Creation Matters Vol. 7 No. 1 January/February 2002

12 Pages·0.25 MB·English

by  Creation Research Society

Volume 7, Number 1 January / February 2002
An Interview with Dr. Russ Humphreys: Part 2
by Doug Sharp, Rich Geer, and John Goertzen
T
he Revolution Against Evolution is a have; how stars are seemingly billions of sort of an island universe. You have a
weekly TV show, produced by Doug light-years out there. And your theory’s whole bunch of galaxies, but they were an
Sharp, for public access cable TV being able to incorporate that “old light” island in an otherwise big empty sea of
channels. This is the second part of an edited
within a very young, a few-thousand-year- space. We thought that, back in the begin-
transcript from an interview which was con-
old universe. So why don’t you explain ning, all these galaxies were a little tiny
ducted in April, 2001 for one of these shows.
to our audience how that works? ball of very hot matter, and that matter
See details at the end of the article for ordering
expanded out into a big empty space.
the video tape. Those speaking are designated RH: Well, the main problem in under-
by the following initials: RH = Russ Hum- standing my theory is understanding the RG: That’s the way you hear it.
phreys, DS = Doug Sharp, and RG = Rich
big bang theory — understanding how my
Geer. In this part we are picking up where Dr. RH: That’s the way it’s taught, but that’s
theory contrasts with it. The big bang
Humphreys is beginning to talk about his theory not what the experts mean when they talk
theory, as understood by experts, is quite
concerning “old” light in a young universe.1 about the big bang. The difference is
different from the big bang theory as un-
whether or not there’s a center and an edge.
RG: I don’t know if we have time, but derstood by everybody else, including
Our picture of an island universe has a
maybe in a nutshell, or a synopsis for our most scientists and even many astrono-
center of that cluster of galaxies, or a center
audience, it’d be nice to get it straight from mers. We all have sort of believed (I
of that little ball. And then there’s an edge
the horse’s mouth. How this seems to take remember having this impression when I
again another thorny problem creationists started this study) that the big bang was ... continued on p. 2
Contents
Yeast Fails To Rise to
An Interview with Dr. Russ Humphreys: Part 2..................1
Evolutionists’ Expectations Yeast Fails To Rise to Evolutionists’ Expectations............1
Ode to Humphreys’ White Hole Cosmology......................4
How Does Belief in Creation or Evolution Impact
by Kevin L. Anderson, Ph.D. Our Society?.................................................................5
Letters
More on Entropy before the Curse / Reply...................8
A visitor to the CRS website emailed us, alleg- lution” but run counter to the Speaking of Science..........................................................9
ing that gene duplication, accompanied by “General Theory of Evolution,”3 Why Snowballs Feel Cold
mutation, has been shown to increase genetic Third Eye Sets Biological Clock
even though evolutionists fail to
information in an organism, thus making it Another Dino-Bird Missing Link Found
more complex. A recent scientific article was appreciate this distinction (a dis- Closer to Life in a Test Tube?
tinction they seem to almost in- Hox Hype: Has Macro-evolution Been Proven?..............10
cited as supporting evidence. This is Dr.
Anderson’s response. tentionally fail to grasp). In Writing Contest.................................................................11
Creation Calendar............................................................12
T Lenski’s work, the adaptive mu-
he article1 involves adaptation of
tations that have been detected are
a strain of yeast to growth in me- mostly loss of a particular genetic function less, the result is basically the same as
dium containing a low concentra- (hardly a mechanism driving evolution Lenski’s work. In this case, it’s not the
tion of glucose. After 450 generations, from “ameba to man”). loss of a particular genetic function, but
various “adapted” mutants of the yeast the duplication of one.
I say this as background for this paper
were found. This is not unlike the work
on yeast adaptation. Yeast’s genome is
that Lenski is doing with E. coli (and even A tale of two genes
slightly more complex than E. coli (i.e.,
cited in this paper2). I love Lenski’s work
diploid), and makes analysis of mutations This strain of yeast possesses two genes
because all of his results, so far, fit per-
more difficult, which is why I prefer the (HXT6 and HXT7) that produce transport
fectly within the “Special Theory of Evo-
study of bacterial genetics. But, nonethe- ... continued on p. 7
within a million light-years of the center. the elements. This would all be on Day
Interview with Dr. Humphreys
I don't see anywhere where it says that One, when light appeared. Then an expan-
...continued from page 1
we’ve remained motionless with respect to sion on Day Two, “let there be an expanse,”
the center. So, even if we were at the center something expanded, next to the earth, and
to that matter, and outside of it is just empty
in the beginning, we’ve moved a ways from so on, all in the ordinary days, which brings
three-dimensional space.
it. us to the time aspect of it. Why does the
But the big-bang universe assumes to start center affect time so much?
DS: All motion is relative anyway, so we
with all the space there ever was, being
moved away from what? That’s the ques- Well, if you have matter having a center,
completely filled by the hot matter of the
tion. then there’s a center of gravity, so gravita-
big bang, and then space and matter ex-
tional forces can point toward the center.
panded outward together. This is very RH: Well, the earth from the center —
In the big bang, you have no center, so you
difficult to visualize, which is why my tape those are two locations you could talk about
have no center of gravity, so you have no
is very good. It will help you visualize it, — about the earth with respect to the center.
overall pattern of gravitational force to
but you have to have an extra dimension
RG: Well, you’re saying the earth from reckon with. In the big bang, there are as
to visualize it. The experts don’t like to
the center — there was a real center, or many galaxies that way as [there are] this
acknowledge the extra dimension of space
there is a real center? way. If you’re out between the galaxies, ...
as being real, so they don't talk about this
the net force is zero — [it] cancels out.
at all. So they’ve let the second tier of RH: There was a real center. I don’t know
scientists, and everyone below that, the exactly where it is. But in this [my theory], if you’re not at the
popularizers, go on in their misunderstand- center, then you’ll feel a very small force
RG: So what happens now? With this
ing about the big bang. But if you actually “starlight and time” theory, you’ve got sort pulling you toward the center; (it would
study the experts, you’ll find that they say of a big-bang sort of thing, but matter was take you billions of years to get there).
that the big bang has no edge to matter, no originally made out of water, is this correct? But a very small force over such cosmic
center. distances ... has a big effect on time. It’s
RH: Yes, converted to other stuff. Then
an effect in Einstein’s general theory of
DS: Actually the popular understanding
... it was by fusion that this collapsing ball
relativity, ... one that hardly anybody
of it more parallels with what your theory
of hot water would get very hot, and that’s
knows about.
is.
when I think that there was light.
RH: Yes, that’s the real irony. For those RG: e=mc2.
DS: When it comes right down to it, don’t
of you who are out there confused, with
astronomers have that in their theory any- RH: That’s from the special theory of
this wrong picture you had of the big bang:
way? They originate all the atoms of the relativity, but there’s a broader theory that
just peel off the label “big bang” from it
universe, the heavy metals and everything, deals with gravity and acceleration and
and put “Humphreys’ crazy cosmology”
from hydrogen actually, they start with other things that hardly anyone knows
on it, and you’ll be a lot closer to what I’m
hydrogen and water. about. But in the general theory of rela-
teaching, and you won’t have that miscon-
tivity, there’s an effect called gravitational
RH: Yes. The process is called nucleo-
ception about the big bang.
synthesis. Now here’s a difference be-
DS: And the difference is that the earth Creation Matters
tween the big bang theory (that version)
[is] a special place in the center of God's
and my theory, the collapsing ball of matter ISSN 1094-6632
creation, isn’t that what [the theory is]?
expansion. Their theory has a problem
Creation Matters — a CRS publication
RH: That’s right. The cosmos that Scrip- making any heavier element than helium Volume 7, Number 1
January / February 2002
ture pictures is an island universe. There’s or beryllium — only the very lightest ele-
ordinary matter of the universe, and there’s ments can be made by the big bang. The Copyright © 2002, Creation Research Society
some empty space beyond that. And you other heavy elements — uranium, iron, All rights reserved.
can draw a boundary around that matter, lead, all of them — have to be made at the General Editor: Glen W. Wolfrom
and it has a center. Scripture talks about heart of a supernova. One of the problems
For membership / subscription information,
that, and I talk about the biblical basis for is that the Hubbell telescope is now seeing advertising rates,
and information for authors:
it in Appendix B of Starlight and Time. these heavy elements, among which they
would include carbon, and oxygen for Glen W. Wolfrom
DS: But that really isn’t geocentricism? P.O. Box 8263
example, as heavy elements, they’re seeing St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263
RH: Not quite. Classical geocentricism them too far back and too far out to give
Email: [email protected]
has said two things. They said (and there much time for the supernovas to make all Phone/fax: [phone]
are still some who say this) that the earth that. So the big bang theory is being Creation Research Society Website:
is at the exact center, like right here, and stretched a little bit there and they’re not http://www.creationresearch.org
that the earth has not ever moved away talking about it. Articles published in Creation Matters represent the opin-
ions and beliefs of the authors, and do not necessarily
from the center. Now, I don’t find Scrip- reflect the official position of the
But this is much more like a cosmic super- Creation Research Society.
ture being that exact about our location.
nova than it is like a big bang, and it would Advertisements appearing in this publication do not
On a cosmological scale of distances, I feel necessarily imply endorsement of the events, products, or
generate all the heavy elements right away, services by the Creation Research Society.
confident that scripture says we’re near it,
so maybe that’s the way God chose to make
2 Creation Matters — a CRS publication January / February 2002
time dilation, or time stretching. One of we’re in slow motion down here. RG: Which perspective?
the bottom lines is that, the deeper you are
RH: We’re in fast-forward out there. But DS: Which clocks?
in a gravitational field, the lower you are
I don’t think things are like that today.
in altitude, the slower clocks tick — clocks RG: Well, I was close, I said which per-
This was on the fourth day that you would
and all physical process [including time] spective.
have seen that, and then, as the expansion
would run slower. ... of the universe proceeded, the vicinity of RH: You both did [well]. You hear that
RG: Is this on a cosmological scale or is the earth would have moved out of this out there? If somebody asks you how old
this measurable from earth? critical phase of things. the universe is, you should say “which
clocks?” “Whose clocks?”
RH: It’s measured here on earth, and in RG: Why was it on the fourth day? I know
my book and tape we talk about where it the Scripture says that on the fourth day RG: Now, even the Hubbell telescope ...
has been measured. So it’s not science certain things happened, but how does that was causing a lot of these scientists to have
fiction, and it’s not just nice theory from work? Or do you have a theory, or is it in conniptions, it seems to me, when ... they
Dr. Einstein. It’s actually been measured the book, about how that would have were proposing the universe was 30 billion
here on earth many different ways and quite worked and how it would have gotten out years old.
accurately. It’s still not a large effect here of being slow and the other ones fast? RH: 20 billion.
on earth, but over cosmic distances there
RH: Yes, it wouldn’t happen at the outset RG: I saw one that was 28 billion, most
could be a very large effect.
of the expansion, and it would be over at were 20, 22 billion. That Hubbell
RG: Gravitational time dilation ... and the another phase of the expansion, so it had [telescope] gets out there and they have to
implications are, since we’re closer to the to move through that period. I think that kind of back-pedal a little bit.
center of this creation, the clocks would be God just designed it so that, when He was
RH: They keep finding out new things
running slower here? ready to make the stars, the earth was in
about the universe from the Hubbell. So
this phase, because He wanted us to be able
RH: We would be at about the last place cosmology, where it was mostly theory
to see.
where clocks would start ticking fast. I’m
before, cosmologists were quite
proposing that, during the fourth
comfortable. Now the Hubbell,
day of creation, the earth entered Relativity is not theory, it’s and other kinds of measurements
this critical phase of things where
with satellites, are slowly con-
measured fact. And relativity
its clocks and its processes were
straining cosmology and nailing it
running very slowly, and every- compels us to consider the
down with experimental, observed
where else clocks and processes possibility that clocks haven’t all facts. Problems for the big bang.
would be running at their normal
But it’s making it more of a science
rate. But on earth, everything time- ticked at the same rate in all parts
and less of a theory — it’s a good
locked, froze — nothing [was] hap- of the universe. thing. But it is stretching the big
pening here during the fourth day
bang theory, and it may snap. We
of creation. So that gives a way for
may have to find another theory to
billions of years’ worth of history to happen RG: So, in a nutshell, this is why we have
replace the big bang.
out in the distant cosmos; yet, as measured stars that seemingly are billions of years
DS: I have another question for you. This
by clocks here on the earth, the universe old, as they would have to be for us to see
concerns fellow creationist Barry Setter-
would be very young. So it gives you a the light. They’re measurable, to some
field and his ... speed-of-light-decay con-
way for the light to get to the earth — that’s extent, as being way out there. Yet still
cept. What do you think about that?
the theory in a nutshell. this works with a very young universe,
then, based on your theory? RH: I do talk about it in my book. I want
RG: So in other words, if someone was
to give Barry credit for his biggest achieve-
living at the outer edge of this universe, RH: Yes, because .. [of] relativity. Rela-
ment, which was to get all of us creationists
they’d be dead in nanoseconds compared tivity is not theory, it’s measured fact. And
thinking about cosmology. Cosmology
to how long we live. Is that what you’re relativity compels us to consider the pos-
was a forbidden subject back before Barry
saying? sibility that clocks haven’t all ticked at the
tackled it in the 1980’s. Nobody would
same rate in all parts of the universe.
RH: Yes. If ... on the fourth day you could
think about it, and those who were in the
have seen what was happening out there, RG: People have played with that for a
sciences avoided cosmology. I hadn’t
you would have seen billions of years’ while. Decay-of-the-speed-of-light-type
thought about it, so Barry certainly focused
worth of events happening. If you could theories have come up, and other kinds of my attention on it.
have seen it — the light wouldn’t have things, but this seems to be the most inter-
Barry has a particular theory for the speed
been here [yet] — but if you could have esting and least problematic. At this junc-
of light decay which I don’t think matches
seen it, you would have seen the galaxies ture, it makes some sense.
the facts. He has all of the speed of light
spinning around like pinwheels and bump-
RH: So Rich, when somebody asks you,
changing very rapidly, and even down in
ing into each other, and the light zooming
“how old is the universe,” what should be
the past few decades still changing mea-
in toward earth.
your answer?
surably. Here on earth you could have
RG: It’s like a fast speed out there —
January / February 2002 Creation Matters — a CRS publication 3
measured the speed of light change. I’m paid much attention to it. But David is listening who’s interested. But I just
not sure you could measure it, but the proposed that, at the Fall of Adam, there give that as an example of a [change of
speed of light is so tied into the forces, was a bubble, so to speak, of the wave of the] speed of light theory that I think might
that every physical force is related to it. the speed of light slowing down, that be viable.
I might be wrong about that. But the main spread out from earth into the rest of the
problem is that the actual data he used to universe. David had it spreading out at References:
support his theory of decay does not seem today’s slow speed ... I ran into a few
1 Humphreys, D.R. 1994. Starlight and Time:
to support it when you analyze it carefully. problems analyzing that, so I wasn't very
Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a
But there may be other theories of the enthusiastic about it. But just about 6 Young Universe. Master Books, Green Forest,
speed of light that may work. There’s one months ago I realized that if the bubble AR.
by David Harris, for example. Do you expanded at the former speed of light, very 2 Harris, D.M. 1978. A Solution To Seeing
Stars. Creation Research Society Quarterly
know him? rapidly, then those problems that I saw
15(2):112-115.
would go away. So I contacted David and
RG: David Harris, yes, the Canadian. We
know him pretty well. asked him if he had thought anymore about For information about the TV show, and about
it. He said no, he didn’t feel he was really ordering the video tape of this interview, write
RH: Back in 1978, in the Creation Re- qualified to pursue that. I think he has a to: The Revolution Against Evolution, P.O.
search Society Quarterly,2 he proposed a BS in physics, and he’s working mostly at Box 80664, Lansing, MI 48908-0664. You can
different kind of speed-of-light thing, be- computers now. But he said “have at it.” also visit the website at www.rae.org.
fore Barry came on the scene. Nobody And I say “have at it, too,” to anyone who
Ode to Humphreys’ White Hole Cosmology
by Dave Laughlin
Time is distorted This was “the deep” Notes
by gravity of Genesis 1:2
1. See, for example, Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah
Says the General Theory A huge ball of water 40:22; 42:5; 48:13.
of Relativity. from which most matter flew. 2. Psalm 147:4 implies that the number of stars is
limited. This would indicate that the universe
A clock at sea level God spoke the Word is not infinite, but has a boundary (in contrast
will tick a bit slower which made it expand3 to God who is infinite - v. 5).
Than one on a mountain Some matter stayed here 3. Genesis 1:6-7.
4. Genesis 1:9-10.
because the sea is much lower. which became seas and the land.4
5. Psalm 148:4.
Applied to the beginning But most went out 6. The Hebrew of Genesis 1:20 literally says “let
of this vast universe the birds fly above the earth on the face of the
to become the stars of space expanse of the heavens.”
Distant starlight
And the waters above 7. CMBR = cosmic microwave background radia-
would have time to traverse.
intact in their place.5 tion.
One’s frame of reference
We must also remember Starlight and Time
is important, though
that the Scriptures don’t teach
For in space light would move “fast” by D. Russell Humphreys
That the expanse is our atmosphere
but near earth it’d move “slow.”
within the birds’ reach.
... the book ... the movie ...
But the size of the universe
Instead, they fly
isn’t enough, says Russ
on the face of the expanse6
To solve the distant
The rest of this realm
starlight problem for us.
is beyond their advance.
Expansion1 affects time
It was from there in the beginning
quite a bit further
Order both for $26.00
that space was stretched out
And thus should satisfy
and get free postage and handling
Which explains red shifts from stars
every young-earther.
a savings of $5.20
and CMBR,7 no doubt.
We must also establish order from
CRS Books
that the universe is bounded2 What all of this means P.O. Box 8263
And does have a center is that by the sixth day St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263
Distant light could be seen (offer expires June 1, 2002)
from which it was founded.
Sorry — USA orders only
because God made a way!
4 Creation Matters — a CRS publication January / February 2002
Student essay
How Does Belief in Creation or Evolution Impact Our Society?
by Chris Walker
Chris was last year’s senior division winner in come to the conclusion that there was no then “life itself is absurd” and that “the
the writing contest sponsored by the Midwest God, several consequences followed, some life we have is without ultimate signifi-
Creation Fellowship. See elsewhere in this of which the atheists wanted, but others cance, value, or purpose.” He goes on to
issue for details about the 2002 contest.
which they did not. In looking at these say, that if life is not a preparation for an
V
iolent crime is up 550%, abortion logical consequences, there are two that eternity with God, then it is “but a spark
rates are up to 1 in 3 pregnancies, stand out as having the greatest impact on in the infinite blackness, a spark that ap-
and teenage suicide is up 300%, our society. pears, flickers, and dies forever. Life is
reads a 1992 survey. The question “Why?” just a momentary transition out of oblivion
First, if we are the result of random
echoes through our society. After two teens into oblivion.” Clarence Darrow, the attor-
chemical reactions, and there is no God,
in Colorado killed 13 classmates last ney who defended the evolutionists in the
then our lives have no ultimate purpose.
spring, the cry of “Why?!” rose louder. Scopes I trial, said, “Life is like a ship on
Second, if we are an accident and there is
The answer stems from our world view, the sea, tossed by every wave and by every
no God, then there is no ultimate moral
on which all our decisions are based. wind, simply floating for a time, then lost
law giver, and, therefore, no ultimate moral
in the waves ... it is an unpleasant inter-
Beginning in the 19th century and standard for us to follow. What has the
ruption of nothing.”
continuing throughout the entire 20th cen- impact of these logical consequences
tury, a huge offensive was launched been? Let’s look at that now, and consider Think about this for a minute. Every-
against the belief in Creation and in God. the question, “How does a belief in Cre- thing we do is ultimately meaningless. We
Darwin spent much of his life from 1836 ation or in Evolution impact our society gain nothing except possible comfort for
to 1888 developing and writing his theory and the decisions it makes?” a short time on earth. Tolstoy once wrote,
of macro-evolution. A host of atheists “You are … a temporal, accidental
The first major impact
embraced his theory and began speaking conglomeration of particles. The in-
out against God, culminating in Friedrich The first natural conclusion that flows terrelation, the charge of these parti-
Nietzsche’s proclamation that, “God is from the theory of Evolution is that we are cles, produces in you that which you
dead. God remains dead. And we have here as a result of an accidental explosion, call life. This congeries will last for
some time; then the interaction of
killed Him.” resulting in simple cells, which evolved
these particles will cease, and that
In the Scopes I trial in 1925, the into fish, then apes, then finally man. which you call your life and all your
ACLU began its campaign against teach- However, if we are just the result of ran- questions will come to an end.”
ing Creation in school. In 1968, the Court dom cell formation, then what is the pur-
ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas that all laws pose of our lives? Most evolutionists today Man assumed that if he could kill God,
prohibiting the teaching of Evolution in have accepted the fact that we are an then he would be free from the tedious
school were unconstitutional. The battle accident, and have tried to answer this moral constraints that such a God put on
raged, and the height of the controversy question by creating their own purpose in him. However, once man had “killed” God,
came in the Scopes II trial in 1981. In this life. Some have concluded that we create he discovered that, in actuality, he had
decision, the court decided that Creation our own purpose through our daily actions, killed himself as well. And so we have
was merely a religious teaching, and that some say that we are here to help those reached the first natural consequence of a
only Evolution could be taught in public less fortunate than ourselves, and others belief in Evolution — our lives ultimately
schools. And so the ACLU’s original ar- claim that we are here to gain as much have no purpose.
gument in 1925, which was that people glory and wealth as we can before we die. How does this impact our society? If
should decide for themselves, and that both Yet if we think about these answers, we the logical consequence of a belief in
Creation and Evolution should be taught, will see that they fall far short of explaining Evolution is that our lives are meaningless,
was changed to a mandate that only Evo- any real purpose for our lives. then our natural mindset will be that we
lution should be taught, and that Creation While the explanations of evolution- must “live it up,” “make the most of life,”
should be thrown out as simply a religious ists listed above may account for what they “eat up the most glory before we die.” The
myth. have chosen to do with their lives, they do impact that this has had on our society?
As atheists took the evidence for mi- not account for the fact that as soon as Suicide rates are the highest they have ever
cro-evolution and stretched it into “proof” they die, that which they worked for, and been and are steadily rising, and we have
for macro-evolution, they finally ended up that which they said provided meaning and a society focused only on how much it can
with the result they were looking for: an purpose to their lives, dies with them. “get.” However, there is another, even
explanation for our existence without men- William Lane Craig states in his book greater impact of this mindset, and that is
tioning a god. However, once atheists had Reasonable Faith, that if there is no God, the disregard for the lives of others. If life
January / February 2002 Creation Matters — a CRS publication 5
is meaningless, there is no reason to protect decides this standard for himself. Paul from a life of hopelessness, is life mean-
life. William Lane Craig says, again in Herrick says of individual relativism, in ingless? No! We no longer have an “eat it
Reasonable Faith, that “Once God is de- his book Reason and Worldview, that up” view of life, but a desire to serve God
nied, human life becomes worthless.” “Each individual person creates his or her and to fulfill the specific purpose that we
own moral code and there is no higher code are here on earth to fulfill — preparing
The impact of this view is mind-bog-
against which these individual codes may ourselves for an eternity with God. This
gling. Hitler disregarded life when he took
be judged.” He goes on to say that then is the ultimate meaning of and purpose
his own life and that of several million
“universalists maintain that there are some for our lives. We are here to prepare for
others in one of the greatest mass killings
basic principles that are recognized by an eternity with God.
in history. In justification of the Holocaust
nearly all human societies. However, each
he said, Also, if we are made in the image of
society interprets and applies these princi-
God, will we disregard our lives and the
“If nature does not wish that weaker ples differently.” Ethicist Burton Porter
lives of others? Again the answer is a
individuals should mate with the
argues that all our choices are based on
stronger, she wishes even less that a resounding no! If we are all made in the
personal preferences rather than on a
superior race should intermingle with image of God, we will hold the lives of
higher standard.
an inferior one; because in such a case others sacred, not disregard them. Further,
all her efforts, throughout hundreds If the only “moral standard” we have consider the difference of our view of a
of thousands of years, to establish an in this world is interpreted and applied moral standard! When believing in a right-
evolutionary higher stage of being,
differently by each individual and each eous Creator, who is an ultimate moral
may thus be rendered futile. But such
society, how can we judge anyone or any- standard in and of Himself, we are no
a preservation goes hand in hand with
thing to be right or wrong? What ultimately longer left in the dark, but we can with
the inexorable law that it is the stron-
makes Hitler any different from Mother certainty judge the actions of those in the
gest and the best who must triumph
and that they have the right to en- past and in the present, as well as our
dure.” own decisions and actions. In sum,
... how can we judge anyone
we have a glorious hope in our lives,
In other words, we are a random or anything to be right or and an ultimate standard by which to
product of nature. Life should not be
wrong? What ultimately live.
valued beyond a link in nature’s at-
tempt to create a superior being. This makes Hitler any different And so we again encounter the
question that society is crying,
mindset can also be seen behind an-
from Mother Teresa?
“Why?” The answer is that ideas do
other of the greatest mass killings in
have consequences. When we pump
history — abortion. With the Supreme
evolutionary doctrine, along with a
Court’s stretching its reasoning and
Teresa? What makes abortion a sin? Many
sense of relativism, into a whole generation
claiming that an unborn baby isn’t pro-
today condemn the atrocities of Hitler,
of students, the logical consequences will
tected by the law, an unborn baby’s life is
Mussolini, Stalin, and others, but they have
follow. When the consequences of our
no longer valued or protected if the mother
no ground from which to do so, and no
teachings are that life is ultimately mean-
so desires. Again, the view that others’
standard on which to do so under the
ingless and that there is no ultimate stan-
lives need not be valued leads to a negative
evolutionary theory.
dard by which to judge our actions, these
impact on our society.
William Lane Craig says, in Reason- atrocities that society wonders at should
The second major impact able Faith, that “If the existence of God actually be expected. There is no sense in
is denied, then one is landed in complete asking why, if, as the evolutionist must
Hitler’s “inexorable law that the strongest
moral relativism, so that no act, regardless believe, life has no purpose, for the ques-
and the best must triumph and that they
of how dreadful or heinous, can be con- tion itself presupposes purpose. The proper
have the right to endure” leads to another
demned.” The impact of this thinking is question to be asking ourselves, therefore,
question, and to the second major impact
drastic. There is no logical reason to say is “Why NOT!?”
of a belief in Evolution. If Evolution is
that Hitler was wrong, that Roe v. Wade
true, then there is no God. If God does not
is wrong, or that the two teens in Colorado Bibliography
exist, then there is no ultimate moral law
were wrong, outside of personal opinion.
giver. If there is no ultimate moral law Craig, W.L. 1994. Reasonable Faith. Crossway
As a matter of fact, if Evolution is true,
Books.
giver, then there can be no ultimate stan-
then the most advanced creature must sur- Dickison, G. n.d. The social consequences of Dar-
dard of right or wrong. Without an ultimate
pass the less advanced, which means that winian ideas. No Stone Unturned. Cannon
moral standard, the question is no longer Hitler’s actions were completely justifi- Press.
what is ultimately right and what is ulti- Geisler, N. 1996. Creation & Evolution: What’s
able!
mately wrong, but who decides what is the Evidence? Impact.
right and wrong. Conversely, if there is an eternal, su- Herrick, P. 1999. Reason and Worldview: An In-
preme God, who created us in His image, troduction to Western Philosophy. Harcourt
The sense of relativism that is becom- Brace College Publishers.
what a difference there is in our world-
ing prevalent today is leading to the con-
view! If God has placed us in this world,
clusion that it is each individual who
and has sent His Son to die and redeem us
6 Creation Matters — a CRS publication January / February 2002
competition for 4 days. I suspect that if are continually citing studies that actually
Yeast Fails
the mutant were returned to media with demonstrate the types of mutations that
...continued from page 1
excess glucose levels for an additional 450 COULD NOT “evolve” an ameba to a man.
generations, the duplicate gene would be
proteins with a high affinity for glucose. Looking at the next step in the research
deleted (cells tend to want to eliminate
As the authors of the paper note, it is not of these “adapted” yeast cells, the same lab
excess genetic “baggage”).
surprising that adaptation to low glucose produced a subsequent paper, in which a
levels would involve these genes. The E. coli would almost certainly elimi- wide variety of “other” adapted yeast mu-
mutants that were studied possessed both nate such a duplication once excess glucose tants were studied, and found that they
HXT6 and HXT7, and a “hybrid” duplicate was restored (as Lenski’s work is demon- appear to be regulation mutants.5 No new
copy of these two genes. The promoter strating). Perhaps yeast is more tolerant genetic “information” has been detected;
portion of HXT7 is attached to the coding of this “excess” baggage than E. coli. But, rather, the regulation of numerous proteins
portion of HXT6. But, the combination of even if the duplicate gene were retained was altered (apparently was lost in most
the two genes is not really much of a after hundreds of generations in excess instances, although the exact molecular
“hybrid” since the difference between the glucose, it doesn’t change the fact that no basis for many of the mutants is still unde-
two genes is only five nucleotides. new genetic “information” has been added termined). This alteration of regulatory
to the cell, only a duplicate of two already systems enabled a higher expression of
As the authors of the paper state, and
existing genes (albeit, in a combined form). certain proteins involved in glucose catab-
I tend to agree, these two genes may them-
selves be the result of a previous gene To go one step further than this paper, olism to occur.
duplication in the parent strain. I would when faced with the realization that simple Again, these mutants lost a function
suggest that the five-nucleotide difference duplication of a gene is not adding anything they previously possessed; i.e., a particular
between the two genes, following an earlier new to the cell, evolutionists suggest that level of regulation of gene expression.
duplication event, is simply the result of one of the genes can mutate. Thus, the cell Clearly, “loss” of regulation offers neither
mutations in nonessential portions of the retains the original gene in the non-mutated an example nor an explanation of how that
genes. All of this fits well within the duplicate, and gains new “information” regulation originally “evolved.” What’s
“Special Theory of Evolution,” which is with the mutated duplicate. But this also more, the researchers have made no attempt
entirely consistent with a creation model. fails to serve their purpose, and it’s long (as of yet) to return these mutant strains to
past time that this disinformation be dis- media containing excess glucose and allow
Thus, the mixing of portions of the
patched. them to compete with the original parent
two genes is not providing a “new” gene,
strain. Such an experiment would likely
and is no different (with respect to genetic
Protein specificity find that the mutant strains were unable to
“information”) than a simple duplication
of a single gene. There was no subsequent All studies so far (including all of Hall’s compete, revealing the high “metabolic
mutation of the duplicate “hybrid” gene; work that figured so prominently in cost” of such mutations. This is why cells
i.e., it did not become a “new” gene with Miller’s book, Finding Darwin’s God4) possess regulatory systems, and without
such systems cells would waste extraordi-
a “new” function. In fact, it seems most that involve gene mutations (duplicated or
nary amounts of energy making unneces-
likely that the “hybrid” is simply two genes not) show that, while the product of the
sary proteins, etc.
returning to the original one gene — viz., mutated gene may have acquired an affinity
“backwards” evolution. for a new “molecule,” it is always at the To go an additional step, there is a
expense of protein specificity. That is, the clear difference between a “beneficial ad-
Because the two genes are virtually
protein has lost specificity, so it can now aptation or mutation” and an increase of
identical, mixing HXT7 and HXT6 in es-
bind to molecules it could not have bound genetic “information.” Many mutants
sence produces nothing more than another
before. But, loss of specificity hardly (including the yeast reported in these two
copy of HXT7 and HXT6. While evolu-
serves the purpose of the “General Theory papers) can be more “competitive” in a
tionists often attempt to insist that simply
of Evolution,” since losing specificity re- particular/specific environment, but this
duplicating a gene is an example of increas-
quires that a higher level of specificity was has nothing to do with the “General Theory
ing the genetic “information” in the cell,
already present. of Evolution” (i.e., ameba to man). Yes,
this is patently false. Two copies of the
natural selection comes into play in these
same gene provide no more added Thus, any mutation that causes the
examples, and “selects” for the more ad-
“information” than do two copies of the specificity to be lost is not the same type
vantageous characteristics, but this only
same sentence in a paragraph. of mutation that produced the specificity
shows that natural selection acts in the
originally. Evolutionists are still looking
“Special Theory of Evolution” as well.
No cost? for the type of mutation that would produce
the specificity (there has been no problem
The paper concludes that the gene duplica- Grandiose claims
finding the types of mutations that can lose
tion provided no detectable “cost” to the
specificity). Again, loss of specificity fits In fact, natural selection, despite the gran-
yeast cells since the mutant competed
well within the parameters of the “Special diose claims of those such as Richard
equally well with the parent strain when
Theory” but is the antithesis of the genetic Dawkins, has no ability to “create” or
excess glucose was added to the growth
mechanism necessary for the “General “make” anything. It can only select the
medium. But, the researchers only did a
Theory.” It’s humorous that evolutionists most “adapted” genotype in the genetic
January / February 2002 Creation Matters — a CRS publication 7
population that already exists. Thus, nat- which Dawkins writes his endless dribble). transport genes in response to selection in a
ural selection can only separate one form glucose-limited environment. Mol. Biol. Evol.
It should also be noted that to move 15(8):931–942.
of genetic information from another, such
down the mountain requires one to be up 2 A more complete explanation of the studies per-
as antibiotic-resistant bacteria from non-
the mountain first (i.e., there must be initial formed by Lenski can be found in: Lenski,
resistant bacteria. Natural selection did not R.E. et. al. 1998. Evolution of competitive
complexity). Since there is no known
make the antibiotic resistance. fitness in experimental populations of E. coli:
scientific mechanism to get you “up” the
What makes one genotype a better competitor
To go even a step further, I happen mountain, and the only scientific examples than another? Antonie van Leeuwenhoek
to like Dawkins’ Climbing Mount we have are downward (or around), then 73(1):35-47.
Improbable6 example (and have incorpo- the only valid scientific conclusion at this 3 See Dr. Anderson’s article describing the
“Special” and “General” theories. Anderson,
rated it into my presentations). The types time is that organisms started their biolog- K.L. 2001. To be or not to be a rose by any
of changes necessary for an organism to ical history “up” the mountain, and every- other name. Creation Matters 6(5):1.
increase in complexity (a requirement for thing after that is simply movement around 4 Miller, K.R. 1999. Finding Darwin's God: A
the “General Theory”) are analogous to or down the mountain. Every single ex- Scientist's Search for Common Ground Be-
tween God and Evolution. Harper Collins /
climbing a mountain, where a high order ample of documented “evolutionary”
Cliff Street Books, New York.
of biological complexity is the peak or change that I have ever seen fits this.
5 Ferea, T.L., D. Botstein, P.O. Brown, and R.F.
pinnacle. All of the mutation examples Any other conclusion than this should Rosenzweig. 1999. Systematic changes in
that evolutionists have currently offered be referred to as nothing more than specu- gene expression patterns following adaptive
evolution in yeast. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.
are either no net gain/loss of genetic lation and “story telling.” But don’t call
96:9721-9726.
“information” (i.e., just walking around the it science. 6 Dawkins, R. 1996. Climbing Mount Improbable.
circumference of the mountain) or a net W.W. Norton, New York.
loss of genetic “information” (i.e., walking References
down the mountain). None provide a Kevin, who has a Ph.D. in microbiology, is a re-
1 Brown, C.J., K.M. Todd, and R.F. Rosenzweig. search scientist with the USDA in Ames, Iowa. His
means for climbing the mountain
1998. Multiple duplications of yeast hexose research area is the genetic diversity and interac-
(including the rather silly examples about tions of anaerobic bacteria.
Letters
More on Entropy before the generative consequences in the natural form the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Curse world. existed in before the Curse was instituted.
I am writing with respect to the article But then how would the degenerative The purpose was to point out that a credible
case can be made that entropy existed
on entropy before the curse published effects of the 2nd Law and physical death
before the Curse. I do not want to speculate
in the Sept./Oct. issue of Creation Matters. have been prevented had Adam and Eve
on the nature of the Second Law of Ther-
I believe my referenced correspondence in not fallen into sin? God had provided in
modynamics before the Curse. I do believe
CRSQ, in 1973-74, settled this issue. If I the Garden a tree of life, the fruit of which
that a form of the Second Law of Thermo-
recall correctly, at that time, my argument would overcome the degenerative effects
dynamics was in effect prior to the Curse.
was founded in the fact that Genesis 1-2 of the 2nd Law (Gen. 3:22-24). Our fallen
I am convinced that the form of the Second
makes it quite clear that Adam's body, as first parents were cut off from this benefit
Law of Thermodynamics was changed at
created, was a functioning natural body. when they were driven out of the Garden.
the Curse. I believe that Paul's discussion
Adam ate and digested food, breathed, etc. Thus it was not a change in natural law
in Romans bears on this.
These and all other functions of the natural that set loose processes of degeneration in
human body are under the control of the Adam's race, but Adam's sin and subse- Romans 8:22 "For we know that the
2nd Law of Thermodynamics. quent expulsion from the Garden. whole creation groaneth and travaileth in
pain together until now."
For example, the transfer of oxygen — Robert E. Kofahl
from air to hemoglobin in the lungs, and The whole Creation was affected by
its transfer from hemoglobin to cells in the Adam's sin. This description reminds me
body is controlled by the 2nd Law. Thou- of the effects of the Second Law of Ther-
Reply
sands of chemical processes in the body modynamics in its current form. Therefore,
I
occur in accord with equilibrium constants, am writing in response to Dr. Kofahl's I believe that the Curse is related to the
the values of which are determined by the letter that was prompted by my article Second Law of Thermodynamics in some
2nd Law. In other words, the natural human in the Sept./Oct. issue of Creation Matters. manner. Therefore, I must respectfully dis-
body cannot live without the monitoring I appreciate Dr. Kofahl's response. His agree with Dr. Kofahl's conclusion that the
function of the 2nd Law. original paper helped shape my thinking Second Law of Thermodynamics was not
on this issue. affected by the Curse.
In view of the above facts, the curse
of Genesis 3 did not bring into effect the First, I want to point out that the pur- — Robert Hill
2nd Law of Thermodynamics and its de- pose of my article was not to discuss the
8 Creation Matters — a CRS publication January / February 2002
Speaking of Science
Commentaries on recent news from science
Why signals to the brain’s clock that governs tific paper is more cautious than the press;
Snowballs circadian rhythms and day/night cycles. it just states that a few bones are bird-like,
Feel Cold The surprising finding is the culmination and that it is the oldest known troodontid
S of a “burst of papers published in the past dinosaur. The article admits the phylogeny
cientists have
2 months” that resulted in two reports in of the troodontids is hotly debated, and
found a new
the current issue. attributes some of the debatable features
skin receptor that
to the evolutionary trick card “convergent
senses cold, but it The system responds primarily to the
evolution.” What may be just as important
may just be the tip luminance, or brightness, of the light,
about this story as the claims, is what is
of the iceberg, says Nature Science Update. rather than the details of an image, as do
not said, or what will be disputed, or found
According to two new studies, there may the rods and cones. The scientists believe
out later. Evolutionists have been known
be an entire class of previously unknown this newly-discovered light-detection sys-
to exaggerate.
receptors that open ion channels in nerve tem not only affects the body’s biological
cells to give us the sensation of temperature. rhythms, but also controls pupil constric- Anonymous. 2002. New species clarifies bird-di-
One researcher called this “totally un- tion and emotions: nosaur link: Field Museum paleontologist
helps analyze fossil. The Field Museum, Chi-
known and extremely interesting.” Nature
“The impact of this light-sensing cago, IL. www.fieldmuseum.org/
describes the effect of these receptors: “A system may go far beyond pupil museum_info/press/press_sinovenator.htm
snowball in the face or a chilly breeze
size and the clock. In humans, Closer to
around the ankles opens a molecular trap
light levels can modulate mood Life in a Test
door in our skin’s nerve cells.” The article
and performance. ‘This photore- Tube?
concludes,
ceptor system may be incredibly
N
ature Sci-
“Like any well-engineered sys- important in our general physiol-
ence Up-
tem, the body’s temperature-sens- ogy and well-being,’ says
date reports that
ing network almost certainly has [Russell] Foster [of Imperial Col-
David Lynn of
back-up mechanisms. Says lege, London].”
Emory University
[Arthur] Craig [physiologist at
The study of biological clocks is just has found a way to
Barrow Neurobiological Institute,
coming into its heyday. The field is not make DNA copies
Phoenix]: ‘Biology is based on
getting any less complex. If scientists are without enzymes,
redundancy’ - the teams are prob-
just now finding out about new “eyes,” then comments, “It
ably just working on different
what other wonders remain to be discov- may even hasten the advent of synthetic
parts of the problem. ‘We can be
ered? biology: the creation of life from scratch.”
sure that the biology is more com-
Normally a host of enzymes is needed to
plex than either study,’ he adds.” Barinaga, M. 2002. How the Brain's Clock Gets
Daily Enlightenment. Science 295:955. copy DNA. Lynn was able to get copies
Notice the phrases well-engineered made of a DNA template but using amide
Another Dino-Bird
system and back-up mechanisms. This is linkages, like translating English into
Missing Link
the language of intelligent design. Evolu- French. Nature claims they
Found
tionists are schizophrenic. On one side of hope to find a way to translate
the brain they marvel at the engineering. A news release it back into true DNA, like translating
On the other side they say there is no from the Field Mu- it back to English. Lynn’s paper, published
Engineer. They want it both ways. Sorry. seum of Chicago claims that a in the Journal of the American Chemical
small chicken-size dinosaur named Society, states, “The ability to read a DNA
Clarke, T. 2002. Scientists catch cold: New skin
receptor is the tip of the iceberg. Nature Sci- Sinovenator found in China is the missing template sequence and chain length specif-
ence Update, 11 February 2002. link between dinosaurs and birds. The ically represents a critical extension of
www.nature.com/nsu/020204/020204-14.html fossilized bird “probably had feathers” and biology’s template-directed syntheses, rep-
Third Eye Sets is about the same age as Archaeopteryx. resented by its Central Dogma.”
Biological Clock The find is published in the Feb 14 issue Central Dogma?? The spin doctoring
of Nature.
A Nature does on this story is appalling.
third light-detect-
Always separate the facts from the Lynn’s paper is concerned with techniques
ing mechanism in
interpretations. The bones are the facts. for synthetic manufacture of DNA poly-
the eye, independent of
The dates and ancestries are interpreta- mers, not with the origin of life. Nature
rods and cones, has been
tions. Note that word “probably” about glosses over monstrous problems, like the
discovered, reports the
the feathers. Even though the artwork origin of single-handed sugars in DNA,
February 8 issue of Science. The cells and
shows them, none were found. The scien- and the origin of information. Phillip
their photoreceptors appear to send their
January / February 2002 Creation Matters — a CRS publication 9
Johnson has said, “Evolutionists love to Hope reigns eternal, but it is a false hope. Li, X., Z.-Y.J. Zhan, R.Knipe, and D.G. Lynn.
talk about the chemicals. Once you get Complexity alone is worthless. The com- 2002. DNA-catalyzed polymerization. J. Am-
er. Chem. Soc. 124:746-747.
them to ask the question Where did the plexity must be specified, tied to function,
information come from, then that’s their or it is just as useless as random alphabetic
Editor’s note: All S.O.S. (Speaking of Science)
downfall.” Yet they claim, “This might letters in nonsense chains. ic1qD9i1 ui- items in this issue are kindly provided by Da-
then enable the two kinds of molecules to opasq vqp8iqsdp[oi jv. vid Coppedge. Additional commentaries and
support their mutual replication, allowing reviews of news items by David can be seen at:
Ball, P. 2002. DNA downloads alone. Nature Sci-
the possibility of molecular evolution and www.creationsafaris.com/crevnews.htm.
ence Update, 5 February 2002.
the appearance of life-like complexity.” www.nature.com/nsu/020204/020204-2.html
HHHHooooxxxx HHHHyyyyppppeeee:::: HHHHaaaassss MMMMaaaaccccrrrroooo----eeeevvvvoooolllluuuuttttiiiioooonnnn BBBBeeeeeeeennnn PPPPrrrroooovvvveeeennnn????
by David A. DeWitt, Ph.D.
F
rom the hype of the press release, cific Hox genes may control where the Having the wings themselves is not
it would seem that evolution was head forms, where limbs form, or a tail, or even enough. Researchers in another study
finally proven once and for all and even wings. These master switches work have found that the subcellular location of
the creationists should just give up and go like circuit breakers and either turn on or metabolic enzymes is important for the
home. But far from refuting creation, the turn off an array of other genes. Hox genes functional muscle contraction required for
scientific evidence is completely consistent can be expressed in abnormal locations, flight.4 Indeed, the metabolic enzymes
with creation! The press release1 from and either prevent development of struc- must be in very close proximity with the
UCSD said in part: tures or promote their development in very cytoskeletal proteins that are involved in
unusual places. For example Pax 6 expres- muscle contraction. If the enzymes are not
“Biologists at the University of
sion controls the development of eyes. A in the exact location where they are needed
California, San Diego have un-
fly with abnormal expression could form within the cell, the flies cannot fly. This
covered the first genetic evidence
an eye on a leg, an antenna, or even the study bears out the fact that “the presence
that explains how large-scale al-
abdomen.3 of active enzymes in the cell is not suffi-
terations to body plans were ac-
cient for muscle function; colocalization
complished during the early The researchers found that the Ubx
of the enzymes is required.” It also
evolution of animals. … The gene from a fly completely prevented leg
“…requires a highly organized cellular
achievement is a landmark in evo- development, while the same gene from
system.”
lutionary biology, not only be- Artemia, a brine shrimp, only suppressed
cause it shows how new animal leg development 15%. They then mutated Therefore, changes in body plan —
body plans could arise from a the Artemia Ubx gene and found that this no matter how dramatic — do not prove
simple genetic mutation, but be- version was much more effective at block- macro-evolution. Losing structures or mis-
cause it effectively answers a ma- ing leg formation. They postulated that placed structures should not be equated
jor criticism creationists had long such a mutation probably occurred in the with the increased information that is
leveled against evolution — the crustaceans that were the ancestors of six- needed to form novel structures and cellu-
absence of a genetic mechanism legged insects.2 lar systems.
that could permit animals to intro-
The fact that scientists can signifi-
duce radical new body designs.” References
cantly alter the body plan does not prove
Evolutionary biologists believe that macro-evolution nor does it refute creation. 1 Ronshaugen, M. 2002. News Release, UC San
Diego, February 6.
the six-legged insect body plan evolved Successful macro-evolution requires the
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/
from crustacean-like ancestors (including addition of NEW information and NEW mchox.htm
creatures like shrimp) that lost the large genes that produce NEW proteins that are 2 Ronshaugen, M, N. McGinnis, and W. McGinn-
number of legs.2 Such a radical change found in NEW organs and systems. is. 2002. Nature advance online publication,
February 6. (DOI 10.1038/nature716)
would require mutation(s) that result in the For example, a single mutation that
3 Halder, G, P. Callaerts, and W.J. Gehring. 1995.
suppression of leg development. McGinnis might prevent legs from forming is much Science 267:1788-92.
and coworkers believed that they found the different from a mutation that produces 4 Wojtas K, N. Slepecky, L. von Kalm, and D. Sul-
mutation and the gene responsible for this legs in the first place. Making a leg would livan. 1997. Mol. Biol. Cell 8:1665-75.
change. However, careful examination of require a large number of different genes
their efforts reveals that the situation is to be present simultaneously. Moreover, David is Associate Professor of Biology, and
much more complicated. where do the wings come from? Just Associate Director, Creation Studies at Liberty
University.
because an organism loses a few legs
The scientists were investigating Ubx,
doesn’t convert a shrimp-like creature into
a Hox gene which suppresses leg develop-
a fly. Since crustaceans don’t have wings,
ment in flies. Hox genes are master control
where does the information come from to
switches that control the body plan. Spe-
make wings in flies?
10 Creation Matters — a CRS publication January / February 2002