filename ORIGIN-4 added July 13, 1988 Christian Information Exchange 714-531-3834 Fountain

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

filename : ORIGIN-4 added : July 13, 1988 Christian Information Exchange 714-531-3834 Fountain Valley, CA Sysop : Mike Wallace "P" = PAUSE, SPACEBAR = EXIT CREATION 1. God's plan or random chance. God's Word explains how the universe and life on earth are a part of God's eternal plan. The only alternative to divine creation is evolution, a sequence of randomly operating processes. To an evolutionist, these random physical and chemical processes replace God and carry out their own creative acts. The forward of the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species states "[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature." Having replaced God with natural processes, the evolutionist concludes that there is no accountability for sin. 1.1. God's plan. 1.1.1. God existed before creation (Ps 90.2; Col 1.16-17; 1 Pet 1.20; Jn 17.24). 1.1.2. God designed His entire plan for the ages in eternity past (Ps 104.1-5, 31-35; Job 38.4; Rev 13.8). 1.1.3. Creation was designed to bring glory to God (Ps 104.1-4, 31-35; Ps 148.5; Col 1.16-17; Rev 4.9-11. 1.1.4. God's plan included man (Ps 8.3-6; Acts 17.23-26). 1.1.5. Jesus Christ created the heavens, Earth, and all life forms complete in 7 days (Gen. 1; Ex. 20.11; Neh 9.6; Job 38.4, 31-33; Jn 1.1-3; Col 1.16-17). 1.1.6. The promises to Israel are backed by creation (Is 40.1-14). 1.1.7. Creation was cursed because of mankind (Rom 8.12). (Entropy follows this principal and applies to all systems). 1.1.8. God's plan continues beyond creation (Ps 102.26; Mt 24.35). 1.1.9. God will have a Big Bang and new creation (Is 65.17; 2 Pet 3). 1.2. The evolutionist is left to natural processes. 1.2.1. Common physical and chemical phenomenon (gravity, magnetism, molecular forces) are not understood (Col 1.16-17). 1.2.2. The evolutionist has nothing but these forces to appeal to without God. 1.2.3. Faith is placed in these processes (Rom 1.18-22). 1.2.4. Starting with the assumption that there is no God, the evolutionist concludes there was no creative act: No God ---> No creation ---> No Adam ---> No original sin ---> No accountability for sin ---> No Savior. 1.3. Scientific facts will demonstrate that creation is much more reasonable than evolution. 2. Seven days of creation. Execution of God's eternal plan started in the 7 literal days of creation. All matter, energy, and life forms were created directly by God. The evolutionist ideas dealing with the creation of the universe (Big Bang, Steady State) do not answer the questions of 1st cause. 2.1. Summary of creation (Gen 1.1). 2.1.1. Beginning - God started time 2.1.2. Heavens - God created space 2.1.3. Earth - God created matter 2.2. God created light (Gen 1.3-5). 2.2.1. In our experience matter and energy are constant. 2.3. God created the canopy, atmosphere and hydrosphere (Gen 1.6-8). 2.3.1. The canopy controlled climate and radiation. 2.4. God created land and plants (Gen 1.9-13). 2.5. God created the sun, moon, planets, and stars (Gen 1.14-19). 2.6. God created water life and birds (Gen 1.20-23). 2.7. God created animals including man and woman (Gen 1.24-31). Man and woman are detailed in Gen 2.5-22. 2.8. One day was 24 hours (2 Pet 3). 3. Theories of origin. 3.1. The most popular evolutionist ideas are the Big Bang and Steady State. 3.2. The "Big Bang" is defined as an explosion of all the matter and energy in the universe 10 billion years ago. 3.2.1. Very popular, but no evidence. 3.2.2. Contradicts entropy. 3.2.3. System like earth requires two explosions. 3.3. The steady state idea is a gradual buildup through gravitational attraction upon moving particles. This requires eternal matter. This is the only alternative to the Big Bang. This idea is kept around for scientists to fall back on when Big Bang predictions turn out backwards. 4. Noah's flood. God unleashed forces upon the crust of the earth during the great flood resulted in the geologic features and processes we see today. 4.1. Chronology of the flood. 4.1.1. God warned Noah (Gen 6.13). 4.1.2. 120 years to build the ark, gather animals (Gen 6.3-22). 4.1.3. 7 day warning - load the ark (Gen 7.4-10). 4.1.4. Flood starts: Fountains of deep open, floodgates of sky open, rain falls (Gen 7.11-12). 4.1.5. Waters rise for 40 days (Gen 7.17). 4.1.6. Mountains covered (Gen 7.20). 4.1.7. Air breathers die (Gen 21-22). 4.1.8. Flood level maintained 110 more days (Gen 7.24, 8.3). 4.1.9. Waters begin to subside 150 days after start. Wind passes over the earth, fountains of the deep close, flood gates of the sky close, rain is restrained (Gen 8.1-3). 4.1.10. Ark rests on Ararat (Gen 8.4). 4.1.11. Mountain tops visible in 74 days (Gen 8.5). 4.1.12. Raven released 40 days later (Gen 8.6-7). 4.1.13. Dove released 7 days later (implied) (Gen 8.10). 4.1.14. Second dove released 7 days later; olive leaf (Gen 8.10). 4.1.15. Third dove released 7 days later; did not return (Gen 8.12). 4.1.16. Ground dry 29 days later (Gen 8.13). 4.1.17. Noah commanded to leave 57 days later (Gen 8.14-19). 4.1.18. A total of 371 days on the ark. 4.1.19. Promise of weather and seasons (Gen 8.22). 4.1.20. Cloud and rainbow given as covenant of no more floods (Gen 9.8-17). 4.2. Geologic method: multiple working hypotheses. Any facts will support or refute certain hypotheses. 4.3. A correlation of Major Geologic features and Noah's flood, a working hypothesis. 4.3.1. All those animals and food? Yes, the ark had 3 decks with a total capacity of over 520 rail road box cars. 4.3.2. Sources of water. Fountains of the deep could refer to volcanic vents. Floodgates of heaven; a water vapor canopy would flood from the sky with increased volcanic activity. A decrease in atmospheric pressure and temperature at the same time would cause great rain storms. 4.3.3. Plate tectonics initiated at this time. The one way trip of plates across the mantle of the earth began at a time of massive extinction of animals and great geologic change. Modern tectonic (motion of earth) events are a residual of the motion initiated during the flood. 4.3.4. Non-volcanic mountains must form rapidly if they are to have their current structure (today's tall mountains have formed since the flood). 4.3.5. Unique and enormous flood basalts were deposited under water (pillows, lake beds, petrified wood, soil). 4.3.6. Erosional features indicate rivers larger than any on earth today (Spokane). 4.3.7. Sedimentary rocks were deposited in situations not known to the earth today (sheets of sandstone, massive fossil beds, coal, Palouse hills). 4.3.8. Polar ice caps. There is no widely held mechanism for the formation of ice caps. Antarctica is a desert. The canopy flood theory offers a possible explanation. Other ice age features are better explained by the flood also (frozen mammoths, Spokane gravels). 5. Age of the earth. Lines of evidence indicating a young age of the earth far outweigh evidence for an old age of the earth. The best scientific methods produce ages which correspond with Biblical ages of the earth. Evidence for the Age of the Earth Young Age 1. Volcanism (continental accretion) 2. Water Formation 3. Meteoric Dust (earth and moon) 4. Soil Formation 5. Human Population Statistics 6. Decay of Earth's 7. Scarcity of Helium 8. The Earth-Moon System 9. Tree Ring Dating 10. Comets 11. Pleochroic Halos 12. Rotation of Earth 13. Revolution of Planets 14. Salt in the Sea Old Age 1. Radiometric Dating 2. Size of Universe 6. What is evolution? 6.1. Evolution is a philosophy which affects all areas of life. The key philosophic question is "Where did we come from?" The two currently popular models of evolution stand in absolute contradiction with each other. From the ancient ideas through the modern models only the major concept - origin and propagation of life forms without God - remains unchanged. Evolution provides the humanist with an answer to this apart from God. 6.1.1. Many specialists work in the context of assuming evolution to be true while they are not really aware of why they believe evolution. 6.1.2. This leads to turmoil (Marx, Hitler) and dehumanizing man (Ps 8.4). 6.2. What are the ideas of the origin of life? 6.2.1. God stated that He created life forms that reproduce after their own kind (Gen 1.11,21,24,29). 6.2.2. Ancient Greeks had attributed life to processes that work apart from God: Thales (600 BC), life arose from the sea; Heraclitus, life was transposed; Aristotle ( 300 BC) proposed an evolutionary scale. 6.2.3. Paul recognized that people ascribed God's creative power to idols (Rom 1.23) and god's of animism. 6.2.4. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1790) - evolution through inherited characteristics - environment causes changes. 6.2.5. Charles Darwin - natural selection (survival of the fittest). 6.2.6. Hugo DeVries (1900) - called attention to Mendel's work and added mutations. 6.2.7. Neo-Darwinism - natural selection is the key element, and mutation is the natural random process that produces a gradual change from one species to another. This is one of the most widely accepted views today. 6.2.8. Punctuated equilibrium ("Hopeful Monster") - long periods of equilibrium of a species are interrupted by sudden and major changes in the species. From a small beginning 40 years ago, this view has gained major acceptance. Although no possible mechanism is offered, this view does fit the fossil record better. 6.3. There are some common factors in all evolutionary arguments. 6.3.1. They offer an alternative to God's creative acts; God and evolution are mutually exclusive. It is not uncommon for someone to hold an idea because special creation is the only other option. 6.3.2. All require spontaneous generation, the idea that life sprang from non-life through random "natural process". Spontaneous generation has been completely discredited. The idea of a self changing/self duplicating molecule arising from random molecules acted upon by random forces is not established in any portion. Assumptions about the state of the pre-life earth's physical conditions are based entirely on what spontaneous generation would demand, and then the ideas still don't work. Miller and Fox did not duplicate any possible natural condition and what they developed was nowhere near life from non-life. With clones, DNA, genetic engineering or viruses, only life reproduces life. The Pan-spermia idea (life from outer space) only postpones the ultimate origin question. 6.3.3. All call upon "natural processes" that have never been observed or defined. The process of spontaneous generation has never been duplicated in a laboratory. No new species has ever been observed even though we can greatly accelerate rates of mutation, fruit flies are still fruit flies, bacteria is still bacteria (although they may be deformed). No new structure has ever been observed to form. 6.3.4. All require an enormous time frame. If you ask "why don't we see evolution?" the answer given is "evolution takes place over billions of years and we have just never been at the right place at the right time". 6.4. Defusing evolution. Geologists credit biologists with the evidence for evolution while biologists credit geologists with the firm evidence. 6.4.1. The fossil record. The main issue of the fossil record is the order of appearance of animals. The fossil record matches creation of Biblical "kinds" perfectly. The lack of "intermediate forms" or "missing links" was the basis of punctuated equilibrium. Common pictures of the evolution of the horse and man are scientific distortions. A fossil is any record of previous life. Because of rapid decay on the surface fossils must be rapidly buried (volcanic ash, flood). There are numerous methods of fossilization; petrification (replacement of wood by silica), a mold, a cast, a preserved shell, a foot print, freezing. 6.4.2. Comparative anatomy (comparing different parts). Evolutionists claim that different organisms have similar parts because they had a common origin. One important question is which parts should be compared with which animal. It would be more sensible to look for a comparative DNA (it is all made out of the same chemicals). Comparison of DNA does not match any evolutionary scheme. Comparative anatomy fits the idea of a creator reusing a design that works well (fins on a fish, shark, whale). 6.4.3. Vestigial structures (useless relics of evolution). Uses have been found for all 180 of these. 6.4.4. Phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny (development of embryo is an instant replay of evolutionary history). Embryologists reject this idea, mainly found in textbooks. The presence of this idea in current books is an illustration of how hard it is to get rid of an idea that does not work. 6.4.5. Geographic distribution. The abundance of marsupials in Australia is more of a problem for evolutionists than a solution. The variation of a species over an area (frogs) is an example of genetic variety, not evolution. This concept is usually called upon as one of the major controlling factors of evolution. 6.4.6. Controlled breeding. No matter how you breed dogs, you still get dogs - a Biblical "kind". 6.4.7. Genetics. Genetic engineering may result in altered structures or operation, but even with man (not random chance) controlling changes, no new kinds are developed. 6.5. Important factors evolutionists don't often consider. 6.5.1. Evolution is a complete contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics. Evolution demands an ordering of matter from spontaneous generation. 6.5.2. Simple forms of life do not exist. Some are smaller, have fewer parts, yet they carry out all necessary life processes. 6.5.3. Half developed structures would be harmful (eyes, ears, wings). 6.5.4. Relationships among unrelated organisms (mimicry, mutualism). Mimicry is one organism protecting itself by looking like another organism. Mutualism is two organisms which are interdependent. 6.5.5. 600,000,000 years is not enough time for all the necessary transitions. If evolution were true we would expecrt one new species every six years. 7. Defusing evolution. Every line of evidence ever proposed as a "proof" of evolution has fallen short. Ideas dealing with the evolution of the first organic molecule and the first life forms are without mathematical or scientific bases. There is no evidence or workable process which would change one species into another species. Further reading: Geology: The Genesis Flood, by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris, The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company (major revision will appear in about a year). General works: Scientific Creationism, ed. by Henry M. Morris, Creative Life Publishers. Fossil record: Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, by Duane T. Gish, Creation Life Publishers. Humanism: The King of Creation. COPYWRIGHT 1987 by George LeBret Anyone is free to use this material in its complete and original form. ANY alterations, deletions or additions to this document violate this agreement! filename : ORIGIN-3 added : July 13, 1988 Christian Information Exchange 714-531-3834 Fountain Valley, CA Sysop : Mike Wallace "P" = PAUSE, SPACEBAR = EXIT MEDIA SPOTLIGHT "ORIGINS" -- AN ANSWER TO EVOLUTION FILM REVIEW "The battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith... These teachers... will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level-- preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corps of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism... " So stated John Dunphy of the University of Illinois in his article, "A Religion for a New Age" which appeared in the January/February 1983 issue of THE HUMANIST. Dunphy--as have other humanists before him--has clearly defined the enmity which exists between the God-haters of this generation and true believers in Christ. It is significant that Christianity is singled out as the object of the humanists' wrath. This is because humanists recognize Christianity as the only obstacle to their plans for a godless society wherein dwelleth unrighteousness. Thus we have seen a consistent effort on the part of our enemies to capture the minds of our youth by using our public schools to teach their anti-Christ doctrines. Evidence of this warfare between Christianity and humanism abounds within our educational system, especially in its preoccupation with and bias toward the teaching of evolution. This to the exclusion of even considering the scientific evidences against that theory. But now, thanks to Eden Films of Elmwood, Illinois, Christian pastors and teachers have another effective tool to aid in thier fight against the humanist influence in the secular classroom. ORIGINS--HOW THE WORLD CAME TO BE is a six-part film series presenting the creation science viewpoint. Narrated by Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, one of the world's most acclaimed scientists, and featuring a host of other well-known scientists who hold the creationist position, ORIGINS refutes with hard scientific evidence several of the more notable arguments of the evolutionists. The series carries a salvation message as a closing statement. But its format is generally scientific in scope, and wisely considers the evidences for creation and evolution on their own merits. In this way the films are designed to appeal the honest, inquiring, intellectual mind, while at the same time presenting their message in terms easily understood by the layman. The six thirty-minute films are entitled: THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE; THE EARTH, A YOUNG PLANET?; THE ORIGIN OF LIFE; THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES; THE ORIGIN OF MANKIND; and THE FOSSIL RECORD. ORIGINS won the 1982 award from the Christian Film Distributors Association as the Best Film Series of the Year. In addition, film number three in the series, THE ORIGIN OF LIFE, won the award as Best Documentary of the Year. This series is a must for churches desiring to protect their people--young and old alike--from the onslaught of humanistic non-values and arm them with the truth. Once students see these films they'll rightly question what they hear in the classroom. Proverbs 11:9 tells us "...through knowledge shall the just be delivered. "This knowledge is God's knowledge, "...for the Lord is a God of knowledge" (1 Sam 2:3). ORIGINS offers knowledge of God's creation. Ask your pastor to take advantage of its unique presentation by arranging for its showing in your church. ORIGINS is available from your Christian film distributor, or from Films for Christ, N. Eden Rd., Elmwood, IL 61529, (309) 565-7722. We are in the last hours of this age. What we do to win souls and protect God's people from the present danger will have eternal consequences. We must take advantage of every means that God has provided to carry out His work. Contributed by The Manna System (714)-532-6310 300/1200 Baud filename : ORIGIN-2 added : July 13, 1988 Christian Information Exchange 714-531-3834 Fountain Valley, CA Sysop : Mike Wallace "P" = PAUSE, SPACEBAR = EXIT EVOLUTION IS RELIGION, NOT SCIENCE Institute for Creation Research Dr. Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. Evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proved fact of science, providing the very framework of scientific interpretation, especially in the biological sciences. This of course, is nothing but wishful thinking. Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested. THE RELIGIOUS ESSENCE OF EVOLUTIONISM As a matter of fact, many leading evolutionists have recognized the essentially "religious" character of evolutionism. Even though they themselves believe evolution to be true, they acknowledge the fact that they believe it! "Science", however, is not supposed to be something one "believes". Science is knowledge - that which can be demonstrated and observed and `repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or even tested; it can only be believed. For example, two leading evolutionary biologists have described modern neo-Darwinism as "part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training". A prominent British biologist, a Fellow of the Royal Society, in the Introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species said that "belief in the theory of evolution" was "exactly parallel to belief in special creation", with evolution merely "a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature". G.W. Harper calls it a "metaphysical belief". Ernst Mayr, the outstanding Harvard evolutionary biologist, calls evolution "man's world view today". Sir Julian Huxley, probably the outstanding evolutionist of the twentieth century saw "evolution as a universal and all-pervading process and, in fact, nothing less than "the whole of reality". A leading evolutionary geneticist of the present day, writing an obituary for Theodosius Dobzhansky, who himself was probably the nation's leading evolutionist at the time of his death in 1975, says that Dobzhansky's view of evolution followed that of the notorious Jesuit priest, de Chardin. The place of biological evolution in human thought was, according to Dobzhansky, best expressed in a passage that he often quoted from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: '(Evolution) is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow.' The British physicist, H.S. Lipson, has reached the following conclusion. In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it. The man whom Dobzhansky called "France's leading zoologist", although himself an evolutionist, said that scientists should "destroy the myth of evolution" as a simple phenomenon which is "unfolding before us". Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, by any accounting one of the world's top evolutionists today, has recently called evolution "positively anti-knowledge", saying that "all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth". In another address he called evolution "story telling". All of the above-cited authorities are (or were) among the world's foremost authorities on evolutionism. Note again the terms which they use in describing evolution. Evolutionary dogma A scientific religion A satisfactory faith The myth of evolution Man's world view Anti-knowledge All-pervading process Revealed truth The whole of reality An illuminating light Metaphysical belief Story-telling Charles Darwin himself called evolution "this grand view of life". Now such grandiloquent terms as these are not scientific terms! One does not call the law of gravity, for example, "a satisfactory faith." Evolutions' very comprehensiveness makes it impossible even to test scientifically. As Ehrlich and Birch have said: "Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. No one can think of ways in which to test it. RELIGIONS BASED ON EVOLUTION In view of the fundamentally religious nature of evolution, it is not surprising to find that most of the world religions are themselves based on evolution. It is certainly unfitting for educators to object to teaching scientific creationism in public schools on the ground that it supports Biblical Christianity when the existing pervasive teaching of evolution is supporting a host of other religions and philosophies. The concept of evolution did not originate with Charles Darwin. It has been the essential ingredient of all pagan religions and philosophies from time immemorial (e.g., atomism, pantheism, stoicism, gnosticism and all other humanistic and polytheistic systems). All beliefs which assume the ultimacy of the space/time/matter universe, presupposing that the universe has existed from eternity, are fundamentally evolutionary systems. The cosmos, with its innate laws and forces, is the only ultimate reality. Depending on the sophistication of the system, the forces of the universe may be personified as gods and goddesses who organized the eternal chaotic cosmos into its present form (as in ancient Babylonian and Egyptian religions), or else may themselves be invested with organizing capabilities (as in modern scientific evolutionism). In all such cases, these are merely different varieties of the fundamental evolutionist world view, the essential feature of which is the denial that there is one true God and Creator of all things. In this perspective, it becomes obvious that most of the great world religions - Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Animism, etc. are based on evolution. Creationism is the basis of only such systems as Orthodox Judaism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism, as well as most modern pseudo-Christian cults, are all based on evolution. All of this points up the absurdity of banning creationist teaching from the schools on the basis that it is religious. The schools are already saturated with the teaching of religion in the guise of evolutionary "science". In the modern school of course, this teaching mostly takes the form of secular humanism, which its own proponents claim to be a "non- theistic religion". It should also be recalled that such philosophies as communism, fascism, socialism, nazism, and anarchism have been claimed by their founders and promoters to be based on what they regard as scientific evolutionism. If creation is excluded from the schools because it is compatible with Christian "fundamentalism", should not evolution also be banned since it is the basis of communism and nazism? THE SCIENTIFIC IRRELEVANCE OF EVOLUTION Some people have deplored the of evolution on the ground that this is attacking science itself. In a recent debate, the evolutionist whom the writer debated did not attempt to give any scientific evidences for evolution, electing instead to spend his time defending such scientific concepts as atomic theory, relativity, gravity, quantum theory and science in general, stating tantamount to attacking science! The fact is, however, that the elimination of evolutionary interpretations from science would hardly be noticed at all, in terms of real scientific understanding and accomplishment. G.W. Harper comments on this subject as follows: It is frequently claimed that Darwinism is central to modern biology. On the contrary, if all references to Darwinism suddenly disappeared, biology would remain substantially unchanged. It would merely have lost a little color. Grandiose doctrines in science are like some occupants of high office; they sound very important but have in fact been promoted to a position of ineffectuality. The scientific irrelevance of evolutionism has been strikingly (but, no doubt, inadvertently) illustrated in a recent issue of Science News. This widely read and highly regarded weekly scientific journal was commemorating its sixtieth anniversary, and this included a listing of what it called the "scientific highlights" of the past sixty years. Of the sixty important scientific discoveries and accomplishments which were chosen, only six could be regarded as related in any way to evolutionist thought. These six were as follows: (1.) 1927. Discovery that radiation increases mutation rates in fruit flies. (2.) 1943. Demonstration that nucleic acids carry genetic information. (3.) 1948. Enunciation of the "big bang" cosmology. (4.) 1953. Discovery of the "double helix" structure of DNA. (5.) 1961. First step taken in cracking the genetic code. (6.) 1973. Development of procedures for producing recombinant DNA molecules. Four of these six "highlights" are related to the structure and function of DNA. Even though evolutionists have supposed that these concepts somehow correlate with evolution, the fact is that the remarkable DNA molecule provides strong evidence of original creation (since it is far too complex to have arisen by chance) and of conservation of that creation (since the genetic code acts to guarantee reproduction of the same kind, not evolution of new kinds). One of the two other highlights showed how to increase mutations but, since all known true mutations are harmful, this contributed nothing whatever to the understanding of evolution. One (the "big bang" concept) was indeed an evolutionary idea but it is still an idea which has never been proved and today is increasingly being recognized as incompatible with basic physical laws. Consequently, it is fair to conclude that no truly significant accomplishment of modern science either depends on evolution or supports evolution! There would certainly be no detriment to real scientific learning if creation in school curricula. It would on the other hand, prove a detriment to the pervasive religion of atheistic humanism which now controls our schools. filename : ORIGIN-1 added : July 13, 1988 Christian Information Exchange 714-531-3834 Fountain Valley, CA Sysop : Mike Wallace "P" = PAUSE, SPACEBAR = EXIT LIFE MAY HAVE BEGUN IN CLAY Mountain View, California: The theory that life arose from a chemical "soup" in the oceans is being challenged by scientists who have found evidence that a common clay possesses basic properties essential to the generation of life. "The functional attributes that we associate with life are not necessarily confined to organic systems," said Lelia Coyne, a San Jose State University chemist who led the research team. The researchers have verified that clay can store and transfer energy, which would allow it to act as a chemical factory for the generation of life, they told a symposium last week at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Ames Research Center. The "clay-life theory," first proposed in the 1960's by chemist Graham Cairns-Smith of the University of Glasgow, challenges the long-favored notion that life emerged from the primordial oceans after millions of years of chemical reactions between simple organic molecules. It also is reminiscent of the Bible's account in Genesis of the Creation, which says, "And the Lord God formed man of dust of the ground," and refers to it commonly as clay. Cairns-Smith said he believes that clay was not just a catalyst for life but the actual "low-tech" material that gave rise to progressively more sophisticated or "high-tech" life forms. "The recognition that many of the specific functions of living systems can be performed by inorganic molecular systems is forcing us to re-examine, at a real, fundamental level, the definition of life," Coyne said. The "primordial soup" theory, set forth in the 1930's by the Soviet scientist A.I. Oparin, suggests that the chemical evolution of life was random, while the clay-life theory proposes a patterned development. "Most of the chain-lengthening organic reactions that have to occur [to create life] ... occur through the elimination of water. It's hard to eliminate water in an aqueous environment," Coyne said. "You can have an awful lot of organic matter, but if you dump it in the water, it may not look like much. If you want to lengthen chains, you have to have a lot of these molecules close together. It's easier to grow things on surfaces." Research by Armin Weiss of the University of Munich suggests that clay, which has a mineral structure almost as intricate as a DNA molecule, could be capable of such lifelike attributes as reproducing crystal structures from a "parent" clay to several generations of "daughter" clay. Cairns-Smith suggests that the creation of life could have been directed by an inorganic pattern developed in clay. Other theories, such as that life reached Earth from outer space in the form of spores, do not answer the fundamental question of creation - for instance, what created the spores? The finding that a common ceramic clay can store and transfer energy - sometimes in the form of radioactivity - has been confirmed through experiments showing that clays release soft ultraviolet light when they are wetted with organic liquids or water, irradiated, dried, crushed or ground up. Despite the new evidence, "the majority of people who work on the origin of life would probably still vote for the old- fashioned soup," said Leslie Orgel, a biochemist at the Salk Institute in La Jolla. Lisa Levitt Ryckman ... On Associated Press, April 7, 1985


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank