af1110

8/9/2019 af1110

1/24

INSTITUTE FORCREATION RESEA

www.icr.org

O C T O B E R 2 0 1

ACTS & FACTS INSTITUTE FORCREATION RESEAwww.icr.orgO C T O B E R 2 0 1O L . 4 0 N O . 1 0

G s sUnder theM c sc

8/9/2019 af1110

2/24

8/9/2019 af1110

3/24

Published byInstitute for Creation ResearchP. O. Box 59029, Dallas, TX 75229214.615.8300www.icr.org

Executive Editor: Lawrence E. FordManaging Editor: Beth MullAssistant Editor: Christine DaoDesigner: Dennis Davidson

No articles may be reprinted inwhole or in part without obtainingpermission from ICR.

CONTENTS

4 Genesis Under theMicroscope Brad Forlow, Ph.D.

6 Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth—New Research Data

Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.

8 Spreading the CreationMessage through ICREvents

10 Slow Death for aTarantula: A Lesson inArachnid Apologetics

James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Th.D

12 Benjamin Lee Whorf:An Early Supporter ofCreationism

Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.

15 The ChanneledScablands John D. Morris, Ph.D.

16 So, What Isa Gene? Frank Sherwin, M.A.17 Thank God for Wood Brian Thomas, M.S.18 Introducing the ScienceEducation Essentials Blo21 Acceptable Gifts ofPower

Henry M. Morris IV 22 Ed Creek:ICR VolunteerEric Latas and Christine Da

O C T O B E R 2 0 1 1 • ACTS & FACTS

FROM THE EDITOR

Life Below the Surface V

ery seldom do we bother to look at

life below the surface. In our daily

addiction to activity, we rarely take

the time to plunge beneath the

mundane and the ordinary and the obvious.

Various reasons exist for our refusal to see what

lies beneath what we know as “normal.” Looking

past the obvious is vital if we want to honestly

understand how everything is made and why it

works the way it does. And sometimes we need

help to do so, to help us discern what we nd

when we peer through the microscope. Not look-

ing through the lens, however, ultimately leads to

uncertainty.

Laboratory tests, for example, help doctors

look deep under the surface in order to reveal ev-

erything from friendly bacteria to cancer. Exami-

nations, both physical and spiritual, are therefore

both necessary and therapeutic. All of the hidden

recesses must be searched, for only in doing socan we begin to deal with life as God has made it.

Psalm 139:23-24 tells us how important it is

to look at life below the surface: Search me, O God, and know my heart: tryme, and know my thoughts: And see if therebe any wicked way in me, and lead me in theway everlasting.

Of course, our Creator is the One who can

perfectly see below the surface, for He made it all.

And while scientists can peer through the lensesof powerful microscopes to understand the ge-

netic components of the life God designed, only

the Creator can give us answers, as He has done in

the book of Genesis.

Dr. Brad Forlow, Associate Science Editor

and a member of the life sciences team at ICR,

writes our feature article this month, “Genesis

Under the Microscope.” In it, he reveals how some

in the Christian community are seeking to mess

with the text of Scripture—a dangerous prospect

indeed—in order to insert evolutionary ideas into

the creation account. How do discerning Chris-

tians navigate these voices of compromise? Read

Dr. Forlow’s article on pages 4-5.

If you’ve not yet secured your copy of the

50th anniversary edition of The Genesis Flood,

you may order your copy today. Visit www.icr.org

and click over to our store for purchase details.

October is one of our most busy months,

especially for ICR Events. Check out the two-page

spread on our events staff and the two critically

important areas of their ministry: Church and

Seminar Ministries, led by Chas Morse, and Con-

ference Ministries, led by Lalo Gunther.Besides the numerous seminars at churches

around the country, ICR will be speaking at

many regional and national Christian school and

homeschool conventions, and offering resources

to meet the needs of K-12 science education

teachers from a biblical perspective, including our

newest teaching poster, Designed for Life.

Your faithful support of ICR through prayer

and gifts will allow us to continue to minister bib-

lical truth around the world for generations tocome. Thank you for your generosity.

Lawrence E. FordE XECUTIVE E DITOR

V O L . 4 0 N O . 1 0

8/9/2019 af1110

4/24

G s s Under the M c sc

How does your understand-ing of science affect how youteach Genesis? Likewise, howdoes your understanding of

Genesis affect the science that you teach? Do you realize they are intricately linked? In orderto get you thinking about the issues related toGenesis and science, consider the statements

below.

There is scientic proof of the existence of•

hominids (human-like ancestors).It has been scientically proven that the•

earth is billions of years old.The dinosaurs were extinct before Adam•

and Eve existed.Adam and Eve were not literal people.•

The Genesis account is best interpreted as a•

myth or allegory.Creation science is faith-based, while evolu-•

tion is science-based.

Noah’s Flood likely covered only the local•region.Evolutionary theories such as the Big Bang•

can help clarify Genesis 1.

Maybe you have heard these in church,or in a small group Bible study, or as youhave discussed scientic materials with yourchildren.

What do you believe regarding thesestatements? What do you teach concerningthem? Are they true? Are they false? Does it

matter? You may be troubled to learn that

these statements are actually being made bymany Christians. They represent prominentcompromise positions that stem from the “re-interpretation” of Genesis through the blurredlens of evolutionary science.

Genesis Under the Microscope

The battle between evolution and cre-ation has been touted as science versus religion.But what role should science, especially evolu-tionary science, have in the interpretation ofScripture? For centuries, Genesis has obviouslybeen disregarded by those in opposition to Godand the Bible. It should not be surprising thatGenesis has been under attack by the atheistic,naturalistic, and anti-Christian community.However, this is much more than a scienticdebate, since the evolutionary worldview is areligion that rejects God, discredits the Bible,

and disregards the gospel message.Unfortunately, despite evolutionary

science’s anti-Christian roots, Genesis hasrecently been placed under a scientic andtheological lens by those within the Christiancommunity. Various compromise theorieshave been developed that attempt to integrateevolutionary scientic beliefs into the Genesisaccount in order to accommodate the longages (billions of years) required by naturalisticscience. In doing so, “man’s science” has been

elevated over Scripture and the literal inter-

pretation of Genesis, thus changing or reject-ing its historical message.

The Cost of Compromise

Are the issues of science and the Bible just a meaningless, insignicant theological de-bate? Some contend that the Genesis accounts

of creation and early human history are notessential doctrines or teachings of Christianity.However, signicant scientic and theologicalconsequences emerge when a literal interpreta-tion of Genesis is compromised with the inte-gration of evolutionary science.

Scientically, reinterpreting Genesisbased on evolutionary science guides yourscientic beliefs and dictates which path youtake in teaching various scientic disciplines.Theologically, theories that reinterpret Genesisin favor of evolutionary science compromiseGod’s Word, God’s nature, and the gospel mes-sage, impacting how you teach Genesis as nu-merous doctrines are affected, including cre-ation, the origin and uniqueness of man, theFall, death, sin, and the Flood.

Divergent Scientic Positions

Attempting to reconcile evolutionaryscience with the Genesis account necessitatesscientic beliefs that diverge from those held

in the biblical creationist worldview. Compro-

4 ACTS & FACTS • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 1

B R A D F O R L O W , P H . D .

Teaching Genesis and Scienceto Honor the Creator

8/9/2019 af1110

5/24

mise theories all hold to the proposed evolu-tionary timetable, in which billions of years arenecessary to accommodate evolutionary pro-cesses. This is not scientically insignicant,because from this position a domino effectof compromises ensues that impacts multiplescientic disciplines, including cosmology, bi-ology, human origins, and geology. Consider

how teaching the following scientic disci-plines are affected by how you view Genesisunder the microscope (whether through thelens of evolutionary science or through a literalinterpretation).

Teaching cosmology is affected as cre-ation in six days by a transcendent CreatorGod who spoke everything into existence outof nothing is replaced by the Big Bang (billionsof years).

Teaching biology (the origin of biologi-cal life) is affected as the creation of distinctcreated kinds on Days Five and Six of the cre-ation week is replaced by biological (Darwin-ian) evolution through random mutations,natural selection, and survival of the ttest overbillions of years.

Teaching human origins is affected as thecreation of mankind (Adam and Eve) in theimage of God on Day Six of the creation weekis replaced by hominid evolution in which hu-manity is merely the highest evolved species.

Teaching geology is affected as the global,

catastrophic Flood of Noah’s day is downgrad-ed to a local ood. Compromise theories rejectthe global nature of the Flood as the geologicalcolumn and the fossil record are used as “evi-dence” for the long ages of evolution. However,extensive biblical and scientic evidence attestto a global ood, supporting the contentionthat the geological column and the fossil re-cord are the result of the global Flood recordedin Genesis.

Theological Compromise

Why are the Bible and evolutionaryscience seemingly at odds with one another?Does it have to be either/or? Can it not be both/and? For instance, couldn’t God have used theBig Bang and Darwinian evolution to bringabout creation? That is what many contend asthey try to integrate evolutionary science intothe Genesis account. However, besides the ob-vious discrepancies in the scientic disciplines,evolutionary science cannot be reconciled with

the text of Genesis without signicant theo-logical consequences. Positions that reinterpretthe Genesis account to incorporate evolution-ary science compromise God’s Word, God’snature, and the gospel message.

God’s Word

The incorporation of evolutionary ideassuch as the Big Bang or Darwinian evolutioninto Genesis as the mechanisms by which Godcreated disregards Genesis as historical narra-tive. For instance, the evolutionary model ofthe Big Bang and the creation model in Gen-esis are completely disparate regarding time(billions of years compared to six days) and theorder of creation events. Forcing evolutionaryscience upon Genesis deems it to be myth orallegory, thus rejecting the authority and infal-libility of the biblical text.

The integration of evolutionary scienceinto the pages of Genesis only serves to raisequestions about its historicity, raise doubtsabout its reliability, and deny the absolute au-thority of the text. If the authority and histo-ricity of Genesis are undermined or placed indoubt, what happens to the many portions ofScripture that are based on Genesis? Evolu-tionary science is presented as infallible truth,but only God and His Word are infallible.God’s Word is the ultimate authority and the

complete biblical message can be accepted inits entirety as infallible and inerrant truth.

God’s Nature

Most compromise positions attributethe origins of biological life and humanityto evolutionary processes, whether throughnaturalistic processes alone or as directed byGod. But, could God have used the processesof evolution in His creation? Evolutionary de-velopment by denition requires billions of

years of chance, chaos, confusion, and death .Evolutionary processes are incompatible andinconsistent with the nature of God (holy, per-fect, ordered, and good). God could not haveused processes contrary to His nature as He isnot the author of death.

Even evolutionists will not compromiseto say that God created through evolution. Anoted evolutionist astutely stated:

The evolutionary process is rife with hap-penstance, contingency, incredible waste,

death, pain, and horror….[Theistic evo-lution’s God] is not a loving God whocares about His productions. [He] is care-less, wasteful, indifferent, almost diaboli-cal. He is certainly not the sort of God towhom anyone would be inclined to pray. 1

The Gospel Message

Imposing evolutionary science on Gen-esis corrupts the biblical narrative. The mostcrucial theological compromise that resultsfrom the integration of evolutionary scienceinto Genesis is the issue of death before sin(death before the Fall of Adam and Eve), a dev-astating theological aw that compromises thegospel message. Evolutionary processes (BigBang and the origins of biological life and hu-manity) are all predicated upon long ages oftime and death, requiring that death reigned asa creative force for billions of years before theexistence of humanity.

Death before the Fall cannot be rec-onciled with the gospel message. The biblicalmessage is clear. God created a perfect world(Genesis 1–2). Evil and death are a result ofSatan and man’s sin, a result of the Curse/Fall(Genesis 3). Death is an intruder into God’sperfect creation and will be conquered byJesus (1 Corinthians 15:16; Revelation 21:4-5).If death existed before sin, then death is not the judgment for sin.

Conclusion

Genesis has been placed under a mi-croscope, theologically and scientifically.The issues of science and Genesis are notmerely an insignicant theological debate oronly relevant for those interested in science.Your view of Genesis relative to evolutionaryscience dictates how you will teach variousscientic disciplines, as well as how you willteach Genesis. The integration of evolutionary

science into Genesis compromises God’s Word,God’s nature, and the gospel message. Chooseto uphold the authoritative truth and historic-ity of Genesis, and teach science and Genesis ina manner that honorsthe Creator.Reference 1. Hull, D. L. 1991. The God of

the Galápagos. Nature . 352(6335): 486.

Dr. Forlow is Associate ScienceEditor at the Institute for Cre-ation Research.


8/9/2019 af1110

6/24

RESEARCH


J E F F R E Y T O M K I N S , P H . D .

recent presentation at the 2011 Cre-ation Biology Society (CBS) meet-

ings has stirred the pot once againon the human-chimp DNA

similarity issue among creationists, intelli-gent design proponents, and some evolution-ists.1 It was reported that a query of 40,000chimp genomic DNA sequences against themost recent assembly of the human genomeprovided an average similarity estimate of 97to 98 percent. 2 Evolutionists frequently citesuch percentages as an indication of com-mon ancestry, but the ICR life sciences teamhas been examining the question of human-chimp genetic similarity—and what we’vediscovered raises signicant challenges to thestandard claims. 3

For example, a report in 2007 showedthat 23 percent of the human genome sharesno immediate genetic ancestry with chim-panzees, mankind’s supposed closest livingrelative.4 A more recent study showed extremedissimilarity (> 30 percent) between humanand chimp Y chromosome DNA sequence. 5 Furthermore, when data are provided inresearch papers that allow the determinationof DNA sequence gaps in alignments, actual

overall identities are 70 to 87 percent.6, 7, 8, 9

To help clarify actual data associatedwith the ongoing controversy, the Institutefor Creation Research has become activelyinvolved in human-chimp DNA similarityresearch. Based on the CBS report, the ICRlife sciences team obtained the same 40,000chimp DNA sequences—individual randomfragments (about 735 bases each) from thechimpanzee genome sequencing project. Foran initial test of the chimp data, we gener-

ated 1,600 DNA alignments with thehuman genome using the soft-ware BLASTN with defaultparameters.

In contrast to the results presented atthe CBS meeting, we only obtained a genome-wide sequence identity of 89 percent. TheCBS report did not indicate which BLASTNparameters were used. Perhaps those param-eters were more stringent and only producedalignments of extremely high similarity. Whilehigh levels of BLASTN stringency are useful forquerying a few sequences of known identity toobtain fairly exact matches, they produce verybiased data in whole genome queries.

To increase the capacity for sequencematching, we have also done experimentsusing BLASTN parameters that increase theoverall length of alignments by twofold. Afterquerying more than 5,500 chimp sequences,we are obtaining a best estimate of 85 percentbetween aligned regions of the human andchimp genomes. However, greater than 30percent of the chimp DNA will not align withthe human genome—even using extremelyliberal matching parameters.

We are currently verifying that the

40,000 random chimp sequences are trulyrepresentative by querying them against thechimp genome assembly. Results indicatethat the DNA is chimp sequence. We are alsotesting another type of chimpanzee DNAcalled genome survey sequence (GSS). TheGSS sequences were derived from a projectthat involved mapping the chimp genome. Inaddition, we are testing a variety of differentalignment parameters.

Our preliminary results show that the

human and chimp genomes are more dissim-ilar than commonly reported. Our researchalso shows that highly selective and stringentalignment methods can exclude importantdata, providing inated genome similarityestimates.

The ICR life sciences team hopes tohave its rst series of experiments completedand submitted to a journal within the next fewmonths. As research progresses, we’ll report

our results in future issues of Acts & Facts .References 1. Bryan College Prof Defends 98% Chimp-Human DNA

Identity. Uncommon Descent Post. Posted on www.un-commondescent.com July 30, 2011.

2. Wood, T. C. 2011. The Chimpanzee Genome is NearlyIdentical to the Human Genome. Creation Biology SocietyAnnual Conference Abstracts 2011. 1: 24-25.

3. Jeanson, N. and J. Tomkins. 2011. Human-Chimp GeneticSimilarity: Is the Evolutionary Dogma Valid? Acts & Facts .40 (7): 6.

4. Ebersberger, I. et al. 2007. Mapping Human Genetic Ances-try. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 24 (10): 2266-2276.

5. Hughes, J. F. 2010. Chimpanzee and human Y chromo-somes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene con-tent. Nature. 463 (7280): 536-539.

6. Britten, R. J. 2002. Divergence Between Samples of Chim-panzee and Human DNA Sequences is 5%, CountingIndels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 99(21): 13633-13635.

7. Ebersberger, I. et al. 2002. Genomewide Comparison ofDNA Sequences between Humans and Chimpanzees.American Journal of Human Genetics . 70 (6): 1490-1497.

8. Watanabe, H. et al. 2004. DNA sequence and compara-tive analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22. Nature. 429(6990): 382-388.

9. The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium.2005. Initial sequence ofthe chimpanzee genomeand comparison with thehuman genome. Nature. 437 (7055): 69-87.

Dr. Tomkins is a ResearchAssociate and received hisPh.D. in Genetics from Clem-son University.

Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth—New Research Data

A

8/9/2019 af1110

7/24

n OCTOBER 1-2

Colorado Springs, CO – Vista GrandeBaptist Church

(H. Morris III, Guliuzza, Sherwin)719.598.2139 n OCTOBER 1-2

Maywood, IL – Woodside Bible Chapel (Jeanson) 708.345.6563 n OCTOBER 2

Colorado Springs, CO – Austin BluffsEvangelical Free Church

(Guliuzza) 719.596.3333 n OCTOBER 2

Colorado Springs, CO – Mesa Hills BibleChurch (Sherwin) 719.635.3566 n OCTOBER 2

Fort Collins, CO – Fort Collins BibleChurch


Fort Collins, CO – Colorado StateUniversity

(Guliuzza) 970.690.8831

n OCTOBER 5

Emmett, ID – Foundations in Genesis ofIdaho and Oregon


Boise, ID – Foundations in Genesis ofIdaho and Oregon

(Guliuzza) 208.375.9592 n OCTOBER 6-7

Orlando, FL – Florida Association of

Christian Colleges & Schools 2011Christian Educators’ Convention

(Jeanson) 954.517.9500 n OCTOBER 6-7

Rocklin, CA – Association of ChristianSchools International Convention

(B. Forlow, Sherwin) 800.367.5391 n OCTOBER 7

Ontario, OR – Foundations in Genesisof Idaho and Oregon

(Guliuzza) 208.375.9592

n OCTOBER 7-9

Meridian, ID – Meridian First BaptistChurch

(H. Morris III, Guliuzza) 208.888.1109 n OCTOBER 14

Greeley, CO – Aims Community College (Sherwin) 970.339.6563 n OCTOBER 14

Lakewood, CO – Rocky MountainCreation Fellowship Meeting

(Sherwin) 303.250.4403 n OCTOBER 14-15

Petersburg, KY – The Genesis Flood:

Celebrating 50 Years (J. Morris) 877.244.3370 n OCTOBER 15-16

Littleton, CO – Horizon ChristianFellowship

(Sherwin) 303.347.0448 n OCTOBER 20-21

Tacoma, WA – Association of ChristianSchools International Convention

800.367.5391 n OCTOBER 21-23 Fond du Lac, WI – Calvary Bible Church (Guliuzza, Sherwin) 920.921.0530 n OCTOBER 27-28

Raleigh, NC – Association of ChristianSchools International Convention

800.367.5391 n OCTOBER 29

San Diego, CA – The Rock Church (Guliuzza, Jeanson) 619.226.7625

For more information on these events or toschedule an event, please contact the ICREvents Department at 800.337.0375 [email protected] . For information on attend-ing ACSI conventions, visit www.acsi.org orcall 800.367.5391.

vO C T O B E R 2 0 1 1 • ACTS & FACTS

EVENTS

I C R O C T O B E R E V E N T S

ACSICEU Opportunity

in SouthernCalifornia

This October 29, ACSIteachers and administra-

tors in the San Diego areahave the opportunity toearn CEU credit by attendinga special one-day ICR creationapologetics conference. Comehear ICR creation scientists RandyGuliuzza and Nathaniel Jeansonpresent evidence for the authorityand accuracy of God’s Word, andin addition obtain ACSI continu-ing education credit.

————— When: —————Saturday, October 29,beginning at 8:00 a.m.

————— Where: —————

The Rock Church2277 Rosecrans StreetSan Diego, CA 92106

619.226.7625 The full-day seminar counts as

1.0 CEU credit, which can bedesignated as either EducationalStudies or Biblical Studies. Formore information or to register,visit icr.org/soba-acsi or call214.615.8322 .

8/9/2019 af1110

8/24


EVENTS

he Institute for Creation Research’s mission

to equip believers with the truth of God’screation has not changed since its founding

by Dr. Henry Morris over 40 years ago. One

effective way we carry out that mission is by providing

teachers, pastors, and leaders with the knowledge ICR

has gained through four decades of research, so that they

may then share it with their students, congregations, and

the people within their spheres of inuence.ICR’s Events Department sends our creation science

experts to conferences and churches around the coun-

try. We’d like to introduce you to the kinds of events we

participate in and the people who make it all happen.

Spreading the Creation Message through ICR Events

very week, ICR receives many requests forspeakers to visit churches, seminars, andSunday schools. Director of Church andSeminar Ministries Chas Morse, assisted by

Paul Rogers, works with event organizers to determinewhich speakers would best t each venue.

For instance, talks about the nature of naturalselection or the intricate design of the human body arenormally handled by ICR’s National Representative,

Dr. Randy Guliuzza, who is both a medical doctor anda professional engineer. Research Associate and SeniorLecturer Frank Sherwin is an expert on zoology andmicrobiology, and Science Writer Brian Thomas relaysfascinating information on dinosaurs and soft tissuediscoveries.

ICR also hosts conferences such as Demand theEvidence at churches. The Events staff will work direct-ly with a ministry to host an event that ts their needs.

ICR at Churches and Seminars

Chas Morse, Director of Church

and Seminar Ministries

From left, Rexella Patterson,Paul Rogers, and Chas Morse

8/9/2019 af1110

9/24


he Institute for Creation Research attendsvarious national and regional pastor andeducation conferences throughout the year, including the Moody Bible Institute

Pastors’ Conference, Association of Christian SchoolsInternational conventions, and various homeschoolconferences. We often provide keynote and/or work-shop speakers to these gatherings, alongwith our ICR booth, where participantscan learn about ICR’s ministry, interactwith staff and volunteers, and obtainmaterials and resources.

Director of Conference Min-

istries Lalo Gunther, assisted byMichael Hansen, works withconference organizers to arrange

for these events. He often attends the conferences aswell, meeting with participants at the booth and evenspeaking at certain workshops about youth cultureand ministry. He and Chas Morse also collaborate ifthere are nearby churches that are interested in havingspeakers give presentations before returning to ICR’sheadquarters in Dallas, Texas.

ICR at Conferences

ach ICR event is different. The sched-ule, speakers, and specic arrange-ments depend on the venue, the au-dience, and many other factors. The

ICR Events staff works directly with organizers

to nd the best t for each occasion.Rexella Patterson, Assistant to the Event

Directors, elds all the event requests, as wellas providing assistance to both the ConferenceMinistries and Church and Seminar Minis-tries. For information about having ICRattend or host an event, contact Ms.

Patterson by phone at 800.337.0375or by email at [email protected] g.

Lalo Gunther, Director ofC onference Ministries

From left, Rexella Patterson,Michael Hansen, andLalo Gunther

Contacting ICR about Events

8/9/2019 af1110

10/24


R e a

l W o r

l d A p o

l o g e

t i c s

T a k i n g t h e

I n i t i a t

i v e t o

C o m m u n

i c a t e

T r u t

h

Slow Death for a Tarantula: A Lesson in Arachnid Apologetics

In 1999, this author witnessed an unforgettable “airshow” in which a dive-bombing maneuver resulted inthe gruesome death of an unsuspecting victim who wasin the wrong place at the wrong time. It was a bizarre

event, yet that air-to-ground fatality, strangely enough, teachesan important lesson in apologetics.

Military Science: Air-to-Ground Offensive Technology

Imagine the military engineering and precision imple-mentation that are required for a dive bomber attack, such asthe bombing of German military buildings during World WarII. Think about the many moving parts involved, and how eas-ily something could go wrong. 1

Or imagine the more recent computerized robotictechnology used to send unmanned aircraft units into Iraqicombat zones to locate targets for subsequent air-to-grounddestruction. 2 One such unit is described below:

The UK has ordered Honeywell RQ-16A T-Hawk mi-cro air vehicle (MAV) systems…becoming the rstforeign military customer for the backpackable UAV[unmanned aircraft vehicle]. The T-Hawk is the rstducted-fan vertical take-off and landing air vehicle toenter production….After a successful evaluation inIraq of the MAV in the anti-IED role, the US Navy inNovember placed a $65 million production contractfor 90 Block 2 MAV systems, each comprising twoT-Hawk air vehicles and a ruggedized laptop groundcontrol system. 3

The intelligence required to plan and implement such acraft staggers the mind.

Arthropod Science: Air-to-Ground Offensive Technology

Equally amazing is the “dive bombing” behavior of thetarantula hawk wasp ( Pepsis formosa ), an aerial arthropod thatdives upon—and stabs—its victim, the tarantula Dugesiellaechina . The arachnid’s death is a lingering one, allowing a par-asitic consumption of the spider’s esh for as long it remainsalive. This prey-predator relationship illustrates what could be

called “arachnid apologetics,” displaying a bizarre example ofGod’s providential balancing of earth’s post-Eden ecology.

Yet even more bizarre are the details of how the venom-stung spider’s esh is consumed. Two creation scientists re-ported observations of these tarantulas in their eld study inthe Chihuahuan Desert of Texas’ Big Bend National Park.

These large, hairy spiders are often employed by Hol-lywood in scenes to frighten an audience. The creaturesdo appear fearsome when one observes them. However,their bites are relatively harmless [ sic ] to man and they arenot very aggressive. Often they are kept as pets and bookshave been written on how to take care of them. 4

Although tarantulas are predators by nature, sometimesthey themselves become the prey :

Tarantulas are carnivorous, generally preying uponsmaller vertebrates and occasionally on small snakes,frogs, and birds. Catching their prey, they inject the vic-tim with venom and suck the liquids from the body. Suchan arthropod may appear to be invincible acting only asa predator, but not so. Likely, the Chihuahuan Desert ta-rantula’s deadliest enemy “…is a large orange and velvetblue wasp (Pepsis formosa ) commonly known as the ta-rantula hawk….The ‘hawk,’ using its venomous stinger,

J A M E S J . S . J O H N S O N , J . D . , T H . D .

8/9/2019 af1110

11/24


paralyzes its tarantula and buries it after laying an egg on the victim.When the wasp egg hatches, the young larvae feed on the paralyzedprey.”…Thus the balance in nature, maintained by an all-wise Cre-ator, often is seen in a prey-predator relationship. 5

In other words, the tarantula victimized by the attacking waspserves the larval wasp as “live meat.” The doomed spider literally hosts themother wasp’s “planted” child.

Tarantula “Selected” for Destruction

It was this kind of dive-bombing maneuver that I observed inthe summer of 1999 beside my garage door. The tarantula hawk waspstabbed the back of the tarantula, which struggled and shuddered, andthen went limp. The mother wasp dragged the now-groggy tarantula forburial beneath a nearby bush, where the dying arachnid would “host”the implanted wasp larva until it was mature enough to emerge from theremains of the tarantula.

Some might interpret this event as “natural selection” in action,but if that were the case, who actually did the “selecting”? The physicalenvironment “selected” nothing. The concrete pavement near my ga-

rage merely served as a color-contrastingbackground so that an airborne tarantulahawk wasp could easily spy the crawling,dark-colored tarantula. But the decisionto dive-bomb and strike the tarantula—i.e., the choice to “select” the spider fordestruction—was a decision made by thewasp, not the pavement.

As Dr. Randy Guliuzza has recentlyclaried, the phrase “natural selection” is amisleading oxymoron, because no one can empirically identify a mythi-cal entity called “Nature” that somehow makes any intelligent choices asa “selector”: “To legitimately use the word ‘select,’ there must be a real‘selector.’”6

In this case, the death-dealing selector was not “Mother Nature,” itwas a pregnant wasp that chose to attack the tarantula.

And why? Because she was pre-programmed, as are all other ar-thropods, to “breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiplyupon the earth” (Genesis 8:17).

The mother wasp is genetically and behaviorally programmed tolocate and anesthetize a tarantula, and to carefully transfer her larval off-spring to the arachnid’s body. Why does all of this work out the way itdoes in each life cycle of this particular kind of wasp? Because, before

Adam’s fall in Eden , God cleverly and carefully planned out (consistentwith His innite foreknowledge) the innumerable details that would beneeded, after Eden , to make this air-to-ground system operate success-fully enough to propagate tarantula hawk wasp populations from onegeneration to the next.

The wasp did not invent herself, nor did she invent the “all-or-nothing” knowledge and skills needed to accomplish this lifecycle. This wasp was purposefully engineered, as all such wasps are,with the necessary anatomy and instincts to feed her offspring inthis manner so that they can survive and thrive in this cursed and“groaning” world (see Romans 8:20-22). Surely, the genius of God is

exhibited in this bizarre form of predator-prey dynamics.

A Creationist Insight from the U.S. Army’s “Unmanned” Aircraft

Note the above references to the Army’s unmanned aircraft—specically, the Honeywell RQ-16A T-Hawk micro air vehicle. The “T-Hawk” portion of that aircraft’s name is an abbreviation for “TarantulaHawk”; i.e., this particular military surveillance robot was named for thetarantula hawk wasp. Thus, even the dazzlingly clever inventiveness ofman (who was created in the Creator’s image and thus can be creative at anite level) points directly, in this instance, to an insect that God Himselfinvented—the original female “T-Hawk.”

More important, however, is the U.S. Army’s qualication in its of-cial report on “unmanned aircraft systems” clarifying that these compli-cated and clever inventions are not really “unmanned”:

Army UAS [Unmanned Aircraft Systems] are the “Eyes of the Army”and support information dominance by providing the capabilityto quickly collect, process, and disseminate relevant informationto reduce the sensor-to-shooter timeline.…A UAS is comprisedof an unmanned aircraft (UA), payload, human operator, control

element, display, communication archi-tecture, life cycle logistics, and the sup-ported soldier. The idea that the UASare “unmanned” is a misnomer becausetrained and professional Soldiers oper-ate and maintain Army UAS. 2

It is the highly intelligent and skilledsoldier who ultimately operates and main-tains each of the Army’s “unmanned air-craft systems”—including the Honeywell

T-Hawk aircraft units named for the tarantula’s enemy, the tarantulahawk wasp.

Even more so, it is the innitely intelligent and skillful Creator-God,who became mankind’s Redeemer as the Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1-14), who ultimately operates and maintains each of this world’s tarantulahawk wasps. (Even wasps are not truly “unmanned.”)

Amazingly, even arachnids’ air-to-ground attackers—mothertarantula hawk wasps—provide providential proof of the divine pre-programming “selections” that were intelligently planned and, dur-ing creation week, skillfully implemented by none other than theLord of hosts.References 1. Breuer, W. B. 2005. A Horrendous Bombing Error Pays Off. Bizarre Tales from World War II.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 90-91.2. U.S. Army Unmanned Aircraft Systems Center of Excellence (ATZQ-CDI-C). “Eyes of the

Army”: U.S. Army Roadmap for Unmanned Aircraft Systems 2010-2035 (U.S. Army, n.d.; 138pages), 1. For this ofcial report’s context, see the Roadmap’ s Foreword by General Martin E.Dempsey.

3. Warwick, G. UK Orders T-Hawk MAVs. Aviation Week. Posted on aviationweek.com January12, 2009, accessed August 17, 2011.

4. Williams, E. L. and R. L. Goette. 1997. Tarantula Goes Accourtin’ and He Does Roam: The Ta-rantula and the Tarantula Hawk Wasp Show the Creator’s Balance in Nature. Creation ResearchSociety Quarterly. 34 (1): 3-4.

5. Ibid, quoting Wauer, R. H. 1980. Naturalist’s Big Bend. CollegeStation, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 106-107; and Da-vidson, R. H. 1991. Tarantula Hawk. Encyclopedia Americana. Granbury, CT: Grolier, 26: 292.

6. Guliuzza, R. 2011. Darwin’s Sacred Imposter: How Natural Se-lection Is Given Credit for Design in Nature. Acts & Facts. 40(7): 12-15, especially at 13-14.

Dr. Johnson is Associate Professor of Apologetics and ChiefAcademic Ofcer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Imagine the computerized robotic tech-

nology used to send unmanned aircraft

units into Iraqi combat zones….The in-

telligence required to plan and imple-

ment such a craft staggers the mind.

8/9/2019 af1110

12/24

IMPACT


Introduction

Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897-1941) is best known

both for documenting the importance of language in

shaping our innermost thoughts and for documenting

the strong connection between language and behavior. 1

Crucial to his view is the conclusion that language is not

the result of evolutionary survival, nor is it shaped by any

alleged advantage that it gave in aiding a species’ survival;

it is an incredibly complex designed system. He is most

well-known for the Sapir-Whorf theory on linguistic rela-

tivity, which he developed with his mentor and co-worker,

Yale anthropologist Edward Sapir.

Whorf is also well-known for his research demonstratingthat a person’s thinking skills—the conceptualization of ideas andtheir expressions—are heavily dependent on language, particularlyvocabulary. This theory, called linguistic relativity, is also called theWhorf Hypothesis in his honor. Whorf taught that “the languageone speaks shapes the world one sees.” 2 In other words, “specic as-pects of a language provide a grid, or structure, that inuences howhumans categorize space, time, and other aspects of reality into aworldview.”3 We think in terms of words or other symbols, and they

J E R R Y B E R G M A N , P H . D .

Benjamin LeeWHORF: An Early Supporter

of Creationism

8/9/2019 af1110

13/24


are required as a precondition for a human toform an idea—or, at least, to express the ideato others. Although thinking involves mentalmanipulation of reality, it is heavily dependent

upon words or other symbols. Without suchsymbols of meaning, one cannot express thethoughts for which the word (symbol) stands.

In short, language shapes not only com-munication, but also understanding. Our“worldview is inescapably shaped by” our lan-guage.4 Language clearly draws our attentionto certain aspects of the world and also inu-ences our judgment about it.

Whorf is also famous for his nding thatevery speech community ts the needs of its

culture. The famous example is the Eskimos’boast that they use many names for snow. Abetter example is how the deaf use a very dif-ferent language system than the hearing popu-lation: sign language. 5 Even the blind use sym-bols, including tactile, sound, and smell, forcommunication. 6

Research has found that even precep-tors (expert teachers) of the past, present, andfuture are inuenced by language, includingthe ability to remember events in a certaintimeframe. 7 Other studies have found that

the mental ability to rotate three-dimensionalobjects in space is inuenced by language. 8 Re-search by Gilbert et al determined that the waya speaker’s language distinguishes color affectshow it is perceived in the right visual eld. 9 Gil-bert et al and other researchers have concludedthat language affects all modes of thought, asshown by patients who suffer from languagedisorders such as aphasia.

While some of the examples used to il-lustrate the Sapir-Whorf theory, such as the

conclusion that the Hopi Indians and Englishspeakers think about time in fundamentallydifferent ways, turned out with more studyto be oversimplied, the basic conclusion isvalid.10 Our language does inuence how wethink and also what we think about. The inu-ence of Whorf’s work (his disciples are called“whorans”) was summarized by Chase:

Once in a blue moon a man comes alongwho grasps the relationship betweenevents which have hitherto seemed quite

separate, and gives man a new dimensionof knowledge. Einstein, demonstratingthe relativity of space and time, was sucha man. In another eld and on a less cos-mic level, Benjamin Lee Whorf was one,to rank someday, perhaps with such so-cial scientists as Franz Boas and WilliamJames.11

Whorf concluded that if language de-velopment is lacking or inaccurate, this facthas a major impact on a person’s thinkingand mental life. Since most of our vocabu-lary is ancient, it carries the excess baggage ofold, erroneous ideas that can cause thinkingand communication problems in the present.Whorf, 12 Korzybski,13 and Hayakawa 14 all be-

lieved that part of the solution to many mod-

ern social problems lies in understanding ourlanguage according to the ndings of modernscience. Miscommunication and lack of com-munication have been implicated in humanconicts that range from marriage problemsto international conicts.

Motives for His Research

A graduate of MIT in the eld of chemi-cal engineering, Whorf also studied linguisticsat Yale. His drive to study languages was partlyrelated to his attempt to understand the Chris-tian Scriptures. These motivations, as discussedin the introduction to an edited volume of hisworks, include the following:

Whorf became increasingly concernedabout the supposed conict between sci-ence and religion....He wrote a 130,000-word manuscript on the subject, describedas a book of religious philosophy in theform of a novel....Completed in 1925, [it]was submitted to several publishers andas promptly rejected by them....Another,briefer manuscript prepared about thistime [was]...“Why I have discarded evo-

lution.” An eminent geneticist to whom itwas submitted for comment made a verycourteous reply, starting with the admis-sion that, although the manuscript atrst appeared to be the work of a crank,its skill and perceptiveness soon markedit as otherwise, but continuing with apoint-by-point rebuttal of Whorf’s ar-guments....Whorf’s reading led him tobelieve that the key to the apparent dis-crepancy between the Biblical and the sci-entic accounts of cosmology and evolu-tion might lie in a penetrating linguisticexegesis of the Old Testament. For thisreason, in 1924 he turned his mind to thestudy of Hebrew. 15

Whorf’s extensive knowledge of anthro-

pology is reected in his many publications inthe area of anthropology and language. Laverywrote that Whorf’s “scholarly output, eventhough he held a full-time job, was enough toequal that of many full-time research profes-sors.”16 Whorf published widely in the schol-arly literature, not only in linguistics, but alsoin anthropology and archaeology. He also lec-tured widely and was a captivating speaker.

Whorf’s Opposition to Evolution

Unfortunately, his Why I have DiscardedEvolution manuscript evidently has not sur-vived. Fortunately, though, many of his othermanuscripts have—and it is in these that hisideas and interests are clearly revealed. Some ofhis thoughts on evolution that have survivedinclude the following:

There is no purpose in dynamic nature,or none that we can see by the eye of sci-ence without faith; there is no perfectingbettering force in evolution, as even themost sentimental evolutionist, if a scien-tist, will nally admit. But there is purposein nature, and it is seen in static nature.The discontinuous and unit-wise struc-ture of the whole universe, the concentra-tion of its matter in foci, the absence ofany gradations between its major forms[of animals], the rigid restriction of mat-ter, to a denite small number of kinds(the chemical elements), the xed set ofproperties possessed by each element, thediscrete or stepwise structure of all matterof electricity, of light, even of energy—in

Language is no t the resultof evolutionary survival;

it is an incredibly complexdesigned system.

8/9/2019 af1110

14/24


these and other things the universe bearsthose unmistakable earmarks which pos-sessed by any article, would tell us that itwas a manufactured article. 17

Much of the “design argument” Whorfused to argue for creationism is similar to thatstill used today by intelligent design advocates.For example, the following was written byWhorf in response to James Porter, 18 who:

believes that there is a conict betweenevolution and religion, because...natureis full of cruelty—which fact, by the way,was well known long before any “law”of “survival of the ttest” had been an-nounced. If he [Porter] means that thetendencies of nature should never dic-

tate the form of human morality or law(which some evolutionists would havethem do) I quite agree with him. But if hemeans, or if any construe him to mean,that cruelty in physical nature, that evil ingeneral in the world, should be a bar toour conceiving of a wise Providence whocreated with purpose, I must take up thecudgels.19

Part of Porter’s response to Whorf’sideas was to argue for atheistic evolution andnaturalism in the following words that echo

the origins debate today:Mr. Benjamin Lee Whorf seems to me tobe endeavoring to insert some articialpieces in the mosaic picture of naturebuilt from facts by science. He nds instatic nature a number of qualities whichhe declares indicate purpose because theypossess qualities resembling manufac-tured articles. Does it follow then that therounded roof of a cave shows design be-cause it resembles the Roman arch? Staticnature, however, is only an illusion due toour inability to perceive the “dance” of the

electrons. Science has not succeeded inexplaining man as anything but a mecha-nistic contrivance. Mr. Whorf thereforeturns to belief where he is unfettered byfacts.20

Lowrey wrote that Whorf is wrong: NoIntelligent Designer created us and humansare, he argues, “nothing more than an expres-sion of...physical tendencies, bound only bythe laws of food and hunger, the attractionand repulsion of positive and negative energies

and the blind desire of cells to reproduce theirkind.” 21 These responses to Whorf rely on thesame line of argument used today against bothcreationism and intelligent design. Whorf didnot come to accept creationism by rejectingscience, but by embracing it. Note his stress onthe critical importance of science:

Consider how the universe appears to anyman, however wise...who has never heardone word of what science has discovered.To him the earth is at; the sun is a shin-ing object of small size that pops up dailyabove an eastern rim, moves through theupper air, and sinks below the westernedge; obviously it spends the night some-where underground. The sky is an invert-ed bowl made of some blue material...the“solar system” has no meaning...bodiesdo not fall because of any “law of gravita-tion,” but rather because there is nothingto hold them up....For him the blood does

not circulate, nor the heart pump blood;he thinks it is a place where love, kindnessand thoughts are kept. Cooling is not aremoval of heat but an addition of “cold”;leaves are green...from a “greenness” inthem. 22

Conclusions

Whorf is one of many prominent schol-ars who have concluded that the neo-Darwin-ian theory of evolution by genetic changes andnatural selection is scientically wrong. His an-

thropology studies, especially his study of hu-man language, provided support for Whorf’sconclusions. Tragically, his life was cut short bycancer at the age of 44. Stuart Chase wrote thatif Whorf had lived, he

might have become another Franz Boasor William James, so brilliant were hispowers of projecting scientic data intofruitful generations.... He published somethirty articles in the learned journals,and might well have gone on to give the

world one of the great classics of socialscience.23

Whorf’s unpublished and publishedpapers housed at Yale University are a treasuretrove that document not only his scienticstudies of nature, especially botany, but alsohis acceptance of Genesis and of the CreatorGod of the Bible. This acceptance propelledhim to carry out his scholarly research notonly on evolution, which he rejected based onhis study of the scientic evidence, but alsoto study language to allow him to better un-derstand the book that he rmly believed wasGod’s inspired Word to humankind.References

1. Ross, P. E. 1992. New Whoof in Whorf: An old LanguageTheory Regains Its Authority. Scientic American. 266 (2):24-25.

2. Ibid, 24.3. Scupin, R. and C. DeCorse. 2008. Anthropology: A Global

Perspective . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall,313.

4. Harrison, K. D. 2007. When Languages Die: The Extinctionof the World’s Languages and the Erosion of Human Knowl-edge . New York: Oxford University Press.

5. Wright, D. 1969. Deafness.New York: Stein and Day.6. Monbeck, M. 1973. The Meaning of Blindness . Blooming-

ton, IL: Indiana University.7. Kenneally, C. 2007. The First Word: The Search for the Ori-

gins of Language . New York: Viking, 106-107.8. Ibid, 107.9. Gilbert, A. et al. 2006. Whorf Hypothesis Is Supported in

the Right Visual Field But Not the Left. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences . 103 (2): 489-494.

10. Scupin and DeCorse, Anthropology: A Global Perspective ,

313.11. Chase, S. 1956. Forward in Language, Thought, and Reality;Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf.Published jointlyby Technology Press of MIT, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,Chapman and Hall, Ltd., London, 7.

12. Whorf, B. L. 1925. Purpose vs. Evolution. New Republic, De-cember 9, 89.

13. Korzybski, A. 1980. Science and Sanity; An Introduction toNon-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics , 4th ed.with preface by Russell Myers, M.D. Lakeville, CT: The In-stitute of General Semantics.

14. Hayakawa, S. I. 1972. Language in Thought and Action, 3rded. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

15. Carroll, J. B. 1956. Language, Thought, and Reality; SelectedWritings of Benjamin Lee Whorf.Published jointly by Tech-nology Press of MIT, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Chapmanand Hall, Ltd., London, 7.

16. Lavery, D. The Mind of Benjamin Whorf. Paper given at theSouth Atlantic Modern Language Association, Atlanta, GA,November 1995, 1.

17. Whorf, Purpose vs. Evolution, 89.18. Porter, J. F. 1925. Science and Religion. New Republic, Octo-ber 21, 232.

19. Whorf, Purpose vs. Evolution, 89.20. Porter, J. F. 1926. Purpose and Evolution. New Republic ,

January 6, 192.21. Lowrey, E. R. 1926. Purpose vs. Evolution. The New Repub-

lic, January 6, 192.22. Quoted in Chase, S. 1954.

The Power of Words . NewYork: Harcourt, Brace andCo., 110.

23. Ibid, 100.

Dr. Bergman is an AdjunctAssociate Professor at theUniversity of Toledo MedicalSchool in Ohio.

IMPACT

Whorf’s drive to study lan-guages was partly related

to his attempt to understandthe Christian Scriptures.

8/9/2019 af1110

15/24


BACK TO GENESIS

Perhaps the most well-known triumph of catastrophicthinking over strict uniformity is that of Dr. J. Harlen Bretzand the “channeled scablands.” Beginning in the 1920s,Bretz studied the deep gorges of eastern Washington. He

noted they were cut into hard basaltic rock and oriented in the samegeneral direction. Small streams entering the gorges cascade over es-sentially dry waterfalls, accomplishing virtually no erosion.

Standard thinking insisted that moving water operating overlong ages was the only agent known that could so deeply erodethrough hard rock. But responding to the data, Bretz felt that an un-known high-energy event of the past must have been responsible.Great boulders had also been tossed about and now lie in boulderelds and gravel bars. For decades, Bretz presented his ndings andhis conviction that a single but mysterious great volume of water haddevastated this area rapidly. But how?

He speculated that the “scablands” must have resulted from

a huge ood—not the biblical Flood (shudder), but one of biblicalproportions. Eventually, evidence of a now empty lake comparablein size to today’s Lake Michigan was discovered near Missoula, Mon-tana. An unusual deposit consisting of extensive glacial lake sedimentsconrmed that a huge lake had been at this spot during the Ice Age.Somehow the lake had drained away.

Bretz proposed that an enclosing dam of ice or glacial morainehad catastrophically failed, releasing torrents of water that oodedacross Idaho and eastern Washington. It eroded the hard rock inits path and left deep canyons reminiscent of Grand Canyon, alongwith immense gravel ripples and boulder elds strewn across thelandscape. When the waters were forced to temporarily pond behindridges, they deposited extensive sedimentary layers of recently erodedmaterial and then made their way quickly to the Pacic Ocean. Nowthe water is gone, with meager streams and “dry falls” entering thecanyons—or “coulees,” as they are known—testifying to greater watervolumes in the past.

Nothing like this happens today. No modern day “uniformitar-ian” counterpart can be observed on such a regional scale. Erosionhappens, but it usually isn’t observed carving deeply into solid rock.However, scientists have discovered that water owing over a rocksurface at a rapid rate can erode even hard rock in a short amountof time. Water molecules moving quickly over rough surfaces form

vacuum bubbles that actually “implode” with great force and fracturethe adjacent rock, thereby accelerating erosion (a process called cavi-tation).

By 1960, Bretz had won the day and convinced geologists that,at least on this occasion, catastrophic processeshad ruled. If this much damage resulted from alarge but local failed lake owing over a cornerof the continent, what damage could be expectedfrom the great Flood of Noah’s day?

Dr. Morris is President of the Institute for Creation Research.

ThCha lScabla sJ O H N D . M O R R I S , P H . D .

Water owing across the terrace above at a depth of about 250 feet at the ood’s maximum produced a spectacular falls and an eroded canyon below.

Dry falls and plunge pool below the 300-foot-high cliffs. Water pouring overthe rim must have been at least 200 feet deep.

8/9/2019 af1110

16/24

is the famous molecule ofheredity that carries the code

of life—an altogether remarkable biopoly-mer (polynucleotide). As expected, the moreresearch that is conducted on the DNA mol-ecule, the more complexity it divulges. 1

Decades ago, when less was knownabout this amazing molecule, the denitionof the unit called the gene was fairly cut anddried. For example, in 1980 evolutionist Da-vid Kirk stated in his college biology text, “Theunits of heredity are invisible entities calledgenes, which specify the observable features ofan organism.” 2

Today, the gene is given molecular and

nonmolecular labels: “In nonmolecular terms,a unit of inheritance that governs the charac-ter of a particular trait. In molecular terms, asegment of DNA containing the informationfor a single polypeptide or RNA molecule, in-cluding transcribed but non-coding regions.” 3 Gerald Karp also stated, “Our concept of thegene has undergone a remarkable evolution asbiologists have learned more and more aboutthe nature of inheritance.” 4

In his chapter on “the units of selection,”Mark Ridley wrote:

[American evolutionary biologist GeorgeC.] Williams dened the gene to make italmost true by denition that the gene isthe unit of selection. He dened the geneas “that which segregates and recombineswith appreciable frequency.” 5

It’s hardly surprising, then, that some-one has said, “What a gene is depends on who you ask.”

In the 21st century, the denition of agene continues to become more convoluted,

with the possibility that the word—like life—

will remain a challenge to dene (althougha good description of “life” can be found onpages 11-15 of ICR’s Origin of Life science cur-riculum supplement). Confusion over whatexactly a gene is has been added to by discover-ies made through ongoing investigations intothe genome (the total genetic material within a

cell or individual).6

Take, for example, an amazing geneticdiscovery called “the Splicing Code” an-nounced last year by computer scientists andmolecular biologists. 7 A news release at thetime declared:

Researchers at the University of Torontohave discovered a fundamentally newview of how living cells use a limitednumber of genes to generate enormouslycomplex organs such as the brain. 8

This inner code has been painstakinglydeciphered to the extent that molecular biolo-gists can actually predict what happens duringsome phases of genetic regulation. The Hu-man Genome Project revealed that man hasbut 20,000 genes that directly and indirectlyregulate the system of our body, 9 and the Splic-ing Code directs when and how the genes andregulatory elements are to be assembled by acommunication network.

So far, scientists have foundthat 95 percent of our genome

has this amazing alter-

native splicing. The complexity arises whenrequired combinations (who knows howmany) must be assembled and then expressed.Is it any wonder that in addition to computerscientists and molecular biologists, crackingthis Splicing Code required other researchersprocient in vector calculus, code optimiza-tion, geometry, advanced algebra, probabilitytheory, and information theory? This is theantithesis of the time and chance required byevolutionism (which was never mentioned ina related paper in Nature 10).

Regardless of how the gene is dened,logic shows it to be a product of planning, pur-pose, and special creation. With each new dis-

covery, the complicated reality of the genomemore clearly reects the genius of its Maker.References 1. Criswell, D. 2007. The Code of Life: Little Words, Big Mes-

sage. Acts & Facts . 36 (3).2. Kirk, D. L. 1980. Biology Today . New York: Random House,

446.3. Karp, G. 2010. Cell and Molecular Biology. Hoboken, NJ:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., G-8.4. Ibid, 379.5. Ridley, M. 2004. Evolution . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publish-

ing, 308.6. Thomas, B. Genomes Have Remarkable 3-D Organization.

ICR News . Posted on icr.org November 15, 2010.7. Ledford, H. 2010. The code within the code. Nature . 465:

16-17.8. U of T researchers crack “splicing code,” solve a mystery un-

derlying biological complexity. University of Toronto newsrelease, May 6, 2010.

9. Kunarso, G. et al. 2010. Transposable elements have rewiredthe core regulatory network of human embryonic stemcells. Nature Genetics . 42 (7):631-634.

10. Barash, Y. et al. 2010. Deci-phering the splicing code.Nature . 465 (7294): 53-59.

Mr. Sherwin is Research As-sociate, Senior Lecturer andScience Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.


BACK TO GENESIS

S , What Is a G ?

DNA

F R A N K S H E R W I N , M . A .

8/9/2019 af1110

17/24


W ood is a remarkable bio-logical product that haslong supplied mankindwith strong construction

material and fuel, as well as oxygen, enjoyablescenery, and shade. Some have suggested thatwood is “simple,” 1 but in reality it is so com-plicated that scientists cannot reproduce itsfundamental parts, let alone its overall struc-ture. What makes wood so well-built, andcould it possibly have evolved?

The microstructure of wood containsabout 36 parallel cellulose strands bundledinto long microbrils that hydrogen-bondwithin and to one another. Flexible proteinstether these microbrils together. Each mi-crobril is manufactured by suites of enzymesarranged in hexagonal rings that in turn formlarger hexagonal patterns. Each cellulosemanufacturing site, called a Rosette TerminalCellulose-Synthesizing Complex, has enzymesat the back that supply the raw materials, en-zymes in the middle that join those materialstogether according to a specic and criticalchemical arrangement, proteins that anchorthe assembly on the cell membrane, and en-zymes in the front that arrange and crystallize

the elongating string-like cellulose microbrilsthat are extruded from the plant cell.

But wood is much more than cellulose!Like rebar inside concrete, cellulose cables inwood are embedded in a matrix that con-sists of organic polymers called lignin, cross-

linking glycans, pectin, other proteins, andlipids. The cellulose and matrix proteins, andthe enzymes that manufacture them, partlyconsist of carbon that plants obtain fromatmospheric carbon dioxide. Tubular plantcells deposit multiple layers of this materialin different orientations around themselves,like crisscrossing sheets of berglass wrappedaround a pipe. Many such microstructuresrun the length of the plant to form a strongsubstance that can bend without breaking.

In short, there is no such thing as “sim-ple” wood.

Evolutionists have speculated thatwood evolved in order to lift some plants sky-ward and give them a survival advantage overtheir soft-bodied, low-lying cousins. Howev-er, the authors of a recent Science report sug-gested that it actually developed in responseto a need for more carbon dioxide at a timewhen that gas was supposedly scarce. 1 Theysuggested that some plants “evolved” wood tobuild cellular pipelines that would speed up

uid ow enough to increase carbon dioxideuptake.

But which came rst, the extra carbondioxide required to build the woody pipelines,or the woody pipelines required to gather theextra carbon dioxide?

The study authors described the old-est occurrence of fossil wood yet discovered.They wrote that the plants’ small size arguedagainst the skyward advantage concept, andtherefore “the evolution of wood was initially

driven by hydraulic constraints [inadequateuid ow].” 1 But neither inadequate uidow nor the necessity of mechanical sup-port are sufcient causes for wood. In thereal world, problems like these never producetheir own solutions. Rather, solutions are al-ways purposefully engineered by intelligentproblem-solvers.

It is easier to pretend that wood evolvedif its complicated structure is considered“simple.” But there is no evidence and no pos-sibility that even one wood-making enzymeevolved. And even if it did, without completewood production facilities, that lone enzymewould be useless.

This Science report shows that woodhas the same form in fossils as in living plants,which makes sense since woody plants werecreated on Day Three of the creation week.Their occurrence as fossils, made from plantsburied in water-borne sediments that laterhardened into rock, is best explained by Noah’s

Flood. And the cellular machinery that so ef-ciently manufactures the interdependent partsof wood could only have come from a MasterEngineer. Thank Godfor wood!Reference 1. Gerrienne, P. et al. 2011. A

Simple Type of Wood in TwoEarly Devonian Plants.Science . 333 (6044): 837.

Mr. Thomas is Science Writerat the Institute for CreationResearch.

B R I A N T H O M A S , M . S .

8/9/2019 af1110

18/24


EDUCATION

I NTRODUCING THE SCIENCENE W!

8/9/2019 af1110

19/24


EDUCATION ESSENTIALS B LOG

The Institute for Creation Research seeks to equip Christian teachers with

evidence of the accuracy and authority of Scripture. To that end, ICR has

focused on developing K-12 materials for Christian school teachers and

homeschool parents. Over the past two years, we have published fve

Science Education Essentials teaching supplements with information and activities that

can be used in the classroom or home to provide solid answers to tough questions

about science and origins.

We are pleased to announce the launch of our new Science Education Essen-

tials blog, which will extend ICR’s educational reach as far as the Internet can take us.

Hosted by ICR Education Specialist Rhonda Forlow, this blog is especially geared toprovide teachers and parents with resources and teaching aids that are up to date,

accurate, and biblically sound.

ICR’s Science Education Essentials blog features:

• Regular postings by ICR Education Specialist Rhonda Forlow• Student activities uploaded each week • Creation-based science lesson plans for grades K-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12• Tips of the Week • Resources and further materials to help teachers present the creation message

Be sure to check out ICR’s new educational website atwww.science-essentials.org

Dr. Rhonda Forlow holds three earned degrees: a Bachelor of

Science in Psychology and Special Education, a Master of Educa-

tion in Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, and a Doctor of

Education in Educational Leadership—Public School Superinten-

dency. Dr. Forlow has over 17 years of experience working in public

school education as a teacher and an administrator, as well as a

private consultant for parents and K-12 Christian schools. Dr. For-

low joined the staff of the Institute for Creation Research in Dallas,

Texas, in January 2011 as Education Specialist. She is currently leading initiatives for K-12education in the area of creation-based science education curriculum.

B bl cal • Acc at • C ta

8/9/2019 af1110

20/24

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Thank you for your recent issue, September 2011, and the very

informative articles, as always.

Mr. Thomas’ article on the inherent capability of yeast to adapt

to salty environments (“Yeast: Single Cells That Fit and Fill”) has the

simple and concise data to speak to the “evolution/mutation” conver-

sations I frequently have. This topic, the built-in ability to adapt given

at creation, has been the basis of my comments to the curious and

doubtful. The pointed and brief article is very helpful and backed by

research that is the qualier for the skeptics.

Thank you again, Mr. Thomas and ICR.

— A.V.R.

I just wanted to let you know what a pleasure it was to hear Dr. Na-

thaniel Jeanson speak in May at the Homeschool Book Fair here in

Arlington. Despite an overly crowded room and technical difculties,

he did a great job and gave a clear presentation. Within the home-

school community there is controversy regarding a new “Christian

evolutionary” curriculum and Dr. Jeanson provided an excellent re-

sponse to that and great reasons why we as believers can continue

to defend God’s Word as literal and true from the very rst verse of

Genesis. May God continue to bless your ministry.

— G.T.

I was having a discussion with my dad about evidence for a young

earth. I was trying to recall some geological studies Dr. John Morris

had done and, lo and behold, what arrived in the mail? It was the

August issue of Acts & Facts! Contained therein was an article by Dr.

Larry Vardiman entitled “Both Argon and Helium Diffusion Rates

Indicate a Young Earth” with the necessary evidence. When he later

remarked that it was funny, I said that it wasn’t an accident. — M.A.P.

I am writing to you to say thank you for all that you do and for ev-

eryone involved—please don’t stop or give up because what you are

doing is so vital to every believer and even more so to those who con-

tinue to be blinded by the god of this age. It is so important to have

your magazines here to help with revealing God’s truth to my family.

We love the work everyone has put in to this ministry and we will be

helping nancially too! God bless you now and, more importantly, in

the future as the devil continues to try to shut your voice up—may

our Lord keep you shining like a light on the hill as a beacon of hope

and truth!!

— S.M., Canada

Thank you for your ministry. It is interesting to see how science can

prove the Bible! Our church receives the Acts & Factspublication and

we enjoy reading the articles. The attendance to the [Creation Expo]

VBS in Dallas was breath-taking—7,000 children. We trust that many

children received Jesus as Savior. Again, thank you for all that you do! — L.O.V.

How tting it was to receive the [ Days of Praise ] devotional “Brutish

Fools” the day my AP Biology training began. There are many people

who believe in God in this class of 24 high school biology teachers, yet

everyone (except me) has sold out and believes evolution has “been

proven in so many ways.” A difcult year it will be as I teach AP Biol-

ogy for the rst time and refute evolution in a public school. Thanks

for everything you presented at Visalia Evangelical Free Church in

Visalia in February. You provided me with new material that I now

use in my public refutation of evolution (with permission from my

administration).

— T.Z.

My nephew got saved two months ago at our tent revival. He is one

year from his bachelor’s degree. He faces the creation/evolution de-

bate every day and the Lord has put that ministry on his heart. I have

been giving him all my back issues of Acts & Factsand he is soaking

it all in. After he gets his bachelor’s, he plans on getting his master’sin a Christian college and majoring in a branch of science from a

creation point of view. He feels called in that area and your ministry

is a huge help.

— J.R.

Have a comment? Email us at [email protected] write to EditorP. O. Box 59029

Dallas, Texas 75229


8/9/2019 af1110

21/24

Some years ago, a dear Christian ladybegan preparations to send a box ofgoods and supplies to missionariesfrom her church. A neighborhood

child heard of her project and desired to help.

But being only a small child, she had very littlethat would be useful to the missionaries. Thechild did have a penny, however—a gift froma favorite uncle—which she cheerfully pre-sented to the dear lady to help her friends onthe mission eld.

Touched by the child’s heartfelt gener-osity and not wanting to offend her in spiteof her small gift, the lady graciously acceptedthe penny. But the child’s gift was too small topurchase supplies and the lady was uncertainhow she could put it to good use. Then an ideaoccurred to her, and she used the child’s pennyto purchase a single gospel tract.

On the day when all the necessary sup-plies had been gathered, the lady asked thechild to help her prepare the box for shipment.One by one, the lady and the child packed theitems, being careful to include the gospel tractpurchased with the child’s penny. The box wasnally sealed and addressed, and together thelady and the small child took it to the post

ofce to be shipped to their friends halfwayaround the world.

Some weeks later, the box reached themissionaries, who joyously unpacked it. Thesupplies it held brought sweet relief to their

modest circumstances. Near the bottom ofthe box, the missionaries discovered the gos-pel tract, which they soon gave to one of thelocal people.

The tract was passed among the people,eventually reaching a great chief who lived ina nearby region. Intrigued by its message, butunsure of its meaning, the chief called for themissionaries to come and explain the teach-ings. They came and began to share the gos-pel, and in time the chief accepted Christ as hispersonal Savior and Lord. The chief told thestory of his conversion to his people, many ofwhom also believed. Eventually a church wasestablished and over fteen hundred peoplewere brought to a saving knowledge of Jesus.

This remarkable story, started by a giftof a child’s penny that culminated in the salva-tion of many souls, marvelously demonstratesthe power our gifts can have on the work ofthe Kingdom. To be truly acceptable to God,however—and thus receive His greatest bless-

ing—our gifts should be given for the right

reasons and with the proper attitude.As the apostle Paul relates in 2 Corinthi-

ans, acceptable gifts should be given willinglyand within our means (8:12), and should notbe offered reluctantly or given out of necessity(“under compulsion,” 9:7). Most importantly,the offering most loved by God is one that ischeerfully given (from the Greek hilaros , theroot of the English term “hilarious”). Thus,truly effective and acceptable Christian givinglies not in the amount given, but rather in the

spirit and attitude of the heart that gives it.We may never know, this side of heaven,

what impact our gifts have on the cause ofChrist. But as our story shows, no gift, will-ingly and cheerfullygiven, is too small forGod to use in a mightyand miraculous way.

Mr. Morris is Director ofDonor Relations at the Insti-tute for Creation Research.


STEWARDSHIP PrayerfullyConSider

SupporTinGiCr

( G a l a t i a n s 6 : 9 - 1 0 )

Throughn

Online Donationsn IRAs, Stocks, and Securitiesn Matching Gift Programsn CFC (federal/military workers)n Gift Planning • Charitable Gift Annuities

• Wills

• Trusts

Visit icr.org/give and explorehow you can support the vitalwork of ICR ministries. Or con-tact us at [email protected] or 800.337.0375 for personalassistance.

ICR is a recognized 501(c )(3)nonprot ministry, and all giftsare tax-deductible to the fullestextent allowed by law.

Acc tabl G ftsfp wH E N R Y M . M O R R I S I V

8/9/2019 af1110

22/24


The Institute for Creation Researchhas a small but dedicated eventsstaff committed to planning, di-recting, and stafng the various

conferences and outreach events that ICR hostsand attends throughout the United States.

In meeting the needs of the ministry, theteam relies on the seless contributions of adedicated volunteer force, which lls a varietyof roles from preparing promotional materi-als to manning the ICR booth at events andanswering questions from attendees who want

to know more about ICR’s work. The EventsDepartment would not be as effective withoutthese volunteers.

One such individual is Ed Creek, who hassupported ICR for a number of years and morerecently started helping out at events and at theministry’s headquarters in Dallas, Texas.

Mr. Creek worked as a CPA for over 20 years and then as an executive recruiter, locat-ing job placements in nancial and account-ing positions. He retired this past year, as wellas celebrated thirty years of marriage to hiswife, Janice. Throughout his life, he has beendedicated to serving the Lord through variousmeans, and he has committed to personallysharing the gospel since taking an EvangelismExplosion course in the early 1980s.

Around the same time, he becameinterested in creation science while writinga research paper as a part-time student at

Criswell College. He realized that theBible’s statements about cre-

ation should be taken at

face value. An avid read-er, Mr. Creek became

a fan of the writingsof Dr. Henry Mor-ris, the founder ofICR, and he evenpurchased copiesof Dr. Morris’books to donateto the Chris-tian school his

daughter attended at the time.Mr. Creek began volunteering of-

cially with ICR in March 2010 by assistingand leading a group of fellow volunteers inpreparing promotional materials for distri-bution at conferences. He saved the ministrynearly $10,000 on one event by packing andtaking books, DVDS, and nearly 8,000 lead-ership packets from ICR’s headquarters to theSouthern Baptist Convention’s 2010 nationalpastors’ conference in Orlando, Florida. Foran organization that depends almost exclu-

sively on individual nancial contributions,this was a crucial blessing in optimizing theuse of those resources with which God hasblessed us.

In the summer of 2010, Mr. Creek suf-fered a stroke and a heart attack after under-going triple-bypass surgery. By the grace ofGod, his life was spared, but the stroke affectedhis ability to speak and he had to spend fourmonths in speech rehabilitation. He has madesignicant strides in his recovery since then.

In December, Mr. Creek returned to hiswork as a volunteer at ICR. He took on the re-sponsibility of updating the massive magneticevents calendar board, which tracks all sched-uled ICR events. The events board allows thestaff to track which events our speakers areparticipating in and where they will be trav-eling, and this helps prevent scheduling er-rors. By Mr. Creek maintaining the board, theevents team has more time to plan and par-ticipate in the actual events, further expandingthe reach and ministry of ICR.

Rather than allow his age or health chal-lenges to deter him, Ed Creek has chosen tocontinue to play an active role in advancingthe cause of creation science for God’s King-dom. ICR is very grateful for his work and theefforts of all our volunteers. Their contribu-tions are clearly felt throughout the EventsDepartment and, by extension, the organiza-tion as a whole.

Mr. Latas is an ICR volunteer and Ms. Dao is Assistant Editorat the Institute for Creation Research.

Ed Creek: ICR Volunteer

E R I C L A T A SA N D

C H R I S T I N E D A O

8/9/2019 af1110

23/24

o order, visit www.icr.org/store$16.95 (plus shipping and handling)

O ver 50 years ago, Henry Morris and John Whitcomb joined together to write a contro- versial book that sparked dialogue and debateon Darwin and Jesus, science and the Bible,

evolution and creation—culminating in what would later becalled the birth of the modern creation science movement.

Tis seminal work dened the science and Bibledebate in the 20th century. If Genesis is true, then the Flood

and its after-effects must explain most stratigraphic andfossil evidence. Drs. Morris and Whitcomb brought theirscientic and theological expertise to bear on the question ofthe biblical account of a worldwide ood and how it aligns with earth’s history written in the stones.

Continuously in print for 50 years,Te Genesis Flood offers a denitive treatment of the biblical and scienticevidence of the global Flood in the days of Noah, present-ing a solid case for the Bible’s authority and accuracy in all

areas. With a new preface by Dr. Whitcomb, and a memorialforeword by Drs. Henry Morris III and John Morris, the50th anniversary edition ofTe Genesis Flood is a must-havefor every Christian’s library.

“Te Genesis Flood is as timely, thought-provoking, and helpful as ever. A tour de force and a must-read resource for pastors, teachers, scientists,and anyone who is troubled by the conict between the biblical account ofcreation and the ever-changing claims of modern evolutionary theory.”

— John MacArthur, Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, California

8/9/2019 af1110

24/24

P. O. Box 59029, Dallas, TX 75229www.icr.org

Online SOBA Classes Now Open

O nline classes are now open for ICR’s School of BiblicalApologetics Master of Christian Education (M.C.Ed.)degree program. Join our new class of students bysigning up through our convenient rolling admissions.

Tailored to meeting your ministry needs—from any-where in the world—the M.C.Ed. provides graduates with a

joint major in Biblical Education and Apologetics, along withthe opportunity to minor in one of four unique academicconcentrations:

• Genesis Studies• Creation Research• Christian School Teaching• Sacred Humanities

And if you need to complete a few courses for your

Completion Program as you make the transition to gradu-ate studies.

With an unwavering commitment to the Bible'sinerrant authority—and the historical and theologicalimportance of Genesis 1-11, in particular—SOBA seeksto train Christian adults who are committed to a biblicalview of Scripture, science, and history, uncompromised byevolutionary concepts or other forms of false teaching.

Want to know more about the new onlineM.C.Ed. degree at the School of Biblical Apologetics? Visiticr.edu/soba to take a tour and see how ICR can help youmeet your educational needs as you prepare for ministry.

Secure your place to learn real-world apologetics andearn your M.C.Ed. To speak with an admissions representa-

I N

S T I T U T

E F O R CR E A T I O N R E S E

A R C H

S C H O

O L O F B I B L I C A L A P O L

O G E

T I C S

E Z R A 7 : 1 0

REVELATION 4:11

af1110

Documents