CRSQ Archive

Copyright © 1988, 2000 by the Creation Research Society. All rights reserved.

Volume 23, Number 3
December, 1986


A Review of Problems Confronting Biblical Archaeology

Erich A. von Fange, Ph.D.

Biblical archaeology as a scholarly discipline is introduced. The problems of interpretation of field evidence are discussed. Further source materials are listed. Typically the major area of disagreement between humanistic and conservative archaeologists is that of chronology.

Creation Research Society Studies on Precambrian Pollen: Part I - A Review

George F. Howe, Ph.D.

In the last 20 years considerable interest has centered on a 1966 Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ) paper in which C. L. Burdick presented photographs and descriptions of pollen grains isolated from Precambrian Hakatai shale and various other strata of the Grand Canyon, Arizona. Burdick produced this paper based on research he conducted at the University of Arizona. He relied as well on assistance from W. E. Lammerts in manuscript preparation. In defense of the macroevolutionary origins model, some workers immediately argued that these discoveries were merely contaminant modern pollen grains and not true microfossils.

At the prompting of the CRS Board of Directors, C. L. Burdick solicited the help of A. V. Chadwick, a creationist, to undertake further analysis of new rock samples from the Grand Canyon. At that time, Chadwick was associated with Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA. Based on this work, Burdick reported in a short article (1972) that the first discoveries had been replicated by utilizing essentially the same methods as he had originally used at the University of Arizona. While not altogether denying the 1972 pollen discoveries in Hakatai shale, A. V. Chadwick in 1973 wrote in a letter for publication in CRSQ that a more careful analysis of these rocks would be necessary before definitive statements could be made about the presence of microfossils in Grand Canyon strata.

Eight years later (1981) Chadwick, in a brief paper, indicated that by taking unusual precaution in field and laboratory to avoid contamination, and by using a different extraction procedure involving hydrofluoric acid (as well as hydrochloric acid), he had been unable to recover any pollen grains from samples of Hakatai shale.

Since contamination of the rock in the field and on the microscope slides in the laboratory is the usual claim of both creationists and evolutionists who discount the Burdick discoveries, W. E. Lammerts volunteered to determine just how easy or difficult it might be to recover contaminant pollen grains in nature. At about the same time, in Spring, 1983, the CRS Research Committee authorized E. L. Williams, G. F. Howe, G. T. Matzko, and W. E. Lammerts to collect new rock samples and perform pollen extraction by the old Burdick method to see if perhaps the differences in the chemical processing between Burdick's method and Chadwick's would influence the final results. We recovered what are apparently pollen grains and other cellular objects from Hakatai shale by using the Burdick techniques. The methods, results, and conclusions of these recent studies will be presented in Parts II and III of this present series of papers.

Diluviology and Uniformitarian Geology - A Review

A. W. Mehlert, Dip.Th.

Interpretation of the fossil record from Flood and uniformitarian geology are compared. The different approaches of Morton and Woodmorrappe to Flood geology are considered. The Flood model is superior to the uniformitarian model. Likewise the fossil record does not support any long-age concept.

Properly Defining "Evolution"

John N. Moore, Ed.D.

Creationists should set an example for scientists, students and other non-scientists by (a) differentiating "evolution" from genetic variational change by appropriately using the terms micro-evolution versus macro-evolution, and (b) avoiding any mixing of theism with supposed naturalistic concepts.

Correctly Redefining Distorted Science: A Most Essential Task

Robert E. Kofahl, Ph.D.

From a correct philosophically neutral definition of science the rules of the scientific method and the freedoms of scientists logically follow. Since Darwin's time the scientific community has distorted science by injecting into its definition a particular metaphysical belief system, i.e., materialistic monism. Thus science has been by definition biased against creation, with the result that "unbelievers" are denied their freedoms as scientists, teachers and students and are subjected to discrimination and injury. A reformation of science at the definitional level is an essential task for Christians engaged in science and education.


Read 211 times Last modified on Sunday, 16 March 2014 14:54