tsawtb section 5: replies to critics

SECTION 5REPLIES TO CRITICS

There are many books critical of the creationist viewpoint, and anunwarranted amount of space could be devoted to refuting them. We willtherefore limit our examination to only three works; an anti-creationistpublication, a group of Christian evolutionists and a Christadelphian scientist.

It might be wondered why these critics should be answered, particularly theChristians, so publicly. If one reads these three works, the most strikingcommon feature is their superior attitude. Their writings have greatly damagedthe faith of many sound Christians in the reliability of the Bible and thereforeneed to be corrected. They have made their criticisms in public and thereforeneed to be answered in public. Paul deliberately rebuked Peter openly(Gal.2:14) because the error he was committing (withdrawing from theGentiles) was visible to all.

SECTION 5.1

A SECULAR CRITIC: MOORE’S ARTICLEIn this section, we will reply to the objections raised in a special issue of the

American periodical Evolution/Creation, No. XI Winter 1983. Despite theseeming balance one might have expected from its title, it is stronglyanti-creationist in its stand. The particular issue consisted of only one long 39page article by Robert A. Moore entitled The Impossible Voyage of Noah’sArk which was devoted to ridiculing that event.

The introduction to the article is interesting as it portrays the thinking of theeditor and thereby of the periodical in general:

To many, it will seem bizarre that, in this age of scientificadvancement and sophisticated biblical criticism, it would benecessary to provide a point-by-point scientific refutation of thestory of Noah’s Ark. Knowledgeable people are well aware thatGenesis 1 through 11 is not scientific or historical but largelymythical, metaphorical, poetic, theological and moral. All peopleare not knowledgeable, however. Recent Gallup surveys reveal that50% of adult Americans believe that Adam and Eve existed, 44%believe the earth was created directly by God only ten thousandyears ago, and 40% believe that the Bible is inerrant. No doubt anequally large percentage believe in Noah’s Ark.

Thus, he dismisses 50% of his fellow countrymen and women as beingwithout “knowledge”. That many of this ignorant group would have degreesand doctorates yet still believe the Genesis record is accurate is not evenconsidered. He insists that they are all “not knowledgeable” - i.e. “ignorant anduneducated”!

Within the article there are many objections, some trivial and simplymud-slinging against creationists which will be ignored. Some, however,should be replied to as they are valid objections that some creationists mayhave difficulty in answering. I give a summary of these criticisms and eachwill be examined.

I would here mention that Woodmorappe has also refuted Moore’scriticisms in his “Noah’s Ark: A feasibility study” (WoodJ96). He shows thatthe conditions in the Ark were perfectly practical.

1. “Would the true and confirmed discovery of Noah’s Ark prove thatthe earliest chapters of the Bible were true?”

The surprising answer given is “NO”. Note then the devious reasoning fromthat point onwards. First the materialist philosopher Hume is quoted; “theknavery and folly of men are such common phenomena that I should ratherbelieve the most extraordinary events to arise from their concurrence than toadmit of so signal a violation of the laws of nature.”

To present this quotation is both irrelevant and misleading. Although itwould not prove that every event recorded in Genesis did take place, theundisputed finding of Noah’s Ark would blow such a hole in the evolution-ist’s case that it would have great difficulty in recovering its present dayprominence. The editor seeks to pre-empt such a discovery by blandly asking,“So what? - it proves nothing.”

We come back to the fundamental point that in the eyes of all materialistsGod does not exist and therefore miracles are impossible. This is an “a priori”assumption - which no amount of evidence will change. Evidence for it willalways be dismissed as the “knavery and folly of men”.

2. “At a time when man was still using hollowed out logs and reed raftsas boats, Noah would need a thorough education in physics, calculus,mechanics, structural analysis and naval architecture to construct such amassive vessel that would not be exceeded for thousands of years.”

Note firstly the evolutionary assumption that man arose from a primitivebeginning and over thousands of years gradually acquired the necessary skillshe needed for this undertaking. He repeatedly assumes that knowledge wasacquired at the slow rate demanded by the process of evolution.

What Moore has failed to note is that God gave clear and detailedinstructions for its construction, of which we only have an outline in the Bible(Gen. 6:14-16). Thus the Ark was designed by The Master Designer, who hadno need to study differential calculus, etc. And “Noah did everything just asGod commanded him” (v22). Moore contends “Obviously, the astronomicalleap in size, safety and skill required by Noah is far too vast for anynaturalistic explanation”. With this we fully agree.

He briefly mentions that as the descendants of the survivors were “fanningout and ‘replenishing the earth’” they carried with them “reminiscences of thedeluge that would someday excite American missionaries from Sumatra toSpitzbergen.” The more thoughtful reader will notice that he does not examinethis issue in any detail. In his desire to pour as much ridicule as he can on thecreationist evidence, he rather unwisely draws attention to one of the majorevidences (the Flood stories) against his case which might otherwise havegone unnoticed by some readers. His article, however, is mainly forconsumption by ardent evolutionists who are only too willing to uncriticallyaccept anything that ridicules creationists.

3. “Pitch and bitumen come from decayed organisms and vegetablematter buried during the Flood. They were therefore not available forsealing the Ark before the Flood.”

The existence of chemically produced oils, etc. has been shown in theexplorations of Prof. Gold (GoldT). The possibility of the chemicalproduction of the subterranean oils and gasses is receiving increasing attentionthese days.

Section 5 - Replies to Critics 229

4. “The boat would have been too long for the high stresses the timberwould have been subjected to.”

This criticism is based upon modern wave measurements and efficient boatdesign for transport. The bulky Ark was not designed for travelling at speedand had merely to survive whatever sea conditions prevailed during the Flood.We have no knowledge of what the wave dimensions were. Very short waveswould have negligible effect upon the hull length whilst very long ones ofeven huge size would simply lift the Ark gently over a period of severalseconds.

Noah would also have had the use of iron, for Tubal-Cain was “aninstructor of every artificer in brass and iron” (Gen 4:22). This may have beenused to provide strong joints in the timber structure, or even the main strengthof the structure itself.

The very high level of its general seaworthiness has been checked bycomputers as we have referred to in Section 1, page 26.

It might be thought that the Ark would have difficulty in surviving hugebreakers that might have developed. But waves normally only break under highwind conditions or when they approach the coasts. There is no mention of highwinds during the Flood, except at the end when there was a “wind over theearth and the waters receded” (Gen. 8:1). There were also no coasts for thewaves to break against when the earth was fully covered by water.

Moore contends the Ark would have been smashed to pieces. However, itwould have been gently lifted by the incoming water, and the biblical recordstates the grounding of the Ark was quite tranquil.

5. “The problems of housing, feeding and cleaning out so many differentanimals for a year would have been insuperable for only eight people tohave dealt with.”

This is one of the most common, and understandable, objections that ismade. We will divide the question into two parts - (A) the number of animalsin the Ark and (B) the attendance they would need.

(A) The number of animals in the Ark.This subject has been discussed in “The Genesis Flood” (Whitc69) where

the average size of a mammal has been estimated to be about the size of asheep and about 35,000 animals had to be accommodated. The volume of theArk was sufficient to take some seven times this number, giving each animalplenty of room.

Dr. Arthur Jones (JonA) has examined the scriptural references to “kinds” ofclean and unclean animals. His main contention is that probably each “kind”was what we call a “family” in animal classifications. He quotes a secularsource for there being 793 families, both existing and extinct. There are manyarguments amongst classifiers about what is a species, but little disagreementregarding which family each should be placed in.

By eliminating amphibia and water-dwelling groups he estimates that theremay be from 628 to 800 family pairs that would be needed to go in the Ark.Jones shows that the Hebrew “seven seven” means “seven of each” for thenumber of clean animals. He concludes that there would be about 2,000animals in the Ark. The rest of the very large volume would be taken up asliving quarters for the human survivors and food for the whole shipload ofhumans and animals.

It is possible that much of the food taken on board (Gen. 6:21) might beneeded in the period between the landing of the Ark and the collecting of the

230 Section 5 - Replies to Critics

first harvest and to allow the growth of the wide ranging and abundant floranecessary for the habitation of the animals emerging from the Ark.

(B) The feeding and cleaning of the animals.This is always seen as a major objection, but if Jones’s figure of 2,000

animals is correct, the problem of feeding and cleaning is greatly reduced.Even if the number were greater, there is a very simple solution to this. Manyanimals have a period of deep sleep in winter (when it is known ashibernation) or in summer (aestivation). Studies have shown that the pulse ratefalls to a very low value, body temperature falls, brain activity is greatlyreduced and food reserves are only used slowly.

God had only to submit all the creatures in the Ark to such a process andwhat is considered an “insuperable objection” is easily solved. This is onepossible, and very simple, solution to the problem. What actually took place inthe Ark He has not seen fit to explain in His record.

6. “The animals in the Ark could not have contained all the geneticinformation that resulted in the phenomenal range of animals that existnow”.

The genetic information is not contained only in the chromosomes of thecells. There is much information in the cortex and indeed, the informationappears to be within the whole cell material. We have examined this subject indetail in Section 1 and in reference Bow82:124.

Geneticists have found that some 99% of the genetic material in thechromosomes are classed as “redundant” as no known use for them has (yet!)been discovered. It is possible that they may have contained the informationneeded to give the range of present day types and are no longer needed.However, this assumed “redundancy” has recently been called into question.

Regarding the wide range of species seen today, most of them belong torecognised types such as dog types (dingoes, wolves, jackals, coyotes, foxes,etc.), cat types (tiger, panther, etc.) and many others. By simple varieties ofthese basic types these various forms could be achieved. Dr. Arthur Jones hasstudied the wide range of cyclid fish that exist and that are classified asdiffering species. He found that they were all varieties of the same basicpattern that had been varied over a range of shapes and characteristics.

This, of course, also applies to the varieties within the human race. Thevarious characteristics that have appeared since the time of the dispersion fromthe Tower of Babel are only specific features already within the genetic pool.This information would have been contained within the genes of the fivepeople who were in the Ark - Noah, his wife and the three wives of their sons,all of whom may have been related as we discussed in Section 1.

If there were only a few thousand animals in the Ark then Moore’s case,based upon millions, completely collapses - together with his ridicule. Wewill now examine some of the more extravagant claims he makes and the“straw men” he erects.

7. “Fresh water fish would die in salt seas of the Flood (and viceversa).”

In dealing with many subjects, it must be emphasised that we do not knowwhat the conditions were before the Flood. It is a common mistake ofevolutionists (and some creationists) to assume that they were much the sameas they are today and then, on this assumption, to claim that the cataclysmicsequence of the Flood was an impossibility. There are several solutions to this


question of salt and fresh water fish and I set them out below.(a) Tolerance. If the original sea was all fresh, it is possible that the fish

could adapt over generations to tolerate salt water as it gradually mixed in.There is a much wider degree of tolerance in fish than we may realise. Salmonand eels migrate between salt and fresh water and sharks are known to swimwell upriver in some areas. Nelson neatly turns the tables on the evolutionistsfor he points out that there are a number of identical species of fresh waterfish in widely different lakes around the world. He asks “if they originated inone spot, how, we may ask, did they become distributed in lakes and streamsof almost the whole world?” (Nel:160).

(b) Slow mixing. As fresh water from the rain is less dense than salt seawater, it could have existed for some time mainly in a layer on top. Thiswould allow each type to survive the Flood period (Q21/1:33).

With the eruption of the hydrothermal water from the “fountains of thedeep” we propose in the geological sequence, when it had deposited itsmineral load, the remaining water may have been fresh in some areas and saltin others. Thus both types of fish could have survived. The fresh water fishmay then have been trapped in inland lakes later as the water drained from theearth.

Even though a storm may have been raging with huge waves and large andfast movements of water in the sea taking place, to get two huge masses ofwater to mix uniformly would take considerable time as it would require aspecific mixing (stirring) action to have taken place to make this interminglingrapid. Waves only act for a very shallow depth and only a few metres belowthe surface they can hardly be felt. Wave action can of course be transmittedbetween the two masses with no mixing effect whatsoever. Similarly, largebodily movements of water have little mixing effect.

8. “The small sea creatures such as crabs and fixed crustaceans such asbarnacles would be unable to escape and would be completely engulfedby the great depths of material deposited over them.”

Moore does not propose this directly as a serious objection but asks howcoral, which requires clear shallow water, could have survived. One answercould be that there were a few suitable areas where some may have survived.But there is another means of survival.

Many of these creatures produce a whole cloud of eggs which are fertilisedby the male sperm released at the same time. These eggs are minute and woulddrift freely in the sea water, no matter how turbulent, and would have nodifficulty in surviving. On hatching at the appropriate time and temperature,they would be able to feed off of the plentiful organic material from the deadpre-Flood creatures. The almost indestructible nature of the eggs of the manytypes of fish, crustaceans and sea plants that could explain how many differentspecies survived the Flood.

9. “With the presumed huge population of human beings on the earth,why have there been no discoveries of them in very early strata?”

We discuss this in Appendix 4 dealing with various geological “models” andthe fossil record. One possible cause of the lack of fossils is that there mayhave been comparatively few humans existing at the time of the Flood.

(i) The human population of the world may not have been large, and mayhave been concentrated in one area, in defiance of God’s command to “fill theearth”.

The animal and plant populations appear to have been created in huge


numbers, but the human population began with only two. Due to the depravityof the antediluvian population, a large proportion would have probablyengaged in homosexual and similar practices, thus lowering the birth rate. Inthe heterosexual population, sexual diseases may have been rampant. Murderand general disease would also have taken their toll.

(ii) The bodies of those who died would have floated and their remains eatenby scavengers.

(iii) The few relics left would have been difficult to find. There are some700 million cubic kilometres of fossil-bearing (Phanerozoic) rocks. TakingWoodmorappe’s approximation of a population of 10 million, there would beon average one human fossil for every 70 cubic kilometres of rock. With sucha dispersal, they are hardly likely to be found in any numbers. In addition, theremains of those who died before the Flood, if not fossilised, would havecompletely disappeared within a fairly short time due to bacterial activity.

The conditions that govern fossilisation are even now not fully known.Organic acids and positive pH (oxidising conditions) both help to weatherbone, and these conditions can occur in deep deposits. Thus the relatively fewbones of antediluvian man that might have been eventually deposited in astratum may have not become fossilised due to the environment it was in.

MOORE’S “STRAW MEN”In order to show how easily he can ridicule the creationists case Moore sets

up straw men for his subsequent demolition act. They are, however, easilyanswered and the arguments he uses do him little credit. The following arejust some of the worst examples.

A. “For many species, the vast majority of their young do not surviveinto maturity but are taken by predators or succumb to their environ-ment.”

Here, Moore is using the present situation where there are many animalspopulating the earth. He has clearly overlooked the simple fact that the earlyconditions after the Ark landed were totally different to those today. Duringthe early days there were no predators around to prey upon the small numberof animals emerging from the Ark. Those who were predators may have livedoff food stored in the Ark for a while (or extended their hibernation period)until the population of their prey was sufficiently large for them to be releasedinto the area around.

B. “The journeys of the animals to the Ark would have been far tooarduous for many of them from distant countries.”

Again, Moore assumes that present conditions existed in the past. If therewas a fairly uniform climate around the earth in Prediluvian days, then therewould be much the same selection of animals in any given area and thejourney to the Ark would not have been difficult. The wide range of varietieswhich have adapted to the range of present climates would have developedfrom the basic types taken into the Ark.

.................In his summary, he says “No doubt in days to come some erstwhile

arkeologist will concoct “solutions” to some of the difficulties we haveraised, but no intellectually honest person can any longer pretend that thelegend of Noah can possibly represent a historical occurrence.”

According to the surveys that he quotes, this would make some 50% of hisown countrymen intellectually dishonest.


There are some additional problems that need to be addressed. It is only rightthat these should be set out, so that having discussed them, better evidencemay be provided by others.

1. Seeds and pollination.There is a difficulty in the germination of seeds that have been in either salt

or fresh water for about a year. Those that could germinate, would have doneso in a matter of a few months, and therefore would have died before theycould have got to fertile soil. Did some finish up on the top of the drying landand sprout? If they did, where were the numerous birds and insects that couldpollinate them? A rapid growth would be essential to feed the risingpopulation of animals, and we show in Appendix 1 that this may haveoccurred due to the high speed of light. All the occupants may have lived offfood stored in the Ark for a short time.

There is the paper by Howe (Q5/3:105) in which he carried out someexperiments on the germination of seeds soaked in sea water for 20 weeks. Aslight problem is that the seeds had to be scarified in order to germinate. Theymight have been scarified in the tumult of the Flood, but then they would havegerminated too early, before the soil was prepared. He later noted that “BeggarTick” seeds found in a 350 year old Spanish wreck had still sprouted(Q24/3:144).

2. The heat of the new earth.It is reasonable to assume that the interior of the earth is very hot. The water

and the chemical mixtures that were to form the sea and land surfaces wouldhave risen up from the depths and it might be thought that they would havebeen at a very high temperature. As a result, the water coming to the surfacewould have been boiling, which would have made life a little difficult for allthe occupants of the Ark!

What has been overlooked, both in this case and in many others, is that wedo not know the formations of the earth’s strata before the Flood. If the earthwas heated at the very centre, either by the impact of material coming together,or by a high level of radioactivity at the centre due to the high speed of light,then it would take some time for this heat to gradually migrate towards thesurface. This means that the surface could have been at a moderatetemperature, and the upper layers similarly.

We will be showing that most, if not all, the Flood strata came fromchemicals brought to the surface by water that was at only a moderately hightemperature and under very great pressure which enabled it to dissolve a hugequantity of chemicals. As this rising critical (hydrothermal) water reached thecooler layers nearer to the surface, they would have cooled and their chemicalswould be precipitated out in a specific sequence, depending upon thecharacteristics of the materials they contained.

There would then be no great heat left in the rising material still dissolved inthe water. The last of the material would be precipitated and the much coolerwater would then reach the surface and become the sea we have today.

There is the additional factor that if heated gases (as hydrothermal water is)under pressure are cooled whilst still under pressure, then their release andexpansion results in considerable cooling of the mass. In the same way, the airreleased from a tyre can be quite cold on exit.

Furthermore, the increasing temperature as you go deeper into the earth mayhave been less than it is now, only reaching its present value in more recenttimes as the heat works out to the surface since creation.


SECTION 5.2

A CRITIQUE OF “PORTRAITS OF CREATION”This is a book (Van Till) by four Christian authors - Van Till, Snow, Stek

and Young - in which they defend their theistic evolutionary views and attemptto rebut those of the “scientific creationists” - i.e. the “young earth” exponentssuch as Morris and Gish. Much of the book is taken up with the historicalaccount of how the present day interpretation by the experts eventuallyovertook the catastrophist view. Regarding the evidence for this they state:

We hold that these reconstructions are firmly grounded in a wealthof carefully gathered data and have been repeatedly tested by therespected canons of science (p11).

Those who have ventured to examine ideas and evidence outside these“respected canons of science” will know that there is far superior artillery andammunition available that has little problem disposing of their outdatedarmament - if you will forgive the pun!

They do not set out their specific Christian position but it is certain that theydo not take Genesis literally. They set up the usual “straw man” of saying thatas no one interprets the pictorial descriptions literally, then other parts of theBible (which they then choose) are also not to be taken literally - in their case,specifically Genesis. Their liberal view of the Bible is clear from their appealto the Higher Criticism of Wellhausen and others.

They note that in a 1988 poll of 749 readers of Christianity Today, 401replied, of which 74% indicated that they favoured the teaching of creationismalongside evolution in public schools (p10 footnote). One might have thoughtthat with evolution being taught with official approval, then those who wantcreationism to have a fair chance will have studied the subject adequately andarrived at a reasonable decision. This is not the attitude of our authors, forthey say “it does suggest an alarming ignorance of science, of what evolutionis, and of the shortcomings of scientific creationism.” Like Moore’sassessment of the “ignorance” of his American compatriots quoted above, theyalso have a low opinion of their fellow Christian’s abilities to makereasonable judgments. More important, this poor level of logic should warnthe perceptive reader of what to expect in the rest of the book.

Even at the outset they say that “many issues are thorny and varied” and thatthey are deliberately omitting any consideration of “organic evolution and theorigin of mankind”. This is a blatant avoidance of the strong evidence againstevolution that these subjects provide. How they expect any informed reader tobe convinced by the very few subjects they are prepared to discuss is difficultto imagine.

There is a section by Snow in which creationist publications are derided,whilst Morris and Gish are singled out for special criticism and patronisinglysaid to indulge not in true science but in “folk science” (in which he includesEinstein and Asimov! (p188)). He observes,

At its core the contemporary creation science movement is anattempt to provide a scientific foundation for a folk science that foryears had been floating free of any support within the professionalscientific community (p195).

The two main scientific subjects they confine themselves to are geology andastronomy and, even then, only specific items. We will not analyse thecriticisms they make against creationists in the field of geology (p66f) exceptto say that they are illogical, confused and misleading in what creationists


claim about the fossil order. Neither will we deal with some astronomicalpoints but will concentrate on their claim that the sun is not shrinking, as thishas been accepted by many creationists.

THE SHRINKAGE OF THE SUN.In discussing the possible sources of heat for the sun, van Till mentions

Helmholtz’s proof that the sun’s heat could be entirely supplied by the energygenerated as it contracts, but then says this is “unable to supply energy for themultibillion-year duration of the Sun’s history” (p90 footnote). Thus, thedogma of the “millions of years” that geology (and evolution) demands forcesvan Till to sweep aside all evidence to the contrary.

The main examination of this subject, by R.E. Snow, has the emotive title“The shrinking sun: problems with the exercise of professional integrity.” Wewould agreed that there is a problem of integrity; but on which side?

We have already discussed the subject raised by Eddy and Boornazian’slecture in Section 4.4 above. Here we will examine the resulting response bythe orthodox scientists, and the way in which this is uncritically quoted bySnow against “young earth” creationists.

Snow first deals with the way in which orthodox professionals examined thesubject and the resultant change in opinions that eventually took place. Hethen examines the “head-in-the-sand” attitude of creationists, particularlyMorris and Barnes, who continued to say that the sun was shrinking andignored all the “latest results” that contradicted the original paper.

The two papers Snow refers to as setting the record straight are by Parkinson(Par83) and Frohlich (Fro). He comments:

While the original claims of Eddy and Boornazian were notsustained, the solar physics community emerged from the exchangesgenerated by their initial paper with a better understanding of thestrengths and limitations of important data sets gathered over longperiods at major observatories.... Eddy and his collaborators,because they continued to participate in the process of publiccriticism and analysis, maintained their status as valued members ofthe professional community. The episode provides a good illustra-tion of the healthy operation of a professional community (p173).

Snow then pours contempt on the scientific integrity of Morris and Barnesfor failing to heed these “revised views” of the professional community whenthey continue to quote Eddy’s original conclusion as this is the only onewhich supports their young-earth creationist views. He refers to Steidl’s“warning” in the March 1981 issue of the Creation Research SocietyQuarterly that the Eddy and Boornazian claim “had met with muchscepticism, and the timing of transits of Mercury over the centuries seems toindicate that no shrinkage is taking place” (p174). For Steidl’s and othersacknowledgement of these criticisms, Snow seems to metaphorically awardthem several “Brownie points” for integrity.

At the end of this section, the reader is in no doubt that young-earthcreationists at least, are pure propagandists for their views, with no scientificintegrity and deliberately out of touch with “responsible professionalscientists”. But let us now carefully examine these documents upon which hebased his dismissive comments.

My first very major surprise came some time after I had read several articlescommenting on Eddy and Boornazian’s paper together with a number of otherpapers critical of their conclusions. I eventually applied for a copy of their


original 1979 paper (Edd79) which these other papers referred to. I wasastonished to receive a one paragraph note outlining the main points of theirpaper that was to be given between 1400-1600 hrs. in room 377; i.e. it wasonly the notification of their forthcoming lecture! Thus, Eddy and Boorna-zian’s paper has never been published! Yet a full article critical of theirresults was published in Nature and other articles have also appeared. In orderto set before the reader some of the evidence they produced in their lecture,recourse had to be made to one supportive paper by Gilliland (Gil) andinterpolated from an article by Lubkin, a journalists writing in Physics Today(Lub). Another article in Science News (115:420) added little. A letter directto Eddy asking for a copy of his paper produced no response.

This needs to be remembered in the criticisms that have been made by Snowin his contribution to this book. No full record of their evidence has ever beenpublished which is indicative of how revolutionary their paper was.

In preparing their paper, Eddy and Boornazian would have been fully awareof the effect it would have. They would therefore have been careful to havecross checked it for all reasonable (and unreasonable) criticisms that werebound to be fired at them. The main points are as follows:(i) They first examined the records of Greenwich Observatory, and when this

steady trend was noticed, they then checked with the American NavalObservatory and found virtually the same amount of change in diameter.These are two independent sources giving the same results.

(ii) The readings were taken by over one hundred different observers, andtherefore there could not be any consistent “observer bias” that would givethese results. One could comment that even if there had been only oneobserver, this would have been one variable eliminated. It is the consistentdecrease that is the main feature.

(iii) Today, in a total eclipse the sun is completely blocked by the moon forabout 8 seconds. If the decrease of 2 seconds of arc per century had takenplace, then several hundred years ago, there would have been a very thinedge of the sun never blocked, and the difference would have been clearlynoticed. This in fact was observed by a Jesuit astronomer, ChristopherClavius in Rome in 1560, who specifically referred to: “a certain narrowcircle was left on the Sun, surrounding the whole of the moon on allsides.” (Lub:18). This is a very simple and direct observation thatcorroborates that the shrinkage has been taking place over centuries, for ittakes the evidence back nearly 400 years, not just the 117 years covered bythe Greenwich data. This is surely a very convincing argument in favour ofthe shrinkage being very long term.

(On this aspect, “annular eclipses” with a thin ring of the sun always visible(Q22/1:7) still occur. However, not having Eddy’s paper, we can onlypresume that he had checked that this particular eclipse in 1560 should havebeen a total eclipse and not an annular one.)

Eddy apparently concluded that the shrinkage is probably only a reflection ofsome slow oscillation of the envelope of the sun. There is really no mysterywhy Eddy and Boornazian should claim the decrease is “secular” i.e.continuing, and yet say in their paper that it may only be part of a long termoscillation. Had they not referred to this and said outright that it is a steadydecrease with no increase and had been thus for at least 400 years, it isdoubtful whether they would have been allowed to have presented their paperin view of its implications.


CRITICAL ARTICLES

Sofia’s paperOne paper quoted by Snow against Eddy is that by Sofia et al (Sof). This

paper is quoted by both sides as demonstrating that the actual shrinkage is only1/10 of that claimed by Eddy. This is not correct. The paper does not itselfdirectly prove any decrease in the sun’s diameter but uses data from anotherscientist.

The whole aim of Sofia’s paper is not to investigate the sun’s diameter butto correlate changes of the “solar constant” (its heat output, which is difficultto measure) with changes in its diameter. They make a number of assumptionsabout the sun’s interior and derive formulae then used in a computerprogramme. From this they provide a ratio between changes in the diameterand the solar constant. The only reason they refer to the changing diameter isas a check on the maximum change in the heat output. They searched formeasurements of the diameter changes and eventually used those of Giannuzziwho examined Greenwich observatory readings over an 87 year period from1850-1937. In referring to her paper they note:

There is evidence in both the horizontal and vertical directions for aslow systematic decrease of the observed radius by about 0.2 arcseconds over this time; although Giannuzzi removed this trend, wehave not done so in forming the above standard deviations, nor havewe used her biennial running mean. It seems probable that the datado not indicate variations in the radius greater than about 0.25 arcsecond over this period...

What do we glean from these comments?(i) There was a “slow systematic decrease” detectable in the data provided by

Giannuzzi which she then “removed”. This decrease of the radius of 0.2arc second “over this time” (of 87 years) would give a decrease of about0.023% per century - compared with Eddy’s 0.1%.

(ii) Sofia et al ignored all her calculations and carried out their own statisticalinvestigation. However, they give no data or calculations.

Elsewhere in their paper they refer to “variations” of radius, but it is notclear whether these are a steady decrease or only fluctuations about a mean.There seems to be no clear statement by the authors of any consistent decreasein this paper but give “variations” in the radius not greater than “0.25 arc secsover this period” (= 0.03% per century). It is Parkinson’s 1980 paper, that weexamine later, that gives a decrease of almost 0.01% per century - 1/10 ofEddy’s value. Considering these points, it is surely unwarranted to quote thispaper as proof of a reduced rate for the shrinkage of the sun. We wouldcontend that Eddy and Boornazian’s value of 0.1% (=2.25 arc sec. of thediameter) per century still stands.

There are two other points worth examining.

(a) The dates of the articlesGiannuzzi published her paper in 1955Sofia et al revised their paper in April 1979 and it was published in June 1979Eddy and Boornazian presented their paper in June 1979

It is a reasonable assumption (but not necessarily correct) that Sofia et alhad no knowledge of Eddy’s paper when they wrote theirs. Their paper gaveno data regarding their much lower rate of decrease. Yet commentators onboth sides quote Sofia’s paper as if it authoritatively reduced Eddy’s value.


One has the impression that Sofia et al examined Eddy’s data and derived alower rate. In fact, they used data in a much earlier paper, ignored its statisticalanalysis and calculated a rate without showing how they derived its value.

(b) The “hidden” evidenceWe have noted that Giannuzzi “removed” the secular decrease in the

Greenwich data from her statistical calculations in 1955. Regarding this, itwas revealing to read in the Bulletin that summarised Eddy’s forthcominglecture (Edd79):

The same secular effect has been noted before by others whoexamined all or part of the Greenwich data set, and has generallybeen attributed to atmospheric effects or personal equation.

From this, Eddy and Boornazian were only the latest of several otherastronomers who have noted this secular decrease in the Greenwich data!Obviously, this evidence has been known for many years yet how many papershave been written setting this out? In view of the repercussions that thisinformation would have upon the scientific world and the fierce oppositionthat publication of it would receive (as has been meted out to Eddy andBoornazian), one can understand why astronomers have bypassed the subject.Eddy and Boornazian are to be congratulated on taking this bold step. Thatthey have been forced to keep silent and virtually retract their findings to retaintheir professional credibility only conforms to expectations.

Parkinson’s 1983 articleAnother paper referred to by Snow as rebutting Eddy is by Parkinson

(Par83). This paper does not examine the method of measurement by meridiantimings used by Eddy, but deals only with timing the period taken by theshadow of the full eclipse to cross a site in its path, and by the time taken byMercury to cross the face of the sun. It is interesting that in his introductorystatement, Parkinson mentions that if the present view of the energy of the suncomes from radioactivity is correct, this should actually result in a very smallincrease in diameter over the centuries. Yet it is found in many of the paperscritical of Eddy’s, there is still a residual small decrease even after theirstatistical juggling of the data.

He adjusts the method of “weighting” the results of these two methods andconcludes that the shrinkage is .004 arc sec/century - still a positive result itshould be noted. He mentions that:

The magnitude and sign of the trend obtained depend on the choiceof weighting function used and cannot be inferred to result from avariation of the Sun. Thus there appears to be no evidence tosupport any secular trend in the solar diameter between 1715 and1981 (Par83:519).

What exactly is Parkinson saying here? Having carefully analysed themeasurements covering several years to give a small but still positive result,he points out that these statistical methods can be manipulated to give any sortof answer you require. He then says that this means no reliability can be placedupon these measurements, and therefore there is no support for the claim thatthe sun is shrinking! This is hardly sound logic and leaves him with littlescientific credibility.

What he has done is that, in order to undermine Eddy’s paper, he hasconfused the situation by claiming that statistics can be manipulated. But aright use of statistics would show that there was a decrease - as Eddy has


shown. The rest of this short paper suggests there is an 80 year cycle in thesize of the sun.

Frolich and Eddy’s paperSnow refers to the paper by Frolich and Eddy (Fro) as being a refutation of

Eddy’s original position. As we can see from Snow’s quote above, it isimplied that Eddy has back-tracked from his earlier claims which has goneunnoticed by creationists. This is refuted even within his own reference to thisarticle for it is obvious that the authors have compiled measurements of thesun’s heat output only for the 17 year period of 1967-1983. Such a shortperiod can have no relevance to a secular decrease over 400 years. If the paperis examined, it is obvious that this period was chosen in order to obtain arelationship between diameter and heat output - as was Sofia’s. It has nothingto do with a general long-term decrease in diameter.

Parkinson’s 1980 articleAlthough Snow does not refer to it in his book, the paper that was to

provide stronger criticisms of Eddy and Boornazian’s paper was an earlier oneby Parkinson and others (Par80), and it is revealing to study this longer paperpublished in Nature to see if their detailed criticisms are warranted.

In the first paragraph it notes that there are only one third of the neutrinoscoming from the sun if all its heat is due to radioactivity. They thenpatronisingly observe that Eddy’s paper is one of many “ingenious sugges-tions” to “resolve this apparent discrepancy”. Thus, Eddy’s carefully re-searched and important paper providing convincing evidence of a decrease isrelegated to just an “ingenious suggestion”. One can guess from this openingcomment just how biassed the writers are going to be on this subject.

They contend that the original results are due to a “misinterpretation” of theobservations, and that they will be using two other methods (timing the eclipseshadow and Mercury’s transits) to support their claims. They are obviouslysearching for reasons to dismiss the reliability of Eddy’s measurements andthey make three criticisms.(i) There was a change of instrument in 1851 and they claim:

There is a clear discontinuity in the vertical measurements of thevertical semi-diameter coinciding with the change of telescopeshowing that the measured diameter depends crucially on theinstrument used.

Now, firstly, the vertical measurement is the less important and notmeasured by timing the transits. Secondly, bearing in mind the wide variationover short periods of time, there seems to be no more sudden change at thispoint than for the general variation of the measurements - as examination ofFig. 1 shows. There is a similar change in the horizontal readings but this isnot mentioned.

From this, their claim that the instrument used is “crucial” is nonsense, anddemonstrates that they are seeking to dismiss these readings for the weakest ofreasons.(ii) They investigate which assistants set up the instrument at Greenwich

between 1915 and 1940. They found that some operators had a regularbias. Of the seven regular observers, two were found to be more erraticand differed from the others. It was considered that as they made moreobservations in the 1920’s they would have given a spurious result.

These two observers, however, cannot have had so much effect that theresults should be dismissed. The maximum number of readings they made


were only 25% of the total observations. As early as 1854 a chronograph wasused to measure the transit times automatically, so observer bias would havebeen greatly reduced. They do not state just how these operator “biases” couldenter into the setting up of the telescope.(iii) In the Greenwich records the weather and seeing conditions are often

described as “through cloud”, “unsteady”, “ill defined”, etc. and theinference is that they are thereby unreliable.

But these are one of the many variations that such observations have to dealwith. In no way does day-to-day variation affect the general trend of thedecrease. Even if, say, only one day in five gave good conditions, this wouldstill be more than enough readings to show the trend over one hundred years.To dismiss the results using this very poor criticism again indicates theunderlying motive of this paper.

They conclude this section with the general comment that:“These grave difficulties show that meridian circle observations areunsuitable for investigating possible changes in the solar diameter.We now discuss other, more accurate methods which have theadvantage of covering a longer time span and are not so dependentupon the defects of the instrument used.” (p850)

These variations are certainly not “grave” and do not make the method“unsuitable”. It is, in fact, a very direct and accurate measurement of thediameter.

They then turn to two indirect and less accurate methods (transits ofMercury and solar eclipses) that are subject to as many, if not more, variablesthan the meridian measurements. There is no discussion of observer bias,


weather conditions, statistical “weightings”, etc. in the use of these methods.Although the resulting scatter and error bars are very wide, they still give adecrease. The transits method gives -0.014 +/-0.008% per century and theeclipse method “-0.008 +/-0.007% per century, well over an order ofmagnitude smaller than the rate claimed by Eddy and Boornazian”. Yet, evenwith these results showing a decrease, Parkinson’s introduction claims “therehas been no detectable secular change in the solar diameter during the past 250yr.” - which he repeats within the paper.

Let us pause here and remember that we are here reading the conclusions ofintelligent scientists. They produce results that are inaccurate, with very wideerror bars, yet even these show a decrease. They then claim that there has beenno decrease. But inaccurate methods cannot determine whether a value isrising, falling or constant. This can only be shown by an accurate system. Theyhave no right to dismiss Eddy’s conclusions, and these less accurate methodshave only been used as a smoke screen to confuse the whole issue.

Gilliland’s articleIt should not be thought that the counter-criticisms set out above are only to

be expected from a young-earth creationist attempting to defend his case. InParkinson’s later paper (Par83), he mentioned one by Gilliland (Gil) that wascritical of this earlier paper (Par80). Reading this, Gilliland says:

While the large (0.1% per century) secular decrease in radiustentatively suggested by Eddy and Boornazian (1979) is notsupported by other investigations... the preponderance of evidencestill supports a negative [emphasis his] secular trend over the lastfew centuries. It should be emphasised that stellar evolution theorypredicts a positive [emphasis his], albeit indetectably small, seculartrend of the solar radius.We have not thrown out portions of the Greenwich data assuggested by Parkinson.... It is probable that certain epochs of theGreenwich data have been biased by observer and instrumentalchanges. However, the removal of certain sections of the data setwhich show discontinuities correlated with instrument changes tendto introduce further biases into the data set.... subjective removal ofcertain sections resulting in support of the Parkinson et al premisethat the solar diameter has been constant over the past 250 yearsshould also be viewed with caution. (Gil:1146).

As well as criticising this paper for “subjective” removal of Eddy’s data, healso says “the Mercury transit timing data must also be considered uncertaindue to the discrepancies between the independently compiled data sets - e.g.the Mercury transit data may contain unrecognised systematic errors.”(Gil:1146). He also notes that Parkinson’s Mercury data “further muddle theissue” (Gil:1150).

In summarising all the measurements made by the various researchers usingthe three different methods, he finds that they all support a significantdecrease. He concluded that the rate was about 0.1 arc secs/cent (0.01%/cent)and in a convoluted sentence says:

Given the many problems with the data sets, one is not inexorablyled to the conclusion that a negative secular solar radius trend hasexisted since AD 1700, but the preponderance of current evidenceindicates that such is likely to be the case. (Gil:1150)


The eclipse methodAs the eclipse shadow passes across the earth, observers can time how long

they have total darkness, and this will vary depending upon how far they arefrom the centre of the shadow. Dunham took the records of such timings madein 1715 and concluded that the sun’s radius had shrunk 0.34 arc secondswhich is only 14% of the amount based on Eddy’s rate of shrinkage (Dun).We would suggest that this one measurement, where the locations of theobservers and their timings was not always known accurately, cannot comparewith the records used by Eddy taken over many years.

The dates of publicationEddy presented his paper in June 1979, but Parkinson’s paper, severely

critical of his findings, was received by Nature on 30 June 1980 and acceptedin October 1980. It was therefore completed only 12 months after Eddy hadpresented his paper. Dunham’s paper was submitted even earlier - on 14November 1979. In these two cases, there may have been some forewarning ofEddy’s paper long before it was presented, or much “burning of the midnightoil” to produce them as quickly as possible after Eddy’s presentation.Whatever took place, the “Establishment scientists” made sure that thesepapers were presented in prestigious journals whilst Eddy and Boornazian’srevolutionary paper remains unpublished to this day.


SECTION 5.3. A CRITIQUE OF HAYWARD’S“CREATION AND EVOLUTION”

Alan Hayward has written several books on creation, but is extremelycritical of the “young earth” viewpoint. This is the main subject of his bookCreation and Evolution: The Facts and the Fallacies (Hay) in which hepresents his viewpoint in a very authoritative and convincing style.

His important omissionHe contends that those who claim the earth is young “have given the whole

class a bad name. So it seemed best to disregard all arguments emanating fromcreationist sources” (p8). He therefore limits himself to simply repeating theevidence from uniformitarian evolutionists.

As we shall see, this means that he totally ignores any supporting evidenceprovided by creationists as replies or rebuttals, and he therefore presentsan extremely biased case. How many of his readers failed to realise thesignificance of this brief sentence early in his book?

We should be clear that the time scale of Genesis is very important, foreither the creation took place over 6 days, as the plain understanding demands,or it did not; it is the reliability of the Bible which is at stake. He provides theusual “re-interpretations” of “days”, etc. and many of his contentions havebeen answered elsewhere in this work.

His authoritative style and appearance of scientific integrity has caused morethan one creationists to begin to wonder whether he has been misled bycreationist propaganda and to question his position on the age of the earth. Inview of this we will briefly examine just a few of the subjects he presents tosee how he handles the evidence for the consumption of his less discerning orknowledgeable readers.

1. The speed of lightHe is scathing in his dismissal of Setterfield’s CDK evidence, saying:

The full Setterfield paper is dressed with a great deal of theoreticalanalysis. Lest any reader should be overly impressed by thisanalysis, perhaps I should mention that I asked two professors ofmodern physics to look at it. One said it was unsound, self-contradictory, and based on an antiquated and incorrect concept ofthe atom. The other used even stronger language (p140).

He references the first professor as Prof. John Billelo of State University ofNew York.

In November 1984 I debated the age of the earth with Alan Hayward atWestminster Chapel. In the exchanged of letters on the subjects we would beraising, he sent me a copy of the letter from Billelo who said (amongst otherthings) that the Bohr model of the atom was 50 years out of date, thatSetterfield’s theory “leads to inconsistencies relating to the permittivity andpermeability in Maxwell’s equations” and called Setterfield’s ideas “silli-nesses”.

These criticisms were forwarded to Setterfield and in his full reply to all thepoints Billelo raised, he noted that:(a) All theories of the atom have the Bohr model as their first approximation.

The Bohr model has been used for the sake of simplicity for the reader.(i.e. the simple model he used was adequate to demonstrate his point.)

(b) “This ‘inconsistency’ is in John’s own grasp of the situation and reflectshis hasty summation of the subject;...However, he has failed to notice that


in the formulation there is the permeability term mu which is proportionalto 1/c^2. Accordingly, from the formula that he has given we find that..(here followed some atomic formulae) .. and the whole thing balancesperfectly.”

From this it is clear that Setterfield’s grasp of atomic formulae is betterthan Professor Billelo’s whom Hayward consulted.

Now the whole of Setterfield’s reply was sent to Hayward before the debate,and with such a rebuttal, I assumed that these particular criticisms would notbe used by Hayward as part of his case. One can imagine my surprise when heread out the same extract from Billelo’s letter during the debate. I hastilyfound Setterfield’s reply and read out the relevant extracts rebutting hiscriticisms. We continue this point later.

2. Coral reefsHe fully accepts the case presented by Wonderly (Wond) that great depths of

coral reefs have been found in the Eniwetok atoll, and dividing this by the veryslow rate of their growth, they must have been in existence for “hundreds ofthousands of years” (p85). During this same debate I read from Wonderly’sbook that, on his own admission, “practically all of it is limestone, with manyfossils - especially corals, foraminifera and algae - embedded in it”(Wond:35). Dividing the depth of a limestone mass by the rate of growth ofsome coral embedded within it is totally unscientific. One would have thoughtthat both Hayward and Wonderly would have realised this.

3. Coral and shellfish growth ringsThe spin of the earth is slowing down making the days longer. This means

the year had more days in the past. Some coral and shellfish exhibit dailygrowth rings, and fossils of these were obtained from the Devonian period.They are said to show a pattern of 400 days in each yearly cycle (Scr, Mazz)which agrees with the calculations of astronomers.

Examination of these papers does not inspire much confidence in theirconclusions for the patterns are very confused. One could make anything onewished from them and the difference they were looking for is only 9%.Hayward, in fact, notes that these bands are “picked out” by researchers “withexperience”. But why should it take “experience”? Surely the spacings of thebands should be independent of the researcher and accurate measurements ofthe spacings of the rings subjected to statistical analysis so that there was nopersonal element involved. One cannot help wondering if the “experience”necessary was that of finding the “right” answer!

Furthermore, a later paper (KahnP1978) using similar banding in fossilNautilus, dismisses the use of corals. However, even in this paper, four resultsthat were widely different to the others were ignored and the line was drawnthrough those results that gave the required trend. They were puzzled why theirresults did not fully agree with calculations of the slowing of the earth by thelunar tides - as discussed in Section 4 - The Age of the Earth.

4. RelativityWe examine relativity later, but here note that Hayward accepts this theory

as correct. Some creationists, dealing with the question of how light fromdistant galaxies could reach us within a few thousand years, quote a paper thatreferred to “Riemannian space” as a possible way in which light could take a“short cut” to reach us in a short time. Hayward dismisses this theory as “acurious mathematical abstraction”. He appears to be unaware that it is one of


the mathematical theories on which Einstein based his General Theory ofRelativity.

5. Ocean chemicalsWe have shown in Section 4 - The Age of the Earth - that the amounts of

many chemical elements in the oceans, when divided by the small quantityflowing into them, indicate a much shorter age for the earth than that stated bygeologists. Hayward dismisses this evidence by noting that they are “residencetimes” of the elements in the oceans and are not indicative of age. If you havea 60 gallon storage tank with water running in and out regularly at a rate of 30gallons a day, then the “residence time” is 60/30 = 2 days.

Hayward refers to a standard text book on the subject (Ril), but examinationof this work gives him little real support. The quantity in the oceans is dividedby the entry rate for many elements, and the result is labelled “Residencetime”. These range from 260 million years (Sodium) to 100 years (Alu-minium), and in general, the lower the concentration the shorter the “residencetime” which is the opposite to what might be expected. The work waspioneered by Barth who “assumed a steady state system” whilst the“Residence times” in Table VI (p173) were said to be corroborated by“sedimentation” calculations, but the text mentions that these values wereobtained by “presumed” rates of sedimentation. Hayward’s case thereforerelies on unproven and speculative assumptions.

The subject is dealt with over 34 pages, with discussions about highconcentrations in shells, ferromanganese nodules, etc. We would acknowledgethe difficulties of obtaining data and there is much admission of values being“rough estimates”, “uncertainties”, etc. However, the significant question is“Do these means of removal equal the amounts entering so that stableconditions lasting millions of years can be established?” This basic question isnever addressed.

Bearing in mind the enormous quantity of sea water above every squaremetre of sea floor, if there had been ongoing removal for vast periods of timewe would expect to see much richer deposits of elements than the fewmentioned.

Having examined the evidence on which Hayward has based his claims, wewould conclude that in practice, very few elements have been removed in anysignificant quantity. This makes the “residence time” equal to the maximumtime the system could have existed. As we have explained in dealing with theage of the earth, many elements would have been already present at creation(or the Flood), so if the quantity in the oceans is divided by the input rate, theresulting time span would be longer than the date since creation. In the fewcases where the time is shorter, then either the quantity of an element flowinginto the oceans is greater than before or there is a mechanism by which theelement is being removed from the oceans. Aluminium, for example, is acommon element in eroded rock compounds, and the authors say that its lowconcentration is due either to it settling out rapidly as a solid or its highreactivy in sea water (Ril:174).

No corrections?Billelo’s criticisms were rebutted twice (by letter and at the debate). It was

therefore surprising to find them still being presented in this latest edition ofhis book. It was written in 1985 but a third impression “with revisions” waspublished in 1994. In view of his claim of superior scientific integrity overcreationists, one might have thought that this opportunity would have been


used to delete Billelo’s criticisms and to correct Wonderly’s unacceptabledating method, but this was not done. As we have pointed out, Haywardspecifically decided to ignore the evidence provided by creationists.

Much more could be criticised in this book that has caused somecreationists to express doubts about the young age of the earth, but let usreview the whole of this section and deal with some fundamental factors in allsuch debates with “long-agers” and anti-creationists.

AN EXAMINATION OF PRINCIPLESThose that have been affected by any book critical of the creationist case

have generally forgotten a basic principle of seeking the truth in any subject.This is that they should never, ever be persuaded by a convincing-sounding

argument until they have heard the opposite case presented by a competentauthority in the subject. They have failed to heed Proverbs 18:17 - “He that isfirst in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searchethhim” (See Bow91:153).

When this is adhered to, it will be found that in virtually every case theyoung-earth creationists have by far the better evidence. Whether the enquireris prepared to be persuaded by it is a quite different matter.

“Professional credibility”One aspect that greatly concerned Hayward was that “recent creationists

have lost their credibility and antagonised the whole scientific world” (p157)and that “their unsound arguments for a young universe has stirred up ahornet’s nest, and turned many scientists into bitter opponents of evangelicalChristianity” (p205). This does raise the very important issue of whethercreationists should strive for “credibility” in the eyes of the secular scientificcommunity.

The answer of this author (which will surprise some readers and annoyothers) is “no”. In defence of such a striking conclusion we would make thefollowing points.

There has been more than one creationist organisation whose principle aimwas to present their evidence in a scholarly manner in the hope of convincingsecular scientists of the rationality of their case. All such aims are doomed tofailure. People at all levels of society, are well aware that if the creationist iscorrect, then an all-powerful creator exists, and they will one day have toanswer to Him. This major “conceptual change” has first to be adopted, beforeany creationist evidence can be accepted as correct. Those who attempt tochange a person at such a deep level of his “view of life” by purely rationalarguments are displaying their lack of understanding of the way in whichhuman nature works.

On this subject of the irrationality of mankind, there was an amusing letterin the Daily Telegraph pointing out that politicians were well aware that“man is not primarily a ‘thinking animal’ but a feeling, anxious, worrying,passionate and panicky being”. The writer advised; “A politician who thinks heis in a rational business ought to consider a new career in accountancy”

This applies just as much to the fundamentally irrational way in whichpeople treat the scientific evidence about creation. They will, indeed must,reject it to avoid a most painful reassessment of the whole basis of their life.

Those creation organisations that have maintained an uncompromisingstance on a young earth and creation in six days have gradually grown instrength. Those that have embraced “long ages” or tried to appeal to thesecular scientific community have had many problems.


Of course, critics will no doubt gleefully distort this dismissal of theopinions of the scientific community as “deliberately rejecting the findings ofscience” or some such, but this is not correct. The present scientific world isgeared to distort or discredit any evidence that supports creation.

Repetitive questionsA creationist often finds that he has to answer the same few questions that

frequently arise - Cain’s wife; dinosaurs on the Ark, etc. This is understand-able as we need to clear the ground for more positive enquiries.

What is less satisfactory is that for every question that creationists answercompetently, three more will be posed by a sceptic. In this country at least,there are many more evolutionists than there are creationists. As nothing willconvince those whose minds are made up, ultimately one concentrates onthose who are willing to examine the evidence fairly, and these are invariablyChristians or “earnest enquirers”.

Far from being “unscientific”, it will be found that the creationist case willultimately be shown to be the only True Science, for it will be in completeaccord with the One who created the scientific laws to begin with and thisuniverse; hence the title of this book.

The search for truthIn all discussions, there are many who hold firm opinions on certain topics

which is good and acceptable. When faced with criticisms, ad hoc explanationswill be presented by defenders - which is also perfectly reasonable. However,as the contrary evidence gradually mounts up against a particular viewpoint,the explanations become less and less acceptable until the point is reachedwhere the position becomes indefensible. Those who continue to hold to theiroriginal views usually go silent - but rarely will they admit that they have beenwrong and accept the conclusions of their opponents. To do so would result in“losing face” in the presence of one’s peers or critics, and this is a fearfulprospect for us all. It is surely reasonable to conclude that those whomaintain this position are not really interested in searching for truth forthey have elevated their prestige above it.

We would suggest this would apply to the majority of evolutionists who tryto defend their position. Regrettably, the creationist movement is not freefrom such attitudes. To publicly change one’s viewpoint on any importanttopic in creation is almost as rare as it is for evolutionists. There are also anincreasing number of articles, often ill-founded, that are critical of somelong-standing creationist evidence. More seriously, there is always the shadowof ambition and a desire for prestige hovering in the background - as with alllarge movements. The pride of the human heart doth surely go very deep.

SummaryWe have spent a very great deal of time and space on answering our critics,

and it might be thought that some of the issues raised are little more than atechnical “storm in a teacup” and hardly warrant such a lengthy examination.The reason for studying them so thoroughly goes a little deeper, however. Wehave tried to show that when all the evidence of the opposition is carefullyexamined, it will consistently be found to be baseless. It is for this reason thatwe have taken the trouble to pursue a few of them to the end of the line inorder to demonstrate this.

Many more books could be criticised and more space has been devoted tothis subject than some may think it warrants. One common factor amongst


most critics of creationism is their condemnation of “young earth” creationistswhilst claiming the “high moral ground” of “true scientific principles”. Suchworks are riddled with evasions, have an air of superiority and use some of the28 misleading stratagems or “tricks of the advocates trade” that I have listed inanother work (Bow91:213f). These criticisms would equally apply to similarworks by Christians who defend evolution such as Wonderley in his God’sTime Records in Ancient Sediments (Wond. - see Bow91:8f) and Forster andMarsden in their Reason and Faith (For89A).


tsawtb section 5: replies to critics

Documents