Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site iham1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!iham1!rck
From: rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 5)
Message-ID: <332@iham1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Apr-85 13:23:53 EST
Article-I.D.: iham1.332
Posted: Mon Apr 15 13:23:53 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 16-Apr-85 05:52:13 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 81


            THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE

       I.  (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.

           A.  EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.

                                             ...


               8.  There is no reason to believe that  mutations  could  ever
                   produce  any  new organs such as the eye [a], the ear [b],
                   or the brain [c].  Just the human heart, a ten ounce  pump
                   that  will  operate without maintenance or lubrication for
                   about 75 years, is an engineering marvel [d].

                   a)  ''It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  it   is   a
                       considerable  strain on one's credulity to assume that
                       finely balanced systems such as certain  sense  organs
                       (the  eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could
                       be improved by random mutations.  This  is  even  more
                       true  for  some  of the ecological chain relationships
                       (the famous Yucca moth case, and so  forth).  However,
                       the  objectors  to  random  mutations have so far been
                       unable to advance any alternative explanation that was
                       supported  by  substantial  evidence.''  [Ernst  Mayr,
                       SYSTEMATICS AND THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES (New York: Dover
                       Publications, 1942), p. 296.]
                   b)  ''Was the eye contrived without skill in  optics,  and
                       the  ear  without  knowledge  of  sounds?'' [Sir Isaac
                       Newton, OPTICKS New York, 1952, pp. 369-370.]
                   c)  ''Certainly  there  are  those  who  argue  that   the
                       universe  evolved  out  of  a random process, but what
                       random process could produce the brain of a man or the
                       system  of  the  human  eye?'' [Dr. Wernher von Braun,
                       (probably the one rocket  scientist  most  responsible
                       for  the United States placing men on the moon), Cited
                       by Bill Keith, SCOPES II: THE GREAT DEBATE (Huntington
                       House, 1982), p. 25.]
                   d)  Marlyn  E.  Clark,  OUR  AMAZING  CIRCULATORY  SYSTEM,
                       Technical  Monograph  No.5  (San  Diego: Creation-Life
                       Publishers, 1976).

               9.  There is no  direct  evidence  that  any  major  group  of
                   animals or plants arose from any other major group [a-c].

                   a)  ''There is not the slightest evidence that any of  the
                       major groups arose from any other.'' [Dr. Austin Clark
                       F.R.G.S., QUARTERLY REVIEW OF BIOLOGY, December 28, p.
                       539.]
                   b)  ''Not one change of species into another is on record
		       ... we cannot prove  that a single  species has  been
		       changed into another.'' [Charles Darwin, THE LIFE  AND
		       LETTERS  OF CHARLES  DARWIN, edited by Francis Darwin,
		       (London: John Murray, 1887), Vol.1, p. 210.]
                   c)  ''To a very large extent, the formation of  a  species
                       is  a  phenomenon  which  has occurred in the past, so
                       that the recognition of  the  events  surrounding  the
                       actual  division  of  an  ancient  gene pool cannot be
                       directly observed. In all but a very small  number  of
                       cases  the  biologist  must  become historian and deal
                       with evidence for the past role  of  processes  rather
                       than   deal   with   these   processes  in  action  in
                       contemporary  populations.   The  search   for   truly
                       incipient   species  has  been  difficult  and,  to  a
                       considerable degree, frustrating.  [Hampton L. Carson,
                       (Department   of   Genetics,  University  of  Hawaii),
                       ''Chromosomes  and  Species  Formation,''   EVOLUTION,
                       Vol.32, No.4, 1978, pp. 925-927.]

                                             ...


          II.  (Astronomical Sciences):

                                      TO BE CONTINUED

         III.  (Earth Sciences):

					Ron Kukuk
					Walt Brown