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 8)
Message-ID: <339@iham1.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 20-Apr-85 17:47:46 EST
Article-I.D.: iham1.339
Posted: Sat Apr 20 17:47:46 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Apr-85 05:43:23 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 110


     THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE

I.  (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.  (See
    1-13.)

    A.  EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.

                                      ...

    B.  ALL  ARGUMENTS  FOR  EVOLUTION  ARE  OUTDATED,  ILLOGICAL,  OR
        WISHFUL THINKING.


       17.  As an embryo develops, it does not pass through the  adult
            stages    of    its    alleged   evolutionary   ancestors.
            Embryologists   no   longer   consider   the   superficial
            similarity that exists between a few embryos and the adult
            forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution  [a-h].
            The   drawings   by  Ernst  Haeckel,  which  led  to  this
            widespread belief, were deliberately falsified [i-l].

            a)  ''This  generalization  was  originally   called   the
                biogenic  law  by  Haeckel  and  is  often  stated  as
                'ontogeny   recapitulates   phylogeny.'   This   crude
                interpretation  of  embryological  sequences  will not
                stand close  examination,  however.  Its  shortcomings
                have  been  almost  universally  pointed out by modern
                authors, but the idea still has a prominent  place  in
                biological  mythology.''  [Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard
                W. Holm, THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION (New  York:  McGraw-
                Hill, 1963), p. 66.]
            b)  ''It is now firmly established that ontogeny does  NOT
                repeat  phylogeny.'' [emphasis theirs] [George Gaylord
                Simpson and William Beck,  LIFE:  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO
                BIOLOGY  (New  York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1965),
                p. 241.]
            c)  Francis Hitching,  THE  NECK  OF  THE  GIRAFFE:  WHERE
                DARWIN WENT WRONG (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and
                Fields, 1982), pp. 202-205.
            d)  ''Seldom has  an  assertion  like  that  of  Haeckel's
                'Theory   of   Recapitulation',   facile,   tidy,  and
                plausible,   widely    accepted    without    critical
                examination,  done  so  much  harm  to science.'' [Sir
                Gavin R. de Beer, AN ATLAS  OF  EVOLUTION  (New  York:
                Nelson, 1964), p. 38.]
            e)  ''The biogenic law has  become  so  deeply  rooted  in
                biological  thought  that  it  cannot be weeded out in
                spite of its having been demonstrated to be  wrong  by
                numerous   subsequent  scholars.''  [Walter  J.  Bock,
                Department   of    Biological    Sciences,    Columbia
                University,  ''Evolution  by  Orderly  Law,'' SCIENCE,
                Vol.164, 9 May 1969, pp. 684-685.]
            f)  ''We no longer believe  we  can  simply  read  in  the
                embryonic   development   of   a   species  its  exact
                evolutionary history.''  [H.  Frings  and  M.  Frings,
                CONCEPTS OF ZOOLOGY, p. 267.]
            g)  ''The type  of  analogical  thinking  which  leads  to
                theories    that   development   is   based   on   the
                recapitulation of ancestral  stages  or  the  like  no
                longer  seems at all convincing or even interesting to
                biologists.''  [G.  H.   Waddington,   PRINCIPLES   OF
                EMBRYOLOGY (George Allen and Unwin, 1956), p. 10.]
            h)  ''...the theory of recapitulation has had a great and,
                while  it lasted, regretable influence on the progress
                of embryology.'' [Sir Gavin R. de Beer,  (Director  of
                the  British  Museum  of Natural History), EMBRYOS AND
                ANCESTORS (London: Oxford University Press, 1951),  p.
                10.]
            i)  Haeckel, who in 1868 advanced  this  ''Biogenic  Law''
                that    was   quickly   adopted   in   textbooks   and
                encyclopedias  throughout  the  world,  distorted  his
                data.  Thompson explains:  ''A natural law can only be
                established as an induction from facts. Haeckel was of
                course  unable  to do this. What he did was to arrange
                existing forms of animal life in a  series  proceeding
                from   the   simple   to  the  complex,  intercalating
                imaginary entities  where  discontinuity  existed  and
                then  giving  the embryonic phases names corresponding
                to the stages in his  so-called  evolutionary  series.
                Cases  in  which  this  parallelism did not exist were
                dealt with by the simple expedient of saying that  the
                embryological development had been falsified. When the
                'convergence'   of   embryos    was    not    entirely
                satisfactory, Haeckel altered the illustrations to fit
                his  theory.   The   alterations   were   slight   but
                significant.  The  'biogenetic  law'  as  a  proof  of
                evolution   is   valueless.''   [W.    R.    Thompson,
                ''Introduction  to the ORIGIN OF SPECIES,'' by Charles
                Darwin; Everyman  Library  No.  811  (New  York:  E.P.
                Dutton & Sons, 1956 reprint of 1928 edition), p. 12.]
            j)  M. Bowden, APE-MEN:  FACT  OR  FALLACY?,  2nd  edition
                (Great  Britain:   Sovereign  Publications, 1981), pp.
                142-143.
            k)  Wilbert  H.  Rusch,  Sr.,   ''Ontogeny   Recapitulates
                Phylogeny,'' CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY, June
                1969, pp. 27-34.
            l)  Michael Pitman, ADAM  AND  EVOLUTION  (London:  Rider,
                1984), p.  120.

                                      ...

   II.  (Astronomical Sciences):

                               TO BE CONTINUED

  III.  (Earth Sciences):

					Ron Kukuk
					Walt Brown