QUESTIONS FOR THOSE TEACHING EVOLUTION

 

INTRODUCTION

This material is prepared for those students wanting to learn truth; wanting to face all the evidence, hiding nothing.  This material should be kept in your science notebook for reference.

While Bible-believing people do object to the teaching of evolution (that life came from non-life, then, from some one-celled life all the species seen today developed) in that it contradicts the Bible, perhaps as strong a reason for objecting to the teaching of evolution as a “fact” is because this simply is not true to scientific knowledge.  The student needs to learn what all leading scientists already know – the theory of evolution has never been proven as a fact.  The student also ought to be told that this theory is encumbered with serious difficulties.  Yet, many authors who know this still make rash assertions as to the “fact” of evolution.

One high school textbook reads, “All reputable biologists have agreed that evolution of life on earth is an established fact” (Biology For You, by B.B. Vance and D.F. Miller, J.B. Lippincott Co., 1950, p. 580.).

Another current text book being used nationally reads, “Biologists are convinced that the human species evolved from non-human forms…” (Biological Science: Molecule, Blue Version, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, p. 414.).

Many students have come to accept such statements without question.  But the truth of the matter is far from what is asserted in the above quotations.  Not all scientists, not all biologists, accept the statement that “evolution is a proven fact”.  For example, Dr. W.R. Thompson, who was for many years Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control at Ottawa, Canada, and a world-renowned entomologist, wrote in his foreword to the new edition of Darwin’s Origin of the Species, published in the Darwinian Centennial Year as a part of the Eveman’s Library Series:

“As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process.  This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion.  It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.  But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable.  This situation, where men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to defend scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.”

Dr. G.A. Kerkut, Professor of Physiology and Biochemistry at the University of Southampton, England, and himself an evolutionist, states:

“This theory can be called the General Theory of Evolution and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis… the answer (to the problem of evolution) will be found by future experimental work and not by dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.” (The Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press, London, 1960, p. 157.)

Kerkut’s book caused considerable anguish in the evolutionists’ camp.  John T. Bonner, a bona fide evolutionist, wrote in review of Kerkut’s book:

“This is a book with a disturbing message; it points to some unseemly cracks in the foundation.  One is disturbed because what is said gives us the uneasy feeling that we knew it for a long time deep down but were never willing to admit this even to ourselves. It is another one of those cold uncompromising situations where the naked truth and human nature travel in different directions.  The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence of invertebrate phyla.  We do not know what Protozoa occurred once, or twice, or many times… We have all been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice.” (“Review of Kerkut’s book”, American Scientist, Vol. 49, June, 1961, p. 240.).

These last three quotations indicate clearly that the first two were simply assertions void of virtue or fact.  Evolution is not an “established fact” accepted without dispute by scientists.  The author or teacher who so states is either ignorant of the facts in the case, or is seeking to hide them from his students. Student – Keep this in mind!  There is a “great divergence of opinion among biologists” as to evolution.  This is because “the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusions.”

EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE

Students should follow the advice of the scientist, as suggested by Dr., John T. Bonner and not accept any statement on its face value, but examine the evidence.  Ask questions, point out contradictions, ask for proof when assertions are made.  In the following pages certain scientific fields will be entered and pertinent questions asked within that discipline as to the validity of evolution.  These questions bear upon evolution and should be weighed by the teacher and the student in search of scientific truth. The truth-seeker will not seek to avoid difficulties that arise to his theories.  Study these questions until you fully understand them and how they relate to evolution in that given field of study.  Seek to cause others to see this also.  Use textbooks or a dictionary for the definitions in each field of study.

ANTHROPOLOGY

QUESTION: Is it possible that the “ape-like” skeletons of some of the Neanderthal Man could have been caused by disease?

FACT: (1) Concerning the first Neanderthal skeleton found, in 1908 at La Chapellaux-Saints, and its use as a model in textbooks, it was examined recently by Drs. W.L. Straus and A.J.E. Cave of John Hopkins Medical University, Laboratory of Physical Anthropology and the Department of Anatomy.  Their findings were delivered in a symposium commemorating the 50th anniversary of the discovery of the Neanderthal Man.  They state there is positive evidence that the first skeleton had osteo-arthritis.  “There is nothing about the Neanderthal man that would necessarily cause him to walk differently than ourselves… Yet Neanderthal man with ‘arthritis’ has been posing for half a century in museums and countless textbooks, illustrating the supposed transition from ‘stooped-over’ to ‘erect’.” (“Pathology and the Posture of Neanderthal”, Quarterly Review of Biology, Dec. 1957, pp. 348-363.)

FACT: (2) Some Neanderthal remains are an excellent parallel to the modern description of Acromegaly, a chronic disease characterized by bone thickening of adults.  As one medical text book describes, it eventually causes “ape-like features”.  (See any medical book for a description of this bone growth disorder.)  People today with this disease (1 in 10,000) have skeletons comparable to those of the Neanderthal.  As evidence it was a disease among some adult types, “the remains of young Neanderthal children (such as the Gibralten Neanderthal Child) appears as children would today, showing no signs of this bone disorder which gave an “apelike” appearance to adults.” (Cromwell, The Making of Man, Phoenix House Ltd., London, p. 55.).

QUESTION: Can the Neanderthal Man be classed as modern in stature?

FACT: (1) “There is no valid reason for the assumption that the posture of Neanderthal Man of the fourth glacial period differed significantly from that of the present-day men.” (Drs. W.L. Straus and A.J.E. Cave, previously cited)

FACT: (2) All of its features fall within the range of variation found in modern man (same as above).

FACT: (3) “The time has come to reappraise one of the most foully slandered creatures ever to walk the earth – the Neanderthal man… Shaved and barbered and dressed in a modern suit of clothes, Neanderthal man would probably attract little attention in a crowd at a football game.” (Daniel Cohen, Science Digest, Oct. 1968, pp. 13-18.)

QUESTION: Do scientists consider the Java Man casts or illustrations to be accurate?

FACT: (1) The Java Man is a portrait of a thigh bone; of a few teeth; and a fragment of a cranium.  These were found along a river bank making it impossible to tell their origin.  Found with them were many very large skulls (Wadjak skulls) which Dr. E. Dubois kept back for twenty-five years.  The Wadjak skulls are now discredited for being “of vague geology.”  Why not the Java man fossils found with it which were held from view in Dr. E. Dubois’ closet for over twenty-five years?  Note: “None of the published illustrations or casts now in various museums are accurate.  The jaw fragment was from another and later type man.  The femur is without doubt human.” (Dr. Hrdlika, “Skeleton in a Closet”, Science, June 15, 1923.)

QUESTION: Is the stated antiquity of the Heidelberg Man accepted without question by all scientists?

FACT: (1) “Massive jawbones, resembling in many details of structure the jaw of the ancient Heidelberg man, have been found by professor E.H. Burhitt of Sidney University in a collection of modern human remains from the South Sea Island of New Caledonia… But the natives of New Caledonia are not lowbrows; even though they are savages, the skulls are “modern” and their brains are just about as large as those of contemporary Europeans.” (Science, Oct. 26, 1928, p. 124.) The skulls of these natives have massive jawbones almost identical with the Heidelberg Jaw, yet they do not have “ape-like” heads. Why should one then accept the necessity of such from a single fossil jaw when we have living specimens to the contrary?

FACT: (2) This fossil jaw, from which the Heidelberg man was created, was found In Heidelberg 80 feet below the surface.  As no implements or fossils have been found in the deposit that held the jaw, it is not possible to date it even approximately.  Because the jaw was so big some gave it an early date, which date seems to remain.

QUESTION: Have not “modern” human remains been found fossilized in ancient strata?

FACT: (1) Human remains of a modern man, woman, and two children were found at Castenedolo, Italy by professor Ragazzoni.  These were found while digging for mollusks in a Pliocene strata (15 million years old*).  “As the student of prehistoric man reads and studies the records of the ‘Castenedolo’ find, a feeling of incredulity rises within him.  He cannot reject the discovery as false without doing injury to his sense of truth and he cannot accept it without shattering his accepted beliefs.  It is clear that we cannot pass Castenedolo by in silence: all the modern problems relating to the origin and antiquity of modern man focus themselves round it.” (Sir Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man, p. 119.)

FACT: (2) The Calaveras Skull found in Calaveras County, California.  It was taken from a tunnel dug 150 feet below the surface, of which 100 feet was solid Sierra lava flow along with man made stone implements and some extinct fossils of the early Pliocene strata (15 million years old*). (Professor Wright’s article in The Century, April, 1891.)  As Professor W.H. Holmes put it: “To suppose that man could have remained unchanged physically, mentally, socially, industrially and aesthetically for a million years, roughly speaking (and all this implied by the evidence furnished), seems in the present state of our knowledge hardly less than admitting a miracle.” (quoted from Dr. Douglas Dewar, The Transformist Illusion, Dehoff Pub., Murfreesboro, Tenn.)

FACT: (3) Also the many fossil human footprints in supposedly old formations.  Among them the pair of human sandal prints found at Antelope Springs in Utah (1969) in Cambrian rock (400 million years old*) along with fossil trilobites, one in the heal of the left print.  Another are the several hundred human footprints found among Dinosaur prints from the Paluxy River, Glen Rose, Texas.  Both are in Cretaceous rock (about 100 million years old*).

FACT: (4) “The Western European classic Neanderthal type was altogether a too complete answer to Darwinian prayer… Heretical and non-conforming fossil men were banished to the limbo of dark museum cupboards, forgotten or even destroyed.” (Prof. E.A. Hooton, Apes, Men, and Morons, 1938, p. 107.)

*Dated by evolutionists.

PALEONTOLOGY

QUESTION:  Do paleontologists agree that the fossil record substantiates the theory of evolution?

FACT: (1) “The sudden emergence of major adaptive types, as seen in the abrupt appearance in the fossil record of families and order, continue to give trouble.  The phenomenon lay in the genetical no man’s land beyond the limits of experimentation.  A few paleontologists even today cling to the idea that these gaps will be closed by further collecting, i.e., that they are accidents of sampling; but most regard the observed discontinuities as real, and have sought an explanation for them.” (D. Dwight Davis, Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution, Princeton University Press, 1949, p. 74.)

FACT: (2) “No matter how far back we go in the fossil records of previous animal life upon the earth we find no trace of any animal form which are intermediate between various major groups of phyla… The greatest groups of animal life do not merge into another.  They are and have been fixed from the beginning… No animals are known even from the earliest rocks which cannot at once be assigned to their proper phylum of major group.’ (Dr. Austin H. Clark, The New Evolution, Zoogenesis, Williams and Wilkinds, Baltimore, 1930, p. 129f.)

FACT: (3) “So we see that the fossil record, the actual history of the animal life on earth, bears out the assumption that at its very first appearance animal life in its broader features was essentially the same as that which we now know it… Thus, so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument.  There is not the slightest evidence that any of the major groups arose from any other.” (Dr. Austin H. Clark, Quarterly Review of Biology, Dec., 1928., p. 539.)

FACT: (4) Charles Darwin wrote: “Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him… Why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?  Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?” (Darwin, The Origin of the Species, chap. 6, first page.)

QUESTION: Does the Pre-Cambrian strata contain evidence of any form of life leading up to and into the Cambrian era?  (Cambrian era contains over 5,000 species of animals)

FACT: (1) Darwin wrote: “To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer… I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept… Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast plies of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great.” (Darwin, The Origin of the Species, chap. 10.)

FACT: (2) “Fossils are abundant only from the Cambrian onward… Darwin was aware of this problem, even more striking in his day than in ours, when it is still striking enough.  He said of it: ‘The case at present must remain inexplicable and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.’ (Darwin, Chapter 10)  Darwin’s case is still not clearly explained with sufficient positive evidence.” (George Gaylord Simpson, “The History of Life”, in Evolution After Darwin, Vol. 1, The Evolution of Life, University of Chicago Press, 1960, p. 143.)

FACT: (3) “Fossils would provide the only direct evidence of the earliest living things, but none have been found, and it is improbable that any exist in a form still recognizable.” (Simpson, “Biological Sciences”, The Great Ideas of Today Yearbook, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., Chicago, 1965, p. 292.)

FACT: (4) “Molecular and organismal biologists are not beginning a cooperation that will surely prove fruitful.  Numerous efforts have been initiated in the last year or so to interpret molecular biology in evolutionary terms.  It is too early to say just what the results will be, but they are certainly promising.” (ibid, p. 315.)

Note:  George Gaylord Simpson is a paleontologist now at Harvard University, and formerly professor of Vertebrate Paleontology at Columbia University.  Before that he was Curator of Fossil Mammals and Birds at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. He is a world-renowned Paleontologist, and ardent evolutionist, and yet in 1965 he admits the fossil record does not prove evolution and cites us to the field of biology, hopeful it will soon bear fruit to prove evolution.  Simpson even returns to the disproved theory of spontaneous generation hoping to save his theory, saying, “The spontaneous generation of the first living things did occur” (ibid, p. 294.).  What proof did he offer?  None!  Just an empty assertion!

Isn’t it strange indeed that evolutionary scientists leave their own field and point the student to another for the “proof” of this theory of evolution?

FACT: (5) Modern type pine pollen (a conifer spore) has been recently found in Hakati Shale, Pre-Cambrian rock, in the Grand Canyon by Dr. Clifford Burdick using the facilities of the University of Arizona.  This appears, to date, to be the only positive plant or animal life in the Pre-Cambrian era, yet it is one of the most modern plant types on the evolutionist’s time scale.

Note: This evidence is devastating to the theory of evolution – the fossil records DO NOT indicate that any one kind of plant or animal ever changed into another.  Paleontologists know this – and state it.  Teachers should do the same.

COMPARATIVE ANATOMY

QUESTION:  Are scientists in the field of Comparative Anatomy agreed that there exists a known evolutionary scale indicating which animals evolved from which animals?

FACT: (1) “The all-too-frequent picture of evolution as a progression from Amoeba to man, is, and always has been utterly without foundation,” (Prof. Paul Weisz, The Science of Biology, McGraw Hill Book Co., 1959, p. 655.)

FACT: (2) “The known presence of parallelisms (similarities of structure in different animal groups) in so many cases and its suspected presence in others suggests that it may have been an almost universal phenomenon.  A close student of the subject may, if pressed, be driven to the logical though absurd admission of the possibility that two animals as closely related as, for example, chimpanzee and gorilla may have evolved in parallel fashion all the way from a piscene stage (ancestral fish).”  This is said by Alfred S. Romer, the famous comparative anatomist of Harvard University. (Jepsen, Genetics, Paleontology, and Paleontology, Princeton University Press, 1949, p. 115.)

FACT: (3) Professor Hooton of Harvard said, “I am convinced that a zoological classificationist may be as dissolute and irresponsible as a lightning-rod salesman.” (Hooton, Apes, Men, and Morons, p. 115.)

FACT: (4) Because the ‘evolutionary tree’ is constantly being altered, Professor Weidenreich, the famous anthropologist of the University of Chicago, commented, “Unfortunately, there is no objective gauge which can be used for measurement of the grade of morphological deviations and for the determination of the limits between individual, specific, and generic variants.  Such a distinction is left entirely to the ‘opinions of naturalists having sound judgment and wide experiences,’ as Darwin put it.” (Weidenreich, previously cited, p. 2.)

FACT: (5) Paul Weatherwax, Professor of Botany at Indiana University, said, “Botanists still disagree widely on the proper grouping of many plants, but this is because they do not agree in their theories as to the origin of the differences which separate the groups.” (Weatherwax, Plant Biology, W.B. Saunders Co., 1942, p. 240.)

QUESTION: Do the various displays of the supposed evolved horse have difficulties and contradictions in the models?

FACT: (1) The anatomy of the various models does not compare.  For example, the rib count varies back and forth from 15 to 19, and the lumbars of the backbone vary back and forth from 6 to 8. Many eminent scientists disagree on which is the theoretical chain of fossil horses, as selected from the over 250 available specimens.

FACT: (2) The American Museum of Natural History, New York City, describes the difference between the dawn horse (first) and the Equus (modern) in their Guide Leaflet Series 36:  “The proportion of the skull, the short neck, and arched back, and the limbs of moderate length, were very little horse-like, recalling on the contrary, some modern carnivorous animals, especially the Civets (cats).”

FACT: (3) “at present however, it is a matter of faith that the textbook pictures are true, or even that they are the best representations of the truth that are available to us at the present time.” (Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press, 1960, p. 148.)

FACT: (4) Some of these skeleton structures are significantly larger than their supposed descendants.

FACT: (5) Two recently discovered remains of horses (Equus Nevadenis and Equus Occidentalis) are identical to today’s horses (Equus).  These two species were contemporary with the Saber-tooth tiger, who is also known to be contemporary with the Dawn Horse (supposed first).

QUESTION: Do not evolutionists teach that descendant species become more complex and increase in size?

FACT: (1) Fossils reveal dragon flies just as they are today except much larger, some having an 18 inch wingspread; sloths weighing 4 tons; etc.

FACT: (2) Many living species of seashell life can be found which are in the fossil record.  They have not changed from the earliest found life of the Cambrian era.

BIOLOGY

QUESTION: Do biologists teach transmutation (mutations causing new groups of animals) as a scientific fact?

FACT: (1) All biology textbooks teach that there is no laboratory or other proof that transmutations can be true.  Mendel’s Law of Heredity is accepted by biologists as a scientific truth – “Like begets like” with variations caused by mutations which are the result of different heredity or physical alterations within the original species.  Biologists know that scientists can classify animals into species on a basis of the chromosome contained within the organism.

FACT: (2) All scientists recognize micro-evolution as caused by mutations within a family of plants or animals.  It is mega-evolution (macro-evolution), proving one family “evolved” via transmutations into another, that has defied proof.

QUESTION: Do biologists believe the Law of Biogenesis can be disproved?

FACT: (1) Biologists do believe the Law of Biogenesis (Life begets Life} was proved by Louis Pasteur’s Swan-neck Flask Experiment, 1860, which refuted the theory of spontaneous generation, and was called a victory for the biologist… Current biology textbooks teach the law as accepted, for none have been able to disprove it.

QUESTION: Why do biologists who believe in evolution point students to the fields of paleontology and comparative anatomy for the “proof” of their theory?

FACT: (1) “Biologists are convinced that the human species evolved from non-human forms.  They base their conclusions on the fossils of primates, and on comparisons of human structures and functions with those of other living primates.” (The Blue Version, already cited, p. 414.)

Note: The study of the “fossils of Primates” is in the field of Paleontology; the “comparison of human structures” is in the discipline of Comparative Anatomy.  Why are biologists going over to those fields to draw their conclusions?  This is a tacit admission that no proof lies in the field of Biology for the theory of evolution, and we have already seen that Paleontologists and Comparative Anatomists deny they have the solid evidence for the theory.  In fact, they believe the hope of its proof lies with the biologists – in molecular biology as previously noted.

QUESTION: Why do biologists rely on mutations to be the mechanism of evolution?

FACT: (1) “The process of mutation is the only known source of new materials of genetic variability, and hence evolution.”  This and the following statements were said by Professor Dobzhansky, one of the outstanding geneticists of today. (Sinnott, Dunn, and Dobzhansky, Principles of Genetics, 4th edition, Macmillan, 1950, p. 315.)

FACT: (2) “Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors.  The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila (fruit fly) usually show deterioration, breakdown, and the disappearance of some organs.” (Dobzhansky, Theodosius, Evolution, Genetics, and Man, Wiley and Sons, 1955, p. 105.)

FACT: (3) “The deleterious character of most mutations seems to be a very serious difficulty.” (Evolution, Genetics, and Man, cited above, p. 105.)

FACT: (4) Dr. L.B. Dunn, Professor of Zoology at Columbia University, says, “Such events, known as mutations, are the ultimate source of the hereditary variety characteristic of all species.  It is this variety upon which the natural selection and other evolutionary forces act in forming varieties, races, species, and other natural categories.” (Dunn, Heredity and Evolution in Human Populations, Harvard Press, 1959, p. 7.)

QUESTION: Do mutations make new structure and organs?

FACT: (1) “In cases of homeosis in which a single gene may, as in the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, replace antennae by legs, certain mouth-parts by legs, balancers by wings, etc., the gene is to be looked upon not as a germinal representative of the whole complex structure but as a switch which alters conditions so as to set going a long established reaction system in a strange location.” (Wright, Sewell, Encyclopedia Britannica, “Evolution”, 1957.)

FACT: (2) Hooton of Harvard, “Saltatory evolution by way of mutation, is a very convenient way of bridging over gaps between animal forms… Now I am afraid that many anthropologists (including myself) have sinned against genetic science and are leaning upon a broken reed when we depend upon mutations.” (Apes, Men, and Morons, previously cited, p. 118.)

PHYSICS

QUESTION: Since the radiocarbon (C-14) method of dating is based on the assumption that the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been constant, has it been proven to be constant?

FACT: (1) “Radiocarbon dating is based on the incorrect assumption that C-14 is in equilibrium, the rate of formation equaling the rate of decay.  But recent data show rate of formation is 18.4 and the rate of decay 13.3 so that a non-equilibrium condition exists.  This situation telescopes all radiocarbon ages to about 10,000 years or less… In analyzing this equilibrium postulate, Libby, the author of the radiocarbon method, himself found evidence for this unbalance.  However, he discounted the evidence for this unbalance in favor of what he took to be more compelling, albeit hearsay, evidence that the earth is too old for C-14 to be out of balance… Libby found the rate of decay to be 15.3 counts per gram per minute for carbon from the living biosphere, and the rate of formation to be 18.8.” (Dr. Melvin Cook, Professor of Metallurgy at the University of Utah, “Radiological Dating and Some Pertinent Applications”, p. 1.)

FACT: (2) The laboratory at UCLA which is under the direction of Dr. Libby issued this statement, “It has been shown on the basis of these investigations that variations from the assumed initial activity of some of these samples do exist.  Recent elaborate studies have now demonstrated conclusively that the initial activity of C-14 samples and thus the rate of C-14 production has varied with time.  Most recently, the work of Seuss (1965, J. Geophys. Res., v. 70, pp. 5937-5952) has clearly pointed out these variations.” (“On the Accuracy of Radiocarbon Dates”, Geo-chronicle, UCLA, Vol. 2, No. 2, June 1966.)

QUESTION: Can bones be dated directly by the C-14 process?

FACT: (1) “We have had no experience with bone as such and believe that it is a very poor prospect for two reasons; the carbon content of a bone is extremely low, being largely in inorganic form in a very porous structure; and it is extremely likely to have suffered alteration.” (Willard F. Libby, Radiocarbon Dating, University of Chicago Press, 1955, p. 45.)

QUESTION: Can radioactive materials that cause “halos” in igneous rock, discount the theory of the slow evolution of the earth?

FACT: (1) “The half-life of polonium 214 is only 164 microseconds.  According to one theory of the planet’s origin, the earth cooled down from a hot gaseous mass and gradually solidified over a period of hundreds of millions of years.  If this were so, polonium halos could not possibly have formed because all the polonium would have decayed soon after it was synthesized and would have been extinct when the crustal rocks formed… Unless the creation of the radioactivity and rocks were simultaneous there would be no picture – no variant pleochroic halos.  Further, by virtue of the very short half-life, the radioactivity and formation of the rocks must be almost instantaneous.” (Dr. Robert V. Gentry, “Cosmology and Earth’s Invisible Realm”, Medical Opinion and Review, Oct., 1967, pp. 65-79.)

QUESTION: Can radioactive decay materials accurately tell the earth’s age?

FACT: (1) “In addition to knowing the rate of formation of decay products and the present amount of them, it is also necessary to know the original amount of them before decay started.  It is not sufficient to just assume zero amounts of material.  In most cases the decay products are just like materials already naturally present in the sample even when no radioactive decay has occurred.  In other words, we are back to the problem of knowing the original conditions.  In the case of the age of the earth, it is obvious that no scientist made records of the initial condition.” (Dr. Donald Chittick, “Dating the Earth and Fossils”, George Fox College, 1968.)

QUESTION: Do the laws of physics harmonize or conflict with the theory of evolution?

FACT: (1) The creation of the physical universe must have preceded the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e., matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only interchanged).

FACT: (2) Then – the creation of life on this earth must have preceded the Law of Biogenesis (Life begets life).

FACT: (3) After which the creation of the physical universe and the life on the earth – a fully wound-up biophysical world preceded the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (i.e., the universe is running down as a watch – the universe’s sum of total usable energy is constantly decreasing.)

THEREFORE:  This postulates a SPECIAL CREATION which is unexplainable by modern science.  BOTH the Evolutionists and the Creationists believe in a SPECIAL CREATION!!!!!!

THIS PRESENTS ONE OF TWO CHOICES

  1. Life, Intelligence, order, and energy build-up came from inert dead matter or nothing.  Not compatible with modern science or the concept of God.
  2. Life, Intelligence, order, and energy build-up, and matter came from that which had life, Total Power, and Intelligence.  COMPATIBLE WITH MODERN SCIENCE AND THE CONCEPT OF GOD.

A.O. Schnabel