U ntil recently, philosophizingabout geology was done by ge-ologists (e.g., Simpson, Gould,

Dott), but philosophers of science havebegun to examine geolo-gy, providing more of alooking-in-from-outsideperspective (e.g., Cleland,2013; Tucker, 2004;Turner, 2013). In doingso, Gadi Kravitz (2013)has provided an interest-ing twist, recognizing aprofound weakness in his-torical geology:

In other words, in spiteof the fact that the pastis not accessible to di-rect geological re-search, geologistsbelieve in its exis-tence, in its indepen-dence on the thoughtprocess of the geolo-gist, and in his or her

ability to understand it as it actuallyexisted…. (Kravitz, 2013, p. 20)

Geologists have ignored these problemsbecause “Geologists usually accept this

approach and regard it as intuitive andobvious” (p. 20). As a philosopher, Kravitz(2013) sees it differently:

On the face of it, this worldview isintuitive, naïve, and well-adjustedto common sense…. However, clos-er examination reveals its metaphys-ical aspect, and the difficulty torealize it in the framework of geo-historical reasoning. The main diffi-culty lies in the facts that the past isinaccessible and independent, andthat there is no necessary logicalconnection between the past and thepresent…. If the objects of geologi-cal inquiry are cognitively indepen-dent, is it at all possible to knowthem? On the other hand, if it ispossible to know them, how can oneargue that they are independent?(Kravitz, 2013, pp. 20-21)

This is nothing less than a secularphilosopher pulling down the curtain on the

Volume 19 Number 4 July / August 2014

A publication of the Creation Research Society50th Anniversary (1963 – 2013)

W hen was the last time your min-ister, pastor, or rabbi gave asermon on a science-related top-

ic? Probably never, if you attend the typicalchurches or synagogues today. The so-called people of the Book (Christians andJews) all generally accept that the originalmanuscripts of the book known today asthe Holy Bible were inspired by God. Al-though some Christians and Jews believethe Bible that we have today was corruptedin translation, all formally hold to it as abook that is worthy of detailed, in-depthstudy and research.

Many are unaware that Christians,Jews, and even Muslims have historically

taught that God has given his people twosources of wisdom: His word the Bible, andHis word the book of nature (Rusbult,2004). Bishop (2013, p.12) explained thatthe

… two books metaphor––creationand the Bible are two different bookswhose ultimate source is God—alsohas a long history, going back at leastas far as Origen of Alexandria. Al-though theologians tended to viewthe book of nature as a source ofgeneral revelation about God, natu-ral philosophers tended to argue thatthe book of nature also revealed theworkings of creation.

The “two books” teachingThe “two books” metaphor has its “rootsdeep in antiquity” (Hess, 2002, p. 42). Price(1911, p. 9) called these two books “the twogreat revelations which the creator has givenus of himself.” Murphy (2006, p. 64) wrotethat the “two books” metaphor

… has often been used in discussionsabout the possibility of knowledgeof God. The idea is that there aretwo sources for such knowledge, thebook of God’s works—nature—andthe book of God’s words—the Bible.There is a natural knowledge of Godwhich can be gained from observa-

... continued on p. 2

... continued on p.4

Creation Matters Historical Geology's Virtual Past

by John K. Reed, PhD and Peter Klevberg

Neglecting God’s Other Book?by Jerry Bergman, PhD

FIGURE 1. Justifying the linked series of actualism, uniformity,and causality is best done by Christianity. Kravitz (2013) offersa better solution than historical geology, but it is logically flawedand inferior to the theological answer of Christianity. Modifiedfrom Reed (2011).

2 | Creation Research Society

tion of, and thought about, createdthings, and there is a revealed knowl-edge that comes from special disclo-sures of God in history. These canlead, in turn, to natural theology andtheology based upon revelation.

It is for this reason that for centuriesclergy were required to study science as partof their seminary training. This is also whymany scientists were, until very recently,trained as clergy and became scientists onlylater in their careers. Examples include notonly evolution’s popularizer, Charles Dar-win, but also the prominent geologist Rev.Adam Segwick, “who interpreted all scienc-es as aids to religion,” and Rev. John Hen-slow, Regius Professor of Botany atCambridge University, who devoted his lifeto observing nature for evidence of God’shandiwork in order to gain knowledge aboutthe Creator. Historian Kenneth Howell(2002, p. 1) wrote that the major sciencefigures in early modern Europe “believedthat God could be known in both nature andthe Bible.” Bishop (2013) noted that Galileois one of the most well-known proponentsof the two-books view:

[Galileo] … argued that the book ofnature was written in the languageof mathematics and revealed the na-ture of creation. Galileo gave voiceto the growing application of math-ematics to all areas of natural philos-ophy of the sixteenth and

seventeenth centuries: To properlyread or understand creation’s pro-cesses, laws, and so forth, requiresquantifying them so as to understandas accurately as possible their creatednatures given by God.

Another example is Johanus Keplerwho, in a letter dated March 26, 1598, wrote“astronomers are priests of the highest Godin regard to the book of nature.” Accordingto Bishop (2013):

… we are bound to think of the praiseof God and not of the glory of ourown capacities… Those laws arewithin the grasp of the human mind;God wanted us to recognize them bycreating us after his own image sothat we could share in his ownthoughts. Kepler believed that thelanguage of mathematics was crucialto “thinking God’s thoughts” aboutthe nature of creation, and he tookseriously the role of astronomers aspriests articulating God’s book ofnature.

This history explains why all branchesof science were once called, not science,but “natural theology.” Old-book loverssoon learn that pre-1900 books on chemis-try, physics, or biology often contained thewords Natural Theology in their titles. Wil-liam Whewell (1794–1866) coined the word“science” in 1833 to describe a field of studythat increasingly was seen as discrete fromother forms of knowledge (Snyder, 2011,pp. 3, 148, 160).

Pastors once commonly preached fromboth the Bible and the book of nature (now

called science). It is for this reason thatmany ministers once studied science, bothin seminary and as an avocation (Snyder,2011). The Scriptures illustrate this ap-proach in passages such as Psalm 19:1,which proclaims that “the heavens declarethe glory of God.” A pastor thus typicallystudied nature to enable him to declare thistruth to his congregation in a meaningfulway.

William Paley, in his 1802 book appro-priately titled Natural Theology, argued inover 400 pages that, after studying the won-ders of creation, one would be forced toconclude that, like a watch, only an intelli-gent watchmaker can explain its origin.Even today, the number-one reason thatpeople give for their believing in God is theexistence of the wonders and beauty of thenatural world, especially the living world(Shermer, 2000).

Thomas Aquinas, often regarded as thegreatest Christian philosopher who everlived, eloquently argued that wherever com-plex design exists, there must have been anintelligent designer behind it. The key toevidence for design is not complexity, perse, but specified complexity. A junkyard isvery complex, as is also a modern jet air-plane, but only the complexity in the air-plane is specified for a specific purpose;viz., to rapidly carry cargo or passengers inthe atmosphere from one place to another.

Preaching from the two booksJust as studying an artist’s art works is animportant way to learn about the artist as aperson, so too studying the works of God

Creation MattersISSN 1094-6632

Volume 19, Number 4July / August 2014

Copyright © 2014 Creation Research SocietyAll rights reserved.

Editor:Glen W. WolfromAssistant Editors:Jean K. Lightner

Robert HillFor membership / subscription information,

advertising rates, and information for authors:Glen W. Wolfrom, Editor

P.O. Box 8263St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263

Email: CMeditor@creationresearch.orgPhone/fax: 816.279.2312

Creation Research Society Website:www.creationresearch.org

Articles published in Creation Matters represent theopinions and beliefs of the authors, and do not necessarily

reflect the official position of the CRS.

Contents

Historical Geology's Virtual Past...................................1

Neglecting God’s Other Book?......................................1

Letters: Dinosaur Size....................................................5

Snowflakes in Heaven.....................................................6

Matters of Fact: Carbon Copy DNA?.............................7Membership Matters: Future Leaders...........................8Speaking of Science Beware of Misinterpreting Water Claims....................................10 Your Inner Ape Just Got Older...................................................10 Without Bromine, There Would Be No Animals..........................10

Math Matters: Did Dinosaurs Have Small Brains?......11All by Design: Monarch Magic......................................12

God’s Other Book...continued from page 1

Vol. 19 No. 4 July / August | Creation Matters | 3

(the book of nature, or science) is an impor-tant way to learn about the Creator as aperson. A typical conclusion from thisteaching is that of Anselm, an eleventh-century Christian who stressed that onelearns about our Creator by studying hiscreations (Carroll and Shiflett, 2002, p. 71).As Proverbs 3:19 says, “The Lord by wis-dom hath founded the earth; by understand-ing hath He established the heavens.”

Likewise, we can better comprehendGod by understanding the products of Hiswisdom. An advantage of studying the bookof nature is that anyone, anywhere, can“read” it. As Howell noted (2002, p. 23):the “most striking feature in the languageof nature was its clarity. Even the heathencan deduce from the heavens that there is agod.” Critics of this view “tend to over-intellectualize,” ignoring how the marvelsof design, existing everywhere in the naturalworld, from all of life, to chemistry and thelaws of physics, support the biblical claimsof the wonders of God’s creation (Leegwa-ter, 2009, p. 1).

Furthermore, the two-books viewstresses that they are “in divine harmony,”and each revelation supports and defends,and one often helps to both support andexplain the other (Price, 1911, p. 9). Price(1911, p. 25) concluded from his researchthat “God’s larger book of nature” confirms“his written word … showing the absoluteharmony between the book of nature andGod’s written Word.” The fact is, for manypersons today God speaks “through therevelations of Scripture and Nature” (Hess,2002, p. 45).

Out of this teaching grew the universitysystem that we know today. The first col-leges in Europe were called cathedralschools because college classes were oftenheld in cathedrals. This is one reason whymost early university buildings looked very

much like cathedrals. Cathedral schoolssoon expanded into teaching not only the-ology, but also Latin and, later, science inorder to train priests and others about God’screation.

Eventually, universities added law,medicine, and other subjects to their curri-cula. For this reason Carroll and Shiflett(2002, p. 71) concluded that the foundingof the modern “university must be creditedto the Christian church.” All universities inthe West and in the Americas were estab-lished and run by churches until fairly re-cently. Most colleges, even today, are, orwere, church related. The first secular pri-vate university in the United States wasCornell, established in the late 1800s.

ConclusionsOne of the most convincing proofs for theexistence of a creator has been the existenceof the creation. Eloquently propounded bySaint Thomas Aquinas and other prominentchurch fathers, this line of evidence waselaborated by William Paley and many oth-ers since then. Paley compared the intricacyand design of living organisms to mechan-ical watches. He concluded that it is imme-diately apparent when one holds a watchthat it was designed by an intelligent engi-neer and built by skilled craftsmen. Like-wise, the field of biology, which was justbeginning to develop in Paley’s time, hashelped to convince many persons today ofthe validity of the logic that design indicatesthe existence of a designer.

This is one of several reasons why thetwo-books metaphor was taught in thechurches and schools for centuries. To con-clude, I will quote Roger Bacon who wrotein his tome, Advancement of Learning, thatno man should “think or maintain, that aman can search too far or be too well studiedin the book of God’s word, or in the bookof God’s works … but rather let men en-

deavor an endless progress of proficienciesin both” (quoted in Darwin, 1859, reversefly leaf). The fact is, God’s world agreeswith God’s Word.

Acknowledgements: Thanks to ThomasStogdill, MD, Clifford Lillo, M.A., andMaryAnn Stewart, M.A. for assistance withthe manuscript.

ReferencesBishop, R. 2013. God and methodological naturalism

in the scientific revolution and beyond. Per-spectives on Science and Christian Faith.65(1): 10–23.

Carroll, V. and D. Shiflett. 2002. Christianity on Tri-al: Arguments against Anti-Religious Bigotry.San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books.

Darwin, C. 1859. The Origin of Species. London:John Murray.

Hess, P.M. 2002. God’s Two Books: Special Revela-tion and Natural Science in the Christian West.In H. Regan and M. W. Worthing (editors). In-terdisciplinary Perspectives on Cosmology andBiological Evolution. Adelaide: AustralianTheological Forum.

Howell, K. 2002. God’s Two Books. Notre Dame,IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Leegwater, A. 2009. The two-book metaphor: whatquestions do we need to ask. Perspectives onScience and Christian Faith. 61(1):1–2.

Murphy, G.L. 2006. Reading God’s two books. Per-spectives on Science and Christian Faith.58(1): 64–67.

Price, G.M. 1911. God’s Two Books; Or Plain FactsAbout Evolution, Geology and the Bible. Wash-ington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing As-sociation.

Rusbult, C. 2004. How Should We Interpret the TwoBooks of God, in Scripture & Nature. Unpub-lished manuscript.

Shermer, M. 2000. How We Believe: The Search forGod in an Age of Science. New York: Freeman.

Snyder, L. 2011. The Philosophical Breakfast Club.New York: Broadway Books.

As new scientific discoveries make the headlines, have you ever wondered how your fellow creation-ists are reacting? Have you ever thought of a “crazy” new idea about origins and wanted tobounce it off another creationist?

If you prefer a web-based forum for discussion, CRSforum is also available to members.For more information, send an e-mail message to Glen Wolfrom at contact@creationresearch.org.

Participation is limited to CRS members in good standing.

What Are Creationists Thinking about ...?

Now you can keep in contact daily with creationists from all around the world. The CreationResearch Society sponsors CRSnet, an online community of CRS members who have e-mail accessto the Internet. Not only do participants discuss the latest scientific findings related to origins, butthey also receive news about the CRS — its research, publications, and activities — and other creation-related news.

4 | Creation Research Society

wizards of historical geology. Although heechoes Reed (1998; 2011), who noted thatuniformitarianism is justified largely onnecessary wishful thinking, he does so fordifferent reasons:

It can therefore be said that the ge-ologists’ knowledge of the past isbased on pretheoretical assumptions,often of a metaphysical nature, notsusceptible to logical or empiricalproof. In a certain sense, they are theproducts of the geologists’ imagina-tion… (Kravitz, 2013, p. 21, empha-sis added).

Kravitz (2013) believes this blindnessto their belief system stems from a generalignorance of philosophy by earth scientists,but we think he misses the endemic lack ofany self-correcting mechanism in theirworldview. Naturalism is a belief systemthat cannot examine its axioms critically,because its adherents do not believe that itis a belief system. Labeling all other views“myths,” they unwittingly create their own.A misplaced belief that science is truthprevents the necessary reflexive critique.Kravitz (2013) may share their naturalism,but sees these problems because he does notshare their philosophical realism:

However, this attitude indicates thatgeologists entertaining a realistic ap-proach consciously or unconsciouslyassume that the time arrow is one-directional and irreversible (Kravitz,2013, p. 20).

His analysis is devastating to historicalgeology for two reasons. First, it providesa secular critique that validates the creation-ist critique. Geologists have essentially cre-ated a virtual world, like that in the movieThe Matrix, and live in that imaginary realm,not only oblivious to outside reality, butworse, oblivious to its very possibility.Kravitz (2013) bypasses issues more famil-iar to us, like time, evolution, and energylevels of past processes. Instead, he ques-tions the foundations of the geological past,asking philosophical questions that geolo-gists are ill-equipped to answer. He is rightlysurprised at geologists’ confidence in unex-amined metaphysical assumptions. Cre-ationists that emphasize the role ofpresuppositions and worldviews have notedsimilar problems (e.g., Klevberg, 1999;Reed, 2001).

Second, he proposes a weak solution

in contrast to the stronger theological an-swer of early scientists and today’s creation-ists. Despite inroads by neocatastrophism,geologists are still essentially uniformitari-an. Kravitz (2013), like others, prefers theterm “actualism” to distance himself fromerrors associated with uniformitarianism(Austin, 1979; Gould, 1987; Hooykaas,1963; Rudwick, 1971; Shea, 1982). He con-cludes (p. 32, bold in original) that “actual-ism” must be justified by uniformity anduniformity, by a continuity of cause andeffect:

To sum up, we can say that actual-ism is based on the uniformity prin-ciple, which is essentially based onthe principle of causality…

This is what Reed (2011) and Reed andWilliams (2012) concluded (Figure 1, upperpart). If everything comes down to causality,then how is it justified, especially in the faceof the massive causal discontinuity of thebig bang? This is where Kravitz and Chris-tians part ways. Kravitz would agree withthe upper progression of Figure 1, but hejustifies causal continuity differently thanboth historical geology and Christianity. Hethinks that causality “obtains its justifica-tion from the second law of thermody-namics” (p. 32, bold in original).

What aspect of the second law does so?Kravitz (2013, p. 27) believes it is the timearrow of entropy that shows a constant lineartrend over Earth’s past:

…why is it [second law] so importantfor geohistorical explanation…? Incontrast to the other laws of physics,the second law of thermodynamicsdescribes the macroscopic world of

nature as a world governed by anasymmetric and irreversible time ar-row—in other words, it describes aseries of unique events, joined toeach other and developing in onedirection. Therefore, the majority ofphysical phenomena, irreversible inthe time dimension, are explained bythis law.

What better justifies the unobservedworld of the past—entropy or God? A majorproblem for Kravitz (and other secularists)is that they place causality in the physicalarena of matter, energy, and “natural law.”Christians, on the other hand, attribute caus-al continuity to God’s will. Thus, the bigbang, which dramatically breaks the causalchain in the physical realm, is a seriousproblem for all secularists. They might tryto argue that ex nihilo creation does the samething, but in doing so, they miss the crucialdistinction that Christians think causality isa topic of theology or metaphysics, notthermodynamics (or any other science).Christianity is consistent where secularismis not, able to account for physical discon-tinuities of Creation and miracles.

A further problem is that Kravitz (2013)does not realize that geologists’ blind con-fidence in their virtual past is a historicalleftover of the Christian worldview thatdominated culture in geology’s early days(Figure 2). As many have noted (e.g., Glov-er, 1984; Mangalwadi, 2012; Stark, 2003;2005), Christianity gave birth to science. Ifso, we would expect vestiges of Christiantheology in naturalism, which is preciselywhat we see (Reed, 2001 Reed et al., 2004).Kravitz’ critique would be exponentiallymore embarrassing if he were to see thisfurther argument for orthodox Christianity,and the inherent contradictions it creates foranti-Christian secular thinkers.

A third problem for Kravitz is the ques-tion of whether or not a physical law canjustify a metaphysical axiom. A physicallaw may point to metaphysical reality, butjustification is a different problem.

Fourth, his use of the “time arrow ofentropy” to justify the “uniformity princi-ple” is circular. The “time arrow” is a con-struct, extrapolated from observations of thepast two centuries. There are no observa-tions from a thousand years ago, a millionyears ago, or thirteen billion years ago. Forthat reason, almost the entire “arrow” isinferred, and that inference rests on theprinciple of uniformity. Thus, the argumentis circular.

We agree with Hume that causality

Geology’s Virtual Past...continued from page 1

FIGURE 2. Axioms of historical geologyflow from Christianity. They are thus inex-plicable by naturalism.

Vol. 19 No. 4 July / August | Creation Matters | 5

cannot be empirically justified. We see theeffects, but can never observe the cause.However, we can know the cause becausewe can know God via revelation. It cannotbe proven by science, only by theologicalreasoning. Thus, Kravitz’ case is muchweaker than the Christian justification basedon the nature and character of God.

ConclusionUniformitarianism is the bedrock of histor-ical geology. For many years it was unques-tioned—“the foundational principle ofgeology” (Challinor, 1968, p. 331). Butcracks in the foundation appeared in 1961with the release of The Genesis Flood andin 1963, with the critique of Reijer Hooy-kaas. Geologists suddenly realized that theword was equivocal. A 1963 GeologicalSociety of America symposium, The Fabricof Geology, attempted to find a solution, butit was the 1965 article by Gould that turnedto semantics for an answer, and that evasivestrategy was widely accepted by geologists(Reed, 2010).

But Kravitz (2013) has forced the issueback to bedrock, and no appeal to semanticscan rescue the virtual world of historicalgeology from itself. Contrary to Kravitz(2013), neither can an appeal to thermody-namics. Only a return to orthodox Christi-anity can provide a sound justification forcausality, uniformity, and (in limited cases)for actualism (Reed, 2011).

ReferencesCRSQ: Creation Research Society QuarterlyAlbritton, C.C., Jr. (editor). 1963. Fabric of Geology.

Freeman, Cooper, and Company, Stanford, Cal-ifornia.

Austin, S.A. 1979. Uniformitarianism - a doctrinethat needs rethinking. The Compass of SigmaGamma Epsilon 56(2):29–45.

Cleland, C.E. 2013. Common cause explanation andthe search for the “smoking gun.” In Baker,V.R. (editor). Rethinking the Fabric of Geolo-gy, pp. 1–10, Geological Society of AmericaSpecial Paper 502, Boulder, CO.

Challinor, J. 1968. Uniformitarianism—the funda-mental principle of geology. XXIII Internation-al Geological Congress 13:331–343.

Glover, W. 1984. Biblical origins of modern secularculture. Macon, Georgia: Mercer UniversityPress.

Gould, S.J. 1965. Is uniformitarianism necessary?American Journal of Science 263:223–228.

Gould, S.J. 1987. Time’s Arrow Time’s Cycle: Mythand Metaphor in the Discovery of GeologicalTime. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,MA.

Hooykaas, R. 1963. The Principle of Uniformity inGeology, Biology, and Theology, second im-pression. E.J. Brill, London.

Klevberg, P. 1999. The philosophy of sequence stra-tigraphy—Part I: philosophic background.CRSQ 36:72–80.

Kravitz, Gadi. 2013. The thermodynamics time ar-row and the logical function of the uniformityprinciple in geohistorical explanation. In Baker,V.R. (editor). Rethinking the Fabric of Geolo-gy, pp. 19–40. Geological Society of AmericaSpecial Paper 502, Boulder CO.

Mangalwadi, V. 2012. The Book that Made YourWorld: How the Bible Created the Soul ofWestern Civilization. Thomas Nelson Publish-ers, Nashville, TN.

Reed, J.K. 1998. Demythologizing uniformitarianhistory. CRSQ 35(3):157–165.

Reed, J.K. 2001. Natural History in the ChristianWorldview. Creation Research Society Books,Chino Valley, AZ.

Reed, J.K. 2010. Untangling Uniformitarianism, Lev-el I: A Quest for Clarity. Answers ResearchJournal 3:37–59.

Reed, J.K. 2011. Untangling Uniformitarianism, Lev-el II: Actualism in Crisis. Answers ResearchJournal 4:203–215.

Reed, J.K. and E.L. Williams. 2012. Battlegrounds ofnatural history, part II: actualism. CRSQ49(2):135–152.

Reed, J.K., P. Klevberg, C.B. Bennett, C.R. Froede,Jr., A.J. Akridge, and T.L. Lott. 2004. BeyondScientific Creationism. CRSQ 41(3):216–230.

Rudwick, M.J.S. 1971. Uniformity and progression:reflections on the structure of geological theoryin the age of Lyell. In Roller, D.H.D. Perspec-tives in the History of Science and Technology.University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

Shea, J.H. 1982. Twelve fallacies of uniformitarian-ism. Geology 10:455–460.

Stark, R. 2003. For the Glory of God, Princeton Uni-versity Press, Princeton, NJ.

Stark, R. 2005. The Victory of Reason: How Christi-anity led to Freedom, Capitalism, and WesternSuccess. Random House, New York, NY.

Tucker, A. 2004. Our Knowledge of the Past: A Phi-losophy of Historiography. Cambridge Univer-sity Press, Cambridge, UK.

Turner, D. 2013. Historical geology: methodologyand metaphysics. In Baker, V.R. (editor). Re-thinking the Fabric of Geology, pp. 11–18,Geological Society of America Special Paper502, Boulder, CO.

Whitcomb, J.C. and H.M. Morris. 1961. The GenesisFlood. Presbyterian and Reformed PublishingCompany, Philadelphia, PA.

Dinosaur Size

T he previous edition of CreationMatters contains an article by Dr.Donald DeYoung titled, “Why

Were Dinosaurs so Large?” The basicconclusion of this article is probably accu-rate. Protection from predators, as well asdigestive efficiency, might be primary ben-efits to the giant size of many herbivorousdinosaurs. (O’Gorman and Hone, 2012)However, this article also contains numer-ous, serious errors.

Eight out of the nine genera of dino-

saurs in this table are misspelled by leavingoff the “-us” at the end (e.g., Tyrannosauruschanged to “Tyrannosaur”). Why the au-thor repeatedly removed these is unclear,but it was probably related to a misunder-standing of zoological nomenclature andterminology. Members of the family Ty-rannosauridae (for instance, the genera Ty-rannosaurus, Albertosaurus, andDaspletosaurus) are technically referred toas “tyrannosaurids,” but they are often col-loquially termed “tyrannosaurs.” The low-er-case term “tyrannosaur” could also referto a member of the genus Tyrannosaurus

(the scientific name must always be capital-ized and italicized). However, it is neverappropriate in any context to shorten specif-ic names (e.g., refer to the genus Compsog-nathus as “Compsognath”).

Also wrong is the claim that, “the av-erage adult size was that of a dog or sheep.”The idea that many or most dinosaurs weresmaller is a curiously enduring myth, per-haps popularized most by author MichaelCrichton in The Lost World, his sequel toJurassic Park. His character Ian Malcom

... continued on p. 9

6 | Creation Research Society

Snowflakes in Heavena devotional by Kenneth G. Dale, DDS

T his remarkable world in which welive is both simple and complex. Itis simple in that it can be reduced

to only four different interacting parts:Three building blocks of matter (protons,neutrons, and electrons) and one mobileforce of massless energy (photons). Theworld is complex in that through the inter-action of these four entities everything existsand functions. It’s hard to believe that justthese four entities compose everything wephysically experience, but it’s true (see“Clearly Invisible,” Creation Matters Vol.19, No. 2 ).

Every door of insight bringsinto awareness many morewindows of the unexplored

unknown.

We as humans must explain things in termsof what we know. We also like to explainthings in terms of what we experience andcan relate to. But as humans—created byGod—we also intuitively (instinctually)know that there is so much beyond us; wehave awareness that there is more to com-prehend beyond our abilities to do so.

We can see this along the path of sci-entific investigation. Here, the investigationand exploration into answering questionsabout the world quickly produce more un-answered questions than answered ones.Any scientist will agree that the more onelearns the less one knows, where every doorof insight brings into awareness many morewindows of the unexplored unknown. Al-though a scientist is attracted to the unan-swered, and is driven to find those answers,and frequently finds them, he concedes thatthere are some questions unanswerable.

Our existence in this world is hardenough to figure out and explain, but whatabout the next existence in the new worldto come?

“...all the old ways are gone… Look! Iam making everything new!”

—Revelation 21:4–5 (NCV)But in keeping with his promise we arelooking forward to a new heaven and a

new earth...—2 Peter 3:13 (NIV)

God says we will have a new existence.When God says that all things will be madenew, and when He says that there will be a

new heaven and a new earth, what does hemean? We must be very careful here; thereare some unfathomable possibilities to con-sider.

Consider this possibility: our currentworld of photons, protons, neutrons, andelectrons may not compose the new heavenand the new earth. It’s hard to imagine whatthat even means, but God could use some-thing completely different and somethinggreatly more complex to create our eternalexistence. Perhaps the current buildingblocks of creation are mere shadows ofsomething much more glorious to come.Can a frozen drop of water be expressedany more magnificently than through theice crystals that compose a snowflake? Yes!

Go ahead and open your mind to theextremes of those possibilities, because Godwill only get bigger and bigger in yourexistence. Oh, and if you can think in thoseterms without exhausting your mind, con-tinue on in the mental challenge and try tothink in terms of a God that is timeless (See“Timeless,” Creation Matters Vol. 19, No.3).

But do not forget this one thing, dearfriends: With the Lord a day is like athousand years, and a thousand years

are like a day.—2 Peter 3:8 (NIV)

To you, a thousand years is like thepassing of a day, or like a few hours in

the night.—Psalm 90:4 (NCV)

If time becomes little to no factor inthe life to come, then the words that we useto distinguish different timespans will be-come meaningless. The phrase, “Wait aminute” becomes indistinguishable from:Wait a(n) ______ (instant, second, minute,hour, day, month, year, decade, century,millennium, eternity). Now we as humans,who are bound by time and experience time,can’t really know what this would be like.Even when we are not aware of the presenceof time (a short nap, a night’s sleep, anextended coma) we are still fully subject tothe effects of that time (the body still agesand the calendar continues). Of course weare still subject to time even though we maybe unaware of it. Time is like gravity in that,on Earth, we are always subject to it. ButGod is not subject to gravity or time; neitherhas any effect on Him.

This is a difficult thought toentertain: To God, an instant of

time may be the same as aneternity of time.

We must not restrict God with time andshould allow for the possibility that to himan “instant” and “eternity” are not any dif-ferent. The Bible hints at this when it saysthat two greatly different measures of timeare in fact equivalent with no difference toGod. Twenty-four hours may be equivalentto a day according to us, and a thousandyears is like 365,000 days to us, but to Goda day may not be any different from eternity.Yes, that thought is way out there, for sure,and not so comfortable (among otherthings), but it may be true.

While here in this realm of thought,here are some provoking questions: WillWE be subject to time in the new heavensand the new earth? If all things will be madenew, does that include time? Will the newcreation that is not subject to decay be builtfrom the same building blocks that are cur-rently subject to decay? Will there be snow-flakes in Heaven? Will the snowflakes bemade new and be something we have neverseen or imagined before? Just look at all thewindows in this room!

Such knowledge is too wonderful forme, too great for me to understand!

—Psalm 139:6 (NLT) Perhaps like the cube is to the square,like the sphere is to the circle, or like thepyramid is to the triangle, so is the newcreation to the old creation. The old creationcould be a type or shadow of the newcreation. Our current creation (and the four"building blocks" used) could be a mereshadow of what is to come. Most everyonebelieves that Heaven will be better anddifferent, but we mostly mentally composean image of what that may be from whatwe currently know. We envision old cre-ation snowflakes, not something new. Why?Well, we are less likely to compose an imageof that future existence from what is possiblebecause we generally like to know what ourfuture holds, and we prefer something betterknown over the unknown or unexplainable.This is God-restrictive thinking, however.

Can the created even fathom what ispossible from the Creator? Not really...it'stoo wonderful for us. Can an amoeba (the

Vol. 19 No. 4 July / August | Creation Matters | 7

simplest form of life) comprehend the waysof man (the most complex form of life)?No, obviously not, on so many levels. Likethe vast differences between the ways ofamoebae and mankind are the vast differ-ences between the ways of mankind andGod. Be good with that.

Take refuge and comfort between thevast levels of difference between mankindand God. A state of wonder and awe is anappropriate state for the created in the pres-ence of the Creator and His creation.

Everyone was amazed and gave praiseto God. They were filled with awe andsaid, “We have seen remarkable things

today.”—Luke 5:26 NIV

Yes, Heaven will last for eternity, butwill it be subject to time? This is one ofthose unanswerable questions, beyond ourabilities to comprehend. Yet we should notshy away from the possibility of its truthjust because we cannot understand it orexplain it. Just look at snowflakes and knowthey are simply beautiful, independent ofunderstanding the complex physics andchemistry behind them. There are levels ofcomplexity within a snowflake that eventhe best molecular physicist would concedeas unknowable. This is not defeat, but rathera victory, when one also understands andconcludes that there is a God who easilycreated every single one of these levels ofintricate complexity. Yes, the unknown andunexplainable are actually a comforting

thing and it points to a great and magnifi-cent, all powerful God.

From whose womb comes the ice? Whogives birth to the frost from the

heavens?—Job 38:29 NIV

The next time you see a snowflake,know that the remarkable and gloriouschemistry and physics behind its beautyreflects the One who created it. Oh, God,how wonderful it is to be in a state of awein Your presence!

Carbon Copy DNA?byJean K. Lightner, DVM, MS

Editor’s note: You may submit your question to Dr.Jean Lightner at jean@creationresearch.org. It willnot be possible to provide an answer for each question,but she will choose those which have a broad appealand lend themselves to relatively short answers.

Q Don’t all cells in a per-son’s body contain ex-

actly the same DNAsequence?

A It has been commonly assumedthat this is true, at least in healthy

cells. It has been believed that undernormal circumstances DNA is copiedexactly, each time before a cell divides.However, differences in DNA nucle-otide sequence between different cellsin the same person have been identified.This difference in sequence betweendifferent cells in the body is termedsomatic mosaicism. While the differ-ence can be one nucleotide found inthe place of another, many of thesedifferences are much larger. A numberof structural changes have been identi-fied where a large segment has beenremoved, duplicated, or moved to anew position (e.g., flipped). There aremany cases where somatic mosaicism hasbeen associated with cancer or some otherdisease (O’Huallachain et al., 2012).

However, not all instances of somaticmosaicism are related to disease. In fact,the ability to change the DNA sequence in

cells is an essential part of the immunesystem that keeps us healthy. It does notinvolve a random sort of mutation thatoccurs in a haphazard way and is likely todestroy function. Rather the mutations areconfined to a specific region and serve aspecific purpose—to form an antibody inresponse to the antigen on a foreign invader(e.g., a bacterium or virus). Your life de-pends on this ability!

It has been controversial whether so-matic mosaicism is usually a sign of mal-function and potential disease, or if it is anormal characteristic of life. There areprobably two reasons the first option hasbeen strongly argued. First, some of theearliest examples known were associated

with disease. This is not particularly sur-prising as disease research is relatively wellfunded. At one time bacteria were largelyviewed in a negative way because they canbe associated with disease. However, mostbacteria are not associated with disease atall, and many are essential to life on earth.

A second reason why a person mightargue that somatic mosaicism is a sign ofpotential disease is the underlying neo-Dar-

winian view that pervades our culture.For generations we have been told thatall changes to the DNA sequence arethe result of accidents or copying errors.If this were true, then it certainly wouldbe expected that the majority of thosechanges would cause problems. Ran-dom changes in a complex system arecertainly not desirable! However, thisassumption is based on the idea that lifewas not designed and “natural process-es” can explain its origin. Is there reallya strong reason to stick with that as-sumption?

Recently, evidence has been accumu-lating that genetic differences between

cells is a characteristic of apparently healthytissues in adults. One type of variation iscalled copy number variation (CNV; seeFigure 1). In one study involving six indi-viduals, it was found that CNV occurs in

... continued on p. 8

FIGURE 1. This figure depicts duplication and deletionof a segment of DNA (“blue,” which may be thousandsof base pairs long, or more). Both processes will changethe number of copies present, and thus result in copynumber variation (CNV). CNV is an important type ofvariation seen between humans and between cells withina single human.

8 | Creation Research Society

many tissues including liver, kidney, pan-creas, and brain. Some of the genomicregions involved are quite large. They oftenaffect genes, especially those involved inregulation. There were a few exampleswhere CNVs were found in the same regionof the genome in different people, suggest-ing there may be hotspots (O’Huallachainet al., 2012).

Even more groundbreaking researchhas been done on the placenta in mice.Some earlier studies had suggested thatCNV were not a common feature in theplacenta of rodents, but a more recent studylooked at a specific subset of polyploidtrophoblast giant cells in mice. These giantcells are impressive because the large nu-cleus contains many extra sets of chromo-somes, and because they carry out functions

essential for the survival of the embryo. Ithas been concluded that somatic CNV area normal part of placental cell biology (Han-nibal et al., 2014).

More specifically, the researchersfound 47 areas—totaling 6% of the ge-nome—where segments of the genome wereunderrepresented due to underreplication(as opposed to deletion). They were in latereplicating portions, having been markedwith chromatin prior to endoreplication(replications of DNA without subsequentcell division). These regions are predomi-nately gene deserts and genes involved incell adhesion or neurogenesis. So whilesomatic mosaicism is as essential in theplacenta as it is in the immune system, themechanism of change is different from thedeletion and recombination observed in thelatter.

What does all this mean? It means thatneo-Darwinian ideas about how the genome

changes are wrong—it is not just randomchance processes or copying errors. Instead,there are a number of designed mechanismsby which the genome can change to allowfor life to reproduce and flourish, as Godintended (Genesis 1:22, 28; 8:17; Isaiah45:18).

ReferencesHannibal, R.L., E.B. Chuong, J.C. Rivera-Mulia,

D.M. Gilbert, A. Valouev, and J.C. Baker.2014. Copy number variation is a fundamentalaspect of the placental genome. PLoS Genetics10(5):e1004290.

O’Huallachain, K.J. Karczewski, S.M. Weissman,A.E. Urban, and M.P. Snyder. 2012. Extensivegenetic variation in somatic human tissues.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-ences 109(44):18018–18023.

Carbon Copies...continued from page 7

Membership Matters

Future LeadersStudent Sponsorship

A re you a student in high school,college, or graduate school?Would you like to become a mem-

ber of the Creation Research Society (CRS),giving you access to cutting-edge researchin Creation Science? CRS members arewilling to ‘pay it forward’ by sponsoringyour membership in our Society. This is anincredible opportunity for you to join theranks of the world’s only professional soci-ety for creationists, at no cost to you. Weconsider it an investment in the next gener-ation of creation scientists and profession-als.

As a sponsored Future Leader, you will:

● have digital access to our peer-re-viewed research journal, the CreationResearch Society Quarterly

● have digital access to our bimonthly,semi-technical publication, CreationMatters

● have digital access to all availableback issues of both publications

● be able to participate in the CRSnetemail discussion forum with fellowcreation researchers

● receive special, member-only dis-counts and offers on books, DVDs,and other materials

● receive advance announcements andmember discounts to attend our an-nual conference

If you agree with our Statement ofBelief and are currently a student at anypublic or private college, university, highschool, or homeschool program, you mayapply for a sponsored membership by com-pleting the application on the newly rede-signed CRS website (www.crsq.org).

When approved, you will be notifiedby email, providing you with instructionsto obtain online access to our materials. Aslong as sponsorship funds remain available,your sponsored membership will last untilyou receive your degree. While we cannotguarantee future funding, we will do every-thing we can to continue your sponsorshipthroughout your schooling.

Are you a CRS member who wouldlike to support this Future Leaders studentsponsorship program? We encourage youto designate a gift today.

Creation Research Society6801 N. Highway 89

Chino Valley, AZ 86323

Now Availablein the

CRS Online Store

GiftCertificatesShop at the CRS store

www.CRSbooks.org

Vol. 19 No. 4 July / August | Creation Matters | 9

notes that, “Dinosaurs were mostlysmall.…People always think they werehuge, but the average dinosaur was the sizeof a sheep, or a small pony.” (Crichton,1995) Ironically, creationists repeat thisquote, even sourcing it to Crichton in writ-ings, such as Ken Ham’s chapter “WhatReally Happened to the Dinosaurs” in An-swers in Genesis’s The New Answers Book.(Ham, 2006) It is correct to say either, “Notall dinosaurs were large,” or “Some dino-saurs were small,” but it is not true thatdinosaurs tended to be small.

While a thorough overview of dinosaursize (i.e., mass) is beyond the scope of thiswriting, several authors have touched on thesubject. Comparing size estimates for 220genera of dinosaurs, Peczkis found that earlydinosaur discoveries may have been biasedby a focus on finding large specimens, sincethe number of smaller dinosaur discoverieshave increased over time. Nevertheless, hestill found that “The 1–10 ton body-masscategory is the modal one for all dinosaurgenera…” and “…dinosaurs on nearly everycontinent…” (Peczkis, 1995) Recent stud-ies confirm that, even factoring in the biasintroduced by taphonomic processes, dino-saur body size was skewed toward largersizes in a way unlike mammals. (O’Gormanand Hone, 2012) Estimations of dinosaursize have gone down for some genera overtime, but the popular perception is stillcorrect: dinosaurs tended to be quite large.

DeYoung provided examples of smallerdinosaurs, but even these are inaccurate.He refers to “Compsognath” (correctlyCompsognathus), which he wrote,“…weighed about 15 pounds, the size of alarge cat,” as well as “Psittacosaur” (cor-rectly Psittacosaurus), allegedly, “similarin size to a squirrel.” The largest specimenof Compsognathus, MNHN CNJ 79, waslikely an adult, and weighed perhaps around2.5 kg (5.5 lb). (Paul, 1988) Domestic catstypically weigh around 4-5 kg (8.8-11 lb),so it was smaller, but close to the size of anaverage cat. Estimates for adult size inPsittacosaurus vary, depending on the spe-cies, between 5-18 kg (11-39.7 lb). (Paul,2010)

With reference to the larger dinosaurs,DeYoung pointed to “Argentinosaur” (cor-rectly Argentinosaurus) and “Giganto-saur,” which he calls, “an economy-sized

Tyrannosaur 42 feet long and weighing 8tons.” The latter is completely confused.It is not only misspelled, lacking the “-us”ending, but also, if corrected, it would referto Gigantosaurus (“giant lizard”), an Eng-lish sauropod, instead of the Argentinetheropod Giganotosaurus (“giant southernlizard”) the predator to which he clearlyrefers. Giganotosaurus was not a memberof the family Tyrannosauridae, nor evenremotely similar. It was a member of thefamily Carcharodontosauridae, a group con-taining Acrocanthosaurus and more similarto Allosaurus and kin. Nor, in comparisonto tyrannosaurids, was it “economy sized”(most tyrannosaurids were smaller).

In the table of sizes, the “Ultrasaur”(correctly Ultrasauros) is no longer a validgenus, since it was mistakenly composed ofa combination of Supersaurus and Brachio-saurus bones.

Inaccurate data about average dinosaursize and the size of specific species, as wellas inaccuracies relating to classification,growth patterns, and the misspelling of themajority of dinosaur names detract badlyfrom this article. Historically, the unfortu-nate trend is that the majority of materialpublished by creationists about dinosaurshas been characterized by significant scien-tific errors. If creationists want to providea compelling counter argument to the waydinosaurs are usually presented as evidencefor evolution, greater rigor and scientificaccuracy are necessary. The suggestion ismade that the CRS consider the addition ofa Paleontology Editor, both to improve qual-ity and prevent material with significanterrors from being published in the future.

ReferencesCrichton, M. 1995. The Lost World. New York: Bal-

lantine Books.Ham, K. 2006. The New Answers Book (Vol. 1). (K.

Ham, Ed.) Green Forest: Master Books.O’Gorman, E.J. and D.W. Hone. 2012. Body size

distribution of the dinosaurs. PLoS One7(12):e51925.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051925

Paul, G.S. 1988. Predatory Dinosaurs of the World.New York: Simon and Schuster.

Paul, G.S. 2010. The Princeton Field Guide to Dino-saurs. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Peczkis, J. 1995. Implications of body-mass esti-mates for dinosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Pa-leontology 14:520–533.doi:10.1080/02724634.1995.10011575

— name withheld by request

Author’s ReplyI thank the letter writer for his response tothe Creation Matters article concerning di-nosaur size (DeYoung, 2014). His maincriticism concerns dinosaur names such asstegosaur versus Stegosaurus. He demandsuse of the latter systematic genus name.However, in popular literature many writersprefer the suffix “saur” instead of “saurus.”This shorter term is a nonspecific commonname, as intended in the Creation Mattersarticle. Most readers are aware of the ge-neric distinction, that Stegosaurus is a stego-saur, but not all stegosaurs are the specificStegosaurus (Hone, 2012).

Further questions concern the averagesize of dinosaurs, their life spans and ratesof growth. Each of these topics remainsuncertain and under discussion. I agree withthe writer that current estimates trend to-ward a larger average size for adult dino-saurs.

The letter’s author also implies thatnon-paleontologists lack credibility in writ-ing about dinosaurs or paleontology in gen-eral. From this I conclude that he may havemissed the entire point of the article: Thephysical size of all living things, includingdinosaurs, is limited by the mathematicalrelationship between their volumes andcross-sectional support areas, a physics con-cept which non-physicists, even paleontol-ogists, should appreciate.

ReferencesDeYoung, D. 2014. Why were dinosaurs so large?

Creation Matters 19(3):5.Hone, D. 2012. Saurus vs. saur? Ask a Biologist. Re-

trieved June 21, 2014, fromaskabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=7679

Letters...continued from page 5

10 | Creation Research Society

Editor’s note: Unless otherwise noted, S.O.S. (Speaking of Science) items in this issue arekindly provided by David Coppedge, editor of “Creation-Evolution Headlines” athttp://crev.info. Opinions expressed herein are his. Unless otherwise noted, emphasis is addedin all quotes.

Beware of Misinterpreting Water Claims

A claim of vast reservoirs of waterdeep in the earth is based on indi-rect evidence, and likely has little

or nothing to do with surface water orfloods.

ScienceDaily reported, “New evidencefor ‘oceans’ of water deep in Earth:

Water bound in mantle rock alters view ofEarth’s composition.”1  The amount of water

may be triple the volume of all the earth’s oceansand lakes combined, the article says.

Researchers from Northwestern University and the Univer-sity of New Mexico report evidence for potentially oceansworth of water deep beneath the United States. Though notin the familiar liquid form — the ingredients for water arebound up in rock deep in the Earth’s mantle — the discoverymay represent the planet’s largest water reservoir.

The water is inferred to exist indirectly through echoes of seismicwaves.  Scientists believe it became entrapped in mantle rock duringsubduction of continental plates.2

A key point about this water is that it is bound up in mantle rock;it does not exist in a liquid form.  Indeed, it cannot be liquid,because it is under extreme pressure and heat in the transition zonebetween the upper and lower mantle.  Being 250 to 410 miles deep,it has no way to reach the surface and influence the oceans exceptthrough plate tectonics.  The “ingredients” for water are bound upin minerals like ringwoodite and wadsleyite that can contain 1–3%water by weight.1. Northwestern University. (2014, June 12) New evidence for 'oceans' of water

deep in Earth: Water bound in mantle rock alters view of Earth's composi-tion. ScienceDaily. Retrieved June 20, 2014 fromwww.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140612142309.htm

2. Schmandt, B., S.D. Jacobsen, T.W. Becker, Z. Liu, and K. G. Dueker. 2014.Earth’s interior. Dehydration melting at top of the lower mantle. Science344(6189):1265–1268.

Your Inner Ape Just Got Older

E volutionists have doubled their dateof the chimp-human split from 7 mil-lion to 13 million years ago.  How,and why?

National Geographic an-nounces gleefully, with a picture ofa chimp playing with a child, “An-cient Human-Chimp Link PushedBack Millions of Years.”1  Basedon a study of chimp genes inScience,2 the claim adds another

problem, just in time for Father’s Day: the researchers claim thatmales contribute 90% of random mutations to the next generation(Gee thanks, Dad).

One might think that doubling the age of the split would causeproblems for evolutionary dating, but evolutionists are clever.They found a way to make both dates true:

On the surface, this and other recent studies contradict thegeneral consensus suggested by the fossil record: that thelast common ancestor of the two species, a flat-footed ape,lived some seven million years ago.

But both observations could still be true, said paleoanthro-pologist John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin, Madi-son, who was not involved in the new study. The ape-likecommon ancestor species might have endured until 7 to10 million years ago, long after the genetic split betweenchimps and humans, he said.

The new estimate is based on current mutation rates in thesample, but a lead author confessed, “We also don’t know ifmutation rates varied widely in the ancient past; maybe theywere different than now.”  So this is a tentative reassessment, basedon chimpanzee genes from only two males, two females, and theiroffspring covering 3 generations (9 individuals total).  There’splenty of wiggle room left, therefore, if they look at a bigger sample,or the genes of other primates.  Chimpanzees are notoriouslypromiscuous.  The older the male, the more mutations, too.  Varyingmutation rates “could also change estimates of the age of anancestral genetic split between men and chimps.”1. Vergano, D. (2014, June 12) Ancient human-chimp link pushed back millions

of years: Older male chimps sped evolution and reset era of our last com-mon ancestor with apes. National Geographic Daily News. Retrieved June20, 2014 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140612-chimp-father-evolution-human-science/

2. Venn, O., I. Turner, I. Mathieson, N. de Groot, R. Bontrop, and G. McVean.2014. Nonhuman genetics. Strong male bias drives germline mutation inchimpanzees. Science 344(6189):1272–1275.

Without Bromine, There Would Be No Animals

A 28th element has proven to beessential for life: bromine. Van-

derbilt University scientists1 have add-ed another element to the list ofelements vital for life.

In a paper published Thursday, June5, in the journal Cell, VanderbiltUniversity researchers establish forthe first time that bromine, amongthe 92 naturally occurring chemi-cal elements in the universe, is the28th element essential for tissuedevelopment in all animals, fromprimitive sea creatures to humans.

“Without bromine, there are no animals. That’s the dis-covery,” said Billy Hudson, Ph.D., the paper’s senior authorand Elliott V. Newman, Professor of Medicine.

Why was this not found earlier?  Unlike calcium, iron, potas-sium and other elements, bromine does not make up any organellesor “machines” in the cell.  It works indirectly during the construc-tion of tissues.  But without its participation, there would be noanimal life, the investigators found.  A 4-minute embedded videoexplains the importance of this discovery.  The team was obviously

Speaking of Science

Vol. 19 No. 4 July / August | Creation Matters | 11

byDon DeYoung, PhD

Did DinosaursHave Small

Brains?

I n years past dinosaurs were commonlypictured as primitive, dim-witted gi-ants. Their reputations included large

muscles and fearsome teeth, but smallbrains. This view changes when one realizesthe true complexity of dinosaurs. Most largereptiles have relatively small brains, but thisactually says little about their behavior orthinking ability.

A creature’s brain is a bit like a wallet— the contents are much more importantthan the size. Even a small brain is capa-ble of complex processing, with a limitedcorrelation between intelligence and brainsize. At the same time, of course, a largebrain provides more room for neuronsand interconnections, both of which arethought to increase intelligence.

The weight of many animals’ brainsis found to follow a power law based onan animal’s total body weight (Koch,2012). For birds and mammals, brain

weight closely follows the relation

brain weight = 0.07 (body weight)2/3

For fish and reptiles the relation isfound to be different, giving a brain tentimes smaller,

brain weight = 0.007 (body weight)2/3

Some animals’ brains are found to ex-ceed the calculated weight, while othershave a smaller than expected value. Onecomparative measure of brain size is calledthe encephalization quotient (EQ), definedby paleontologist H.J. Jerison in the 1960s.The EQ compares an animal’s actual brainsize with the prediction from the previousequations,

EQ=actual brain size/calculated brain size

The EQ values for people and also forseveral animals are shown in Table 1 (De-Young, 2000). EQ values less than one (<1)imply that the creature’s brain is smaller

than expected. Values greater than one (>1)imply that the brain is larger than expectedfor this size creature. Note from the tablethat a relatively large brain size occurs insome dinosaur species. The conclusion isthat not all dinosaurs had undersized brains.This is especially true for the Troodontidae,a family of bird-like theropod dinosaurs.Dinosaur brain size is based on fossil skullmeasurements. Their brains were no small-er, relative to animal size, than modernlizard and crocodile brains.

The table shows that stegosaurs hadsmall brains, only walnut-sized in somecases, and weighing 2–3 ounces. This doesnot mean they were “dumb” animals in anysense. However, it suggests that they prob-ably relied on defensive armor rather thanswift motion when they encountered pred-ators. Incidentally, the largest known animalbrain, reaching 20 pounds, belongs to thesperm whale. In comparison the human

brain weighs about 3.5 pounds.

ReferencesDeYoung, D. 2000. Dinosaurs and Creation.

Grand Rapids: Baker Books.Koch, P.L. 2012. The Natural History of Dino-

saurs: Dinosaur Paleobiology (course notes).University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC).Retrieved June 21, 2014, fromwww.es.ucsc.edu/~pkoch/EAR65/LECTURE%20INFORMATION/08-0522%20DINO%20BEHAVIOR/08-0522%20NOTES.pdf

Table 1The encephalization quotient (EQ) for people and

several animals

Creature EQDiplodocus, Brachiosaurus 0.1Stegosaurus, Triceratops, Ankylosaurus 0.2Protoceratops, Iguanodon 0.6Tyrannosaurus 0.9Elephant 1.2Man 1.5Troodontidae >5

delighted to find one of the “incredibly fundamental things”about life, a finding that could have important real-world applica-tions in disease treatment.

Foundations for the discovery were laid in the 1980s, whenresearchers found that certain patients had defective collagen-IV,an essential protein for tissue development.  Since then, severalpatient groups have been found to be bromine-deficient.  TheVanderbilt team found that fruit flies deprived of bromine in theirdiet had radically deformed tissues, and most died.  The flies couldbe rescued, however, by addition of bromine to the diet.  Subse-quent research found that bromide (the ionic form) is an importantcofactor for the enzyme peroxidasin, which builds collagen-IV.Bromide plays a key role in formation of the sulfilimine bond.“The chemical element bromine is thus ‘essential for animaldevelopment and tissue architecture,’ they report.”1. Snyder, B. (2014, June 5) VU investigators confirm bromine’s critical role in

tissue development. Research News@Vanderbilt. Retrieved June 20, 2014,from http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2014/06/investigators-confirm-bromine-critical-role-in-tissue-development/

See the newestbooks and videos

Visit the CRSBookstorewww.CRSbooks.org

877-CRS-BOOK

12 | Creation Research Society

Creation Research SocietyP.O. Box 8263

St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263USA

Address Service Requested

Nonprofit Org.US Postage

PAIDCreation Research Society

July / August 2014Vol. 19 No. 4

Creation MattersCreation Matters

T hese colorful butterflies pos-sess several characteristicsthat defy attempts to explain

their coming into existence by randommutations.

First, female monarch butterflieslay their eggs on milkweed plants,which the newly hatched caterpillarseat until they are ready to begin theirmetamorphosis into adult butterflies.The thing is, milkweed plants are poi-sonous to predators such as birds. Thecaterpillars ingest toxins from the milk-weed plant and retain those toxins intheir bodies as butterflies, which in turnstrongly discourage birds and otherpredators from eating them. It is alesson the predators do not forget!

Secondly, several generations of mon-archs are born each year, and each usuallylives only a few weeks. However, the finalgeneration of each year can live for manymonths, and it is these butterflies that makea remarkable winter migration to warmerareas in Mexico, California, and even South

America, up to 6,000 miles round-trip. Thefollowing year, without map or compass,the butterflies return to their home territoriesall over North America to reproduce.

How did these butterflies know thattheir offspring can safely eat a plant thatwould make most other animals sick, some-times fatally? How do such fragile creatures

possess the stamina to fly thousandsof miles? And how did these butter-flies acquire the understanding neces-sary to navigate such distances? Howcould all of these characteristics occurby chance? Though possessing novoice, these beautiful creatures testifyloudly to a planned creation of perfectorder.

Reference:1. Anonymous. n.d. Monarch Butterfly FactSheet. Retrieved June 5, 2014, fromhttp://dnr.wi.gov/org/caer/ce/eek/teacher/milkweedmonitoring/monarchfacts.pdf2. Oberhauser, K. 2014. Monarch ButterflyFacts. Retrieved June 5, 2014, fromwww.learner.org/jnorth/search/MonarchNotes3.html

by Jonathan C. O’Quinn, D.P.M., M.S.

Photo credit: G. Wolfrom, 2013.