Creation Matters Vol. 4 No. 1 January/February 1999

8 Pages·0.37 MB·English

by  Creation Research Society

Volume 4, Number 1 January / February 1999
The Species Problem
by Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr.
rules for classifying organisms as to their ized, and is the genus name. The second
Note: This article is taken from Dr. Rusch’s
species, as well as noting some of the name is usually lower case. I suppose that
informative book entitled Origins: What Is at
Stake? published by CRS Books in 1991. He problems associated with them. the second name is the true species desig-
provides a needed review of the species concept nation. In practice, there are usually a
in biology and discusses it in light of creationist The Position Of Species In the number of animals that, if they are all of
thinking. Interestingly, at the time this book Hierarchy the same genus, will naturally all have the
was published, the term “baramin” was not same first name. Thus, while Canis fa-
The word species as it is used today, rep-
widely used and understood by creationists.
miliaris would be the scientific name of the
The accompanying article by Dr. Frair illus- resents the second last rung on the bio-
dog, Canis vulpes would be the name of
trates how “baraminology” is catching on. logical ladder of classification. This is
the common fox. It also should be re-
Please note the special offer for Dr. Rusch’s more commonly known as the biological
membered that the law of priority holds. If,
books elsewhere in this issue. hierarchy (see Table 1). The species may
T he subject of species is germane also be referred to as a taxon. The bottom as has happened, a species has been named
twice, the first name published is always
to the entire matter of origins be- or last rung is that concept variously
the one that is retained, and any later ones
cause of the importance of the known as variety, race, or raszenkreis.
must be eliminated.
meaning of “kind.” This word is used in Sometimes another unit known as the
Genesis as the basic unit of creation for the subspecies is inserted before variety.
History of the Concept
various forms of life. This section does not
exhaust the subject of the problems in- Nomenclature The originator of the species concept is
volved in the use of the term species. It The word species is the same for singular usually considered to have been John Ray,
rather attempts to explore the scope of the as well as plural. Each species is desig- the British naturalist. He, however, seems
whole concept, and suggest some ground nated by two names. The first is capital- ...continued on page 2
Creationist Classification — An Update
by Wayne Frair, Ph.D.
At the 1990 Pittsburgh International that could be termed “limited-change,”
Note: This article is based on Dr. Frair’s
Conference on Creationism, Walter J. Re- “abrupt-appearance,” “microevolution-
presentation in the education track of the 1998
Mine introduced “Discontinuity Systemat- ary,” or “polyphyletic.”
ICC.
ics” (5,1), and Kurt P. Wise “Baraminol-
C Practitioners of these methods have
reationists frequently have been ogy”(9). Both of these are creationist-
no compulsion to jump natural gaps
criticized for merely being anti- sensitive taxonomic methods which can be
among living or fossil forms, and the in-
evolutionary without offering vi- employed for classifying all forms of life
vestigators attempt to ascertain patterns of
able alternatives, and frequently this is into their natural groups. Most scientists
genetic continuity based upon persuasive
true. But in the past two decades there has utilize systematic schemes which assume
evidence. The baraminology and disconti-
been a genuine movement toward estab- macroevolution or at least are quite con-
nuity systematics disciplines may be ex-
lishment of well-founded creationist mod- sistent with it; so if it is true that the bio-
pressed visually as an orchard or forest of
els based upon empirical research and in- sphere consists of groups of unrelated
trees (Figure 1) rather than the macroevo-
ductive science. For example, in 1994 and plants and animals, these macroevolution-
lutionary single-tree drawing (Figure 2)
in 1998 the themes for the Pittsburgh In- oriented procedures would be immune
for depicting how life might have evolved.
ternational Conference on Creationism has from detecting this reality. Both disconti-
The difference between baraminology and
been “Establishing a Creation Model of nuity systematics and baraminology are
discontinuity systematics mainly is that
Origins.” systems which presume an origins model
...continued on page 5
The Species Problem Kingdom Animalia
...continued from page 1
Phylum(a) Chordata
to have derived it from an earlier discus- Subphylum Vertebrata
sion by a Professor Kaspar Bauhin
(1550-1624). Finally, Carolus Linnaeus Class Mammalia
(born Carl von Linne’ in Sweden;
Order Carnivora
1707-1778) succinctly stated in his Philo-
sophia Botanica, “Species tot sunt diver-
Family Canidae
sae, quot diversae formae ab initio sunt
creatae,” or “just so many species are to be Genus (era) Canis
reckoned as there were forms created at the
beginning.” This statement became almost Species familiaris
law to the world of science in Linnaeus’
Variety, subspecies, etc. Miniature Schnauzer
days. According to this statement of Lin-
naeus, the category species includes all
organisms that resemble each other more Table 1. The biological hierarchy. The right-hand column is a practical
than they resemble other organisms. In illustration showing the biological classification of Dr. Rusch’s Miniature
addition, all in the species are capable of Schnauzers.
interbreeding. However, after 1766 we no
longer find this phrase in his works. In his “Nature produces individuals and Then we have a definition taken from
later years, Linnaeus changed his mind nothing more ... Species have no a recent standard dictionary: “2. Biol. the
about the place of the species concept in actual existence in nature. They major subdivision of a genus or subgenus,
creation. In his last edition, he refers to the are mental concepts and nothing regarded as the basic category of biological
genus as follows — ab initio unam con- more ... and have been invented in classification, composed of related indi-
stituerint speciem — all species of one order that we may refer to great viduals that resemble one another, are able
genus constituted at first one species. numbers of individuals collec- to breed among themselves, but are not
tively.” [Bessey 1908] able to breed with members of another
Definitions species.”1 Finally, someone once main-
Here is a selection of definitions taken
Although Linnaeus’ words seem concise tained that a species is anything that a
from relatively recent undergraduate col-
enough, and the term species is in constant competent systematist says it is.
lege texts:
use in the biological world, exact defini- A researcher who believes he/she has
tions of the concept are usually difficult to 1) “The species is the unit of found a new species of plant or animal will
find. Certainly this is illustrated by the fact evolution.” [Olson and Robinson describe what is regarded as the type form.
that the AAAS (American Association for 1975] The assignment to a niche in the biological
the Advancement of Science) once pro- hierarchy is usually checked by a taxono-
2) “A species is a group of or-
duced quite a large monograph (at least a mist. Every organism, when described,
ganisms which normally inter-
half inch thick) entitled The Species Prob- must be assigned to each of the categories
breed in nature to produce fertile
lem which attempted to solve the riddle. in the hierarchy; e.g., phylum, class, order,
offspring.” [Oram et al. 1976]
When we check various sources for etc.
the precise definitions of what constitutes a 3) “A species is a distinctive
species, we rarely find them. This is be- group of organisms, similar in Variation Among Species
cause those that are given are frequently structure and heredity, and able to When one looks at various species in the
extremely variable when compared with interbreed.” [Weinberg 1974] living world, one can be utterly amazed at
each other, as well as being quite tenuous. 4) “Species definition; Inter- how some species consist of forms that
Actually this situation applies to a greater breeding, natural populations that vary among themselves to such an extent
or lesser degree all the way up the bio- are reproductively isolated from that, if the observer did not know any bet-
logical hierarchy. Any biology teacher other such groups.” [Gardner and ter, he/she would assign them to different
discovers this when he/she attempts to de- Snustad 1981] species. For example, let us consider dogs.
fine any of the taxonomic levels in the Recall the many variations found among
biological hierarchy. In addition, some 5) “A species is an interbreeding them with regard to length of hair, whether
will use the term taxon (taxa - pl.) to des- group of organisms sharing most or not they shed, the shape as well as the
ignate any one of the levels of the hierar- of their traits in common and length of muzzles, etc. Envision specifi-
chy. Coming back specifically to the term reproductively isolated (at least in cally the differences in size and general
species, the great Nebraska botanist, C. E. part) from other such groups.” build between such forms as the terriers
Bessey, recognized the dilemma when he [Stansfield 1977] and the St. Bernard, between English
wrote: Bulldogs and Miniature Schnauzers, be-
January / February 1999 A publication of the Creation Research Society 2
tween Greyhounds and Collies, etc. Yet no extending from the living form into the
one questions that they are all members of fossil forms. Not only do we find such
the same species. species varying only slightly among the
current population, but also we find that
However, when we go further and
they do not vary over periods of time from
compare the skulls of some dogs with
generation to generation either. Among
those of other dogs, it appears that the
animals, extreme cases of this latter char-
differences go even deeper than the su-
acteristic would appear to be found among
perficial characteristics previously men-
the cockroaches, silverfish, horseshoe
tioned. For example, study the accompa-
crab, etc. These particular forms appear to
nying illustrations of the skulls of the fol-
have remained the same from the Pennsyl-
lowing dogs. Figure 1-A is that of a Pe-
vanian to the present.
kingese. Figure 1-B is an illustration of the
skull of an ordinary common dog (a mon- Finally, there is also the well-known
grel). A comparison of the bones of the case of the Coelacanth. Here a species of
skulls reveals that there is quite a consid- fish, Latimeria, that had been believed to
erable variation between those of the Pe- have become extinct about the end of the
kingese and those of the ordinary dog. One Mesozoic, was brought up from the depths
might also consider Figure 1-C which is of the Indian Ocean within the past two
the drawing of the skull of a bear. When decades! There are many of these un-
considering this skull one notes that there changed persistent forms that are known in
seems to be a greater superficial resem- Paleontology. In popular discussions they
blance between the skull bones of the bear are referred to as living fossils.2
and those of the ordinary (mongrel) dog.
The Pekingese seems to belong to a dif- Lumpers vs. Splitters
ferent group entirely than either the bear or
Another complication is the notable dif-
the mongrel. Yet while both dogs are
ference in philosophy (?) among taxono-
members of the same species, the bear be-
mists. There are those who are at the one
longs not only to a different species, but Figure 1.
extreme, regarding the slightest difference
also to a different family as well.
in color or, even in the case of coccinellid concept of the paleontologist and requires
I always have been struck by this quite beetles, a variation in the number of black statistical analysis of any given species
remarkable situation that pertains among dots on the wing covers which are consid- population to make a determination.
the dogs, as previously mentioned. Al- ered as being a valid reason for putting However, in numerous cases, a use of this
though encompassing such extreme vari- these forms in separate species. Holders of narrow a definition has led to a listing of a
ability as demonstrated, the dogs men- that philosophy are known as splitters. On multiplicity of species. Particularly good
tioned still are members of the same spe- the other hand there are those who will examples of the chaos this has produced
cies, Canis familiaris. It also is surprising lump all specimens of forms that seem to are found in many of the fossil molluscan
that we can find an analogous situation; have any resemblance at all, into the same species.
i.e., great degrees of variation within the species. These are known in the world of
In the area of paleontology, Mollusca,
species, among some members of the same taxonomy as lumpers. In the case of the
Brachiopoda, and Bryozoa are described
species within the plant kingdom. Cer- coccinellid beetles, most would be
and classified of necessity essentially on
tainly we find this to be true within such “lumped” into a single species.
shell configuration. Obviously, the ques-
species as the hawthorns and the oaks.
tion immediately arises, “What are the
Both groups can become the taxonomist’s Classification of Species
scientific bases for such classifications?”
nightmare.
Approaching the problem from another One ought then ask, “What might be the
On the other hand, certain animals direction, biologists consider that there implications of some past experiments
seem to be very rigid in their various exist several basic types of species. Firstly, performed on some living Foraminifera?”
forms. Consider cats and the almost utter there are the morphological species. Sec- Such experiments have indicated that both
lack of variation in the various forms. ondly, there are the biological species. the pH of the environment (Fagerstrom,
There is little variation in general body And finally, there are the genetic species. University of Nebraska) and the oxygen of
outline, the position of the ears on the The morphological species is also called the atmosphere (Emiliani, University of
head, and the shape of the muzzle. The the typological species. Supporters of this Miami) have a profound effect on the de-
variations seem confined to such appar- thought consider a species as being made gree, as well as the direction, of shell ro-
ently minor features as color patterns, up of a group of individual organisms that tation in test development.
length of fur, and tail length in the case of are basically indistinguishable from some
the Manx. Similarly, the ginkgo tree norm or type form. This would have been The Validity of Stratigraphic
would be an example of rigidity of form in agreed upon previously by a number of Determinations
the plant kingdom, such lack of variation systematists. This is frequently the species
The question might also be asked, “To
January / February 1999 A publication of the Creation Research Society 3
what extent are fossils given new species breeding natural populations the type ‘bird’ stared out at him. Since the
names, solely because they are found in which are reproductively isolated term baramin is not catching on, crea-
later strata, rather than due to any actual from other such groups.” [Mayr tionists might return to the use of the term
morphological difference?” Heilprin 1942] type, whenever we mean created kind.
writes:
Since taxonomists disagree so widely
Notes
“However divergent be the views among themselves about the delineation of
of authors on the matter of rela- a species, creationists should not be con- 1 The Random House Dictionary, unabridged edi-
tionship, it is practically certain tributing to their problem by asserting that tion, New York, 1966.
that numerous forms of life, ex- God created this or that species. Instead 2 See also Living fossils — How significant are
they? by Margaret Helder, Creation Matters,
hibiting no distinctive characters they should strive to find coherent genetic Volume 3, No. 2 (March/April 1998).
of their own, are constituted (sic) entities that would correspond more 3 This quote was taken from the Proceedings of the
into distinct species for no other closely to the boundaries of the kinds. A Boston Society of Natural History, XXII,
reason that they occur in forma- tremendous amount of work needs to be 1883, p. 253.
tions widely separated from those done on this aspect of the problem. In the 4 See the accompanying article in this issue by Dr.
Frair for an update on creationist classifica-
holding their nearest of kin.” light of such a mass of confusion about tion, which indicates that the term baramin
[Heilprin 1887] meanings of the concept species, creation- has gained acceptance in recent years.
ists would be well advised to avoid the 5 For further discussion see Marsh’s work Life,
Douglas Dewar also refers to Heilprin
Man, and Time [Marsh 1967].
word entirely when referring to the concept
as follows:
created kinds. References
“... that the living mollusc genus,
Nautilus has persisted almost un- Baramin Bessey, C.E. 1908. The taxonomic aspect of the
species question. American Naturalist
altered from the Silurian period
Frank Marsh once tried to resolve this 42:218-224.
until today. Barrande laid great
difficulty by coining a new word, ba- Dewar, D. 1957. The Transformist Illusion. De-
stress upon the sudden appear- hoff Publications, Murfreesboro, TN, p. 84.
ramin. This was composed of two He-
ance, in the full plentitude of their Gardner, E.J. and P.D. Snustad. 1981. Principles
brew words, bara meaning ‘to create’ and
power and side by side, of the of Genetics. Wiley, New York, p. G-15.
distinctive genera of the cephalo- min meaning ‘kind.’ Marsh emphasized Heilprin, K. 1887. Geographical and Geological
that this term was in no way to be consid- Distribution of Animals. Paul Trench, Lon-
pods (Orthoceras, Cytoceras,
ered as synonymous with any specific level don, pp. 138, 183.
Bathmocera, Nautilus) in the
of the biological hierarchy (see Table 1). Marsh, F.L. 1967. Life, Man and Time. Outdoor
Lower Silurian. Then Hyatt came Pictures, Anacortes, CA, p. 138.
He delineated them thus: the widest test for
along and decreed ‘there are no Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the Origin of the
this group in nature would be the power to
true species of Nautilus in Paleo- Species. Columbia, New York.
zoic rocks.’3 cross. If hybrids can be formed, then the Olson, E.C. and J. Robinson. 1975. Concepts of
parents are members of the same baramin, Evolution. Merrill, Columbus, OH, p. 110.
“In consequence all the species of regardless of any differences in appear- Oram, R.F., P.J. Hummer, Jr. and R. Smoot. 1976.
Nautilus found in Paleozoic rocks ance. Regrettably, it must be admitted that Biology — Living Systems. Merrill, Colum-
bus, OH, p. 289.
had their names changed, some this term has never seemed to gain accep-
Stansfield, W.D. 1977. The Science of Evolution.
are now assigned to the genus tance among creationists.4 Macmillan, New York, p. 101.
Plectoceras, others to Litoceras, It does happen that the chemical Weinberg, S. 1974. Biology: An Inquiry into the
and yet others to Endolobus.” Nature of Life. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, p.
proximity or action of the entrance of the
101.
[Dewar 1957]
sperm into the egg can trigger some kind of
parthenogenetic action. Hence we would
The genetic species is a wider concept Dr. Rusch, now deceased, was one of the founders of
further delineate that only a true fusing of
than the typological. It embraces variable the Creation Research Society, serving the society in
sperm and egg into a true zygote would be various offices, including that of President from
interbreeding populations. The test of
considered proper crossing.5 All the 1983-1986. He had earned degrees in Physical Sci-
whether an organism belongs to a given
ences (B.S., Ill. Inst. Of Technology) and Biology
foregoing material serves as the basis for
species is determined by whether it can (M.S., Univ. Of Mich.), and later studied geology at
my feeling that there is a need for a thor-
interbreed with the members of that spe- the Univ. Of Nebraska. He was awarded the LL.D.
ough reevaluation of Cuvier’s works. This from Concordia Seminary.
cies. Two organisms are considered to
is true especially in the case of those works
belong to the same species if they can
dealing with his concepts of types. This
produce fertile hybrids with others of that
study might be especially profitable since
species. Obviously this concept has seri-
it was the existence of types that caused
ous limitations in the area of paleontology,
Cuvier so consistently to reject the macro-
since by its very nature breeding results are
evolution proposed by Lamarck and sup-
unavailable. Mayr refers to this group
porters. I particularly have felt that this
when he proposes the following definition:
project might be profitable since Cuvier
“... that a species is a group of
himself once wrote that whenever he
actually or potentially inter- looked at his cabinet of Aves specimens,
January / February 1999 A publication of the Creation Research Society 4
scientist need not feel obligated to jump the creation model. in R.E.Walsh, editor. Pro-
Creationist Classification
any gaps unless the evidence is compel- ceedings of the Second International Confer-
...continued from page 1 ence on Creationism. Volume II, Technical
ling. Even though evolutionary theorizing
Symposium :207-216. Creation Science Fel-
the former includes Biblical revelation as can be a somewhat enjoyable and chal- lowship, Pittsburgh, PA.
one of its criteria for determining natural lenging “game” that biologists play, the 6. Robinson, D.A. 1997. A mitochondrial DNA
groupings. In the latter only comparative procedures of the “limited change” models analysis of the testudine apobaramin. Creation
Research Society Quarterly 33(4):262-272.
data from fossil, living and preserved ma- emphasize factual data, and when they are
7. Robinson, D.A. and D.P. Cavanaugh. 1998. A
terial are employed. compared to macroevolutionary methodol-
quantitative approach to baraminology with
ogy, they appear to be more natural, ob- examples from the catarrhine primates. Crea-
The term baraminology is derived
jective and verifiable. tion Research Society Quarterly
from the Hebrew bara, “create,” and from
34(4):196-208.
min, “kind.” In 1941 Dr. Frank L. Marsh References 8. Robinson, D.A. and D.P. Cavanaugh. 1998. Evi-
introduced the term baramin, and over the dence for a holobaraminic origin of the cats.
1. Bartz, P.A. 1991. A refinement of biosystematics
Creation Research Society Quarterly 35(1):2-
decades since that time there have been
which reflects baraminic variation. Creation
14.
some efforts aimed at incorporating the Research Society Quarterly 28(1):18-20.
9. Wise, K.P. 1990. Baraminology: a young-earth
concept into empirical studies (see 4,2). 2. Frair, W.F. 1991. Original kinds and turtle phy- creation biosystematic method. in R.E.Walsh,
logeny. Creation Research Society Quarterly
But it was not until after 1992 that taxo- editor. Proceedings of the Second Interna-
28(1):21-24.
nomic tools began to be used in some tional Conference on Creationism. Volume II,
3. García-Ponzuelo-Ramos, C. 1998. Dental variabil- Technical Symposium :345- 360. Creation Sci-
depth to characterize the discrete group- ity in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris): im- ence Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.
ings of specific types of organisms plications for the variability of primates. Crea-
10. Robinson, D.A. 1992. Practical baraminology.
(3,6,7,8,10). tion Research Society Quarterly 35(2):66-75. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal
4. Marsh, F.L. 1969. The form and structure of liv- 6(2):122-137.
Taxonomic specialists in various spe- ing things. Creation Research Society Quar-
cies should be encouraged to utilize these terly 6(1):13-25. Dr. Frair (Emeritus Professor of Biology at The
5. ReMine, W.J. 1990. Discontinuity systematics: a King’s College, NY) is a current CRS board member,
"limited-change" approaches. With them a
new methodology of biosystematics relevant to and was CRS president from 1986-1994.
More from Dr. Rusch...
I
was once a member of a small graduate seminar in ge-
ology. At the time I was in my late forties whereas the
rest of the group were young men in their early twenties.
One afternoon, I was participating in an impromptu rap ses-
sion on the subject of Christian beliefs. In the course of the
discussion I was greatly disturbed to discover that the whole
Figure 1. Abrupt appearance, limited change, micro-
group were apostate Christians of various mainline denomi-
evolutionary, or polyphyletic view of origins. Each
nations. As the discussion progressed, it developed that for
grouping represents a baramin or created kind.
each of them, their Christian faith had been eroded over a
period of time as their acceptance of the theory of macroevo-
lution grew.
This came as quite a shock to me. Although active in
discussions on origins prior to this point in time, this discovery
was what launched me upon a much more active avocation of
coming to grips with this whole matter of origins. Although
having no particular love for the lecture platform prior to that
time, it now became a much more active, even necessary,
arena for me, particularly to student groups. As a result I
participated in numerous religious emphasis weeks at several
universities. I also began to use the written word as a weapon
in the struggle. ...
... I have embarked on the various propositions in this
work for a good reason. I earnestly hope that Christian readers
of any age will give most serious consideration to the effect
that their accommodations to macroevolution will have on the
doctrines of the Church. I hope that I have demonstrated that
it surely is a very serious mistake to assume such accommo-
Figure 2. Macroevolution, unlimited dations as being of little importance or effect.
change, or monophyletic view of origins.
Change is unlimited. Rusch, W.H., Sr. 1991. Origins: What Is at Stake? CRS Books, pp. 53-54.
January / February 1999 A publication of the Creation Research Society 5
Ghost Craters in the Sky
by Helen “Penny” Fryman
A review of Dr. Danny Faulkner’s presentation on this subject at the Origins 98 Conference at Bryan College
I
s the man in the moon telling us In the evolutionary sce-
something? For millennia people nario, the moon was formed
have looked up at the moon and seen about 4.5 billion years ago. It
faces and animal shapes in the light and was molten and gradually
dark areas. Since the time of Galileo, cooled, from the outside in,
however, there have been those who have forming a crust that was thin at
taken a closer and more analytical look at first, then gradually thickened
our satellite. Galileo himself noticed that as the moon cooled. During this
the dark areas seemed smooth, while the time the moon was subjected to
light areas were not. And so he named the the impacts that caused the cra-
dark areas "maria" (or "seas”). Today these tering we see in the lighter col-
large, nearly circular dark areas are still ored highlands. Only at that
called by the old names: Mare Imbrium time, the cratering was across NASA photo
(Sea of Rains), Mare Serenitatis (Sea of the entire surface of the moon, until the the ghost craters could not be remnants of
Serenity), Mare Tranquilitatis (Sea of entire surface was probably saturated. craters from before those impacts. If the
Tranquility), and the like. Although these Then, around 4 to 3.5 billion years ago, impacts that left the ghost craters occurred
maria are dry, if there were liquid water on according to evolution, there were some after the magma overflow had solidified,
the surface of the moon, it would run down major impacts — much larger than those then they would be as sharp and clear as
into these areas, for these are lowlands. which cratered the rest of the moon. These the other craters in the maria. But they are
impacts were so enormous that they al- called ghost craters precisely because they
The rest of the moon is pockmarked
lowed magma from the moon's still molten are not sharp and clear, but are simply
with craters from innumerable impacts.
interior to flow up and cover the impact remnants. So they had to have been formed
These are the lunar highlands. Although
basins, thus resulting in the dark maria. In between the time of the giant impacts and
there are a few recognized volcanically-
the evolutionary timescale, the time be- the time the magma rose to the surface of
caused craters, the vast majority of the
tween the major impacts and the magma the moon and overflowed, partially erasing
craters on the moon have been identified as
overflow is considered to be about a 0.5 those craters. This gives us a more inter-
impact craters. The lighter, higher areas of
billion years. Since then, some other im- esting scenario regarding the time frame of
the moon are saturated with these craters to
pacts are said to have caused the sharp, the moon's history. The large impacts,
the extent that any new impact will erase
clear craters we see in the maria today. which caused the maria, and then the
all or parts of others. There is no place left
smaller impacts which were to become the
on the moon's highlands for any meteorite Dr. Faulkner challenges this evolu-
ghost craters, and then the magma over-
to hit an unmarked surface. But it is dif- tionary picture on two specific counts. But,
flow all had to happen within a fairly short
ferent in the maria. There are not many first of all, he does not challenge the order
timespan. The time from start to finish
craters there. Where there are craters, they of events. That the moon was initially
could have been anywhere from a matter
are sharp, distinct, and isolated — except pockmarked and then subjected to some
of hours to just a few years. It is hard to
for some strange formations called "ghost giant impacts, which cracked the surface
imagine it taking longer than that, simply
craters." These are half-buried craters enough to allow magma to flow up and
because it is acknowledged by astrono-
which still show the circular outline of cover the crater floors, is not an issue. Nor
mers of all philosophical persuasions that
parts of the crater rim and perhaps some is it an issue that the sharp craters seen in
the giant impacts were the direct cause of
extrusions like small bits of mountains. Dr. the maria are the most recent in this chain
the magma overflow.
Danny Faulkner, astronomer, thinks there of events. Dr. Faulkner does take issue,
is a story here that has been largely ignored however, with the timing between the In short, the impact rate must have
since the Apollo landing. large impacts and the magma overflow, been huge. The long times demanded by
and in the presence of the ghost craters evolutionists are not only not needed here,
The highlands of the moon, the light
themselves. First of all, he asks, how long but are contraindicated by the evidence of
pockmarked areas, are granite. The maria,
would it take between the giant impacts the ghost craters and the magma itself. It
however, are much denser, darker basalt.
and the extrusion of the magma onto the may be that the man in the moon is, in-
Thus the color difference. The highlands
moon's surface? Hours? Days? Maybe, at deed, trying to tell us something.
have no standard shape, but the maria do.
the outside, a few years? Certainly not 0.5
They are basically round, although some
overlap. There are no ghost craters in the billion years, though. The time frame here Penny Fryman is the mother of six children, ages
must be collapsed to be real. 13-24. She works in the education system at the
highlands. They are exclusive to the dark
county level — teaching kids who, for one reason or
maria. What are those ghost craters? Is Then there are the ghost craters another, are either falling through the cracks of the
there a story there that we are missing? themselves. The large impacts would have system, or who are not in the public classrooms.
wiped out any and all craters they hit. So
January / February 1999 A publication of the Creation Research Society 6
Special offer on
books by Dr. Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr.
The Argument: Creationism Vs. Evolutionism
1984. Creation Research Society Monograph Series No. 3; 87 pages.
This book is an excellent introduction to the fundamental issues surrounding the creation
vs. evolution battle. Written by a former CRS president and college professor, a concise
history of the evolutionary concept is provided. The two models, creation and evolution,
are compared along with a discussion of the basics of scientific inquiry. The limits to
variation possible in nature are explored, and the fossil record is examined to show which
model best fits the evidence. This monograph, and its companion volume (Origins: What
Is at Stake?), will interest both the layperson and the scientist.
Origins: What Is at Stake?
1991. Creation Research Society Monograph Series No. 5; 73 pages.
The author carefully explains how an acceptance of evolutionism completely destroys
one’s ability to rely on Scripture. Definitions are given for many of the terms needed to
understand the battle for the minds of men in this area. The Scripturally-related concepts
discussed are the doctrine of God, the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, verbal inspiration,
concept of miracles, the nature of man, doctrine of original sin, and the Flood. In addition
to the Scriptural applications, Rusch also explores such scientific concepts as evidences
for the Flood, the species problem, fossils, design, and the origin of life. This is a com-
panion volume to Monograph No. 3, The Argument: Creationism Vs. Evolutionism.
These two books are truly creation classics. Dr. Rusch, now deceased, was one of the founders
of the Creation Research Society and a leader in the modern creationist movement. He had
earned degrees in Physical Sciences (B.S., Ill. Inst. Of Technology) and Biology (M.S., Univ. Of
Mich.), and later studied geology at the Univ. Of Nebraska. He was awarded the LL.D. from
Concordia Seminary.
Though they were penned several years ago, the principles and concepts discussed are time-
less. These books provide valuable information to help bring the new creationist up to speed. In
addition, they serve to remind practicing creationists of the “fundamentals” which define our
position.
Regular price is $8 each plus $3 postage and handling.
Purchase these books until October 1, 1999 at the following special prices:
$4 each plus $2 each for postage and handling.
Buy four or more at $4 each and postage and handling will be free!!
Books may be ordered from:
CRS Books
P.O. Box 8263
St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263
USA
January / February 1999 A publication of the Creation Research Society 7
Note: Items in “Creation Calendar” are for information only; the listing of an event does not necessarily imply endorsement by the Creation Research Society.
February 21 March 27
Creation Seminar by Dr. Don DeYoung Creation Research Society Public Meeting
St. Paul’s Evangelical Lutheran Church 5:45pm —
Lockport, IL Youth Seminar: “How to Become a Creation Scientist”
Dr. Ron Schoenbeck, [phone] Grade School to Creation Research Prof. by D. Kaufmann, Ph.D.
February 25-27 Evolutionist to Creation Scientist by Lane Lester, Ph.D.
Origins 99 — Student / Teacher Young-Age Origins Conference 7:00pm —
Bryan College A Biologist Looks at Origins by John Meyer, Ph.D.
Dayton, TN Astronomy and Creation by Don DeYoung, Ph.D.
[phone] email [email protected] Southern Minn. Assoc. For Creation
March 12-14 Albert Lea, MN
Creation Seminar by Dr. Don DeYoung Bryce Gaudian, [phone] email [email protected]
Grace Brethren Church April 23-26
Toppenish, WA Creation Seminar by Dr. Don DeYoung
Pastor Greg Stamm, [phone] Riverside Grace Brethren Church
Johnstown, PA
Pastor Don Rough, [phone]
May 20
Debate: Duane Gish (ICR) vs. Massimo Pigliucci (U. Of Tenn.)
Church of Christ at Mtn. View
Winchester, VA
Evng. Charles Doughty, [phone] ext. 100
Creation Matters Contents
ISSN 1094-6632 The Species Problem ..................................................... 1
A publication of the Creation Research Society
Volume 4, Number 1
Creationist Classification — An Update ......................... 1
January / February 1999
Copyright © 1999, Creation Research Society
All rights reserved. More from Dr. Rusch ...................................................... 5
General Editor: Glen Wolfrom
Email: [email protected] Ghost Craters in the Sky ................................................ 6
For membership / subscription information, advertising rates,
and information for authors: Special Offer on Dr. Rusch’s Books .............................. 7
Glen Wolfrom
P.O. Box 8263
St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263 Creation Calendar .......................................................... 8
Email: [email protected]
Creation Research Society Website:
http://www.creationresearch.org
Articles published in Creation Matters represent the opinions and beliefs of the
authors, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the
Creation Research Society.
Advertisements appearing in this publication do not necessarily imply
endorsement of the products or services by the Creation Research Society.
Creation Research Society
Nonprofit Org.
P.O. Box 8263
US Postage
St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263
PAID
USA
Creation Research Society
Return Service Requested
Creation Matters
January / February 1999