41, Number 3
Epidemiology and the Creation Health Model
Jeffrey G. Schragin
The Creation Health Model is introduced as an incremental probability model of developing disease. The basis of the model is established from the Biblical events of Creation, Fall, and Flood. The model is predicated upon the concept of purposeful design. It is checked against emerging information from the fields of cancer epidemiology, cardiovascular epidemiology, and general medical epidemiology. It is concluded that a lifestyle consistent with the Creation Health Model reduces the probability of disease and will result in an improvement in overall individual and societal health. The model is scientifically sound and supports purposeful design and Special Creation. It helps to make health and disease understandable in a context that is problematic for molecules-to-man evolution. It may facilitate the development of predictive models of disease prevention and ultimately may assist in the development of therapeutics. Suggestions for several current-day health issues are given.
Full Article: [PDF]
Some Evidence of a Recent Gigantic Flood on the Lower Colorado River at Grand Wash Cliffs and Hualapai Plateau, Arizona
In the early 20th century, J. Harlen Bretz concluded from geomorphic evidence that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington had been formed by a colossal Pleistocene flood. Similarities between features of eastern Washington and western Arizona near the Lower Colorado River suggest the possible extrapolation of Bretz' work to Arizona. Dry Falls, Washington and Grand Wash Cliffs, Arizona both exhibit: 1) depth indicators, 2) floodwater scouring, 3) headward channel erosion, 4) backfilled channels, 5) dry water falls, and 6) flood bars. The evidence suggests that floodwaters stripped about 150 meters of sedimentary rock from the Hualapai Plateau and formed a giant waterfall at the Grand Wash Cliffs until headward channel erosion captured the floodwaters, carving the Grand Canyon. Thus it is possible that the Grand Canyon at the Hualapai Plateau and Grand Wash Cliffs area was carved by a cataclysmic flood. It is not clear whether this took place in the late stage of the Genesis Flood, or later.
Full Article: [PDF]
The Chesapeake Bay Impact and Noah's Flood
Wayne R. Spencer and Michael J. Oard
The largest impact structure in the United States, 85 kilometers (km) in diameter, was discovered under Chesapeake Bay, centered near the small town of Cape Charles on the eastern shore of Virginia. Evidence that the feature is an impact structure includes shocked quartz, concentric normal faults, gravity anomalies, and the presence of tektites. The Chesapeake Bay impact structure cuts through 1 to 2 km of sedimentary rock classified by uniformitarian scientists as Mesozoic to Eocene and is covered by hundreds of meters (m) of other mid- to late-Cenozoic strata, including the Exmore breccia. The impact likely occurred in water on the continental shelf. >From an evolutionary perspective, the crater is dated at 35.5 million years, or late Eocene, but there is evidence that the impact was much more recent. We address the relationship of this impact to the Creation-Flood model, and conclude that the impact occurred during the Abative Phase of the Recessional Stage of the Flood, the mid- to late-Flood, according to Walker's biblical geological model.
Full Article: [PDF]
Beyond Scientific Creationism
John K. Reed, Peter Klevberg, Chris Bennett, Jerry Akridge, Carl R. Froede, Jr., Thomas Lott
Scientific creationism's surprise attack rocked the late Twentieth Century intellectual establishment-acolytes of the worldview of Naturalism. Who could possibly imagine that religion would mount an empirical attack on evolution and its handmaiden, uniformitarian history? But that was decades ago, the shock has worn off, and surprise alone will not finish the job. Empirical arguments developed by an unfunded, outcast minority cannot penetrate the hidebound armor of modern Naturalism despite its many empirical flaws, because at its core Naturalism is not an empirical construct but an integrated worldview. To finish the job started by the scientific creationists, that worldview must be shown to be contrary to truth and thus destroyed. We advocate the primacy of formal over empirical arguments because: (1) they transcend disciplinary boundaries, (2) Naturalism is highly susceptible in that arena since its virulently anti-Christian exterior rests on presuppositions derived from Christian theology, and (3) a formal approach is consistent with Christianity's historical strengths (and Naturalism's inherent weaknesses) in theology and philosophy. A well-founded formal attack would also by example correct derivative and serious modern misunderstandings about the nature of knowledge and truth. Once Naturalism is demonstrated formally invalid, empirical research can take its proper role of building science and exploring natural history within the default, superior Christian worldview. Some Intelligent Design advocates have initiated this argument with great effect against biological evolution, but they fall short because they fail to recognize uniformitarianism as foundational to modern Naturalism.
Hox Genes-Evolution's Hoax
Branyon May, Bert Thompson, and Brad Harrub
Since the advent of molecular science, Darwinism has leaned heavily on genetic mutations to augment weaknesses observed in natural selection. Today, much of the evolutionists' attention has focused on a set of genes referred to as homeobox (Hox) genes, which are pieces of DNA that either promote or inhibit other genes that play a role in the development of a particular organism. Using this information, scientists have been able to produce organisms with superfluous ectopic appendages, wings, or eyes on various regions of their bodies. This has caused evolutionists to proclaim that they have uncovered an adequate mechanism supporting the concept of evolution by mutations. However, Hox genes are far from the "magic bullet" that many have described them as being. While a mis-expressed Hox gene can alter phenotypic expression, it does not do so in a "biological vacuum." Numerous other genes and proteins are needed downstream in order to produce phenotypic characteristics. Additionally, Hox genes are unable to produce new material-something that is essential for macroevolution. The data generated from researchers investigating Hox genes provide many insights into cellular physiology and development; however, the data do not support or confirm evolutionary theory.
Full Article: [PDF]