Copyright © 1971,
2000 by the Creation Research Society. All rights reserved.
Volume 8, Number 2
A Note On The Unsatisfactory Nature Of The Horse Series Of Fossils As
Evidence Of Evolution
Frank W. Cousins
Professor H. Nilsson assembled
powerful arguments concerning the artificial character of the so-called
"family tree" of horse evolution. Nilsson's statements have
been translated, discussed, and illustrated in this article. On close
analysis, the collection of "horse" remains is not a continuum
of well-integrated fossils but an assemblage of separate groups varying
widely in size and other criteria. Hyracotherium (Eohippus),
for example, was very likely not a horse but an animal like the contemporary
Hyrax or Damans. Mesohippus and Parahippus remains
represent a separate group that is not related to Hyracotherium or to
Equus, the modern horse. The "family tree" of the horse is
artificial because it has been constructed of non-equivalent parts which
are unrelated. Evidence since Nilsson's study is also reviewed. It is
concluded that the horse family is unique and separate and that the
evidence can, without any weighting, be fitted to the case for special
The Scientific Character
Of The Evolution Doctrine
Willem J. Ouweneel, Ph.D.
It is becoming increasingly
apparent that evolutionism is not even a good scientific theory.
For example, evolutionists assert that life arose naturally from non-living
matter and yet no evidence exists favoring "spontaneous generation."
The creationist explanation at this point is simpler and also more adequate.
Evolutionism is shown to
be neither a theory nor an hypothesis but a dogma or doctrine. It does
not legitimately fall under the heading of "natural science"
but fits within the domain of philosophy because it is a materialistic
On six accounts evolution
theory is shown to fall short of what should be required in any truly
"scientific" postulate or conception. Finally, although neither
creationism nor evolutionism is strictly a "scientific concept,
creationism should be favored because it is more consistent with our
knowledge and at the same time rooted in the word of God.
Resistance Of Living Organisms
To The Second Law Of Thermodynamics: Irreversible Processes, Open Systems,
Creation, And Evolution
Emmett L. Williams, Jr.,
Resistance of living organisms
to the degenerating effects called for by the second law of thermodynamics
is considered. Discussion is approached from the avenues of classical
and irreversible thermodynamics. Whether a living system is considered
as open or as a steady state, eventually the effects of the second law
will destroy it. The methodology of thermodynamics is not advanced enough
as yet to be applied quantitatively to life. However, it is felt that
the complexity of living systems is a result initially of creative acts
by God and not as a result of evolutionary processes.
On The Fitness Of The Laws
In this paper there is an
attempt to examine the origin of "natural laws." The special
creationist and general evolutionist are both asked to explain the obvious
"fitness" observed in these natural laws. It is concluded
that the laws are difficult if not totally impossible to comprehend
in terms of evolutionary origin because the laws point unerringly to
The Creation Of Eve
Robert F. Koontz, Ph.D.
In this short article the
creation of Eve is considered in relation to contemporary knowledge
of tissue culture, cellular differentiation, and chromosomal configurations.
While nothing definite can be said regarding the mechanism of creation,
the record and order of events is profoundly credible in terms of biology
The Ark Of Noah
Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.
Physical features of the
ark, described in Genesis 6 are considered in this paper. Such factors
as buoyancy, water displacement, weight, and metacentric height are
expanded with appropriate calculations. It is concluded that this craft
was eminently suitable for preserving man and animal during the year
of the great Flood.
© Copyright 2001-2013, Creation
Research Society. All rights reserved.
Copyright & Permissions