nieminen
data (namely the close similarity of other
ber of evolutionists have subsequently be- and his co-authors seek to “de-authorize”
portions of the human and chimpanzee ge-
come creationists, thereby demonstrating creationists. In other words, creationists
nome).
the weakness of evolutionary teachings (p. should not be taken seriously because they
Yet, at the time of Dr. Carter's essay, 5). However, Luskin and Gage (2008) make offer emotional, flawed, and over-general-
several studies reported genetic contradic- no such comment, nor do they imply any ized arguments, instead of solid scientific
tions to a straightforwardhuman/chimpanzee such idea. Hence, Nieminen and his co- content.
lineage (e.g., Ebersberger et al., 2007; authors did not even carefully examine this
Interestingly, this PLoS paper appears
Hughes et al., 2010). Genomic differences writing. Rather, their intense search for
to be a shortened and refined version of Dr.
encompass far more than just the respective experiential thinking made them vulnerable
Nieminen’s doctoral dissertation (Niemin-
Y chromosomes; e.g., the UCSC Genome to finding what was not even there. In how
en, 2015). Yet, even in a refined state, the
Browser has consistently shown a signifi- many of the other creation/ID papers did
PLoS paper is still highly flawed. It is
cant area of “non-alignment” in the compar- they also find what was not there? By their
disappointing that theUniversity of Eastern
ison of chimpanzee to human chromosome own definition, they constantly engage in
Finland would not have higher standards
1. What is more,Ebersberger et al. (2007) “confirmation bias” throughout the paper,
for a dissertation, or that PLoS One would
even noted that different regions of the and repeatedly fail to meet their own stan-
not have higher standards for publication.
genomes appear to follow different geneal- dard.
Does this lack of scholarship illustrate that
ogies (including both the X and Y chromo-
No science allowed anti-creation writings tend to be given a less
somes).
rigorous path to publication?
The PLoS authors report that 90% of the
Nieminen and co-authors completely
sampled creation writings contained While the PLoS paper does address
ignore these studies. Instead, they offer an
“pseudodiagnosticity,” but they only found some frequent misrepresentations found in
over-simplification, generically comment-
it in 7% of the pro-evolution papers. Why writings of both sides of the issue (and is
ing that “other parts of the genome show
such a disparity? This huge difference able to make some valid points), the authors
98–99% similarity” (p.8). Apparently they
probably results from how the authors iden- also promote many of their own misrepre-
assume that if some portions of the respec-
tified the use of irrelevant or flawed infor- sentations. They fail to acknowledge a
tive genomes are similar, then the entire
mation. single example of legitimate scientific evi-
genome must be similar (even if other por-
dence in any of the sampled creationist
tions of the genome are dramatically differ- Clearly, they accept evolution as abso-
papers.
ent). By ignoring all the data that do not fit lute fact, and deem any challenges or con-
their premise of a close similarity of humans tradictory evidence as inherently flawed. Instead, they “stereotypically” presume
and chimps (some even cited by Carter, Thus, they likely interpret any presentation that all creationists’ arguments are flawed
2010), they are the ones actually guilty of of data or evidence in support of creation and lack any scientific substance. In their
“confirmation bias.” as pseudodiagnosticity. They apparently zeal to criticize creation/ID writings, Niem-
even consider a discussion of “the ‘scientif- inen and his co-authors repeatedly invoke
Another example is how thePLoSpaper
ic’ claims for creationism” as automatic numerous examples of their own experien-
depicts the dinosaur soft tissue discovery.
proof of pseudodiagnosticity (p. 7). tial thinking. Thus, thisPLoSpaper contains
By the 2015 publication date of this PLoS
many of the same errors it claims are so
article, there was a substantial body of evi- With this mindset, Nieminen and his
prevalent in creation literature.
dence for the existence and authenticity of co-authors view any challenge to evolution
pliable tissue and proteins still retained in as some form of experientialism, refusing References
several dinosaur bones (Anderson, 2016). to even allow that some scientific data could
CRSQ = Creation Research Society Quarterly
Yet, the PLoS authors chastise creationists actually be contradictory to evolution or
for discussing the tissue, and instead insist consistent with creation. This led them to
Anderson, K. 2016.Echoes of the Jurassic.CRS
that these claims of tissue discovery have automatically assume that any quotation,
Books, Chino Valley, AZ.
4 | Creation Research Society
Carter R.W. 2010. The chimpanzee Y chromosome and B.J. Trask. 2010. Chimpanzee and human 48:204–211.
is radically different from human. Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in ReMine, W. 2006. More precise calculations of the
(http://creation.com/chimp-y-chromosome). structure and gene content.Nature 463:536– cost of substitution.CRSQ43:111–120.
Davies, K. 2007. The range sizes of galactic super- 539. Rotta, R.R. 2006. Isotopic dating maximum datable
nova remnants.CRSQ43:242–250. Humphreys, D.R. 2011. Earth’s magnetic field is de- age.CRSQ43:45.
caying steadily — with a little rhythm.CRSQ
Ebersberger, I., P. Galgoczy, S. Taudien, S. Taenzer, Sullivan, D.L. 2000. Keeping the rhetoric orthodox:
47:193–201.
M. Platzer, and A. Von Haeseler. 2007. Map- Forum control in science.Technical Communi-
ping human genetic ancestry. Molecular Biolo- Humphreys, D.R., S.A. Austin, J.R. Baumgardner, cation Quarterly. 9(2):125–146.
gy and Evolution 24:2266–2276. and A.A. Snelling. 2004. Helium diffusion age
Tomkins, J. 2014. Comparison of the transcribed in-
of 6,000 years supports accelerated nuclear de-
Luskin, C. and L.P. Gage. 2008. A reply to Francis tergenic regions of the human genome to chim-
cay.CRSQ41:1–16.
Collins’s Darwinian arguments for common panzee.CRSQ50:212–221.
ancestry of apes and humans.In House, H.W. Nieminen, P. 2015.A Unified Theory of Creationism,
Whitmore, J.H. 2005. Origin and significance of
(editor),Intelligent Design 101: Leading Ex- Argumentation, Experiential Thinking and
sand-filled cracks and other features near the
perts Explain the Key Issues, pp. 215–235. Kre- Emerging Doctrine.University of Eastern Fin-
base of the Coconino Sandstone, Grand Can-
gel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI. land, Joensuu, Finland. (urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-
yon, Arizona, USA.CRSQ42:163–180.
952-61-1687-7).
Herbert, J. and J. Lisle. 2016a. A review of the Lyn-
Wood, T.C. 2006. The current status of baraminolo-
den-Bell/Choloniewski method for obtaining Nieminen, P., E. Ryökäs, A.-M. Mustonen. 2015.
gy.CRSQ43:149–158.
galaxy luminosity functions. Part I. CRSQ Experimental thinking in creationism – a textu-
52:177–188. al analysis. PLoS One 10(3):e0118314
(dio:10.1371/journal.pone.0118314).
Herbert, J. and J. Lisle. 2016b. A review of the Lyn-
den-Bell/Choloniewski method for obtaining Norris, P. and S. Epstein. 2011. An experiential
galaxy luminosity functions. Part II. CRSQ thinking style: Its facets and relations with ob-
52:189–199. jective and subjective criterion measures.Jour-
nal of Personality79:1044–1080.
Hughes, J.F., H. Skaletsky, T. Pyntikova, T.A.
Graves, S.K. van Daalen, P.J. Minx, R.S. Ful- Oliver, B. and E. Chaffin. 2012. Could magnetic
ton, S.D. McGrath, D.P. Locke, C. Friedman, monopoles cause accelerated decay? CRSQ
The CRS Mission Is Model Building
by Robert Hill, PhD
I t is common today to come across an We propose to re-evaluate science The mission of the CRS is not just to
organization that started with one pur- from this viewpoint. Beginning in show problems with evolution. This critical
pose or mission but has departed from 1964, we are publishing an annual approach is not enough. The goal of the
the original intent of the founders. The yearbook of articles by various mem- Society is to offer a biblically-based science
change in mission probably occurred over bers of the Society and thereafter a model to replace evolution. This is what we
quarterly review of scientific litera-
a lengthy period of time. Eventually the term “model building.” It will not be possi-
ture. Our eventual goal is the realign-
direction of the organization changed so ble to displace evolution in the minds of
ment of science based on theistic
much that the founders would not recognize people unless we have a viable model to
creation concepts and the publication
the very institution they started. replace it.
of textbooks for high school and
Harvard College, now Harvard Univer- college use. (Lammerts, 1964, p. 1) The history of science has many exam-
sity, is one such example. Harvard was ples of the reluctance to dispense with a
First, the CRS no longer focuses on
founded with the purpose of promoting theory until a replacement has been ad-
publishing textbooks, as other organizations
Christianity through its education of the vanced. For instance, people did not aban-
now do that from a creation perspective.
clergy. That is clearly not the case now. don the Ptolemaic geocentric theory until
Let’s instead concentrate on the main thrust
Some denominations started with a strong the heliocentric theory had developed
of Lammerts’ statement. The purpose of the
conviction that the Bible is inerrant, but enough to replace it. Geosyncline theory
CRS is to re-evaluate science from a biblical
have since departed from that position. Sim- was the preferred geological model until
worldview. After this evaluation, the goal
ilar stories can be told of various churches plate tectonics had matured enough to re-
of the Society is the realignment of science
and missions organizations. place it. Other examples could be presented,
towards a biblical worldview.
but the point will be the same. Even unpop-
What about the Creation Research So-
Lammerts explained further when he ular scientific ideas will often continue to
ciety (CRS)? How well does the mission of
wrote: be taught until they are replaced by new
the CRS today compare with the vision of
ideas. It is clear that old models are typically
the CRS founders in 1964? These questions The tasks involved in reorganizing
are easily answered by comparing the writ- the many fields of science in line not abandoned until new models are avail-
ings of the founders to the stated objectives with this concept are many. Cre- able.
ationists have too long been merely
of the Society today. A few quotes from the The mission of the CRS from its begin-
negative in their thrust, indicating
first issue of theCreation Research Society ning has been the development of a creation
the weaknesses of the evolution con-
Quarterly (CRSQ) by the first president of model. Yes, the CRS has and will continue
cepts, but offering little in its place.
the Society, Walter Lammerts, make the to publish research showing the inconsis-
(Lammerts, 1964, p. 2)
original goals of the CRS obvious. tencies of the evolution model. However,
Vol. 22 No. 1 January/February | Creation Matters|5
that is not enough — to achieve the overall of validity for any scientific mod- To paraphrase the words of our great
mission we must develop a viable creation el. President, the late and beloved John
model. Preliminary creation models of geolo- F. Kennedy, we cannot hope in one
gy, biology, and astronomy have been pub- lifetime to complete the structure of
The advancement of a theoretical cre-
lished in the CRSQ, but more work needs a truly theistic science, but let us
ation model which is consistent with the
to be done. begin. (Lammerts, 1964, p. 2)
Bible involves several factors, such as:
The development of a viable creation Let us endeavor to continue the vision
1. A good model will also make
model will involve the interchange of ideas set forth by the first president of the CRS,
quantitative “predictions” of ob-
among creation scientists. The Society pro- and work to complete the task of building
servations that have already been
motes interaction among scientists at the the creation model. Completing this mission
made. These are sometimes called
annual CRS Research Conference. These will then impact how everyone views the
retrodictions or post-dictions. This
interactions, which promote both the devel- world and see all of creation as God's hand-
will allow creationists to reinter-
opment of new ideas and new ways to iwork.
pret scientific discoveries within a
creation model. understand old ideas, provide encourage- Reference
ment for creation scientists to continue their
2. A good model will also make test- research. Lammerts, W. 1964. Introduction.CRSQ 1(Annual),
able predictions of observations pages 1–2.
that have not yet been made. This And finally, Lammerts summarized the
is one of the most powerful tests task before us in this way:
Speaking of Science cation? The interference would seem hopelessly confusing to
them. An article from the Society for Integrative and Com-
parative Biology3 looked into this “question [that] has
mystified scientists since the discovery of echolocation.”
One thing the bats know to do is to reduce their call volume
by David F. Coppedge in such conditions, a behavior calledmutual suppression.
Clever experiments at Texas A&M showed how bats
Editor’s note: These S.O.S. (Speaking of Science) items have been selected from “Creation-
Evolution Headlines” by David F. Coppedge athttp://crev.info and are used by permission. demonstrated their smarts in an acoustic room rigged
Unless otherwise noted, emphasis is added in all quotes. with “robobats” and a clutter of strings
equipped with sensors. The researchers
Animals Can Be Smarter Than You Think found that the collision-avoidance strategy
H is apparently hard-wired into the bats’
ere are four organisms with
brains, since each individual behaved the
surprising mental powers.
same way.
Bumblebees: A video clip at the
The press release concludes on a biomimetics note, with
start of a Washington Post1 article
gratitude:
shows bumblebees that have been
trained to pull on a string to get a treat. Interestingly, Adams’s findingscould be useful for improv-
Other bees, watching one do it, appear ing wireless telecommunication networks. In a wireless
to be able to learn the secret. The one- network, information is sent from multiple computers simul-
minute video, often shared on Facebook, is well worth watching. taneously without much interference. Adams says, “You stop
Ben Guarino writes with astonishment: and listen for a second and go again. It’s the same thing
we’re seeing with the bats.” The team’s future research will
The bumblebee brain is puny, at least compared with the determine how bats handle interference from multiple indi-
massive and fatty organ locked in your skull. At about 0.0002 viduals, which may shed light on how to develop better
percent the volume of yours, bee brains are close in size wireless networks.
to the seeds stuck on a hamburger bun. Thinking about
insect brains in terms of size alone, however, is a trap. The We have a lot of reasons to be thankful for bats. Who knows?
intelligence of sesame-brained bugs should not be underes- We may soon be thanking bats for more efficient wireless
timated. communication.
Commenting on the study reported in the journal PLoS Chickens: Because the face of a
Biology2 they continue: clucking hen does not exactly induce
thoughts of genius, this headline
Scientists from the Queen Mary University of London sug-
from science publisher Springer4 is
gest that the “insects possess the essential cognitive ele-
bound to turn heads: “Think chicken
ments for cultural transmission,” as they wrote in their
— think intelligent, caring and com-
new paper.It is possible to teach a single bee a new trick,
plex.” Maybe you are assuming that
in other words, and a different bee can learn that
if you eat the chicken, it will help you
behavior from her peer.
in those ways. Thou assumest wrongly. According to an expert
Bats: You’ve probably seen a swarm of bats blackening the sky in “chicken psychology,” chickens have a lot in common with us.
at dusk as they emerge from a cave. Flying so close to one another,
how do they avoid utter confusion as they utter clicks for echolo- ... continued on p. 8
6 | Creation Research Society
The Creation Research Society is pleased to announce a new research initiative—
How did we get the wide variety of today's The Society is seeking donors willing to help
species from a small number of animals fund this initiative. For more information on how
preserved on the Ark? How do new species you can help, please contact the Creation
form, and how does this fit within biblical Research Society at [phone] or
creation? Can we trace the spread of the [email protected].
created kinds from the Ark to where they live
today? These and similar questions will be
addressed by the initiative.
Now Available in the CRS Bookstore
Earth’s
Mysterious
Magnetism
and that of other celestial orbs
by
Russell Humphreys and Mark De Spain
2016, Creation Research Society Books
(160 pages, 55 full-color figures)
Regular price $19.00 Member price $15.00
Now Available in the
CRS Bookstore
A Grand Origin for Grand Canyon
Carved Rapidly by Late Flood Channelized Erosion
by
Michael J. Oard
2016, Creation Research Society Books
(270 pages, 134 full-color figures)
Regular price $18.00 Member price $15.00
www.CRSbooks.org
877-CRS-BOOK
Vol. 22 No. 1 January/February | Creation Matters|7
Whether this shows that “learning may predate theevolution
Speaking of Science
of the nervous system” seems debatable, but everyone can agree
...continued from page 6
that “slime molds are truly bizarre,” almost alien.
Previous studies of slime mold have found that theyhave a
Chickens are not as clueless or “bird-brained” as people
primitive form of memory based on information stored in
believe them to be. They have distinct personalities and
their trails of goo. Despite being entirely brainless, slime
can outmaneuver one another. They know their place in
molds can find the fastest route through a maze or
the pecking order, and can reason by deduction, which
between points.
is an ability that humans develop by the age of seven.
Chicken intelligence is therefore unnecessarily underes- Related to amoebas, slime molds can become habituated to a
timated and overshadowed by other avian groups. So says favorable route, and can even cross unfavorable regions to reach
Lori Marino, senior scientist for The Someone Project, a their food. They can distinguish harmful substances from harmless
joint venture of Farm Sanctuary and the Kimmela Center in ones, then pass on that information by fusing with other individuals.
the USA, who reviewed the latest research about the psy-
Fusing together, some slime molds can form a super-organism
chology, behavior and emotions ofthe world’s most abun-
which is hundreds of square centimeters in area, sharing thousands
dant domestic animal. Her review is published in Springer’s
of nuclei, only to later disperse and go their separate ways, all the
journalAnimal Cognition.5
better for the information they shared.
“They are perceived as lacking most of the psychological
1. Guarino, B. (2016, October 6). The really secret lives of bees: Ingenious ex-
characteristics we recognize in other intelligent animals and periment shows they learn like we do, from each other.The Washington
are typically thought of as possessing a low level of intelli- Post. Retrieved January 18, 2017 from
gence compared with other animals,” Marino says. “The www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/10/06/scientists-
very idea of chicken psychology is strange to most people.” taught-a-few-bees-to-pull-on-a-string-for-a-treat-then-a-bunch-of-other-bees-
caught-on/?utm_term=.482a95b0fc3c
OK, Dr. Marino, prove it. She shows how chickens have a
2. Alem, S., C.J. Perry, X. Zhu, O.J. Loukola, T. Ingraham, E. Sovik, and L.
sense of numbers, even as newly hatched chicks. They can perform Chittka. 2016. Associative mechanisms allow for social learning and cultur-
simple arithmetic, experiments have shown. They can remember al transmission of string pulling in an insect.PLoS Biology. Retrieved Janu-
the trajectory of a ball for up to three minutes. They “possess ary 18, 2017 fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002564
self-control when it comes to holding out for a better food reward,” 3. The Society for Integrative & Comparative Biology (2017, January 2). Bats
the list continues. The article rubs it in: avoid collisions by calling less in a crowd.Newswise.com. Retrieved Janu-
ary 18, 2017 fromwww.newswise.com/articles/bats-avoid-collisions-by-
Chicken communication is also quite complex, and con- calling-less-in-a-crowd
sists of alarge repertoire of different visual displays and 4. Anonymous (2017, January 2). Think chicken—think intelligent, caring, com-
at least 24 distinct vocalizations. The birds possess the plex. Springer. Retrieved January 18, 2017 from
complex ability of referential communication, which in- www.springer.com/gp/about-springer/media/research-news/think-chicken---
volves signals such as calls, displays and whistles toconvey think-intelligent--caring-and-complex--/11952522
information. They may use this to sound the alarm when 5. Marino, L. 2016. Thinking chickens: A literature review of cognition, emotion
there is danger, for instance. This abilityrequires some level and behavior in the domestic chicken. Animal Cognition. DOI
of self-awareness and being able to take the perspective 10.1007/s10071-016-1064-4. Retrieved January 19, 2017 from
www.researchgate.net/publication/312025719_Thinking_chickens_a_review
of another animal, and is also possessed by highly intel-
_of_cognition_emotion_and_behavior_in_the_domestic_chicken
ligent and social species, including primates.
6. Pappas, S. (2017, January 3). This brainless blob learns—and teaches, too.
Chickensperceive time intervals and cananticipate future LiveScience. Retrieved January 18, 2017 fromwww.livescience.com/57360-
events. Like many other animals, they demonstrate their brainless-slime-mold-learns-and-teaches.html
cognitive complexity when placed in social situationsrequir-
ing them to solve problems.
Mammals Ate Dinosaurs
In addition, they display complex emotions. If you’ve ever
watched a mother hen protecting her chicks, you know how A newly discovered fossil suggests that a mammal with a big
aggressive she can be. “They make decisions based on what is best bite could have munched on small dinosaurs for lunch.
for them,” the article says, even stooping to deception or learning
Marsupials were supposed to have originated in South Amer-
one another’s secrets (just like the bumblebees described above).
ica, LiveScience says.1 But Didelphodon vorax was found in
Convinced? Reflecting on all this makes it hard to want to eat
Montana’s Hell Creek formation, a hotbed of dinosaurs. And it
them. At least pay that bird a little more respect when you chew
was well-equipped for attack as well as defense:
the chicken fat.
An ancient mammal the size of a badger may have used
Slime Molds: We end with one of the most surprising examples its bone-crushing canines and powerful bite to
of braininess: intelligencewithout a brain. Stephanie Pappas writes take down little dinosaurs, researchers have
about slime mold intelligence for LiveScience, claiming, “This found. In fact, the little guy could
Brainless Blob Learns — and Teaches, Too.”6 It may be difficult chomp
doing a mind meld with a slime mold without getting sticky, but down with
scientists are impressed with what these colonial fungi can do. more force, pound for
pound, than any other mammal on re-
You don’t need a brain to learn and teach. New research
cord.
finds that slime molds, goopy and rather uncharismatic
organisms that lack a nervous system,can adapt to a repul- Reporter Laura Geggel points out that
sive stimulus and then pass on that adaptation by fusing this species, reconstructed from four frag-
with one another. mentary fossils, is a game-changer:
8 | Creation Research Society
“What I love about Didelphodon travels: the earth. Catchpoole cites a 2014 Nature8
vorax is that it crushes the classic article by Ewen Callaway that indicates the
At the dinosaur dig sites, scientists
mold of Mesozoic mammals,” the evidence is not decisive that placentals
have found many unusual extinct
study’s lead researcher Gregory Wil- evolved only after the dinosaur extinction.
mammal forms such as the multitu-
son, an adjunct curator of vertebrate Callaway, in turn, cites noted dinosaur hunt-
berculates but they have also found
paleontology at the Burke Museum
fossilized mammals that look like er Phil Donoghue’s opinion that “it is likely
in Seattle, and an associate professor
squirrels, possums, Tasmanian that animals existed before that, but were
of biology at the University of Wash-
devils, hedgehogs, shrews, beavers, not preserved as fossils or their remains have
ington, said in a statement. “Instead
primates, and duck-billed platy- yet to be discovered.”
of a shrew-like mammal meekly
pus. I don’t know how close these
scurrying into the shadows of di- 1. Geggel, L. (2016, December 12). Ancient marsu-
mammals are to the modern forms pial relative may have eaten little dinosaurs.
nosaurs, this badger-sized mam-
because I was not able to see most LiveScience. Retrieved January 17, 2017 from
mal would’ve been a fearsome
of these, even after going to so many www.livescience.com/57169-ancient-mammal-
predator on the Late Cretaceous
museums. had-dinosaur-chomping-bite.html
landscape — even for some dino-
2. Geggel, L. (2017, January 3). Dinosaurs’ long egg
saurs.” Few are aware of the great number
hatching times might have led to their demise.
The animal, estimated to weigh be- of mammal species found with dino- LiveScience. Retrieved January 17, 2017 from
saurs. Paleontologists have found www.livescience.com/57368-dinosaurs-eggs-
tween 5 and 12 pounds, said to be “the
432 mammal species in the dino- long-incubation-time.html
largest metatherian to live during the Creta-
saur layers; almost as many as the 3. Erickson, G.M., D.K. Zelenitsky, D.I. Kay, M.A.
ceous,” was not some primitive mammal
number of dinosaur species. These Norell. 2017. Dinosaur incubation periods di-
prototype, scurrying under dinosaurs’ feet include nearly 100complete mam- rectly determined from growth-line counts in
trying to come up with an evolutionary mal skeletons. But where are these embryonic teeth show reptilian-grade develop-
strategy to survive. It was a “seriously tough fossils? We visited 60 museums but ment. PNAS doi: 10.1073/pnas.1613716114
Retrieved January 19, 2017 from
mammal” that had powerful teeth and “the did not see a single complete mam-
www.pnas.org/content/114/3/540.full.pdf
strongest bite of any mammal, alive or mal skeleton from the dinosaur lay-
4. Wilson, G.P., E.G. Ekdale, J.W. Hoganson, J.J.
extinct,” more even than hyenas. ers displayed at any of these
Calede, and A.V. Linden. 2016. A large carniv-
museums. This is amazing. Also, we
Moreover, D. vorax’s canines are orous mammal from the Late Cretaceous and
similar to those of living felines and saw only a few dozen incomplete the North American origin of marsupials.Na-
skeletons/single bones of the 432 ture Communications 7:
hyenas, indicating that these ancient
mammal species found so far. Why doi:10.1038/ncomms13734 . Retrieved January
creatures could probably bite into
don’t the museums display these 19, 2017 from
bone while hunting prey, the re-
mammal fossils and also the bird www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13734
searchers found. Its extraordinary
fossils? 5. Batten, D. 2011. Living fossils: a powerful argu-
bite force, when combined with its
ment for creation.Creation 33(2):20–23.
canines, shearing molars and big, Part of the reason may be that museums
6. Smith, C. 2011. The so-called ‘Age of Dinosaurs’:
rounded premolars, suggest that it have a narrative of evolutionary progress
Why there never was a ‘land before time’ mil-
could have crunched on shells and they wish to promulgate to an unsuspecting lions of years ago! Creation 33(3):35–37.
even small dinosaurs, they added. public. Another reason may be that evolu- 7. Catchpoole, D. (2014, January 21). Evolutionists
Geggel assumes the asteroid-impact tionary fossil hunters have blinders on. Cal- divided over coexistence of placental mammals
theory for the demise of the dinosaurs, but vin Smith borrows a quote from Carl and dinosaurs.Creation.com. Retrieved January
17, 2017 fromhttp://creation.com/evolution-
has to admit that all the dinosaurs perished Werner’s book about a paleontologist in
placental-mammals-with-dinos
in the event while mammals survived. another 2011Creation magazine.6 This pa-
8. Callaway, E. (2014, January 15). Debate over
Somehow, “marsupials managed to live leontologist says that he finds mammals on which mammals roamed with the dinosaurs:
on, diversifying and evolving in their new almost all his dinosaur digs, but they were Genetic tree challenges fossil-based conclusion
South American home.” In another Live- not noticed years ago. “We have about that placental mammals emerged only after
Science post2, Geggel uncritically spells out 20,000 pounds of bentonite clay that has mass extinction. Nature
the latest speculation about dinosaur extinc- mammal fossils that we are trying to give doi:10.1038/nature.2014.14522. Retrieved Janu-
ary 19, 2017 from
tion: their eggs took too long to hatch (see away to some researcher,” this paleontol- www.nature.com/news/debate-over-which-
ogist said. “It’s not that they are not
open-access paper in PNAS3). mammals-roamed-with-the-dinosaurs-1.14522
important, it’s just that you only live once
The paper about D. vorax in Nature andI specialized in something other than
Communications4 claims that “stem mammals. I specialize in reptiles and dino-
metatherians” (marsupial relatives) ap- saurs.” Whether he ever found “some re-
peared and evolved between 252 and 66 searcher” to take the samples and analyze
million (Darwin) years ago. That’s an awful them is not known. The narrative about the
long time that mammals and dinosaurs “age of dinosaurs” may be, therefore, an
roamed the earth together. Creation investi- artifact of selective investigation.
gator Dr. Carl Werner, an expert on “living
On a related note, David Catchpoole
fossils,” has traveled the world checking
wrote in 2014 at Creation.com7 that evolu-
museum displays. He finds it very mislead-
tionists are divided about the coexistence of
ing that museums, in their “world of the
placental mammals with dinosaurs. Today,
dinosaurs” exhibits, often do not include
placentals outnumber marsupials, but that
mammals. In a Creation5 magazine article
was not the case when dinosaurs roamed
from 2011, he relates the findings from his
Vol. 22 No. 1 January/February | Creation Matters|9
Were Mosquitoes on the Ark?
by
Jean K. Lightner, DVM, MS
Editor’s note: You may submit your question to Dr. on subtle details of anatomy, or even spe- from plants (Harbach, 2016). Even among
Jean Lightner at [email protected]. It will
cific combinations of characters due to over- those species where females normally feed
not be possible to provide an answer for each question,
but she will choose those which have a broad appeal lapping suites of shared anatomical traits on blood, eggs can sometimes be laid with-
and lend themselves to relatively short answers. (Harbach, 2016). As a whole, they are out a blood meal (Lehane, 2012). There is
Q Why did Noah take two strikingly similar to midges, which occupy one report of a mosquito from the Middle
several different families within the order Eocene being found with the remains of a
mosquitoes on the ark?
Diptera. blood meal in its abdomen (Greenwalt et
A First we might want to answer the al., 2013). Yet we do not know if mosqui-
Due to the similarity of the many dif-
question: Did Noah take two mos- toes, or their ancestors, fed on blood prior
ferent mosquito species, it seems reasonable
quitoes on the Ark? to this. It could be that blood-feeding is a
to conclude that they all belong to a single
post-Flood phenomena.
Since the Bible doesn’t specifically name “kind,” in the Genesis sense of the word.
the animals that were on the Ark, we will What is less clear is if that kind includes There have been documented examples
need to look at the information we do have other insects such as midges. There is still of normally herbivorous animals switching
and make inferences. a need for solid creationist work that will their diet to include carnivory. One inter-
give us a clearer idea of how many kinds esting case involves the sharp-beaked
In Genesis 7:14 we are given the most
of insects were created and how that corre- ground finch in the Galápagos that takes
detailed description of the animals on the
sponds to their classification today. In the blood meals from nesting sea birds (Catch-
Ark:
absence of such studies, a look at the fossil poole, 2007). Lack of other food sources
They had with them every wild ani- record of mosquitoes may be helpful. can motivate the dietary shift. Over time,
mal according to its kind, all live- the new food source may become the norm
There is good fossil evidence of mos-
stock according to their kinds, every for the population of animals. This is
quitoes in the Tertiary, which is considered
creature that moves along the ground apparently what happened with some mos-
by many creationists to correspond to the
according to its kind and every bird quitoes at some time in the past.
post-Flood period. Two fossil species iden-
according to its kind, everything with
wings. (NIV) tified in the Cretaceous are placed in this Conclusion
family, Burmaculex antiquus and Paleocu-
These are the same groups of animals It is unlikely that Noah knowingly took
licis minutus. The first has some midge-like
that are mentioned in Genesis 1:21–22, mosquitoes on the Ark, though perhaps
features, including a short proboscis (Har-
24–25 as being created by God on days 5 there was an ancestor of today’s mosquitoes
bach, 2016). If the Cretaceous corresponds
and 6, except that the aquatic creatures are on the Ark. It is also possible that these
to late Flood deposits, as some creationists
not on the Ark. Certainly, adult mosquitoes creatures survived the Flood in the aquatic
believe, then the mosquitoes of Noah’s time
fly, and the underlying Hebrew word trans- larval form. While it is unknown when
appear a bit different. Therefore, there is
lated “bird” here can refer to a variety of mosquitoes acquired their blood-sucking
serious question as to whether mosquitoes,
flying animals, including bats and insects habits, it was clearly after the Fall, since all
as we know them today, were even present
(Leviticus 11:13–23; Deuteronomy 14:11– creatures were originally vegetarian (Gen-
in Noah’s day. Perhaps an ancestor of
20). However, the larvae are aquatic, leav- esis 1:29–31).
today’s mosquitoes was on the Ark; we
ing some room to question into which cat-
don’t really know for sure. References
egory they fall.
Why are mosquitoes parasitic? Catchpoole, D. 2007. Vampire finches in the Galá-
Another issue is the focus of the text
pagos.Creation 29(3):52–53.
on larger animals that needed care. While The reason for asking the initial question
Greenwalt, D.E., Y.S. Goreva, S.M. Siljeström, T.
God brought the animals to Noah, it was obviously has to do with the association of
Rose, and R.E. Harbach. 2013. Hemoglobin-
Noah’s responsibility to bring them onto the mosquitoes with blood sucking and disease derived porphyrins preserved in a Middle Eo-
Ark and provide food and housing for them transmission. While blood loss is typically cene blood-engorged mosquito. PNAS
(Genesis 6:19–21; 7:8–9). Scripture doesn’t minimal, the bites can be annoying. Far 110(46):18496–18500.
specifically mention insects in these passag- worse, mosquitos carry a variety of diseases Harbach, R.E. 2016. Mosquito Taxonomic Invento-
es, and many insects could have easily caused by viruses, filarial worms, and pro- ry. Retrieved December 31, 2016 from
http://mosquito-taxonomic-inventory.info/
entered the Ark without Noah’s knowledge tozoans (Harbach, 2016). An estimated
Lehane, M. 2012. Biology of Blood-Sucking Insects.
or help. So, if mosquitoes were on the Ark, 429,000 people died in 2015 from malaria
Springer Science & Business Media. p. 108.
it doesn’t mean that Noah consciously took alone (WHO, 2016). So why would anyone
Retrieved December 31, 2016 from
them. want to preserve a creature that causes so https://books.google.com/books?id=OB8yBwA
much pain and suffering? AQBAJ&pg=PA108#v=onepage&q&f=false
What “kind” of animal is a
WHO 2016. 10 facts on malaria. Retrievevd Janu-
mosquito? As debilitating and deadly as mosquito-
ary 2, 2017 from
borne diseases can be, it is important to
http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/malaria/
Mosquitoes belong to the familyCulicidae.
recognize that males, and even the females en/
There are over 3500 species that have been
in many species, feed entirely on liquids
identified. Many species are differentiated
10 | Creation Research Society