For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them...
Printer-friendly version

... continued from Part I ...

Copyright 1975, 1998 by Creation Research Society. All rights reserved.


(Part II)


Creation Research Society Quarterly 12(1):34-46 June, 1975


New Guinea Communities and the Migration Dispersion Model

The origin of the peoples of New Guinea is a subject of dispute among anthropologists. Regardless of their origin, New Guineans in the past have tended to isolate themselves in small groups which have become diversified both linguistically and genetically. R. Daniel Shaw compiled data on the ABO, MNS and Rh blood groups for natives of New Guinea in 37 areas spread over the entire island in an attempt to discover any relationships that might aid in correlating these genetic data, (31) and which might provide some basis for postulating how these diverse groups arose.

Although the data are insufficient to validate any theory, Shaw maintained that his data supported a Migration-Dispersion model for the origin of these New Guinea population groups. According to this model, as individuals migrate in small numbers from a common gene pool, the new group becomes more distinct than the source group. This is so because new generations come from only a limited gene pool and are isolated from the normalizing effect of interbreeding within a large gene pool where all genetic factors are available. Genetic traits peculiar to the group are thus rapidly and strongly expressed because of a high degree of inbreeding.

It is postulated that "Papua-Melanesians" migrated to New Guinea in relatively large numbers. After settling on the coasts of what was probably an uninhabited island, population growth forced these people to migrate up river valleys and into the highlands. These groups became reproductively isolated from one another due to geographic, linguistic and cultural barriers. This gave rise to populations that were genetically diverse from one another, since each migratory group had carried with it only a fraction of the total gene pool.

While evolutionists generally propose that the origin of races required gradual processes over a vast length of time, creationists postulate that a process similar to the one above could have caused the origin of races in a short period of time. The rapid dispersion that took place following the confusion of tongues at Babel (32) would have resulted in the isolation of relatively small groups. Furthermore, the manner in which God bestowed various languages among this previously monolingual human population may have been so directed as to isolate genetically similar individuals in the same language group.

Thus, those individuals having a higher proportion of genes for Negroid features, or for Caucasian features, etc., may have been given a common language. Once the race itself was established through isolation and inbreeding, further migrations and other isolating mechanisms, such as those described above, could account for the diversity within each major racial group.


Pine Cone Spirals and the Fibonacci Series

A curious, but seldom observed, pattern runs through much of nature. (33,34) The reproduction of male bees, the number of spiral floret formations visible in many sunflowers, spiraled scales on pine cones and pineapples, the arrangement of leaves on twigs, and many other structures fit the Fibonacci series. This series, developed by the Italian mathematician Leonardo of Pisa, also known as Fibonacci (1170-1230), is 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, . . . , with each number the sum of the two previous numbers. Harry Wiant's study of the cones of the major southern pines confirmed that, almost without fail, the number of spirals around the cones at a selected point, to the right and left, were adjacent numbers in the Fibonacci series. (34)

Some exhibited counts of 5 and 8, others of 3 and 5. Preliminary studies indicated that approximately 50% of the cones give the maximum count to the right and 50% show the maximum to the left. Wiant suggested that these patterns in nature, in both the plant and animal world, rather than reflecting a random evolutionary process, are indicative of the design of a Creator-God.


Stability of Bacterial Populations

Basic to the orthodox evolutionary model is the belief that the population of an organism is constantly undergoing change due to mutations and pressures brought on by changes in the environment. Jerry Moore studied a pure culture of _Proteus mirabilis_, a bacterial species belonging to the Enterobacteriaceae family of the Eubacteriales order, which he had isolated from a clinical source, in order to determine its stability or variability over a period of time under markedly different conditions. (35)

The organism was serially transferred onto 10 randomly-selected laboratory media and the cultures were held at temperatures ranging from 20-37C. for a period of three months. The conditions of culture and incubation were thus quite varied, yet remaining favorable enough at times for hundreds of bacterial generations to occur. After 62 serial transfers, 30 biochemical and antibiotic sensitivity characteristics had not changed from those initially observed, except for a minimal and variable response to Penicillin G. The variable response to the latter may have been due to cell wall damage from exposure of the bacteria to noxious components in the culture media rather than to exposure to Penicillin G.

Moore's experiment, although admittedly limited in scope and duration, does support a natural biologic stability. In his paper, Moore reviewed some examples in the scientific literature of tremendous biologic stability, including a study which indicated that a bacterium had retained its rigid biological characterization during the 150 years it has been subject to investigation.



As mentioned earlier in this article, fundamental to evolutionary thinking is the concept that new varieties within each species are constantly arising via mutations or other genetic variations. The genetic variants that arise by these processes, due to differences in viability, fertility, etc., contribute, via reproduction, differentially to the gene pool of subsequent generations, some leaving more offspring than others.

Those that reproduce a larger proportion of offspring which, in turn live to reproduce in larger numbers, are said to be the most fit. They are said to have been selected by nature, and the evolutionary process is thus a process of mutation with natural selection.

Another concept that is fundamental to evolutionists is the belief that these minor changes, or micromutations, accumulate in such a way that one basic kind of an organism can change into a basically different kind of an organism, and simple organisms will change or evolve into more complex organisms.

Creationists recognize that all organisms have an ability to vary, but they insist that all empirical evidence indicates that this ability is restricted within relatively narrow limits, and that there is no evidence that one kind of an organism has ever arisen from a basically different kind of an organism. They further believe that this ability to produce normal variants (distinguished from pathological variants) was built into each kind by the Creator to enable each kind to survive under a great variety of conditions, and thus to be perpetuated even though conditions may change. Creationists are interpreting biological data according to this concept rather than within evolutionary concepts.


Galapagos Island Finches

Darwin and other evolutionists have supposed that the varieties of finches now living in the Galapagos Islands, a group of islands lying 600 miles and more west of South America, have arisen from migrants from South America. The original migrants, it is believed, were more or less uniform, but mutation with natural selection has given rise over a long period of time to finches that now inhabit the various islands and which possess differences (mainly in size and shape of the bill) in response to variations in the type of food supply found on the several islands.

Creationists interpret these data in much the same way, with some important exceptions. They point out, first of all, that the variation that has apparently occurred among these finches is very limited, for these finches are not only still birds, but they are still finches. Neither the molecule-to-man idea of evolution, nor the idea that basically different kinds of birds, such as ducks, hummingbirds, and vultures, have arisen from a common ancestor is supported by such evidence.

Secondly, creationists believe that the genetic potential, or gene pool, carried to the Galapagos Islands by the migrant finches from South America was sufficient to permit the variation that has occurred. This variability did not arise via mutations, but the potential was already present in the original migrants, which diverged into various forms as a result of the chance arrangement of their original variability potential (the fact that this variability potential existed was not by chance!).

Finally, as the study of these finches by Walter Lammerts (36) showed, the actual divergence that has occurred among these finches is considerably more limited than represented in much of evolutionary literature. Dr. Lammerts studied the large collection of Galapagos Island finches (sometimes called "Darwin's finches") at the California Academy of Science. He particularly noted: 1) the length of each bird from tip of bill to end of tail, 2) the height from belly to top of back, 3) total length of bill, and 4) width of the ventral side of the lower mandible of the bill.

These finches have been classified into four genera, Geospiza, Camarhynchus, Cactospiza, and Certhidea. Those studied by Lammerts bore 17 different species labels. While Lammerts held that the Certhidea, or Warbler finches, are distinctive from the other genera, he stated that the four species within this genera are hardly more than color variations, and should be placed in a single group with species rank rather than genus rank. Lammerts further observed that if all the species labels were removed from the remainder of the Galapagos Island finches and they were arranged according to body and bill size, complete intergradation would be found. The same is true of bill length and width and plumage coloration.

Lammerts noted that the range in variation among these finches, although they are classified into several genera and many species, is exactly comparable to the variation found within a single species of song sparrow, Melospiza melodia. He further pointed out that these finch "genera" are in no way comparable in distinction to the genera Rosa (roses), Frageria (strawberries), and Pyrus (pears), members of the family Rosaceae.

Lammerts considered that it would be much more realistic to classify these finches into a single species. He also emphatically rejected the idea that the variations in size of bill are "adaptive divergences" resulting from natural selection. Present feeding habits, Lammerts emphasized, are the result of the particular types of bills which happened to occur among these birds, rather than the bills developing slowly as an adaptation to differences in the types of food available.


Crowding and Reproductive Rates in Planaria

E. N. Smith has reported on his study of the effect of crowding on asexual reproduction of the planaria Dugesia dorotocephala. (37) As Smith pointed out, there are two possible mechanisms for regulating population densities. Individuals within a population might reproduce maximally near their physiological limit, with the population density being regulated by negative outside forces (predation, disease, starvation, etc.). Those individuals which are better able to compete against these outside forces and reproduce more offspring are said to be more fit and thus to be selected. Alternately, the individuals within a population might possess some internal regulating force which in some way regulates population density and maintains a form of density homeostasis.

Evolutionists generally prefer the former view. Natural selection is said to favor the individuals that can leave the most reproducing offspring. On the other hand, if the alternate view is correct, there would be no real competition between populations and no selection. The postulated cause of the evolutionary process would fail.

The freshwater planaria, Dugesia dorotocephala, reproduce asexually by fissioning. Smith maintained the planaria in identical containers, and conditions in each experiment were the same in each container, except the population density was maintained at different levels. Smith found that crowding clearly reduced the fissioning rate of the planaria. This reduction did not appear to be due to slime, oxygen depletion or carbon dioxide build-up, but appeared to be due to some water-soluble inhibitor produced by the planaria.

The planaria thus appeared to have a built-in density-dependent reproduction regulatory mechanism. Smith postulated that these creatures (and other animals) regulate their own numbers without the necessity of outside forces such as predation, starvation, and disease. He pointed out that built-in density dependent reproduction rates were mandatory after creation and before the fall, and that it is quite conceivable that living organisms had a mechanism for regulating their numbers without intervention of external conditions such as predation, starvation and disease.


Plant Succession Studies

Walter Lammerts and George Howe used plant succession studies to observe the effect of natural selection under widely divergent conditions. (38) Repeated field analyses were made of variation in five plant species populations including the California poppy, lupine, thistle sage, owl's clover, and a yellow pansy, representing five different plant families. Observations were made over a period of five growing seasons at staked localities in the vicinities of Newhall and Corralitos, California.

Despite great variation in annual precipitation during the study, no gradual shifts or evolutionary trends were evident. The natural selection observed actually restricted the amount of variation, bringing populations back to a typical or normal form during years of moisture stress. Lammerts and Howe concluded that these studies indicated no evidence for natural selection of the type required by evolution theory.

Origin of the great range in variation found in many species of plants were discussed. It was the conclusion of one of the authors, namely Dr. Lammerts, that plant variations were supernaturally derived from the originally small populations of plants of the various kinds which survived the Flood. The alternative possibility exists, however, that a sufficiently diverse gene pool within each plant family survived the Flood to give rise to the many plant varieties existing today. The experiments by Howe discussed in the next article have shed some light on this question.



Seed Germination and Plant Survival Following Submersion in Salt and Fresh Water

George Howe undertook a study of the effect of prolonged submersion of seeds of flowering plants in sea and fresh water as an aid in understanding bow plants were able to survive the Flood. (39) Seeds from the fruits of five different species and families of flowering plants were tested for germination after soaking in sea water, fresh tap water, and an equal mixture of sea and tap water.

Soaking was continued for a maximum of 140 days, which corresponds roughly to the 150 days during which water prevailed upon the earth during the Flood. At intervals of 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 weeks after initiation of soaking, seeds of each plant species were removed from the various treatments and placed under favorable germination conditions.

Ability to survive the soaking varied among the plant species tested, but even after a soaking period of 140 days in each of the solutions mentioned above, seeds from three out of the five species tested germinated and grew.

The first suggestion that Howe made in answer to the question of plant survival during the Flood was that many plants did not survive! He pointed out that much destruction of plant life would be expected during a prolonged global flood and that extinction of many species would thus be a predictive consequence of such a flood. Paleobotanical studies have revealed that numerous kinds of plants are found as fossils but which are not found living today.

Howe reviewed several other mechanisms for plant survival during the Flood in addition to resistance to soaking by seeds. Vegetation, including trees, have been known to have been torn away by storms and carried out to sea still embedded in soil masses. Survival during prolonged periods of such a process would be possible.

Plant material has been known to have been transported while embedded in icebergs. Seeds that were contained in the carcasses of dead birds floating in sea water have been known to germinate and grow. No doubt many seeds would have been carried on the ark, as well.

From his data and those of others, Howe concluded that a variety of mechanisms were available to account for the survival of plants during the Flood.


Flora and Fauna of the Galapagos Islands

John Klotz visited the Galapagos Islands, made famous by Darwin, and has published an extremely interesting review of the plants and animals which now inhabit these islands, particular attention being given to finches, tortoises, cacti, and iguanas. (40)

About a half dozen of these islands measure 10 to 20 miles across, and one, Albemarle, is 80 miles along. Mountains on these islands rise 2,000 to 3,000 feet above sea level, the highest point being 4,000 feet on Albemarle. Generally the islands are arid and the landscape harsh. Inland and at higher altitudes, there is humid forest with rich black soil and tall trees covered with ferns, orchids, lichens, and mosses. In the very highest areas there is open country with grass, ferns, mosses, and occasional thickets.

Floral and faunal types are relatively few in number. The fauna include only six passerine forms of birds and one species of cuckoo; two types of land mammals (a bat and a rat); and five types of land reptiles, which include a giant tortoise, a lizard, a gecko, a snake, a land iguana, and a marine iguana. There are no amphibians. Domesticated animals have been introduced by settlers.

Klotz devoted a large section of his paper to the finches. He stated that there seems to be no reason to question their origin from a common ancestor. As Klotz noted, evolutionists have generally assumed the origin of all the finch species from a single gravid female, a single pair, or at most a very small number reaching the islands together. Klotz discussed the suggestion of Lammerts (1966), mentioned earlier in this paper, that migration of finches to the Galapagos Islands might have included many pairs, although he did not seem to favor that view.

Klotz, in contrast to Lammerts, maintained that most of the Galapagos Island finch species are actual species rather than mere varieties. There seems to be good evidence on each side, although Lammerts presented some especially convincing evidence. Klotz believes there is no reason to doubt that new species arise or that new species of finches actually did arise on the Galapagos Islands.

Klotz emphasized that origin of species is comparatively only a minor problem for evolutionists. Finches are still finches and there is no evidence of the changes in magnitude required for macroevolution, that is, increase in complexity with origin of one basic kind from another. He thus asserted that the evidence presented by the fauna and flora of the Galapagos Islands did not constitute any real support for amoeba-to-man evolution.



Molecular Approaches to Taxonomy

Taxonomy is the science of classification of plants and animals. It is obvious that there are recognizable groups of organisms in the present world which have many similar characteristics. Such groups have always existed as evidenced both by the fossil record and the Genesis reference to "kinds." The father of taxonomy, Carolus Linnaeus, was a strong believer in creation, and believed, as do modern creationists, that similarities among organisms exist not because of their origin from a common ancestor but because God based His creation on a complex of plans with an underlying thread of unity.

Wayne Frair's approach to taxonomic studies avoids evolutionary presuppositions, his assumption being that the world of life is to be viewed as having risen from certain stem organisms which constitute the original "kinds" mentioned in Genesis. He views the problem of grouping organisms within the kinds and of establishing relationships among the kinds to be the proper function of taxonomists.

Frair's interests as a biologist have included serology and herpetology. He combined elements of both in his taxonomic studies, utilizing antibodies to the serum of turtles as an aid in establishing the taxonomic relationship of these turtles. (41) He injected the blood sera of the turtles into rabbits or chickens in order to establish antibodies to the serum proteins. The antibody-containing serum, or antiserum, was obtained from the rabbits or chickens and mixed with serial dilutions of the serum from the various turtles. The sera from closely related turtles would be expected to give a strong cross-reaction, while sera from distantly related turtles would cross-react weakly or not at all (a cross-reaction is said to be obtained if antiserum generated by injection of serum of species A also reacts, or gives a precipitate, with serum from species B).

Frair's studies did not support the widely held view that snapping turtles belong to a separate family related to the Kinosternidae, but rather should be placed within the Emydid family group. Such a switch is probably minor enough to pose no problem for the evolutionary biologists. Creationists maintain, of course, that taxonomic classification should be established without reference to a supposed evolutionary origin or phylogeny, but should be based strictly on degree of similarity.



Many papers have been published in the CRS Quarterly which were concerned with the relationship of the laws of thermodynamics to the creation-evolution problem. Emmett Williams, in his most recent paper on this subject, presented an excellent review of the papers on this subject. (42) To review these papers here, or even to review in detail Dr. Williams' outstanding series of papers on this subject (43-46) would exceed the scope of this paper. To omit any mention of this work from the present paper, however, even though such work did not involve collection of any new and original data as such, would be a serious omission. I will, therefore, briefly review Williams' series of papers.

Those who hold to the general evolution model postulate that the present universe and all that it contains began in some primordial disordered state. Evolutionary forces have been at work throughout the billions of years since that state existed, it is believed, and have acted in such a way that the highly structured universe and a vast array of incredibly complex organisms have arisen here on the earth. Thus, there has occurred, according to this thinking, at least in the observable part of our universe and particularly on the earth, an immense increase in order and complexity. This supposedly has taken place solely according to mechanistic, naturalistic processes which can be attributed to properties inherent in matter.

If the above were true, then matter obviously must have possessed an inherent ability for organization into higher and higher levels of order and complexity. Scientists should have been able to recognize this universal inherent property of matter and to construct natural laws which describe it. As a matter of fact, scientists have not been able to recognize any such property of matter.

However, scientists have recognized just the opposite tendency in matter. The more probable state of matter is always the more random state. Every change in nature that takes place spontaneously always results in a loss of order. Natural processes always occur in such a way that the complex tend to become less complex, ordered states tend to become disordered. Therefore, this universe is constantly becoming more disordered.

This tendency is so universal and so unfailing it can be expressed as a law - the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The operation of the natural forces which has resulted in man's description of these forces in the form of the Second Law of Thermodynamics has a number of consequences, and thus the Second Law may be defined in several ways. These consequences include the loss of usable energy, the loss of order, and the loss of information. The Second Law may thus be defined in several ways so as to emphasize these several consequences. In discussions of this Law and its relationship to the creation-evolution problem, the loss of order and information consequences are usually emphasized.

In Williams' first paper on this subject, (43) he discussed the operation of the Second Law from the viewpoint of classical thermodynamics (loss of usable energy) and the viewpoint of statistical mechanics (loss of order). Entropy is a thermodynamic quantity which can be defined, in a non-technical sense, as a measure of the randomness of a system - the greater the randomness or disorder within a system the greater the entropy.

An increase in order requires a decrease in entropy, while the reverse is true. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is thus sometimes referred to as the law of increasing entropy. In his first paper, which was the more technical of the series, Williams discussed entropy and the solid state.

Following an excellent introduction, including a thorough definition of terms and of the Second Law in thermodynamic and statistical terms, Williams discussed the effect of entropy on the solid state. Contrary to what is commonly believed, crystalline solids are not structurally ordered. There are many imperfections in the lattice structures of such solids, and these imperfections are thermodynamically stable because the entropy of the solid is increased by their presence. Williams emphasized that the principle of increasing entropy is opposed to evolution and to certain aspects of ruin-reconstruction interpretations of Genesis 1.

A simplified explanation of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics was given in non-mathematical language in Williams' second paper. (44) That the total amount of energy in the universe is a constant is expressed in the First Law. Since matter and energy are interchangeable, and therefore equivalent, everything in the physical universe is a form of energy and neither increases nor decreases, in perfect agreement with the Biblical pronouncement of a finished creation. Williams explained that evolution could not have occurred unless both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics were violated many times. He shows that the three arguments which are usually offered by evolutionists to circumvent the laws of thermodynamics are invalidated by the evidence.

In his third paper (45) Williams asked the question, "Is the universe a thermodynamic system?" One would have to know the answer to that question before one could assert with authority that the laws of thermodynamics apply to the entire universe in addition to our readily observable portion of the universe, where these laws have been tested. Williams asserted that there is no way scientifically to determine the extent of the universe or its thermodynamic character at the present time.

He pointed out, however, that statements in Scripture support the fact that the laws of thermodynamics do apply to the entire universe. The applicability of the First Law is asserted in Genesis 2:1-3 and in 11 Peter 3:7, and the applicability of the Second Law is made plain in Psalms 102:25, 26, and Romans 8:20-22. Since the universe is subject to these laws of thermodynamics, and no matter or energy exchange can be observed, it is assumed that the universe is an isolated thermodynamic system.

But whether the universe is open, closed or isolated, it is definitely degenerating. No matter what type of a thermodynamic system is chosen, the entropy of the system always increases with the occurrence of an irreversible process. Williams therefore asserted that evolutionists, who demand a decrease in entropy, are in an indefensible position in the face of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

In his fourth paper (46) Dr. Williams offered an extremely interesting and thorough consideration of the applicability of the laws of thermodynamics to living systems. There is a rather general impression, often stated by evolutionists, that living systems somehow circumvent the Second Law, since the development of a seed or fertilized egg into the adult organism seems to result in an increase in complexity.

As Williams pointed out, this increase in complexity is only apparent and not real. The fertilized egg is as complex, or more so, than any cell in the growing or adult organism. All of the information needed for the production of the adult is present in the egg. No new information is needed or added. As a matter of fact, almost from the moment of conception, loss of information and order via mutations, injuries, and disease begins. This loss of order, or the rate of increase in entropy, slows during development, but never ceases.

The rate of entropy increase accelerates during the aging process and finally results in death, whereupon the organism reaches its maximum entropy state - a pile of dust. If living things circumvented the Second Law of Thermodynamics, they would live forever.

As indicated early in this section, Williams' most recent paper (1973) on thermodynamics in the CRS Quarterly was a review of creationist literature on the relationship of the laws of thermodynamics to the subject of creation and evolution. Publications by Henry M. Morris, R. E. D. Clark, D. Penny, T. G. Barnes, George Mulfinger, Walter Lammerts, I. McDowell, Bolton Davidheiser, G. C. Lockwood, and A. E. Wilder-Smith were cited in this respect. Dr. Williams concluded his 1973 paper with a discussion of evolution in the light of probability considerations, showing that evolution, on the basis of these probability considerations alone, can be shown to be impossible.



In 1970, Larry Butler, then Chairman of the Research Committee of the Creation Research Society, issued a research challenge to creationists in the form of a list of proposed research projects. (47) These included:

      (a) experimental demonstration that coal can be formed rapidly under catastrophic conditions (This has actually been demonstrated since then by a University of Utah scientist - see reference 17.);

      (b) experimental formation of fossils under a variety of conditions in order to demonstrate that fossilization can take place relatively rapidly;

      (c) experimental determination of optimum conditions for rapid growth of coral reefs; investigation of caves, mine shafts, and tunnels of recent origin (100-200 years) to determine growth rates of stalactites and stalagmites;

      (d) anthropological measurements of variations in thickness, shape, etc., of contemporary human skulls.

Other suggested research included:

      (a) consideration of the thermodynamic effects of the Flood;

      (b) surveys of geological formations from high altitude (40,000 feet) and interpretations of the broad features revealed within the context of Flood geology;

      (c) continuation of Howe's investigation of the effect of soaking in sea water on the viability of seeds;

      (d) a reinvestigation of alleged examples of species formation;

      (e) further research to verify the claim that radioactive decay of uranium and thorium has actually produced only a minute fraction of the helium that should have been produced in 4.5 billion years.

Further projects listed were:

      (a) research to determine the true origin of cultivated plants;

      (b) carbon dating of samples of organic material that is supposed to be millions of years old and which should thus be devoid of radiocarbon (C-14);

      (c) taxonomic studies in an attempt to determine the limits of the "kinds" described in Genesis;

      (d) a formulation of a list of "living fossils," that is, a list of plants and animals once believed to have been extinct for millions of years but now known to be living;

      (e) finally, an investigation of settling rates to, see if differential settling by water action, as proposed by Whitcomb and Morris (48) can account for the way fossils are distributed in the geological formations.

The list of proposals by Dr. Butler is certainly not exhaustive, of course. For instance, there is the need for: (a) Dr. Barnes to continue his fascinating study of the magnetic field of the earth, (b) a continued need for the search for remains of the ark on Mount Ararat, further investigations of alleged overthrusts, (d) research into the processes and procedures used in radiometric dating, etc.

Butler nevertheless posed a real challenge to creation scientists; and he gave some idea of the important need for creationist research and the possible direction of such research. As is evident from this review, creationists have not been idle during the past decade, and readers can expect that creation scientists will have gained significant insight into many of the problems posed by Dr. Butler before the end of the present decade.



CRSQ = Creation Research Society Quarterly

(1) Creation Research Society is a non-profit organization incorporated in the State of Michigan.

(2) Slusher, H. S. 1966. Supposed overthrust in Franklin Mountains, El Paso, Texas, CRSQ 3(1):59-60.

(3) Lammerts, W. E. 1966. Overthrust faults of Glacier National Park, CRSQ 3(1):61-62.

(4) Burdick, C. L. 1969. The Lewis overthrust, CRSQ 6(2):96-106.

(5) Burdick, C. L. and H. S. Slusher. 1969. The Empire Mountains a thrust fault?, CRSQ 6(1):49-54.

(6) Lammerts, W. E. 1972. The Glarus overthrust, CRSQ 8(4):251-255.

(7) Rusch, W. H., Sr. 1971. Human footprints in rocks, CRSQ 7(4):201-213.

(8) Films for Christ, Route 2, Eden Road, Elmwood, Illinois 61249.

(9) Meister, W. J., Sr. 1968. Discovery of trilobite fossils in shod footprints of human in "Trilobite Beds" - a Cambrian formation, Antelope Springs, Utah, CRSQ 5(3):97-102.

(10) Burdick, C. L. 1973. Discovery of human skeletons in Cretaceous formation, CRSQ 10(2):109-110.

(11) Cousins, F. W. 1966. Fossil man. Evolution Protest Movement. 110 Havant Road, Stoke, Hayling Island, Hants, England; and 1557 Arrow Road, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Pp. 47-61.

(12) Burdick, C. L. 1966. Microflora of the Grand Canyon, CRSQ 3(1):38-50.

(13) Burdick, C. L. 1972. Progress report on Grand Canyon palynology, CRSQ 9(1):25-30.

(14) Rusch, W. H., Sr. 1968. The revelation of palynology, CRSQ 5(3):103-105.

(15) Burdick, C. L. 1967. Ararat - the mother of mountains, CRSQ 4(1):5-12.

(16) Coffin, H. G. 1969. Research on the classic Joggins petrified trees, CRSQ 6(1):35-44.

(17) Gish, D. T. 1972. Acts and Facts, 1(4):1-4. (Institute for Creation Research). 1973. Creation: Acts, Facts, Impacts Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego), pp. 15-19.

(18) Coffin, H. G. 1974. (in) Challenge to Education II-B. The Bible-Science Association, Caldwell, Idaho, pp. 36-41.

(l9) Northrup, B. E. 1969. The Sisquoc diatomite fossil beds, CRSQ 6(3) : 129-135.

(20) Peters, W. G. 1971. The cyclical black shales, CRSQ 7(4):193-200.

(21) Nevins, S. E. 1972. Is the Capitan limestone a fossil reef?, CRSQ 8(4):231-248.

(22) Nevins, S. E. 1974. Post-Flood strata of the John Day Country, Northeastern Oregon, CRSQ 10(4):191-204.

(23) Barnes, T. G. 1971. Decay of the earth's magnetic moment and the geochronological implications, CRSQ 8(1):24-29.

(24) Barnes, T. G. 1972. Young age vs. geologic age for the earth's magnetic field, CRSQ 9(1): 47-50.

(25) Barnes, T. G. 1973. Electromagnetics of the earth's field and evaluation of electric conductivity, current, and joule heating in the earth's core, CRSQ 9(4):222-230.

(26) Barnes, T. G. 1973. The origin and destiny of the Earth's magnetic field. The Institute for Creation Research, San Diego.

(27) Lammerts, W. E. 1965. Planned induction of commercially desirable variation in roses by neutron radiation, CRSQ 2(1):39-43.

(28) Lammerts, W. E. 1967. Mutations reveal the glory of God's handiwork, CRSQ 4(1):35-41.

(29) Lammerts, W. E. 1969. Does the science of genetic and molecular biology really give evidence for evolution?, CRSQ 6(1):5-12.

(30) Tinkle, W. J. 1971. Pleiotropy: extra cotyledons in the tomato, CRSQ 8(3):183-185. (See also a relevant article in this issue.)

(31) Shaw, R. D. 1972. Why genetic variation between New Guinea communities (Migration-dispersion model applied), CRSQ 9(3):175-180.

(32) Genesis 11: 1-9.

(33) Time (April 4, 1969), pp. 48 and 50.

(34) Wiant, H. V. 1973. Relation of southern pine cone spirals to the Fibonacci series, CRSQ 9(4):218-219.

(35) Moore, J. P. 1974. A demonstration of marked species stability in Enterobacteriaceae, CRSQ 10(4):187-190.

(36) Lammerts W. E. 1966. The Galapagos Island finches, CRSQ 3(1):73-79.

(37) Smith, E. N. 1973. Crowding and asexual reproduction of the planaria, Dugesia dorotocephala, CRSQ 10( 1 ):3-10.

(38) Lammerts, W. E. and G. F. Howe 1974. Plant succession studies in relation to micro-evolution, CRSQ 10(4):208-228.

(39) Howe, G. F. 1968. Seed germination, sea water, and plant survival in the great Flood, CRSQ 5(3):105-112.

(40) Klotz, J. W. 1972. Flora and fauna of the Galapagos Islands, CRSQ 9(1):14-22.

(41) Frair, W. 1967. Some molecular approaches to taxonomy, CRSQ 4(1):18-22.

(42) Williams, E. L. 1973. Thermodynamics: a tool for creationists (Review of recent literature), CRSQ 10(1):38-44.

(43) Williams, E. L. 1966. Entropy and the solid state, CRSQ 3(3):18-24.

(44) Williams, E. L. 1969. A simplified explanation of the laws of thermodynamics, CRSQ 5(4): 138-147.

(45) Williams, E. L. 1970. Is the universe a thermodynamic system?, CRSQ 7(1):46-50.

(46) Williams, E. L. 1971. Resistance of living organisms to the second law of thermodynamics: Irreversible processes, open systems, creation, and evolution, CRSQ 8(2):117-126.

(47) Butler, L. G. 1970. A research challenge, CRSQ 7(2):88-89.

(48) Whitcomb, J. C. and H. M. Morris 1964. The Genesis Flood.

Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia.


Home | Quarterly Journal | Popular Publication | Membership | Bookstore | Speakers | Donate | Search | Site Map

© Copyright 2001-2013, Creation Research Society. All rights reserved.
Copyright & Permissions