“. . . science itself requires the assistance of outside critics to check the tendency of ambitious scientists to go into the worldview business.  A scientific community that is immune to outside criticism will be tempted to expand its territory and in the process will forsake rigorous scientific practice in order to justify conclusions that go far beyond what the data can justify.”

– Dr. Phillip E. Johnson, The Wedge of Truth (IVP, 2000), pp. 103-104.

 Creation-Evolution Headlines, September 2001
Chain Links:   MarsStarsSolar SystemCosmosDatingGeoApeManDarwinDinoBirdBugsFishMammalPlantFossilAmazingDumbPoliticsBibleSchoolEnviroPhysicsMovieHuman BodyHealthCellLifeSETI













. .

HAPPY FIRST ANNIVERSARY!  September marks the first year of Creation-Evolution HeadlinesClick here to get your free Creation Photo-Poster!  Give us some feedback and get two!  Tell us how often you stop by, what you use the material for, your favorite topics, what you like or dislike, and any other comments or suggestions.  You will not be put on a mailing list and your email address will be kept private.  Thank you for visiting!
Note: You need to be able to receive JPG file attachments to receive this special offer.  The files are less than 80kb in size.

Review: PBS TV Series Evolution     09/28/2001
by David F. Coppedge, Bible-Science Association

By now, the 7th and last episode of PBS’s week-long blitz on evolution has aired across the country.  Rarely have I seen a more slick example of selective reporting designed to push a particular point of view.  Having a viewpoint is fine, and making your case is good, but PBS, partially funded by tax dollars, presented this series as “science journalism” and said it wanted to clarify what evolution is and how it works, and to dispel misunderstandings about evolution, while staying away from the religious realm.  It failed miserably.  This was a propaganda campaign, with the ultimate aim of keeping any criticism of Darwinism out of schools and out of the law, as revealed in their own memo (see next headline).  Will it be the last hurrah of a crumbling theory, destined for the unmarked grave of forgotten lies, or is it a charge leading to more Darwinist control over what is considered legitimate knowledge in our society?  Now that the PBS series passes into the obligate re-runs, and the slick materials and website find their way into classrooms across America, you need to be knowledgeable about both sides, but you won’t find impartiality on Evolution.
From the past year of Creation-Evolution Headlines, it would not be hard to refute every evidence they presented for evolution– from scientists themselves.  Their showcase included
whale evolution, antibiotic resistance, Neandertal Man and other arguments we have been reporting on all year that are bluff when you look at the actual evidence, and in most cases are disputed, sometimes with hostility, by other researchers in the field.  You would never know this from PBS; all the spokesmen for evolution are so nice and charming, but backstage they call each other impolite names.  Some of the evidences bordered on the ridiculous, and some were very sobering in their implications for society.  Giving an uncritical platform to the highly controversial field of evolutionary psychology in Episode 5 Why Sex?, for instance, PBS essentially gave the green light, full-speed ahead license to any and all kinds of sexual vice, including violent abuse of females, homosexuality, adultery, promiscuity, and infanticide – all justified on the basis of sexual selection.  If that weren’t bad enough, it hypothesized that everything in civilization, culture and the arts, “no matter how sublime,” originated in the desire to have a mate.  (The images for this pronouncement include an Apollo rocket liftoff and the singing of the Hallelujah Chorus.)  Thus everything you do in life that has any nobility, purpose and intelligence they have just reduced to sex.  A worse example of reductionism could hardly be found; in fact, if you read our Baloney Detector, you will find abundant examples of most of these tactics in PBS’s Evolution.  And of course, the article of faith of evolution was clear: it’s a brave new world, and we can now take control of our future evolution. 
The series is systematically characterized by dogmatic assertions with no support whatsoever, with the only criticism of evolution coming from religious viewpoints.  They can do this because they control the editing room.  Evolutionists know that when open debate is allowed, they lose; decades of debates with anti-evolutionists of all kinds have humiliated them repeatedly.  (The record shows that it is the creationists who usually stick to the scientific evidence, and the evolutionists who retreat to philosophical and religious arguments.)  They must close the schools to criticism of evolution, and they must control the presentation in museums and on TV, or else their alleged evidences will be challenged and shown to be without support.  Moreover, the anti-evolutionists will bring up those uncomfortable topics that leave them stumped:
  1. The origin of the universe out of nothing.
  2. The Anthropic Principle.
  3. The origin of life.
  4. The origin of single-handed proteins and DNA.
  5. Irreducible complexity of molecular machines in the simplest forms of life.
  6. Systematic gaps in the fossil record.
  7. Thermodynamics.
  8. The origin and increase of information.
  9. Great scientists who were and are creationists.
  10. The origin of the soul, and how a materialist epistemology refutes its own credibility.
Most of these points falsify evolution independently; collectively, they demolish it.  Each of these was purposely ignored in the PBS series, so that they could stack the cards with seeming support for evolution.  Most of it involved minor variations within types, a lot of it was inferred from fragmentary evidence, and the rest was conveniently filled in with computer graphics.  Science is equated with evolution by definition, so Evolution does not refrain from presenting the most absurd just-so stories, even if evidence was totally lacking, as long as it was conceivably consistent with evolution.  In fact, evolutionists can largely be understood as a society of storytellers, who entertain each other with who’s got the biggest whopper.  Evolutionary theory is so versatile, it can explain opposite things equally well.  One moment they are saying evolution produces choosy females, a few minutes later dominant males.  One moment evolution produces showy peacocks, but it also produces camouflage.  Any trick you ask for can be performed; it’s magic masquerading as science.
Abundantly clear from the series was that the bogeymen are Bible-believing Christians–not Jews, not Muslims, not Hindus, and not any other belief system–even though Daniel Dennett believes that evolution is a “universal acid” that eats through all traditional beliefs – no, Christians who believe Genesis were the ones systematically targeted for scorn, even though the stated purpose was to consider scientific evidence, and to refrain from the religious realm.  The last episode, What About God? was a masterpiece of selective reporting with an agenda.  Christians were shown as straw men, indoctrinated by their Sunday School teachers, and never having any serious scientific arguments to answer the claims of evolutionists.  The brave ones were always the ones willing to doubt their faith and open their minds to consider evolution; it was such a relief to them.  Teachers (nominally Christian) were shown as victims of special-interest groups trying to push their religion in the science class in overt or sneaky ways.  Christians are pictured as responsible for a decline in science education after the Scopes Trial. 
A worse case of calling good evil and evil good could hardly be found.  It is the evolutionists that have a virtual monopoly on the law, the media, the museums, the universities, the science journals and the federal funding.  Sneak a little mild criticism of Darwin into a science classroom, and you are the target of the ACLU who will intimidate the school board and principal with an expensive lawsuit unless it is put to a stop, and the scientific elite rally to the cause like a lynch mob.  Evolution had millions to spend on this series, while Christian film companies like Discovery Media Productions struggle to produce quality science films making the case for intelligent design from only private donations.  For every student relieved by the discovery that they could compromise their Christianity with evolution, we can show you ones that were confused and misled or turned to harmful lifestyles by evolution.  We have a retired PhD biochemist in our Bible-Science Association who is back to life from the dead, figuratively, after reading good books that give scientific evidence that supports creation and refutes evolution; he will tell you emphatically that he lost 20 years of his professional life when he was confronted with evolutionary claims in college, and his pastor told him, “Just have faith.”  Well, he lost it to Darwinism, but now he looks like he has found a fountain of youth after studying the issues and finding out that the case for evolution is a sham.  Every pastor should watch episodes 5 and 7 and wake up to what evolutionists, PBS, and compromising Christian colleges are doing to the young minds in their care.
The PBS Evolution series, coming unfortunately on the heels of a terrible American tragedy, with its subsequent renewal of patriotism and cries of God Bless America, is a call to arms.  This is why we believe evidence, logical thinking, and knowledge is so important.  Unlike PBS, we want you to hear both sides.  We want you to know more about evolution than they do!  Evolution prospers when isolated from dissent; it crumbles in the light of the evidence and critical examination.  Now, more than ever, we need well-educated, informed, discerning minds who know what they believe, and why.  For a year now, Creation-Evolution Headlines has been storming their own hideouts and bringing you current, front-line stories to equip you with the knowledge and logical thinking skills you will need to avoid falling prey to propaganda masterpieces like Evolution.
Next headline on: Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory. • If you have not already, be sure to read the excellent refutations of PBS’s Evolution at the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis.
Next headline on: Movies.
PBS Memo Reveals Political Agenda Behind “Evolution” Series  09/27/2001
A PBS internal memo written June 15 and posted on the
Discovery Institute website shows that PBS intends to “co-opt existing local dialogue about teaching evolution in schools” and promote involvement in local school boards, newspapers and government with “guerilla/viral marketing.”  The memo, entitled The Evolution Controversy – Use It or Lose It, Evolution Project/WGBH Boston” was leaked by a source within PBS.
Click on the links and see for yourself.  PBS’s Evolution is not just boring TV, it is part of a larger campaign to “influence Congress and school boards and to promote political action regarding how evolution is taught in public schools,” says Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman.  This is as unconscionable for a publicly-funded media resource as it would be for Planned Parenthood to use PBS to co-opt public policy on abortion and present a one-sided TV series with educational materials for schools to promote abortion and counter pro-life arguments.
Next headline on: Darwinism. • Next headline on: Politics.
Bugs’ Sticky Feet Are Complex Structures  09/27/2001
Researchers at
University of Massachusetts have videotaped ants and bees walking on smooth glass to uncover the tricks of their travel: the sticky feet that allow them to walk vertically and upside down on smooth surfaces.  They found that the footpads are “are surprisingly complex structures” with retractable claws and inflatable adhesive pads.  The system, “a combination of mechanics and hydraulics,” also works swiftly, allowing the parts to operate in tenths or hundredths of a second as the little critters scurry along.  The news release contains a microphotograph of one of the structures.
All God’s creatures, great and small, are wonderfully designed, and have features that could never evolve by slow, gradual processes.
Next headline on: Bugs.
100 Scientists Sign Statement Challenging Darwinism  09/26/2001
Discovery Institute has gotten 100 scientists to sign a statement to declare that they “are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life” and that “Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”  In addition, a national Zogby Poll shows 81% of Americans believe that “When public broadcasting networks discuss Darwin’s theory of evolution, they should present the scientific evidence for it, but also the scientific evidence against it.” 
This shows how out of touch PBS is with their “Evolution” series, and unmasks the fallacy of the claim that all scientists accept evolution.  The Discovery Institute says that “Despite repeated requests, the series’ producers refused to cover scientific objections to Darwinism.  Instead, the producers offered only to let scientific dissenters go on camera to tell their ‘personal faith stories’ in the last program of the series, ‘What About God?’” in an attempt to portray the only arguments against Darwinism as religious arguments.
See also Jonathan Wells’ new essay Evolution for the Masses.
Next headline on: Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory.
PBS Evolution TV Series Spreads Misinformation  09/24/2001
According to the
Discovery Institute website, the PBS Evolution series slated to air tonight is presenting falsehoods as fact: The site also describes how Eugenie Scott, director of the anti-creation National Center for Science Education, and an appointed spokesperson for the series, dismisses all opposition to it as creationism (used as a pejorative term to describe those with religious motivations for their criticism).  The Discovery Center has a 150-page Viewer’s Guide documenting the falsehoods in each episode, entitled Getting the Facts Straight.
PBS’s Evolution series is an in-your-face propaganda smear campaign against anyone who disagrees with Darwinism.  Worse, it’s part of a larger advocacy campaign to increase the teaching of Darwinism in public schools and co-opt the perception of the creation-evolution controversy in the media, to present it as a debate between objective scientists and emotional religionists.  In the process the producers commit numerous sins of bias and misinformation.
It is highly insensitive for PBS to air this materialist viewpoint at a time when millions of Americans are at prayer for our country, thousands are hurting from their losses over the terrorist attack this month, and God Bless America is being echoing throughout the land. 
This is more than just educational TV that will be boring to some who’d rather watch football; it is affecting millions of children in schools, and generating a false perception of who we are, where we came from, and what we should be doing.  It is part of a larger push to shape public policy on the important struggle in our society on how science will be taught (follow the Chain Links on schools). 
In 1980, the openly atheistic Cosmos was one of the most-watched public broadcasts around the world.  This new series will seem tolerant of “religion” except for anyone who disagrees with Darwinism.  It gives wide berth to anti-creationist Ken Miller, whose schizophrenic mixing of Catholicism with Darwinism proves he understands neither: Darwinism, as consistently held, makes God irrelevant and reduces theology to pantheism or deism. 
PBS Evolution masquerades as science but is built on flimsy reasoning and outright falsehoods.  Get informed, get involved, and speak up for integrity in science and in public television.  Read Discovery Media’s excellent Viewer’s Guide before each episode, and follow up the next morning with Dr. Jonathan Sarfati’s rebuttal on Answers in Genesis.  And stay tuned to Creation-Evolution Headlines for the latest scientific discoveries that contradict Darwinism.
Next headline on: Movies. • Next headline on: Darwinism.
Conference Announcement  RNA Based Life Conference at Indiana University, November 15-18, 2001.  “Biology is humbling to those of us who would model its origins or its inner workings, or who would seek to re-engineer how the pieces are put together.”

Review: National Geographic October 2001

“For more than 40 years the National Geographic Society has helped fund the Leakey family” . . . so it’s not a surprise that Meave Leakey’s Kenyanthropus gets big press in the October issue, even though it throws the human family tree into disarray (again – see our April 17 headline).  Nevertheless, they find a way to put a good face on flat-faced Kenya man, declaring authoritatively, “K. platyops shows that humans evolved through the same process as other animals.” 
Other examples of liberal bias in this issue:
  • Complaints about trafficking in wild animal parts in Africa, but never a word about American trafficking in human fetal body parts.
  • Ads for a TV special on “Noah’s Flood” but don’t think for a minute this is a Biblical apologetic.  By arguing Ballard’s theory of a Black Sea local flood, NG portrays Genesis 6-9 as only an exaggerated legend.
  • New Age gets good press in this issue.  In the article on Light, a phony crystal healer on p. 24 is pictured with his sucker client; without rebuttal, it amounts to granting his pseudoscience a backhanded legitimacy.  The article on Northern California gives almost as much coverage to local New Agers as it does to scientists, in non-judgmental, almost admiring, prose.
DS1 Rendezvous With Comet Borrelly  09/23/2001
Deep Space 1 successfully executed a risky flyby of Comet Borrelly on Saturday Sept 22.  This was only the second time a spacecraft has flown close to a comet and taken pictures (the other was Giotto’s flyby of Halley’s comet in 1986).  A news conference at JPL will be held Tuesday Sept. 25 at 10:00 a.m. PDT.
Way to go, DS1 team.  The more we learn about comets the better.  Evolutionists use them as evidence of the primordial solar nebula.  Creationists say they demonstrate the solar system cannot be as old as claimed.
Next headline on: Solar System.
Now on Newsstands: Your Favorite Evolutionists  09/21/2001
...and Marxists, and other heroes... Time-Life has a new publication you may have seen at the supermarket check-out counter, Great Discoveries.  It features 24 short photo essays on archaeology, 23 on space, 13 on earth science, and 12 on life sciences.
Many of the stories are unquestionably significant (King Tut, Voyager, Hubble, Leif Ericsson, China’s terra-cotta army), but the book gives overly prominent press to the liberal media’s favorite evolutionists and Darwin stories: Stephen Jay Gould (the Marxist on his noble anti-creationist crusade), Carl Sagan, the Leakey family, Jane Goodall, Stephen Hawking, and Margaret Mead (no mention of how her work has been criticized lately by other anthropologists).  To its credit, the book debunks famous hoaxes like Piltdown Man and Java Man, and snubs National Geographic for printing its November 1999 “Piltdown Chicken” story, yet its second feature story, complete with huge color artwork, portrays Caudipteryx as a feathered dinosaur and proof of bird ancestry from dinos (follow our Dino chain links for the dispute about this claim, particularly 11/27/2000). 
Other findings that should be problems for evolution are portrayed in the theory’s favor: coelacanth, prehistoric cave art, and various early man fossils now considered questionable (follow the chain links below for recent findings on these and related subjects).  Evolution is touted in the usual popular-media way: it’s obvious, and nobody of importance questions it or believes anything else.  While Great Discoveries makes for better supermarket fare than the National Enquirer, parents will want to teach young readers about selective reporting (see our Baloney Detector entry on card stacking).  Readers will look in vain for any of the great creation scientists to be given prominence.
Next headline on: Darwinism. • Next headline on: Dinosaurs. • Next headline on: Birds. • Next headline on: Early Man. • Next headline on: Fossils.
Peacock Feathers Could Not Evolve  09/20/2001
Darwin is reported to have said, “The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!”  Stuart Burgess, writing in the latest (15:2 2001) issue of
TJ - the Technical Journal of Creation magazine, argues that Darwin would be sicker if he knew modern discoveries about the complexities of the peacock feather.  He analyzes the feathers in detail, including their mathematical curves, thin-film iridescence, barbule details and overall beauty and finds them to contain irreducibly complex structures that could not have evolved by slow, gradual processes.  Moreover, he argues that there is no satisfactory explanation of how sexual selection could start or why the peahen should prefer beautiful structures. 
The semi-annual journal also contains papers on randomness, science fiction, evolutionary naturalism, a first-hand account of a search for Mokele-mbembe in Cameroon, oil seeps, the fallacy of geocentrism, rapid formation of granite, Lucy, cratering theory, the Oort cloud and much more. 
The journal can be ordered through Answers in Genesis and makes for great reading each issue.  Selected back issue articles can be read online.
Next headline on: Birds.
Life After the Next Mass Extinction Prophesied  09/20/2001
Science News (160:11, Sept 15, 2001) has a cover story, “Life on the Edge,” about what kind of creatures would evolve after the next mass extinction.  Decorated with fanciful images by Alexis Rockman of roostersaurs and rabbit-roos and other concoctions, it interviews various scientist-prognosticators about the inhabitants of the new creation: will it be a world of weeds and pests?  David Jablonski of the University of Chicago concludes, “Attempts to predict evolutionary behavior after mass extinction events can operate in broad generalities, and always with the caveat, expect the unexpected.”
What is this sci-fi speculation gone wild doing in a science news magazine?  They don’t know how animals go extinct.  They don’t know how species arise.  They don’t know how the world will end.  But as scientists, they can be the soothsayers, magicians and astrologers of the world.  Like Daniel of old, a more reliable source answers these questions, and will be found superior to all the king’s magicians.
Neurobiologists Tinker With Brain Development Switches  09/20/2001
University of Chicago neurobiologists have found a way to tinker with a signalling protein that governs brain development in mice.  When they alter its expression during gestation and watch the results, different parts of the brain grow or shrink, or duplicate portions form.  Dr. Elizabeth Grove believes this discovery may provide a clue about how the cerebral cortex changes in evolution.  One way that evolution seems to generate more functionally complex brains is by adding new areas to the cortex.  “We have had no idea how evolution achieved this kind of change,” said Grove.  “So it is exciting to find that you can add a new area by modifying signaling by a single protein.”
As is so common in evolutionary storytelling, the conclusion commits the fallacy of personification.  The neurobiologist is treating evolution as some kind of goddess, working to make bigger and better brains by trial and error.  We must call foul at these statements and not let them get away with them; it is cheating.  In a materialistic universe, nobody is there to direct, guide, or promote any improvements, and nobody cares.  The facts of this story illustrate design, not evolution.
Next headline on: Human Body.
God, Prayer and Miracles Enter Science Vocabulary After Terror  09/19/2001
The News and Features section of the prestigious science journal
Nature has some strange new vocabulary words in a column entitled “Scientists react to attacks with shock and fears for the future.”  The article reports on the feelings of scientists around the world following the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on September 11.  Expressing condolence, one writes, “May God ease your pain and grant you patience.”  A German research president fearing the loss of his chief financial officer in the carnage said, “We can only pray that a miracle has happened.” 
Why do some people get religion only when bad things happen?  The individuals quoted may actually be religious, of course, or the above statements may be mere figures of speech for materialistic scientists trying to show compassion for those who have suffered.  But whenever evolutionists borrow Christian words like prayer and God, it’s hypocritical.  They should be saying, “Acts of violence are evolutionary adaptations of selfish genes and are a normal part of survival strategies” or “Feelings of grief are mere chemical reactions of neurotransmitters in the brain.”  Let evolutionists fly their own Darwin-fish flag up the flagpole and see if people salute it.  On the other hand, maybe some scientists, “struggling to comprehend the brutality involved,” are making a new empirical discovery that, like the Bible says, we have a soul and a conscience.
Next headline on: Bible.
Earth Is a Nuclear Reactor, Produces Variable Magnetic Field  09/19/2001
A scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratories and a colleague have proposed a radical new mechanism for the production of earth’s magnetic field.  Writing in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they hypothesize that earth’s core is a nuclear reactor.  The magnetic field, instead of being produced by fluid motions in the core, results from fission products rising upward and fuel products falling inward.  Because this arrangement is subject to frequent and sudden adjustments, it gives rise to magnetic reversals that are documented in the rocks of the crust.  They claim this mechanism can maintain itself for geologic time (i.e., the assumed age of the earth, 4.5 billion years).
The earth’s magnetic field has been a problem for uniformitarians for a long time, appearing to be undergoing an exponential decay that could not last for 4.5 billion years.  Also, the reversals deduced from crustal rocks have been hard to explain.  This new theory is quite different, although sketchy, and it seems to invoke some ad hoc assumptions to make it work.  We’ll have to wait and see if it becomes accepted as the new paradigm or collapses from other difficulties.
Next headline on: Geology. • Next headline on: Physics.
Whale Ancestor Alleged  09/19/2001
“Everyone will agree that these animals are whales,” says an Ohio paleontologist about a wolf-sized creature that probably only got wet walking across streams, according to a report in
Nature.  But that may be wishful thinking.  Molecular analyses put very different creatures in the ancestral line of whales, and rival teams see the hippopotamus as a more likely candidate. 
Because cetaceans are so unlike any land mammal, with their legs as paddles and their nostrils atop their heads, it has been immensely difficult to place them in the evolutionary scheme of things . . . . “Rapid evolutionary change, be it molecular, ecological or anatomical, is extremely difficult to reconstruct, and the speed with which cetaceans took to the water may make their bones an unreliable guide to their ancestry,” he says [evolutionary biologist Ulfur Arnason of the University of Lund in Sweden].  Arnason believes the two camps will remain divided, at least for now.  “There’s no point trying to reach some sort of consensus based on compromise.  It has often been very difficult to reconcile morphological and molecular opinions,” he says.
Science Magazine also has a report with pictures of reconstructions of two of the specimens. 
National Geographic, as expected, joined in the celebration of the new fossil, but admits “Despite this evidence that cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) evolved from artiodactyls, substantial discrepancies remain, Rose said. "If cetacaeans belong to artiodactyls," he said, "then similarities in the cranial and dental morphologies of mesonychians and cetaceans must be the result of convergent evolution or must have been lost in artiodactyls.  “Well-preserved ankles of the earliest ancient whales are now needed to confirm that the traits seen in the new skeletons are indeed inherited from early artiodactyls and not a result of convergent evolution,” Rose said.
The Nature article is deceitful.  The headline gives, and the conclusion takes away.  It starts out with “Almost like a whale: Fossils bridge gap between land mammals and whales . . . . Fifty million years ago, two mammals roamed the desert landscapes of what is now Pakistan.  They looked a bit like dogs.  They were, in fact, land-living, four-legged whales.  Their new-found fossils join other famous missing links, such as the primitive bird Archaeopteryx, that show how one group of animals evolved into another.”  Then it proceeds to undermine everything it just said.  The fossils are not anything like whales except for alleged similarities in ear bones and heel bones (of which neither has anything to do with whale function), and there are other scientists who disagree strongly that this fossil has anything to do with whales.  The article glosses over tremendous anatomical differences between the fossil and whales and yet assumes that these formidable evolutionary changes must have occurred rapidly without leaving a trace in the fossil record of hundreds of transitional forms that must have been required.  The opening paragraph lies about Archaeopteryx, which is not ancestral to birds (earlier birds are found in the fossil record), and it presents, in confident terms, a flimsy observation that is highly disputed or irrelevant to this serious problem in the evolutionists’ story.  For shame, Nature!
The pictures on the Science page also stretch the truth, portraying Rodhocetus as whale-like as possible.  What they don’t tell you is that most of the bones are inferred.  Just a few fragments were found, and the rest is artistic license (See Creation magazine, Sept-Nov 2001, pp. 10-14.)  What the bones show are extinct animals who were perfectly adapted to their own environment, without any desire or pressure to evolve into something else.  The crucial features the evolutionists are basing their stories on are just skeletal features – teeth, ear cavities, and foot bones.  What about all the other specialized features of whales – sonar, spouts on the top of their heads, the ability to dive deep, and much more, for which there is not a shred of evidence of transitional forms?  The only way you can arrange extinct animals into a family tree is with a prior commitment to evolution.  This is circular reasoning.  Beaver have webbed feet, too; are they evolving into dolphins?  The fossil evidence shows a wide assortment of adapted animals that appear abruptly then went extinct.  The rest is storytelling.  These articles also highlight a reappearing difficulty for evolution, that the genetic/molecular family trees do not match the morphological family trees.
EurekAlert provides an evaluation by an outsider from Johns Hopkins.  For a creationist view, read Dr. Duane Gish’s response to claims by evolutionists of whale transitional forms.  Though written earlier, the same arguments are applicable here, and the same culprits are involved.
Next headline on: Darwinism and Evolutionary theory. • Next headline on: Mammals. • Next dumb story.
Elaborate Regulator System Found in Bacteria  09/19/2001
A Stanford team, studying the biochemistry in a lowly rod-shaped bacterium, has discovered a regulator that helps switch on the production of tryptophan when demand exceeds supply, reports
EurekAlert.  The protein, which they named AT, is one member of an elaborate feedback system that senses the need for tryptophan, one of the most complex of the 20 amino acids used in all living cells.  The cell can sense the amount of tryptophan-specific Transfer RNA available.  If it falls below a certain level, a specific gene turns on formation of AT, which then stops another regulator from slowing down production.  Each enzyme binds to specific parts of the assembly line, acting like switches, or like foremen who give orders to speed up or slow down (in the case of protein foremen, they can’t shout orders, so they put a hammerlock on the assembly line workers.) 
The researchers called this system “really bizarre” and ask, “Why did B. subtilis evolve such an elaborate and energetically costly mechanism for regulating tryptophan synthesis?”  “It takes seven catalytic steps to synthesize tryptophan, making it one of the most expensive amino acids for an organism to produce, requiring large amounts of energy and carbon . . . . Therefore, having an efficient means of regulating the production of tryptophan is important . . . . Evolution apparently provided efficient regulatory mechanisms for these organisms to cope with the need to regulate tryptophan formation.”  Charles Yanofsky sees a similarity in the way antibodies work and speculates that AT might be an evolutionary ancestor of the disease-fighting antibodies in humans.
Reading the description of this elaborate factory-control system and then hearing its creation ascribed to blind, mindless evolutionary forces calls to mind the teenager’s slang expression, “Gag me with a spoon.”
Next headline on: The Cell and Biochemistry.
PBS Airing Evolution Series – With Trepidation  09/18/2001
Armed with $14 million in funds,
Clear Blue Sky Productions, a guild founded and chaired by Microsoft billionaire Paul Allen, is poised to launch its new series Evolution on most Public Broadcasting System affiliates September 24-27.  But some are bracing for a public backlash that has already started well before the first episode has aired:
  • Access Research Network has a website of articles in response to the series with links to other sites.
  • Answers in Genesis website announces “PBS Evolution Assault: Get Your Armor Here!”  It will be providing daily responses to the claims made in the series. 
  • The Discovery Institute has launched a website pbsevolution.com subtitled “PBS’s Evolution: The Magnum Opus of a Dying Theory.”  It contains a 152-page viewer’s guide Getting the Facts Straight (downloadable in PDF format) with responses to each episode.  It calls the PBS series one-sided advocacy: “It distorts the scientific evidence, ignores scientific disagreements over Darwin’s theory, and misrepresents the theory’s critics.”
  • Chuck Colson has called it “falsified history” on his Breakpoint Commentary.  He and Nancy Pearcey are coming out with study guides in October for their book How Now Shall We Live? that refute the claims of evolutionists.
  • John Mark Reynolds and Josh Gilder describe their face-to-face confrontations with principals Ken Miller and Eugenie Scott at a press conference for the PBS Evolution series, and how they raised uncomfortable questions about the funding, bias, and bad science of the programs.
  • Focus on the Family has come out with a critical article in advance of the airing of the series.
In the early 1980's Carl Sagan’s Cosmos series turned on a generation of viewers to the joys of atheism and blamed Christians for the evils of the world.  What will PBS do this time?  Most likely it will interview religious leaders who have no problem with evolution, making it seem OK to blend with the Bible.  Of course, everything from the first cell to man will be attributed to blind, undirected processes which leave God entirely superfluous.  Better tune up your Baloney Detector.  Watch out for the usual “proofs” of evolution debunked by Jonathan Wells in Icons of Evolution
Advice: Don’t deny the evolutionists a hearing.  But speak up with scientific and historical evidence to refute their claims.  Use episodes like this to teach critical thinking skills.  Demand that stations teach all the facts, not indoctrinate viewers with one-sided propaganda campaigns.  Creation-Evolution Headlines is your source of timely information from evolutionary bastions themselves – scientific journals, the media, and science digests – with recent findings from all branches of science that contradict what the Darwinists allege.
Print this and hand it out: Ten Questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution.
Next headline on: Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory. • Next headline on: Movies.
Permian World Destroyed in Fire and Brimstone  09/18/2001
Japanese scientists have examined rock layers in southern China, and deduce that an asteroid 60 kilometers across killed 95% of species at the end of the Permian era.  They base their conclusion on a sudden change in the relative abundances of certain sulfur isotopes in a nickel-rich layer in late Permian limestone.  “If a giant meteorite impact vaporized a large area of sulphur-containing rock where it struck the seabed, it would probably have ejected the lighter of sulphur’s two common natural isotopes into the air, changing the isotope ratio of the remaining rocks.”  The story is summarized in
Nature Science Update.
This story is included for your wonderment, that scientists could weave such a tall tale out of so little data.  Here all they found was a difference in sulfur isotopes in some rock, and they figure out the diameter of an asteroid and when it hit.  Isn’t science wonderful.
Evolutionists might counter that their conclusion is based not on just this finding, but masses of evidence like it.  Ever heard of a house of cards?
A man can lie on a bed of nails if the nails are firm, independent, and anchored into a strong board.  The nails are like the evidence for a theory, and the ability of the man to rest on the nails is like the trustworthiness of the theory.  He will have trouble, though, if the nails are stacked on top of each other, or are made of paper, or are embedded in jello.  Evolutionary evidences suffer from all three defects.  They are often dependent on one another, they are individually weak, and they are usually embedded in philosophical naturalism.  This story is a case in point.
Next headline on: Dating Methods. • Next headline on: Geology.
Early Sun a Bright Child  09/18/2001
Science Now says astronomers considering the evolution of our sun have a new problem; it was too bright.  German scientists using a supercomputer calculated the early sun was four times brighter and 500 degrees hotter.  “Astronomers deduce the mass and age of a young star from its luminosity and surface temperature, on the assumption that young protostars get fainter with age.  But if protostars start out brighter than current models predict, their ages may well be underestimated, Wuchterl says.”
Don’t miss that little word assumption.  Many assumptions and simplifications go into theories of stellar evolution; there is a great deal that is poorly understood, if at all.  Recently, for instance, an explanation for the neutrino deficit was announced that might have far-reaching consequences for particle physics.  Also recently, scientists were surprised to entertain thoughts that physical constants might not be so constant.  They used to say the early sun was too dim (the young faint sun paradox); now this story claims it’s too bright.  None of them were there to say for sure.  See the First Law of Scientific Progress, right.
Next headline on: Stars. • Next headline on: Solar System.
Essay 09/17/2001: In the upcoming Sept. 22 issue of World Magazine, Marvin Olasky compares the Christian and Darwinian answers to the evil exemplified in the terrorist attack on New York.  He recommends Cornelius Hunter’s 2001 book, Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil, that asserts Darwin and many early evolutionists supported their theory not with scientific evidence but with metaphysical arguments around this issue.

Genes Confirm Family Tree for Fish, Amphibians, Reptiles  09/17/2001
A paper in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences claims that correspondence between the genes and the looks of fish, amphibians and reptiles verifies their common ancestry.  By comparing genetic markers, specifically a few sequences that have been apparently inserted and deleted in the genomes of 24 fish, reptiles and amphibian species, they claim to have confirmed the traditional family tree of these creatures.  They assert that their results refute other recent studies that found mismatches between molecular phylogeny (family trees based on gene sequences) and family trees based on morphology (external body appearance).

The authors admit that “Discovering the deep branches in the evolution of vertebrates is major challenge for evolutionary biologists” and molecular phylogeny is fraught with uncertainty and error: “The pitfalls of molecular sequences include variations in the rate of evolution of different genes and the large amounts of phylogenetic ‘noise’ that have accumulated from reversible changes over long evolutionary times.  In the case of gnathostomes, these problems with sequences are further compounded by the fact that there was a rapid radiation of vertebrates during a very short window of time in the Devonian period.”  That last point alone is a major problem for evolutionary theory.  But examining just a few look-alike genes from the hundreds of thousands for each of these animals cannot prove relationships one way or the other.  If you start with a mental picture of the way you believe things ought to be, you are bound to find pieces that fit your expectations.  Actually, the clash between genes and looks is a problem for many parts of the assumed evolutionary tree; see our Sept. 13 story for a recent example concerning insects.
Next headline on: Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory. • Next headline on: Fish.
Drug Resistance Caused by Reassortment, Not Mutation  09/17/2001
Writing for the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Berkeley scientists have proposed a new theory for the emergence of drug resistance by cancer cells.  The cells do not evolve resistance by genetic mutations, but rather by reassortment of chromosomes - but only among cells that have non-integer multiples of the normal chromosome count (aneuploid).  They note ten observations that contradict the hypothesis that resistance is conferred by Multiple Resistance Genes (MRGs), then show by experiment a their hypothesis produces a much better fit to the observations.
If true, this hypothesis appears to undermine a common claim by Darwinists that evolution is as common as the emergence of drug resistance.  First, the recombination involves a loss of function, not a gain in information.  Second, the changes in the aneuploid cells cannot be passed on through normal diploid cells, so are not heritable; thus, natural selection would be stymied.  See also our Sept 7 and Aug 28 stories on this subject.
Next headline on: Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory. • Next headline on: The Cell.
Sagan’s House of SETI Transformed Into House of Prayer  09/14/2001
Exclusive  Over the intercoms of NASA’s
Jet Propulsion Laboratory came an unprecedented announcement Friday morning.  The President had declared a National Day of Prayer to remember the victims of Tuesday’s terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.  The announcement said that the lab’s von Kármán Auditorium would be open from noon to 1:00 p.m. for silent prayer and meditation.  The famous auditorium is decorated with full-scale models of spacecraft including Voyager, on which is prominently displayed the golden record designed by Carl Sagan to encapsulate messages, pictures and sounds from earth for the entertainment of any potential aliens who might intercept the craft in the distant future.
On this day, however, a steady stream of employees entered quietly to sit, bow, kneel and pray or meditate on the recent national tragedy.  Outside, two dozen people gathered to pray corporately and sing God Bless America, My Country 'Tis of Thee, America the Beautiful and the national anthem as the prayerful entered and left the auditorium.  Some passersby stopped and listened, or joined, the outpouring of patriotism and invocation seldom seen at a place known for its Origins program that seeks to explain the universe and all life by naturalistic processes without reference to a Creator.  Earnest invocations from the assorted group of scientists, engineers, secretaries and maintenance personnel called on God to revive the nation, lead its people to repentance, and give wisdom to its leaders.
Interestingly, while prayer was encouraged at JPL, the new Wellness Center had a sign indicating that all Yoga classes have been canceled till further notice.  How do you spell relief?
Numerous evolutionists, including Carl Sagan, have spoken in the von Kármán Auditorium and preached evolution or expressed their belief in life in outer space.  Where are they now?  Can they pray to chance and atoms for comfort when disaster strikes?  Will the highly-evolved aliens from another galaxy give our President wisdom on how to deal with evil and suffering?  (It would be a long wait for an answer; Voyager won’t even get to the nearest star for 40,000 years.)
This was truly a remarkable, though subdued, day for JPL.  It’s a shame it took a disaster to bring people across this land to their knees.
Next headline on: Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. • Next amazing story.
President Reminds Nation of Creator of Moral Design  09/14/2001
President George W. Bush, in remarks at the National Cathedral, pointed to the Creator of moral order for comfort in the tragic aftermath of the terrorist attack on America:
God’s signs are not always the ones we look for.  We learn in tragedy that his purposes are not always our own.  Yet the prayers of private suffering, whether in our homes or in this great cathedral, are known and heard, and understood . . . .
This world He created is of moral design.  Grief and tragedy and hatred are only for a time.  Goodness, remembrance, and love have no end.  And the Lord of life holds all who die, and all who mourn.”
Next headline on: Politics.
Insect Family Tree All Mixed Up  09/13/2001
“Controversy and antagonism” characterize the latest ideas about the evolutionary phylogeny of arthropods, including insects, lobsters and spiders.  The DNA-sequencing data do not agree with the morphological data (evidence of relationship based on outward appearance), according to
Nature Science Update.
This is becoming a common lament among the Darwinists.  Follow the Darwin links for other examples.
Next headline on: Bugs. • Next headline on: Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory.
Scientists Try To Relate Morals to Brain Activity  09/13/2001
Princeton neuroscientists have asked patients moral questions while watching their MRI scans, according to
EurekAlert.  They claim they see a higher activity in the emotional portions of the brain when asking moral questions, and conclude that moral judgments are more emotional than logical.
Evolutionists are blind to their own reductionist fallacies.  They are so convinced we are the sum total of the molecules that make up our bodies, they cannot entertain any thoughts of a real soul or spirit or self except as an epiphenomenon of matter. 
Most of us have seen a “color organ” an electronic device that makes lights flash in response to music.  Does the color organ give you any clues to the lyrics?  Similarly, do brain waves reveal the inner thoughts of a person?  Solomon said as a man thinks in his heart, so is he.  You can measure the dancing lights, but you cannot measure the content of thought with an MRI scanner.  If brain waves is all thought is, then science, too, is nothing more dancing lights responding to chemical reactions.  How then can it know anything, including the claims of these neuroscientists?
James Clerk Maxwell, our featured Creation Scientist of the Month, wrote about this tendency toward evolutionary reductionism of humanness in an 1878 essay entitled Psychophysik, which you can read online.  On a lighter note, read his thoughtful poem Recollections of Dreamland, in which he asks if our thoughts are “wandering fancies, by some lawless force entwined / Empty bubbles, floating upwards through the current of the mind?”
Next headline on: Human Body.
What is “Fundamentalism”?  09/13/2001
In the wake of the terrorist attack on September 11, the word fundamentalist is again appearing often in the media to describe Islamic extremists who may have been involved.  To provide background on the term, Creation-Evolution Headlines is providing links to
University of Virginia site with additional links to other sites.  It explains how Christian fundamentalism was prompted partly by “encroachment of Darwinian theories about the origin of the universe.”  Here is another historical analysis of Christian fundamentalism by the Believe Religious Information Service, and a description by ChristianAnswers.Net of how Christian fundamentalists should regard Islamic fundamentalists.
The contrast could not be more stark.  Islamic fundamentalism conquers by terror, brainwashing, and death to the infidels; Christian fundamentalism by reason, persuasion and prayer.  Islamic fundamentalists are exemplified by Osama ben Ladin and machine-gun toting, flag-burning zealots; Christian fundamentalists by pastors, authors and university presidents.  The original Christian fundamentalists were scholarly men like J. Gresham Machen (a man who disliked the term fundamentalism because he was not starting a new movement but defending historic Christianity).  He only attempted to identify what were the fundamental doctrines of Christianity that could not be compromised without destroying Christianity itself, such as the doctrine of creation, which was under attack by the Darwinists.  How the word fundamentalist became a pejorative term and was misapplied to other religions makes for an interesting study in propaganda tactics.
Next headline on: Bible.
Soft Tissues of T. Rex Preserved in Bone   09/12/2001
Mark Armitage, electron microscope specialist and biologist, has photographed delicate soft tissues in a dinosaur bone:
A specimen of hip bone from a Tyrannosaurus rex, excavated from a ranch in Wyoming over 100 years ago, and thought to be 65 million years old is shown, by scanning electron microscopy, to have intact, mummified microscopic collagen fibers and other ultrastructural features within compact bone.  Bone Haversian canals as well as lacunae and canaliculi are well preserved.  Networks of collagen fibers remain intact within lacunae and what may be mummified osteocytes are shown to be present.
Writing for the September 2001
Creation Research Society Quarterly, he compares these with human bones of known age and concludes these dinosaur bones cannot be as old as claimed.  The paper contains detailed electron micrographs.
Armitage says, “These data call into question the long ages ascribed to these dinosaur fossils and support their rapid preservation in the absence of decomposers.  The high level of ultrastructural preservation also implies that these dinosaur bones are simply not very old.”  Other finds in reported in creationist literature (see References at end of paper) also show dinosaur bones that are not fully fossilized.  Could these delicate structures have survived intact for 65 million years?  Is evolutionary dating a myth?
Next headline on: Dating Methods. •  Next headline on: Dinosaurs.
Article 09/12/2001:  After suffering a stroke on July 13, Phillip Johnson has recovered and is back with another edition of his Weekly Wedge Update.  The Update reports on developments in the Intelligent Design movement.

Go To the Ant, Thou Network Programmer   09/12/2001
Ants may look stupid individually, but en masse they are a supercomputer.  According to the
BBC News, they’ve solved some intricate programming problems working as a company.  Programmers at the University of Brussels created artificial ants in a computer that mimic antsy behavior, and found them superior at solving complex routing problems.

See also our Nov 15, 2000 story on this subject.  As far back as the fossil record shows, ants already had all their hardware and software pre-programmed.
Next headline on: Bugs.

SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
God of our fathers, whose almighty hand
Leads forth in beauty all the starry band
Of shining worlds in splendor through the skies,
Our grateful songs before Thy throne arise.

Thy love divine hath led us in the past,
In this free land by Thee our lot is cast;
Be Thou our ruler, guardian, guide and stay,
Thy word our law, Thy paths our chosen way.

From war’s alarms, from deadly pestilence,
Be Thy strong arm our ever-sure defense;
Thy true religion in our hearts increase,
Thy bounteous goodness nourish us in peace.
– Daniel C. Roberts, 1841-1907

Our fathers’s God, to Thee
Author of liberty,
To Thee we sing.
Long may our land be bright
With freedom’s holy light,
Protect us by Thy might,
Great God, our King.

– Samuel Francis Smith, 1808-1895

O beautiful for heroes proved in liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved and mercy more than life!
America!  America!  May God thy gold refine,
Till all success be nobleness, and every gain divine.
– Katharine Lee Bates, 1859-1929

Neandertals Had TLC  09/11/2001
Neandertals were a caring, loving lot, according to a University of Washington paleoanthropologist as reported in
Scientific American News Briefs.  He deduced this by finding a mature individual with bad teeth.  He figures his family members must have prepared soft food for him, since he would be unable to bite the meat off a mammoth rib and chew it.
Is this a case of storytelling based on miniscule evidence, or a major reversal in thinking?  Both.  If you grew up being taught Neandertals were beetle-browed, hunched-over brutes grunting to each other, you need to get up to date on the new image.  Now Mr. & Mrs. Neandertal and family are clean cut, upright, artistic, adventurous, skilled nerds, and now they belong to the Red Cross, too.  Scientific thinking can undergo a paradigm shift.  What evolutionary story is next to turn inside out?
Next headline on: Early Man.
Protozoans Excel at Programming  09/10/2001
Microscopic one-celled organisms like Paramecium use programming tricks during reproduction that rival human software engineering, according to the
BBC News:
“One of the oldest forms of life on Earth has been revealed as a natural born computer programmer.  Scientists studying a species of single-celled protozoans called Ciliates have found that the organisms are experts at sorting, shuffling and splicing DNA when they reproduce.  Some of the repertoire of tricks Ciliates use to untangle their DNA resemble the techniques that computer programmers use to make software more elegant and robust.
The article describes how they use a linked list technique to guarantee accuracy while searching and preserving connections between lists of data, in this case DNA.  Scientists at the University of Leiden are examining the little organisms for clues on how to build DNA computers.
A program requires a programmer, and a programmer requires a Programmer-Maker.  Rocks and seawater do not evolve into machines that can perform wonders like this.
The article refers to cilia, the hairlike paddles on the exterior membranes of these organisms that helps them swim.  See Michael Behe’s explanation of how these little oars work.  He demonstrates that they are irreducibly complex; that is, they are composed of parts that must all be present at the same time.  They could never self-assemble, therefore, in a series of gradual evolutionary steps like Darwin supposed.
Next headline on: The Cell and Biochemistry. • Next amazing story.
Human Culture, Like Cosmos, Has Inflationary Evolution  09/09/2001
Nancy Abrams and Joel Primack, University of California at Santa Cruz professors of culture and physics, use the inflationary epoch of the cosmos as an analogy for human culture.   Writing for Science Magazine’s
Essays on Science and Society, they describe the evolution of the relationship of cosmology, culture and religion, and conclude that we need to leave the exponential growth period and get to a sustainable growth period.
This essay is a montage of inaccurate history, myths, assumptions, non-sequiturs and UN-style political correctness.  Even if inflationary cosmology were true (which is filled with major problems and doubts), it has nothing whatever to do with human culture.  The authors mischaracterize the Galileo affair and Blaise Pascal’s beliefs, and assume human culture is on a mythical upward evolutionary path of enlightenment.  Get real.
Next headline on: Cosmology. • Next dumb story.
Sierra Club Blocks Creation Museum   09/09/2001
Even though their plans meet and exceed all code requirements,
Answers in Genesis has suffered a setback in their effort to build a Creation Museum in the Cincinnati area.  The Sierra Club has raised charges about its effects on a nearby creek, an action that could tie up the process in the courts for two years.
AiG has suffered repeated underhanded tactics by evolutionists to thwart efforts to use their own private property to showcase creation.  Does the Sierra Club, a thoroughly Darwinist organization, really care about the environment here, or are the opponents using them as a front since previous objections have failed?  Read our Baloney Detector description of subversion.
Next headline on: Politics.
Fear of Spiders Proves Evolution  09/09/2001
According to the
American Psychological Association, your fear of spiders and snakes is proof that human perception has evolved.  Fear of poisonous things helps you survive and reproduce:  “In short, potential threats grab our attention, which has surely helped us to survive.  The authors say their findings not only support the evolutionary hypothesis, but also more specifically suggest a default attentional setting in humans that automatically makes them focus their attention on evolutionarily fear-relevant stimuli. ”
We’re going to have to start a new Chain Link topic, dumb and dumber.  The APA is always good for the latter category.  (They’re the ones who saw value in pedophilia recently, remember?)  To see why this current evolutionary just-so story to explain the obvious doesn’t work, consider that everybody without a fear of snakes and spiders would have to die off.  That’s called the cost of selection.  In fact, the more afraid you are of spiders, the more you win the Darwin Fitness Lottery!  So say good-bye to the Crocodile Hunter and all the entomologists and herpetologists in the world; they’re losers.
Psychology is a pseudo-science, an empire of fakes masquerading as scientists who use Darwinian assumptions to explain away the soul and spirit of man.  Anyone who goes to a psychologist for answers should get his head examined.
Next dumb story.
Rumor 09/07/2001 from the Royal Society Science in the News Press Coverage for Sept. 7: “Professor Michael Ruse of Florida State University is reported to have criticised Professor Richard Dawkins FRS’s theory that Darwinism and atheism can be equated.”  Further down the column, the site mentions that “Many scientists continue to believe in God, believing that science alone cannot answer all the universe’s questions, according to Channel 4’s Testing God.  Mentions scientist and theologian Rev’d Dr. John Polkinghorne, FRS [Fellow of the Royal Society].”
Ruse and Dawkins are both are atheists and anti-creationists; Dawkins is just more honest about the implications of Darwinism, while Ruse is probably not wanting to give ammo to the creationists nor appear too hostile to religion.
Humans Are Causing Rapid Evolution  09/07/2001
By using antibiotics, humans are speeding up the evolution of resistant bacteria, claims Stephen Palumbi, a Harvard biologist, reports
New Scientist.  He claims that HIV evolves so rapidly it forms a new quasi-species in each person it infects.  He says, “In the US more than half the people don’t believe in evolution.  We have to train people about it - we can’t afford not to.”
Well, how is that for a non-sequitur?  Palumbi needs to talk to Chris Adami, who recently stated there is no evidence whatsoever that HIV is evolving.  The evolution of resistance is a myth.  The resistant strains were already there; they are just brought to the forefront when the unresistant strains are destroyed.  Also, resistance involves a net loss of information, not upward evolution.  James Perloff says it’s like sending the cops to handcuff a man, only to find he has no arms, so he is “resistant” to arrest.
Next headline on: Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory.
Robot Makers Envy the Octopus  09/07/2001
The lowly octopus is not so lowly in terms of engineering.  Human robots are limited by joints, “But octopus arms can adopt a virtually infinite number of positions.  Each tentacle contains 50 million nerves, of which around 40,000 are connected to muscles.  As only a few nerves run from each tentacle to the animal’s brain, however, biologists have puzzled over how the movement of one such arm - let alone eight - is coordinated,” states a news story in
Nature Science Update.  Biologists have found that the brain doesn’t need to operate all eight arms; the octopus nervous system uses distributed processing to allow the arms to function autonomously.  This might give engineers a lead on how to simulate this weird animal’s capabilities; maybe someday we will have octobots.
Human engineering is just a crude copy of what God has already masterfully demonstrated.
Next headline on: Fish and Ocean Creatures.
Hubble Shoots a Starburst Galaxy  09/06/2001
The Hubble Space Telescope has taken another awesome photo of a face-on
spiral galaxy, NGC 3310 known as a starburst galaxy.  Astronomers infer that the period of prodigious star formation apparently lasted longer than expected, 100 million years, rather than being a brief episode as was previously thought.
It’s always important to separate the data from the conclusions.  The data are the colors of the stars.  The way these colors fit on a graph of color (temperature) vs. brightness (magnitude) leads to speculations about how old the stars are.  The age estimates and the stories built on them are inferences, not facts.  There is so much we don’t know, it is likely big upsets in understanding are just around the corner.  But in the meantime, everyone can enjoy the beauty of these cosmic pinwheels brought home to us by the sharpest eyes in space.
Next headline on: Stars. • Next headline on: Dating Methods.
Sun Created Short-Lived Isotopes  09/06/2001
Planetary scientists have long been mystified about how certain short-lived isotopes formed in meteorites called carbonaceous chondrites.  According to theory, the sun would not have had the energy to form them.  Now,
astronomers at Penn State using data from the Chandra X-Ray Observatory have detected flare levels hundreds of thousands of times brighter than expected in sunlike stars in the Orion nebula.  If our sun had experienced a similar flaring tantrum in its early years, they surmise, the energy could have been sufficient to form these short-lived isotopes.
Seems like a mighty big hammer for pounding a small nail; hundreds of thousands of times bigger flares in the past?  What other effects on earth and the solar system would these flares have produced?  Have they thought this one through?
In another Chandra Observatory story, the big telescope is putting constraints on dark matter theories.  See our June 30 headline on dark matter.
Next headline on: Stars. • Next headline on: Solar System. • Next headline on: Cosmology.
Protein Hunters Search for Order in Chaos  09/06/2001
Like searching for lucky numbers in an intergalactic lottery, Swiss biochemists are trying to explore a nearly infinite array of possible combinations of amino acid chains to find functional catalysts.  (For background information on proteins and amino acids, check the links on this
NASA site.)  The paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences describes the sequence space (that is, the set of all possible combinations) as 1.3 x 10130 – a value so huge, the mass of the earth, if all composed of polypeptide chains, would amount to a tiny fraction of this number.  The authors concede that trying to find a useful protein or catalyst out of random chains of amino acids would be “impractical,” like searching for a needle in uncountable myriads of haystacks.  Yet trying to build functional proteins by design is also exceedingly difficult, since “Misplacement of catalytic residues by even a few tenths of an angstrom [i.e., 10-10 m] can mean the difference between full activity and none at all.”
In their experiments, the authors gained limited success by starting with a subset of eight amino acids instead of the 20 used by living cells, and biasing their randomized search toward chains with helical shape.  While offering a timid suggestion that proteins might have evolved from precursors made up of small chains of polar and nonpolar amino acids, they immediately admit that “There is, nevertheless, a low probability of finding catalysts, even when both position and identity of all critical active site residues are determined in advance.  This finding contrasts with the ease of obtaining folded helical proteins through binary patterning, underscoring the exacting demands that catalysis places on protein design.”  They mention that RNA chains with a little catalytic activity can be found in 1 in 10 trillion chains, but protein catalysts are extremely more rare.  The authors suggest an approach to building new protein catalysts: “By iteratively combining combinatorial mutagenesis and selection with intelligent design, it may also prove possible to create novel protein scaffolds, unknown in nature, and to endow them with tailored catalytic activities.”
Did you hear the words intelligent design?  The authors do their best to pay tribute to evolution, but are forced by the facts of nature to admit that proteins are extremely improbable.  Their partial success is due to investigator interference, using their intelligence to guide processes against their natural tendencies.
This paper is important for two reasons.  It proves that proteins, of which life is primarily composed, are not just random chains of amino acids, but highly specialized, intricately crafted arrangements that are tremendously rare in nature.  It also bears on the thesis of the book Evolution: Possible or Impossible? by James F. Coppedge (available online at this site) that useful proteins would never spontaneously assemble by chance.  To calculate the probability of evolving a useful protein, Dr. Coppedge used a working assumption that the number of functional proteins among all possible chains of amino acids is analogous to the number of useful words among random letters of the alphabet.  It appears this assumption was much too generous toward evolution.  According to this paper, the number of useful proteins out of the sea of possibilities is so miniscule, it makes Coppedge’s conclusion (that chemical evolution is mathematically impossible to a mind-boggling degree) a huge understatement. 
It is hard to see how the theory of chemical evolution will survive for much longer.  Someday soon it may well be viewed in hindsight as one of the most ridiculous notions ever espoused by intelligent scientists.
Next headline on: The Cell and Biochemistry. • Next headline on: Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory. • Next headline on: Origin of Life.
Scientists Marvel at Miniature Motor in All Life  09/05/2001
Nature Molecular Cell Biology reviews a book on ATP Synthase, the world’s tiniest motor, entitled appropriately, “ATP Synthase: A Marvellous Rotary Engine of the Cell.”  The review mentions some of the wonders of this tiny motor: it runs on protons, it is ubiquitous in all life forms, it is composed of a complex of large proteins, it generates ATP (the energy currency of all life processes, and is reversible: ATP fuel can run it backwards to generate protons.  Click “Slide Show” on the Table of Contents page for an illustration.
Everyone should know about these amazing motors that are sustaining your body right now.  There is no way these intricately crafted machines could have created themselves by slow, gradual processes.  Due to popular demand, we’ll provide the link again to a German website that has a fascinating animation of how ATP synthase works.  Download “Animation 2” and stare in amazement: http://www.biologie.uni-osnabrueck.de/biophysik/junge/overheads.html; click on “Rotary ATP Synthase”. See also our March 9, January 23 and October 26 stories on ATP synthase for links to additional information and illustrations.
Next headline on: The Cell and Biochemistry. • Next amazing story.
Early Man Braved Arctic Sooner Than Expected  09/04/2001
Norwegian anthropologists were shocked to find evidence of modern humans inhabiting the Arctic 20,000 years earlier than previously believed.  This is just a few thousand years after their appearance in Europe, according to
Nature Science Update.  They’re trying to determine if these artifacts are modern human or Neandertal.  If the latter, being able to survive the Arctic would show “they were not a load of numbskulls.”
Who are the numbskulls here?  Evolutionists’ whole scenario about early man seems utterly implausible.  Can you imagine people, with all their curiosity, ingenuity and mobility, taking even 100 years to explore and colonize the unknown regions of the planet?  Yet they want us to think it took tens of thousands of years to work up the curiosity to look for better hunting grounds up north (see also our January 19 story about early man and horseback riding).  The radiocarbon dates are based on unproveable assumptions about equilibrium concentrations of C14 in the atmosphere, and are unreliable. 
The Biblical scenario fits the evidence better, both in terms of population dynamics and knowledge of man’s nature: curious people moved throughout the world after the Flood and Tower of Babel.  Some groups interbred, producing exaggerated features (which could also have been influenced by diet, climate, and disease).  Their lifestyles varied according to their tastes and the demands of the environment, but they all manifested the unique characteristics of humanness. 
Next headline on: Early Man.
Physicists Untangle Mysteries of Water  09/04/2001
“One molecule at a time,” scientists are figuring out how water works.  Scientists at UC Berkeley, writing in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences have used laser spectra to examine “water clusters” or groups of water molecules whose hydrogen bonds form in complex arrangements, to glimpse into the mysterious ways water manifests its unique properties.
Take a look at this paper just to see how a substance as simple as water can be complex and mysterious.  Look through our other links on water for previous headlines about this wonderful liquid that sustains all life and makes our planet so extraordinary.  (For a brief photo vacation to watery wonders, see the Creation Safari Photo Gallery and click on “Water Planet”.)
Next headline on: Physics.
Human Brain Differs From Ape Brain  09/04/2001
Researchers at
Medical College of Georgia have detected differences in neuron patterns between apes and humans in part of the brain related to language.  They claim these differences show that it is not just brain size, but brain wiring that gives humans their capacity for communication.
Interesting, but you cannot reduce the soul to a wiring diagram.  Their study focused on just one tiny “minicolumn” of 80-100 neurons in the vast array of brain topology.  The article’s claim that humans and chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA is also unsupportable, since the human genome is still under review and the chimpanzee genome has never been mapped.  Christians expect the brains of humans and apes to be different.  Apes do not write poetry, worship God, make music, bury their dead, or build spaceships.  That is more than a 1% difference, and it is a difference not reducible to purely physical terms like brain size and wiring.
Next headline on: Human Body.
Click on Apollos, the trusty
Scientist of the Month
Guide to Evolutionary Theory
Write Us!
“I like what I see–very much. I really appreciate a decent, calm and scholarly approach to the whole issue . . . . Thanks and God bless you richly for this fabulous endeavor–it’s superb!”  (a reader looking for material to use in witnessing to family members).

“It is refreshing to read your comments.  You have a knack to get to the heart of the matter.” (a reader in the Air Force).

“Love your website.  It has well thought out structure and will help many through these complex issues.  I especially love the Baloney Detector.”  (a scientist).

“I believe this is one of the best sites on the Internet.  I really like your side-bar of ‘truisms.’  Yogi [Berra] is absolutely correct.  If I were a man of wealth, I would support you financially.  If I win Readers Digest, you will be on my tithe list.”  (a registered nurse in Alabama, who found us on TruthCast.com.)

“WOW.  Unbelievable . . . .My question is, do you sleep?  . . . I’m utterly impressed by your page which represents untold amounts of time and energy as well as your faith.”  (a mountain man in Alaska).

“Just wanted to say that I recently ran across your web site featuring science headlines and your commentary and find it to be A++++, superb, a 10, a homerun – I run out of superlatives to describe it!  Your comments offer such a good mix scientific truth with Christian insight and wisdom.  I love it!    I am a campus minister who speaks extensively on Christian apologetics.  You can be sure I will visit your site often – daily when possible – to gain the latest information to use in my speaking engagements.  I’ll also do my part to help publicize your site among college students.  Keep up the good work.  Your material is appreciated and used.”

A Concise Guide
to Understanding
Evolutionary Theory

You can observe a lot by just watching.
– Yogi Berra

First Law of Scientific Progress
The advance of science can be measured by the rate at which exceptions to previously held laws accumulate.
1. Exceptions always outnumber rules.
2. There are always exceptions to established exceptions.
3. By the time one masters the exceptions, no one recalls the rules to which they apply.

Darwin’s Law
Nature will tell you a direct lie if she can.
Bloch’s Extension
So will Darwinists.

Finagle’s Creed
Science is true.  Don’t be misled by facts.

Finagle’s 2nd Law
No matter what the anticipated result, there will always be someone eager to (a) misinterpret it, (b) fake it, or (c) believe it happened to his own pet theory.

Finagle’s Rules
3. Draw your curves, then plot your data.
4. In case of doubt, make it sound convincing.
6. Do not believe in miracles – rely on them.

Murphy’s Law of Research
Enough research will tend to support your theory.

Maier’s Law
If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of.
1. The bigger the theory, the better.
2. The experiments may be considered a success if no more than 50% of the observed measurements must be discarded to obtain a correspondence with the theory.

Eddington’s Theory
The number of different hypotheses erected to explain a given biological phenomenon is inversely proportional to the available knowledge.

Young’s Law
All great discoveries are made by mistake.
The greater the funding, the longer it takes to make the mistake.

Peer’s Law
The solution to a problem changes the nature of the problem.

Peter’s Law of Evolution
Competence always contains the seed of incompetence.

Weinberg’s Corollary
An expert is a person who avoids the small errors while sweeping on to the grand fallacy.

Souder’s Law
Repetition does not establish validity.

Cohen’s Law
What really matters is the name you succeed in imposing on the facts – not the facts themselves.

Harrison’s Postulate
For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.

Thumb’s Second Postulate
An easily-understood, workable falsehood is more useful than a complex, incomprehensible truth.

Ruckert’s Law
There is nothing so small that it can’t be blown out of proportion

Hawkins’ Theory of Progress
Progress does not consist in replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is right.  It consists in replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is more subtly wrong.

Macbeth’s Law
The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory.

Disraeli’s Dictum
Error is often more earnest than truth.

Advice from Paul

Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge – by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith.

I Timothy 6:20-21

Song of the True Scientist

O Lord, how manifold are Your works!  In wisdom You have made them all.  The earth is full of Your possessions . . . . May the glory of the Lord endure forever.  May the Lord rejoice in His works . . . . I will sing to the Lord s long as I live; I will sing praise to my God while I have my being.  May my meditation be sweet to Him; I will be glad in the Lord.  May sinners be consumed from the earth, and the wicked be no more.  Bless the Lord, O my soul!  Praise the Lord!

from Psalm 104

Maxwell’s Motivation

Through the creatures Thou hast made
Show the brightness of Thy glory.
Be eternal truth displayed
In their substance transitory.
Till green earth and ocean hoary,
Massy rock and tender blade,
Tell the same unending story:
We are truth in form arrayed.

Teach me thus Thy works to read,
That my faith,– new strength accruing–
May from world to world proceed,
Wisdom’s fruitful search pursuing
Till, thy truth my mind imbuing,
I proclaim the eternal Creed –
Oft the glorious theme renewing,
God our Lord is God indeed.

James Clerk Maxwell
One of the greatest physicists
of all time (a creationist).

Featured Creation Scientist for September
James Clerk Maxwell

In our roll call of great scientists of Christian faith, it would be hard to find a better role model than James Clerk Maxwell.  Just take a look at his report card!  His scientific work alone puts him in a triumvirate with Newton and Einstein, but no matter what other way you examine his life – intellect, personality, creativity, wit, work ethic, Christian character, integrity, breadth and depth of knowledge and accomplishments – Maxwell comes out on top.  He pursued science with exuberance, and with grace and charm and unselfishness, giving glory to God.  In his too-brief life of 48 years, Maxwell changed the world.

Do you use a cell phone?  A pager?  A remote control for your TV?  A radio?  Television?  You owe these inventions in large part to Maxwell.  Radar, satellite, spacecraft and aircraft communications – any and every means of transferring information through thin air or the vacuum of space, comes out of his work.  The inventors of all these devices all built on Maxwell’s exceptional discoveries in electromagnetism, discoveries that required the best in experimental method with the best in mathematics and theory.  Maxwell discovered many things, as we shall see, but his crowning achievement was the summation of all electromagnetic phenomena in four differential equations, appropriately named Maxwell’s Equations in his honor.

These equations made an astounding and important prediction: that light itself was an electromagnetic wave, and through manipulation of electromagnetic waves, it might be possible to transmit information through empty space.  Thus, our modern world.  The importance of these equations can hardly be overstated.  Dr. Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate and influential 20th-century modern physicist, paid his respects this way: “From a long view of the history of mankind–seen from, say, ten thousand years from now– there can be little doubt that the most significant event of the 19th century will be judged as Maxwell’s discovery of the laws of electrodynamics.”

And that was only one of Maxwell’s claims to fame.  One biographer described him, “a man of immense intellectual capacity and seemingly inexhaustible energy, he achieved success in many fields, ranging from colour vision and nature of Saturn’s rings to thermodynamics and kinetic theory.  In a short life he published a hundred scientific papers and four books.  His was perhaps the last generation of scientists to whom so wide a field of interest was possible: with the rapid increase in knowledge in the latter part of the 19th century specialization became unavoidable . . . . on any assessment Maxwell stands out conspicuously among a race of giants.  How much more might he not have acheived had his life run a normal span.”

Maxwell’s personality is as captivating as his equations.  He was the kind of fellow you would want to chat with over dinner every chance you could.  No matter what the subject, he would keep you entertained and fascinated for hours.  Most important, Maxwell’s Christian faith was the core of his being.  It guided his life’s work and personal habits, and motivated him to search out the laws of the great Lawgiver with diligence, as a mission from God.  Thoroughly versed in classic literature and philosophies ancient and modern, Maxwell was uniquely qualified to speak to science, theology, and philosophy–and he did.  He was a true Christian in heart as well as mind; he loved the Lord Jesus Christ with all his heart, mind and soul.  And, he knew his Bible inside and out.  Clerk Maxwell opposed any philosophy (like the new Darwinian evolution) that exalted itself against the God of creation, yet he did it with wit and grace (sometimes even in clever poetry) that earned the attention and respect of all.

Maxwell’s letters sparkle with a joie de vivre that is infectious, but he also knew hardship and tragedy.  At age eight, he faced a devastating blow for a boy: he watched his mother suffer and die of stomach cancer.  Fortunately, his father, John Clerk Maxwell, filled the emptiness better than most single parents could.  He became his son’s dearest mentor and supporter, well into James’ college years.  His fatherly letters reveal his proud interest in everything his son was doing.  John’s expansive Scottish estate at Glenlair (which you can visit on the Web), provided young James with woods, streams, horses and books enough to fill his sponge-like mind, a repository that could not absorb enough fast enough.

Playful and jocular, young James would one moment be swinging from trees, “tubbing” in the creek, creating his own spinning tops, reading books, or surprising his friends with a frog leaping out of his mouth.  All his life James never tired of a good joke, though his humor became much more sophisticated at Cambridge  To his university colleagues he would sign his postcards dp/dt, which being translated in the language of mathematical physics, became “JCM”–his initials.  Sometimes he would write backwards, or pose puzzles or riddles for his friends.  His writing is peppered with Latin, Greek, French, and German quotes.  His best wit can be found in his poems.  Early on in grammar school, Maxwell also became quite the poet.  He was often known to slip his latest verse to a friend, his wife, or to a philosophical rival.  Many of these make excellent reading and allow us to peer into his soul.

The Scottish schools of Maxwell’s youth were old-fashioned.  Instead of building self-esteem, they forced students to learn Latin, Greek, and classic literature.  Good thing, because Maxwell’s grasp of history, philosophy, and rhetoric served him well as a writer, professor, scholar, and defender of Christianity.  As a young student at Cambridge, Maxwell once wrote Lewis Campbell that he intended to plow up all the secret hiding places of philosophy and world religions, the sacred plots their owners want you to tiptoe around.  Not Maxwell; he was going to charge in and investigate whether their claims could stand up to scrutiny.  And he was unafraid to apply the same rule to the Bible.  He said, “Christianity–that is, the religion of the Bible–is the only scheme or form of belief which disavows any possessions on such a tenure.  Here alone all is free.  You may fly to the ends of the world and find no God but the Author of Salvation.  You may search the Scriptures and not find a text to stop you in your explorations.”  Christianity, to Maxwell, was not stifling to the scientist or truth seeker; it was liberating.

At age 22, Maxwell graduated at the top of his class at Trinity College, the Second Wrangler (tied for the highest grade), and Smith’s prizeman.  In those arduous days of preparing for the Cambridge final exams, the toughest in the world, he composed a ten-verse poem, A Student’s Evening Hymn.  He must have taken a moment away from the intense pressure of studies to go outside a watch a sunset.  As the stars came out and reminded him of God’s great power in creation, he pondered the big picture of his life and priorities, and put his thoughts into verse.  This gem of poetic worship and supplication, long forgotten after 148 years, we have reproduced here and set it to a new original melody.  These eloquent lines can be seen as an encapsulation of Maxwell’s purpose in life.  He never deviated from these sentiments, even through his final, greatest trial.

Graduation opened the door to a 26-year career in science characterized by a series of exceptional discoveries, culminating in his famous equations.  Maxwell became a Cambridge scholar par excellence, always humble and devout, and loved and admired by his colleagues.  He was close friends with Peter Guthrie Tait, the father of vector calculus, Michael Faraday, and Lord Kelvin.  He served as professor at Kings College and Trinity, but always kept close ties to Glenlair, his home for life.  At age 27, he married Katherine Mary Dewar.  Though described by some as a “difficult woman” and frequently ill, Katherine was this model husband’s target of loyalty and love, though they bore no children.  Some of his love letters and poems have survived, including Bible studies they shared, in which Maxwell’s deep understanding of and reverence for the Scriptures is manifest.  Through their married life, they attended church faithfully where the Word of God was preached, supported their church, and walked their talk.  Clerk Maxwell even took time out of his busy schedule to teach poor working men science, to give them a chance at a better life than the dismal factories that enslaved them.

Always the lover of wisdom, his many letters, essays, lectures and articles are both deep and cheerful, and, however they traverse the theories of the day, always lead back to the wisdom of God.  Maxwell stood firmly against the creeping atheistic Darwinism that got its foothold in the scientific establishment, but was perhaps too much the gentleman.  We have good statements by him on the matter of evolution, but with hindsight of the atrocities committed in the name of Darwinism in the next century, we could only wish that Maxwell, Kelvin and Faraday had spoken out even more firmly than they did.  Perhaps it would not have made a difference, but this is perhaps the only criticism that can be made against these great Christian heroes of science.

Maxwell’s scientific work was varied and colorful.  When a contest for the Adam’s Prize was announced, Maxwell took up the challenge and set to explain the nature of Saturn’s rings.  His 60-page analysis, filled with recondite mathematical logic, proved that the rings must be made of separately orbiting particles following their own Keplerian orbits.  Along with the paper he provided a mechanical model of how the ring particles orbit the planet.  He easily won the prize, but the real honor came 150 years later when the Voyager 1 spacecraft visited Saturn and verified his theoretical proof with direct observations.  Maxwell also explained color vision and demonstrated a technique for color photography, taking the first color photograph by combining monochomatic images taken through filters with the three primary colors.

In addition to being the father of electrodynamics, Maxwell was the father of statistical thermodynamics and kinetic theory, which deals with the aggregate motion of large numbers of particles.  He thus gave thermodynamics a firm foundation in mechanics.  A puzzle he left for future theoreticians came to be known as “Maxwell’s demon.”  He surmised that it might be possible to violate the Second Law of thermodynamics and separate hot from cold molecules in a gas if you had a little man at a trap door able to sort them out as they flew by.  Later physicists proved that the entropy of the little man would more than compensate for the ordering of the molecules, thus the Second Law would not be violated.

Maxwell and Faraday gave us our modern world of motors, radio, and telecommunications; they complemented each other perfectly.  Where Faraday was weak in mathematics and theory, Maxwell excelled.  Maxwell took the results of Faraday’s years of experimentation with magnets and wires and organized them into his famous four equations.  This was a monumental step, requiring years of analysis, thought, experimentation, insight, and genius, culminating in the publication of his 1873 Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism.  Here is a case of one little item starting a revolution: in the fourth equation, Maxwell (through theory and experiment) added a term to Ampere’s Law (a law which relates the magnetic effect of a changing electric field or of a current) he called the ’displacement current” i.  Such a little thing, the letter i; what does it mean?  It means, as he wrote, “light consists in the transverse undulations of the same medium which is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena.”

Thus, he unified light with electricity and magnetism, and formed the theoretical basis for radio, TV, radar, and all the spinoffs of these technologies such as remote controls, spacecraft telemetry and cell phones which poured like gold from Maxwell’s Equations in the years after his death.  Concerning these equations, Ludwig Boltzmann (quoting from Goethe) remarked, “Was it a god who wrote these lines . . . ”  J. R. Pierce, in a chapter titled “Maxwell’s Wonderful Equations,” wrote, “To anyone who is motivated by anything beyond the most narrowly practical, it is worth while to understand Maxwell’s Equations simply for the good of his soul.”  A college physics textbook states, “The scope of these equations is remarkable, including as it does the fundamental operating principles of all large-scale electromagnetic devices such as motors, synchrotrons, television, and microwave radar.”  Interestingly, Maxwell’s Equations needed no revision when Einstein published his theories of relativity 40 years later, but Newton’s laws did.  Maxwell’s Equations already had relativity “built in” – they are invariant in all frames of reference.  Truly remarkable.  Engineers frequently use these wonderful equations in the most advanced work today.

In his forties, Maxwell devoted himself to building the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge, named for the pioneering physicist who in 1798 first measured the gravitational constant G.  This laboratory was destined to become the hub of many major discoveries in atomic and nuclear physics in the coming century.  But by 1879, Maxwell became ill.  Hiding his discomfort so as not to worry his wife and his colleagues, he continued working until it was too late; he was diagnosed with the same stomach cancer that had taken his mother’s life forty years earlier.  Throughout his ordeal, Maxwell’s thoughts were only for others, especially for his wife Katherine.  As grieving friends and pastors visited him in his sick bed, Maxwell would quote Scripture and Christian poems from memory.  His faith in the atoning work of Jesus Christ was his great consolation that eternity lay before him as a joyous entrance to heaven.

Tributes poured in after James Clerk Maxwell’s death; not diminishing his scientific achievements, however, Dr. Butler at the funeral focused on his spiritual side:  “. . . we may well give thanks to God that our friend was what he was, a firm Christian believer, and that his powerful mind, aftger ranging at will through the illimitable spaces of Creation, and almost handling what he called ‘the foundation stones of the material universe,’ found its true rest and happiness in the love and the mercy of Him whom the humblest Christian calls his Father.  Of such a man it may be truly said that he had his citizenship in heaven, and that he looked for, as a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the unnumbered worlds were made, and in the likeness of whose image our new and spiritual body will be fashioned.”

To get a true glimpse at the spirit of Maxwell, you need to read his own writings.  We will provide samples of his best wit and wisdom here soon, but could only whet your appetite.  In the meantime, see if you can find a copy of Lewis Campbell’s 1883 biography The Life of James Clerk Maxwell.  May the testimony of James Clerk Maxwell, and other great Christians in science like him, inspire a new generation to fulfill their calling with similar zeal, humility, joy, and dedication.  Maxwell expressed his work ethic in these profound words:

“Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity.  The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity.  He strenuously works out his daily enterprises, because the present is given him for a possession.
“Thus ought Man to be an impersonation of the divine process of nature, and to show forth the union of the infinite with the finite, not slighting his temporal existence, remembering that in it only is individual action possible, nor yet shutting out from his view that which is eternal, knowing that Time is a mystery which man cannot endure to contemplate until eternal Truth enlighten it.”

For more information on James Clerk Maxwell and other great Christians in science, see our online book:
The World’s Greatest Creation Scientists from 1000 to 2000 A.D.
Copies are also available from our online store.