TSAWTB Section 5: Replies to Critics

SECTION 5 REPLIES TO CRITICS There are many books critical of the creationist viewpoint, and an unwarranted amount of space could be devoted to refuting them. We will therefore limit our examination to only three works; an anti-creationist publication, a group of Christian evolutionists and a Christadelphian scientist.

It might be wondered why these critics should be answered, particularly the Christians, so publicly. If one reads these three works, the most striking common feature is their superior attitude. Their writings have greatly damaged the faith of many sound Christians in the reliability of the Bible and therefore need to be corrected. They have made their criticisms in public and therefore need to be answered in public. Paul deliberately rebuked Peter openly (Gal.2:14) because the error he was committing (withdrawing from the Gentiles) was visible to all.

SECTION 5.1 A SECULAR CRITIC: MOORE’S ARTICLE In this section, we will reply to the objections raised in a special issue of the American periodical Evolution/Creation, No. XI Winter 1983. Despite the seeming balance one might have expected from its title, it is strongly anti-creationist in its stand. The particular issue consisted of only one long 39 page article by Robert A. Moore entitled The Impossible Voyage of Noah’s Ark which was devoted to ridiculing that event.

The introduction to the article is interesting as it portrays the thinking of the editor and thereby of the periodical in general: To many, it will seem bizarre that, in this age of scientific advancement and sophisticated biblical criticism, it would be necessary to provide a point-by-point scientific refutation of the story of Noah’s Ark. Knowledgeable people are well aware that Genesis 1 through 11 is not scientific or historical but largely mythical, metaphorical, poetic, theological and moral. All people are not knowledgeable, however. Recent Gallup surveys reveal that 50% of adult Americans believe that Adam and Eve existed, 44% believe the earth was created directly by God only ten thousand years ago, and 40% believe that the Bible is inerrant. No doubt an equally large percentage believe in Noah’s Ark. Thus, he dismisses 50% of his fellow countrymen and women as being without “knowledge”. That many of this ignorant group would have degrees and doctorates yet still believe the Genesis record is accurate is not even considered. He insists that they are all “not knowledgeable” - i.e. “ignorant and uneducated”!

Within the article there are many objections, some trivial and simply mud-slinging against creationists which will be ignored. Some, however, should be replied to as they are valid objections that some creationists may have difficulty in answering. I give a summary of these criticisms and each will be examined.

I would here mention that Woodmorappe has also refuted Moore’s criticisms in his “Noah’s Ark: A feasibility study” (WoodJ96). He shows that the conditions in the Ark were perfectly practical.

Section 5 - Replies to Critics

229

1. “Would the true and confirmed discovery of Noah’s Ark prove that the earliest chapters of the Bible were true?”

The surprising answer given is “NO”. Note then the devious reasoning from that point onwards. First the materialist philosopher Hume is quoted; “the knavery and folly of men are such common phenomena that I should rather believe the most extraordinary events to arise from their concurrence than to admit of so signal a violation of the laws of nature.”

To present this quotation is both irrelevant and misleading. Although it would not prove that every event recorded in Genesis did take place, the undisputed finding of Noah’s Ark would blow such a hole in the evolutionist’s case that it would have great difficulty in recovering its present day prominence. The editor seeks to pre-empt such a discovery by blandly asking, “So what? - it proves nothing.”

We come back to the fundamental point that in the eyes of all materialists God does not exist and therefore miracles are impossible. This is an “a priori” assumption - which no amount of evidence will change. Evidence for it will always be dismissed as the “knavery and folly of men”.

2. “At a time when man was still using hollowed out logs and reed rafts as boats, Noah would need a thorough education in physics, calculus, mechanics, structural analysis and naval architecture to construct such a massive vessel that would not be exceeded for thousands of years.”

Note firstly the evolutionary assumption that man arose from a primitive beginning and over thousands of years gradually acquired the necessary skills he needed for this undertaking. He repeatedly assumes that knowledge was acquired at the slow rate demanded by the process of evolution.

What Moore has failed to note is that God gave clear and detailed instructions for its construction, of which we only have an outline in the Bible (Gen. 6:14-16). Thus the Ark was designed by The Master Designer, who had no need to study differential calculus, etc. And “Noah did everything just as God commanded him” (v22). Moore contends “Obviously, the astronomical leap in size, safety and skill required by Noah is far too vast for any naturalistic explanation”. With this we fully agree.

He briefly mentions that as the descendants of the survivors were “fanning out and ‘replenishing the earth’” they carried with them “reminiscences of the deluge that would someday excite American missionaries from Sumatra to Spitzbergen.” The more thoughtful reader will notice that he does not examine this issue in any detail. In his desire to pour as much ridicule as he can on the creationist evidence, he rather unwisely draws attention to one of the major evidences (the Flood stories) against his case which might otherwise have gone unnoticed by some readers. His article, however, is mainly for consumption by ardent evolutionists who are only too willing to uncritically accept anything that ridicules creationists.

3. “Pitch and bitumen come from decayed organisms and vegetable matter buried during the Flood. They were therefore not available for sealing the Ark before the Flood.”

The existence of chemically produced oils, etc. has been shown in the explorations of Prof. Gold (GoldT). The possibility of the chemical production of the subterranean oils and gasses is receiving increasing attention these days.

230

Section 5 - Replies to Critics

4. “The boat would have been too long for the high stresses the timber would have been subjected to.”

This criticism is based upon modern wave measurements and efficient boat design for transport. The bulky Ark was not designed for travelling at speed and had merely to survive whatever sea conditions prevailed during the Flood.

We have no knowledge of what the wave dimensions were. Very short waves would have negligible effect upon the hull length whilst very long ones of even huge size would simply lift the Ark gently over a period of several seconds.

Noah would also have had the use of iron, for Tubal-Cain was “an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron” (Gen 4:22). This may have been used to provide strong joints in the timber structure, or even the main strength of the structure itself.

The very high level of its general seaworthiness has been checked by computers as we have referred to in Section 1, page 26.

It might be thought that the Ark would have difficulty in surviving huge breakers that might have developed. But waves normally only break under high wind conditions or when they approach the coasts. There is no mention of high winds during the Flood, except at the end when there was a “wind over the earth and the waters receded” (Gen. 8:1). There were also no coasts for the waves to break against when the earth was fully covered by water.

Moore contends the Ark would have been smashed to pieces. However, it would have been gently lifted by the incoming water, and the biblical record states the grounding of the Ark was quite tranquil.

5. “The problems of housing, feeding and cleaning out so many different animals for a year would have been insuperable for only eight people to have dealt with.”

This is one of the most common, and understandable, objections that is made. We will divide the question into two parts - (A) the number of animals in the Ark and (B) the attendance they would need.

(A) The number of animals in the Ark. This subject has been discussed in “The Genesis Flood” (Whitc69) where the average size of a mammal has been estimated to be about the size of a sheep and about 35,000 animals had to be accommodated. The volume of the Ark was sufficient to take some seven times this number, giving each animal plenty of room.

Dr. Arthur Jones (JonA) has examined the scriptural references to “kinds” of clean and unclean animals. His main contention is that probably each “kind” was what we call a “family” in animal classifications. He quotes a secular source for there being 793 families, both existing and extinct. There are many arguments amongst classifiers about what is a species, but little disagreement regarding which family each should be placed in.

By eliminating amphibia and water-dwelling groups he estimates that there may be from 628 to 800 family pairs that would be needed to go in the Ark. Jones shows that the Hebrew “seven seven” means “seven of each” for the number of clean animals. He concludes that there would be about 2,000 animals in the Ark. The rest of the very large volume would be taken up as living quarters for the human survivors and food for the whole shipload of humans and animals.

It is possible that much of the food taken on board (Gen. 6:21) might be needed in the period between the landing of the Ark and the collecting of the

Section 5 - Replies to Critics

231

first harvest and to allow the growth of the wide ranging and abundant flora necessary for the habitation of the animals emerging from the Ark. (B) The feeding and cleaning of the animals.

This is always seen as a major objection, but if Jones’s figure of 2,000 animals is correct, the problem of feeding and cleaning is greatly reduced.

Even if the number were greater, there is a very simple solution to this. Many animals have a period of deep sleep in winter (when it is known as hibernation) or in summer (aestivation). Studies have shown that the pulse rate falls to a very low value, body temperature falls, brain activity is greatly reduced and food reserves are only used slowly.

God had only to submit all the creatures in the Ark to such a process and what is considered an “insuperable objection” is easily solved. This is one possible, and very simple, solution to the problem. What actually took place in the Ark He has not seen fit to explain in His record.

6. “The animals in the Ark could not have contained all the genetic information that resulted in the phenomenal range of animals that exist now”.

The genetic information is not contained only in the chromosomes of the cells. There is much information in the cortex and indeed, the information appears to be within the whole cell material. We have examined this subject in detail in Section 1 and in reference Bow82:124.

Geneticists have found that some 99% of the genetic material in the chromosomes are classed as “redundant” as no known use for them has (yet!) been discovered. It is possible that they may have contained the information needed to give the range of present day types and are no longer needed.

However, this assumed “redundancy” has recently been called into question.

Regarding the wide range of species seen today, most of them belong to recognised types such as dog types (dingoes, wolves, jackals, coyotes, foxes, etc.), cat types (tiger, panther, etc.) and many others. By simple varieties of these basic types these various forms could be achieved. Dr. Arthur Jones has studied the wide range of cyclid fish that exist and that are classified as differing species. He found that they were all varieties of the same basic pattern that had been varied over a range of shapes and characteristics.

This, of course, also applies to the varieties within the human race. The various characteristics that have appeared since the time of the dispersion from the Tower of Babel are only specific features already within the genetic pool.

This information would have been contained within the genes of the five people who were in the Ark - Noah, his wife and the three wives of their sons, all of whom may have been related as we discussed in Section 1.

If there were only a few thousand animals in the Ark then Moore’s case, based upon millions, completely collapses - together with his ridicule. We will now examine some of the more extravagant claims he makes and the “straw men” he erects.

7. “Fresh water fish would die in salt seas of the Flood (and vice versa).”

In dealing with many subjects, it must be emphasised that we do not know what the conditions were before the Flood. It is a common mistake of evolutionists (and some creationists) to assume that they were much the same as they are today and then, on this assumption, to claim that the cataclysmic sequence of the Flood was an impossibility. There are several solutions to this

232

Section 5 - Replies to Critics

question of salt and fresh water fish and I set them out below. (a) Tolerance. If the original sea was all fresh, it is possible that the fish could adapt over generations to tolerate salt water as it gradually mixed in.

There is a much wider degree of tolerance in fish than we may realise. Salmon and eels migrate between salt and fresh water and sharks are known to swim well upriver in some areas. Nelson neatly turns the tables on the evolutionists for he points out that there are a number of identical species of fresh water fish in widely different lakes around the world. He asks “if they originated in one spot, how, we may ask, did they become distributed in lakes and streams of almost the whole world?” (Nel:160). (b) Slow mixing. As fresh water from the rain is less dense than salt sea water, it could have existed for some time mainly in a layer on top. This would allow each type to survive the Flood period (Q21/1:33).

With the eruption of the hydrothermal water from the “fountains of the deep” we propose in the geological sequence, when it had deposited its mineral load, the remaining water may have been fresh in some areas and salt in others. Thus both types of fish could have survived. The fresh water fish may then have been trapped in inland lakes later as the water drained from the earth.

Even though a storm may have been raging with huge waves and large and fast movements of water in the sea taking place, to get two huge masses of water to mix uniformly would take considerable time as it would require a specific mixing (stirring) action to have taken place to make this intermingling rapid. Waves only act for a very shallow depth and only a few metres below the surface they can hardly be felt. Wave action can of course be transmitted between the two masses with no mixing effect whatsoever. Similarly, large bodily movements of water have little mixing effect.

8. “The small sea creatures such as crabs and fixed crustaceans such as barnacles would be unable to escape and would be completely engulfed by the great depths of material deposited over them.”

Moore does not propose this directly as a serious objection but asks how coral, which requires clear shallow water, could have survived. One answer could be that there were a few suitable areas where some may have survived.

But there is another means of survival.

Many of these creatures produce a whole cloud of eggs which are fertilised by the male sperm released at the same time. These eggs are minute and would drift freely in the sea water, no matter how turbulent, and would have no difficulty in surviving. On hatching at the appropriate time and temperature, they would be able to feed off of the plentiful organic material from the dead pre-Flood creatures. The almost indestructible nature of the eggs of the many types of fish, crustaceans and sea plants that could explain how many different species survived the Flood.

9. “With the presumed huge population of human beings on the earth, why have there been no discoveries of them in very early strata?”

We discuss this in Appendix 4 dealing with various geological “models” and the fossil record. One possible cause of the lack of fossils is that there may have been comparatively few humans existing at the time of the Flood. (i) The human population of the world may not have been large, and may have been concentrated in one area, in defiance of God’s command to “fill the earth”.

The animal and plant populations appear to have been created in huge

Section 5 - Replies to Critics

233

numbers, but the human population began with only two. Due to the depravity of the antediluvian population, a large proportion would have probably engaged in homosexual and similar practices, thus lowering the birth rate. In the heterosexual population, sexual diseases may have been rampant. Murder and general disease would also have taken their toll. (ii) The bodies of those who died would have floated and their remains eaten by scavengers. (iii) The few relics left would have been difficult to find. There are some 700 million cubic kilometres of fossil-bearing (Phanerozoic) rocks. Taking Woodmorappe’s approximation of a population of 10 million, there would be on average one human fossil for every 70 cubic kilometres of rock. With such a dispersal, they are hardly likely to be found in any numbers. In addition, the remains of those who died before the Flood, if not fossilised, would have completely disappeared within a fairly short time due to bacterial activity.

The conditions that govern fossilisation are even now not fully known.

Organic acids and positive pH (oxidising conditions) both help to weather bone, and these conditions can occur in deep deposits. Thus the relatively few bones of antediluvian man that might have been eventually deposited in a stratum may have not become fossilised due to the environment it was in.

MOORE’S “STRAW MEN” In order to show how easily he can ridicule the creationists case Moore sets up straw men for his subsequent demolition act. They are, however, easily answered and the arguments he uses do him little credit. The following are just some of the worst examples.

A. “For many species, the vast majority of their young do not survive into maturity but are taken by predators or succumb to their environment.”

Here, Moore is using the present situation where there are many animals populating the earth. He has clearly overlooked the simple fact that the early conditions after the Ark landed were totally different to those today. During the early days there were no predators around to prey upon the small number of animals emerging from the Ark. Those who were predators may have lived off food stored in the Ark for a while (or extended their hibernation period) until the population of their prey was sufficiently large for them to be released into the area around.

B. “The journeys of the animals to the Ark would have been far too arduous for many of them from distant countries.”

Again, Moore assumes that present conditions existed in the past. If there was a fairly uniform climate around the earth in Prediluvian days, then there would be much the same selection of animals in any given area and the journey to the Ark would not have been difficult. The wide range of varieties which have adapted to the range of present climates would have developed from the basic types taken into the Ark. .................

In his summary, he says “No doubt in days to come some erstwhile arkeologist will concoct “solutions” to some of the difficulties we have raised, but no intellectually honest person can any longer pretend that the legend of Noah can possibly represent a historical occurrence.”

According to the surveys that he quotes, this would make some 50% of his own countrymen intellectually dishonest.

234

Section 5 - Replies to Critics

There are some additional problems that need to be addressed. It is only right that these should be set out, so that having discussed them, better evidence may be provided by others.

1. Seeds and pollination.

There is a difficulty in the germination of seeds that have been in either salt or fresh water for about a year. Those that could germinate, would have done so in a matter of a few months, and therefore would have died before they could have got to fertile soil. Did some finish up on the top of the drying land and sprout? If they did, where were the numerous birds and insects that could pollinate them? A rapid growth would be essential to feed the rising population of animals, and we show in Appendix 1 that this may have occurred due to the high speed of light. All the occupants may have lived off food stored in the Ark for a short time.

There is the paper by Howe (Q5/3:105) in which he carried out some experiments on the germination of seeds soaked in sea water for 20 weeks. A slight problem is that the seeds had to be scarified in order to germinate. They might have been scarified in the tumult of the Flood, but then they would have germinated too early, before the soil was prepared. He later noted that “Beggar Tick� seeds found in a 350 year old Spanish wreck had still sprouted (Q24/3:144).

2. The heat of the new earth.

It is reasonable to assume that the interior of the earth is very hot. The water and the chemical mixtures that were to form the sea and land surfaces would have risen up from the depths and it might be thought that they would have been at a very high temperature. As a result, the water coming to the surface would have been boiling, which would have made life a little difficult for all the occupants of the Ark! What has been overlooked, both in this case and in many others, is that we do not know the formations of the earth’s strata before the Flood. If the earth was heated at the very centre, either by the impact of material coming together, or by a high level of radioactivity at the centre due to the high speed of light, then it would take some time for this heat to gradually migrate towards the surface. This means that the surface could have been at a moderate temperature, and the upper layers similarly.

We will be showing that most, if not all, the Flood strata came from chemicals brought to the surface by water that was at only a moderately high temperature and under very great pressure which enabled it to dissolve a huge quantity of chemicals. As this rising critical (hydrothermal) water reached the cooler layers nearer to the surface, they would have cooled and their chemicals would be precipitated out in a specific sequence, depending upon the characteristics of the materials they contained.

There would then be no great heat left in the rising material still dissolved in the water. The last of the material would be precipitated and the much cooler water would then reach the surface and become the sea we have today.

There is the additional factor that if heated gases (as hydrothermal water is) under pressure are cooled whilst still under pressure, then their release and expansion results in considerable cooling of the mass. In the same way, the air released from a tyre can be quite cold on exit.

Furthermore, the increasing temperature as you go deeper into the earth may have been less than it is now, only reaching its present value in more recent times as the heat works out to the surface since creation.

Section 5 - Replies to Critics

235

SECTION 5.2 A CRITIQUE OF “PORTRAITS OF CREATION” This is a book (Van Till) by four Christian authors - Van Till, Snow, Stek and Young - in which they defend their theistic evolutionary views and attempt to rebut those of the “scientific creationists” - i.e. the “young earth” exponents such as Morris and Gish. Much of the book is taken up with the historical account of how the present day interpretation by the experts eventually overtook the catastrophist view. Regarding the evidence for this they state: We hold that these reconstructions are firmly grounded in a wealth of carefully gathered data and have been repeatedly tested by the respected canons of science (p11).

Those who have ventured to examine ideas and evidence outside these “respected canons of science” will know that there is far superior artillery and ammunition available that has little problem disposing of their outdated armament - if you will forgive the pun!

They do not set out their specific Christian position but it is certain that they do not take Genesis literally. They set up the usual “straw man” of saying that as no one interprets the pictorial descriptions literally, then other parts of the Bible (which they then choose) are also not to be taken literally - in their case, specifically Genesis. Their liberal view of the Bible is clear from their appeal to the Higher Criticism of Wellhausen and others.

They note that in a 1988 poll of 749 readers of Christianity Today, 401 replied, of which 74% indicated that they favoured the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in public schools (p10 footnote). One might have thought that with evolution being taught with official approval, then those who want creationism to have a fair chance will have studied the subject adequately and arrived at a reasonable decision. This is not the attitude of our authors, for they say “it does suggest an alarming ignorance of science, of what evolution is, and of the shortcomings of scientific creationism.” Like Moore’s assessment of the “ignorance” of his American compatriots quoted above, they also have a low opinion of their fellow Christian’s abilities to make reasonable judgments. More important, this poor level of logic should warn the perceptive reader of what to expect in the rest of the book.

Even at the outset they say that “many issues are thorny and varied” and that they are deliberately omitting any consideration of “organic evolution and the origin of mankind”. This is a blatant avoidance of the strong evidence against evolution that these subjects provide. How they expect any informed reader to be convinced by the very few subjects they are prepared to discuss is difficult to imagine.

There is a section by Snow in which creationist publications are derided, whilst Morris and Gish are singled out for special criticism and patronisingly said to indulge not in true science but in “folk science” (in which he includes Einstein and Asimov! (p188)). He observes, At its core the contemporary creation science movement is an attempt to provide a scientific foundation for a folk science that for years had been floating free of any support within the professional scientific community (p195).

The two main scientific subjects they confine themselves to are geology and astronomy and, even then, only specific items. We will not analyse the criticisms they make against creationists in the field of geology (p66f) except to say that they are illogical, confused and misleading in what creationists

236

Section 5 - Replies to Critics

claim about the fossil order. Neither will we deal with some astronomical points but will concentrate on their claim that the sun is not shrinking, as this has been accepted by many creationists.

THE SHRINKAGE OF THE SUN. In discussing the possible sources of heat for the sun, van Till mentions Helmholtz’s proof that the sun’s heat could be entirely supplied by the energy generated as it contracts, but then says this is “unable to supply energy for the multibillion-year duration of the Sun’s history” (p90 footnote). Thus, the dogma of the “millions of years” that geology (and evolution) demands forces van Till to sweep aside all evidence to the contrary.

The main examination of this subject, by R.E. Snow, has the emotive title “The shrinking sun: problems with the exercise of professional integrity.” We would agreed that there is a problem of integrity; but on which side?

We have already discussed the subject raised by Eddy and Boornazian’s lecture in Section 4.4 above. Here we will examine the resulting response by the orthodox scientists, and the way in which this is uncritically quoted by Snow against “young earth” creationists.

Snow first deals with the way in which orthodox professionals examined the subject and the resultant change in opinions that eventually took place. He then examines the “head-in-the-sand” attitude of creationists, particularly Morris and Barnes, who continued to say that the sun was shrinking and ignored all the “latest results” that contradicted the original paper.

The two papers Snow refers to as setting the record straight are by Parkinson (Par83) and Frohlich (Fro). He comments: While the original claims of Eddy and Boornazian were not sustained, the solar physics community emerged from the exchanges generated by their initial paper with a better understanding of the strengths and limitations of important data sets gathered over long periods at major observatories.... Eddy and his collaborators, because they continued to participate in the process of public criticism and analysis, maintained their status as valued members of the professional community. The episode provides a good illustration of the healthy operation of a professional community (p173).

Snow then pours contempt on the scientific integrity of Morris and Barnes for failing to heed these “revised views” of the professional community when they continue to quote Eddy’s original conclusion as this is the only one which supports their young-earth creationist views. He refers to Steidl’s “warning” in the March 1981 issue of the Creation Research Society Quarterly that the Eddy and Boornazian claim “had met with much scepticism, and the timing of transits of Mercury over the centuries seems to indicate that no shrinkage is taking place” (p174). For Steidl’s and others acknowledgement of these criticisms, Snow seems to metaphorically award them several “Brownie points” for integrity.

At the end of this section, the reader is in no doubt that young-earth creationists at least, are pure propagandists for their views, with no scientific integrity and deliberately out of touch with “responsible professional scientists”. But let us now carefully examine these documents upon which he based his dismissive comments.

My first very major surprise came some time after I had read several articles commenting on Eddy and Boornazian’s paper together with a number of other papers critical of their conclusions. I eventually applied for a copy of their

Section 5 - Replies to Critics

237

original 1979 paper (Edd79) which these other papers referred to. I was astonished to receive a one paragraph note outlining the main points of their paper that was to be given between 1400-1600 hrs. in room 377; i.e. it was only the notification of their forthcoming lecture! Thus, Eddy and Boornazian’s paper has never been published! Yet a full article critical of their results was published in Nature and other articles have also appeared. In order to set before the reader some of the evidence they produced in their lecture, recourse had to be made to one supportive paper by Gilliland (Gil) and interpolated from an article by Lubkin, a journalists writing in Physics Today (Lub). Another article in Science News (115:420) added little. A letter direct to Eddy asking for a copy of his paper produced no response.

This needs to be remembered in the criticisms that have been made by Snow in his contribution to this book. No full record of their evidence has ever been published which is indicative of how revolutionary their paper was.

In preparing their paper, Eddy and Boornazian would have been fully aware of the effect it would have. They would therefore have been careful to have cross checked it for all reasonable (and unreasonable) criticisms that were bound to be fired at them. The main points are as follows: (i) They first examined the records of Greenwich Observatory, and when this steady trend was noticed, they then checked with the American Naval Observatory and found virtually the same amount of change in diameter.

These are two independent sources giving the same results. (ii) The readings were taken by over one hundred different observers, and therefore there could not be any consistent “observer bias” that would give these results. One could comment that even if there had been only one observer, this would have been one variable eliminated. It is the consistent decrease that is the main feature. (iii) Today, in a total eclipse the sun is completely blocked by the moon for about 8 seconds. If the decrease of 2 seconds of arc per century had taken place, then several hundred years ago, there would have been a very thin edge of the sun never blocked, and the difference would have been clearly noticed. This in fact was observed by a Jesuit astronomer, Christopher Clavius in Rome in 1560, who specifically referred to: “a certain narrow circle was left on the Sun, surrounding the whole of the moon on all sides.” (Lub:18). This is a very simple and direct observation that corroborates that the shrinkage has been taking place over centuries, for it takes the evidence back nearly 400 years, not just the 117 years covered by the Greenwich data. This is surely a very convincing argument in favour of the shrinkage being very long term.

(On this aspect, “annular eclipses” with a thin ring of the sun always visible (Q22/1:7) still occur. However, not having Eddy’s paper, we can only presume that he had checked that this particular eclipse in 1560 should have been a total eclipse and not an annular one.)

Eddy apparently concluded that the shrinkage is probably only a reflection of some slow oscillation of the envelope of the sun. There is really no mystery why Eddy and Boornazian should claim the decrease is “secular” i.e. continuing, and yet say in their paper that it may only be part of a long term oscillation. Had they not referred to this and said outright that it is a steady decrease with no increase and had been thus for at least 400 years, it is doubtful whether they would have been allowed to have presented their paper in view of its implications.

238

Section 5 - Replies to Critics

CRITICAL ARTICLES Sofia’s paper One paper quoted by Snow against Eddy is that by Sofia et al (Sof). This paper is quoted by both sides as demonstrating that the actual shrinkage is only 1/10 of that claimed by Eddy. This is not correct. The paper does not itself directly prove any decrease in the sun’s diameter but uses data from another scientist.

The whole aim of Sofia’s paper is not to investigate the sun’s diameter but to correlate changes of the “solar constant” (its heat output, which is difficult to measure) with changes in its diameter. They make a number of assumptions about the sun’s interior and derive formulae then used in a computer programme. From this they provide a ratio between changes in the diameter and the solar constant. The only reason they refer to the changing diameter is as a check on the maximum change in the heat output. They searched for measurements of the diameter changes and eventually used those of Giannuzzi who examined Greenwich observatory readings over an 87 year period from 1850-1937. In referring to her paper they note: There is evidence in both the horizontal and vertical directions for a slow systematic decrease of the observed radius by about 0.2 arc seconds over this time; although Giannuzzi removed this trend, we have not done so in forming the above standard deviations, nor have we used her biennial running mean. It seems probable that the data do not indicate variations in the radius greater than about 0.25 arc second over this period...

What do we glean from these comments? (i) There was a “slow systematic decrease” detectable in the data provided by Giannuzzi which she then “removed”. This decrease of the radius of 0.2 arc second “over this time” (of 87 years) would give a decrease of about 0.023% per century - compared with Eddy’s 0.1%. (ii) Sofia et al ignored all her calculations and carried out their own statistical investigation. However, they give no data or calculations.

Elsewhere in their paper they refer to “variations” of radius, but it is not clear whether these are a steady decrease or only fluctuations about a mean.

There seems to be no clear statement by the authors of any consistent decrease in this paper but give “variations” in the radius not greater than “0.25 arc secs over this period” (= 0.03% per century). It is Parkinson’s 1980 paper, that we examine later, that gives a decrease of almost 0.01% per century - 1/10 of Eddy’s value. Considering these points, it is surely unwarranted to quote this paper as proof of a reduced rate for the shrinkage of the sun. We would contend that Eddy and Boornazian’s value of 0.1% (=2.25 arc sec. of the diameter) per century still stands.

There are two other points worth examining. (a) The dates of the articles Giannuzzi published her paper in 1955 Sofia et al revised their paper in April 1979 and it was published in June 1979 Eddy and Boornazian presented their paper in June 1979 It is a reasonable assumption (but not necessarily correct) that Sofia et al had no knowledge of Eddy’s paper when they wrote theirs. Their paper gave no data regarding their much lower rate of decrease. Yet commentators on both sides quote Sofia’s paper as if it authoritatively reduced Eddy’s value.

Section 5 - Replies to Critics

239

One has the impression that Sofia et al examined Eddy’s data and derived a lower rate. In fact, they used data in a much earlier paper, ignored its statistical analysis and calculated a rate without showing how they derived its value. (b) The “hidden” evidence We have noted that Giannuzzi “removed” the secular decrease in the Greenwich data from her statistical calculations in 1955. Regarding this, it was revealing to read in the Bulletin that summarised Eddy’s forthcoming lecture (Edd79): The same secular effect has been noted before by others who examined all or part of the Greenwich data set, and has generally been attributed to atmospheric effects or personal equation.

From this, Eddy and Boornazian were only the latest of several other astronomers who have noted this secular decrease in the Greenwich data!

Obviously, this evidence has been known for many years yet how many papers have been written setting this out? In view of the repercussions that this information would have upon the scientific world and the fierce opposition that publication of it would receive (as has been meted out to Eddy and Boornazian), one can understand why astronomers have bypassed the subject.

Eddy and Boornazian are to be congratulated on taking this bold step. That they have been forced to keep silent and virtually retract their findings to retain their professional credibility only conforms to expectations.

Parkinson’s 1983 article Another paper referred to by Snow as rebutting Eddy is by Parkinson (Par83). This paper does not examine the method of measurement by meridian timings used by Eddy, but deals only with timing the period taken by the shadow of the full eclipse to cross a site in its path, and by the time taken by Mercury to cross the face of the sun. It is interesting that in his introductory statement, Parkinson mentions that if the present view of the energy of the sun comes from radioactivity is correct, this should actually result in a very small increase in diameter over the centuries. Yet it is found in many of the papers critical of Eddy’s, there is still a residual small decrease even after their statistical juggling of the data.

He adjusts the method of “weighting” the results of these two methods and concludes that the shrinkage is .004 arc sec/century - still a positive result it should be noted. He mentions that: The magnitude and sign of the trend obtained depend on the choice of weighting function used and cannot be inferred to result from a variation of the Sun. Thus there appears to be no evidence to support any secular trend in the solar diameter between 1715 and 1981 (Par83:519).

What exactly is Parkinson saying here? Having carefully analysed the measurements covering several years to give a small but still positive result, he points out that these statistical methods can be manipulated to give any sort of answer you require. He then says that this means no reliability can be placed upon these measurements, and therefore there is no support for the claim that the sun is shrinking! This is hardly sound logic and leaves him with little scientific credibility.

What he has done is that, in order to undermine Eddy’s paper, he has confused the situation by claiming that statistics can be manipulated. But a right use of statistics would show that there was a decrease - as Eddy has

240

Section 5 - Replies to Critics

shown. The rest of this short paper suggests there is an 80 year cycle in the size of the sun.

Frolich and Eddy’s paper Snow refers to the paper by Frolich and Eddy (Fro) as being a refutation of Eddy’s original position. As we can see from Snow’s quote above, it is implied that Eddy has back-tracked from his earlier claims which has gone unnoticed by creationists. This is refuted even within his own reference to this article for it is obvious that the authors have compiled measurements of the sun’s heat output only for the 17 year period of 1967-1983. Such a short period can have no relevance to a secular decrease over 400 years. If the paper is examined, it is obvious that this period was chosen in order to obtain a relationship between diameter and heat output - as was Sofia’s. It has nothing to do with a general long-term decrease in diameter.

Parkinson’s 1980 article Although Snow does not refer to it in his book, the paper that was to provide stronger criticisms of Eddy and Boornazian’s paper was an earlier one

by Parkinson and others (Par80), and it is revealing to study this longer paper published in Nature to see if their detailed criticisms are warranted.

In the first paragraph it notes that there are only one third of the neutrinos coming from the sun if all its heat is due to radioactivity. They then patronisingly observe that Eddy’s paper is one of many “ingenious suggestions” to “resolve this apparent discrepancy”. Thus, Eddy’s carefully researched and important paper providing convincing evidence of a decrease is relegated to just an “ingenious suggestion”. One can guess from this opening comment just how biassed the writers are going to be on this subject.

They contend that the original results are due to a “misinterpretation” of the observations, and that they will be using two other methods (timing the eclipse shadow and Mercury’s transits) to support their claims. They are obviously searching for reasons to dismiss the reliability of Eddy’s measurements and they make three criticisms. (i) There was a change of instrument in 1851 and they claim: There is a clear discontinuity in the vertical measurements of the vertical semi-diameter coinciding with the change of telescope showing that the measured diameter depends crucially on the instrument used.

Now, firstly, the vertical measurement is the less important and not measured by timing the transits. Secondly, bearing in mind the wide variation over short periods of time, there seems to be no more sudden change at this point than for the general variation of the measurements - as examination of Fig. 1 shows. There is a similar change in the horizontal readings but this is not mentioned.

From this, their claim that the instrument used is “crucial” is nonsense, and demonstrates that they are seeking to dismiss these readings for the weakest of reasons. (ii) They investigate which assistants set up the instrument at Greenwich between 1915 and 1940. They found that some operators had a regular bias. Of the seven regular observers, two were found to be more erratic and differed from the others. It was considered that as they made more observations in the 1920’s they would have given a spurious result.

These two observers, however, cannot have had so much effect that the results should be dismissed. The maximum number of readings they made

Section 5 - Replies to Critics

241

were only 25% of the total observations. As early as 1854 a chronograph was used to measure the transit times automatically, so observer bias would have been greatly reduced. They do not state just how these operator “biases” could enter into the setting up of the telescope. (iii) In the Greenwich records the weather and seeing conditions are often described as “through cloud”, “unsteady”, “ill defined”, etc. and the inference is that they are thereby unreliable.

But these are one of the many variations that such observations have to deal with. In no way does day-to-day variation affect the general trend of the decrease. Even if, say, only one day in five gave good conditions, this would still be more than enough readings to show the trend over one hundred years.

To dismiss the results using this very poor criticism again indicates the underlying motive of this paper.

They conclude this section with the general comment that: “These grave difficulties show that meridian circle observations are unsuitable for investigating possible changes in the solar diameter.

We now discuss other, more accurate methods which have the advantage of covering a longer time span and are not so dependent upon the defects of the instrument used.” (p850) These variations are certainly not “grave” and do not make the method “unsuitable”. It is, in fact, a very direct and accurate measurement of the diameter.

They then turn to two indirect and less accurate methods (transits of Mercury and solar eclipses) that are subject to as many, if not more, variables than the meridian measurements. There is no discussion of observer bias,

242

Section 5 - Replies to Critics

weather conditions, statistical “weightings”, etc. in the use of these methods.

Although the resulting scatter and error bars are very wide, they still give a decrease. The transits method gives -0.014 +/-0.008% per century and the eclipse method “-0.008 +/-0.007% per century, well over an order of magnitude smaller than the rate claimed by Eddy and Boornazian”. Yet, even with these results showing a decrease, Parkinson’s introduction claims “there has been no detectable secular change in the solar diameter during the past 250 yr.” - which he repeats within the paper.

Let us pause here and remember that we are here reading the conclusions of intelligent scientists. They produce results that are inaccurate, with very wide error bars, yet even these show a decrease. They then claim that there has been no decrease. But inaccurate methods cannot determine whether a value is rising, falling or constant. This can only be shown by an accurate system. They have no right to dismiss Eddy’s conclusions, and these less accurate methods have only been used as a smoke screen to confuse the whole issue.

Gilliland’s article It should not be thought that the counter-criticisms set out above are only to be expected from a young-earth creationist attempting to defend his case. In Parkinson’s later paper (Par83), he mentioned one by Gilliland (Gil) that was critical of this earlier paper (Par80). Reading this, Gilliland says: While the large (0.1% per century) secular decrease in radius tentatively suggested by Eddy and Boornazian (1979) is not supported by other investigations... the preponderance of evidence still supports a negative [emphasis his] secular trend over the last few centuries. It should be emphasised that stellar evolution theory predicts a positive [emphasis his], albeit indetectably small, secular trend of the solar radius.

We have not thrown out portions of the Greenwich data as suggested by Parkinson.... It is probable that certain epochs of the Greenwich data have been biased by observer and instrumental changes. However, the removal of certain sections of the data set which show discontinuities correlated with instrument changes tend to introduce further biases into the data set.... subjective removal of certain sections resulting in support of the Parkinson et al premise that the solar diameter has been constant over the past 250 years should also be viewed with caution. (Gil:1146).

As well as criticising this paper for “subjective” removal of Eddy’s data, he also says “the Mercury transit timing data must also be considered uncertain due to the discrepancies between the independently compiled data sets - e.g. the Mercury transit data may contain unrecognised systematic errors.”

(Gil:1146). He also notes that Parkinson’s Mercury data “further muddle the issue” (Gil:1150).

In summarising all the measurements made by the various researchers using the three different methods, he finds that they all support a significant decrease. He concluded that the rate was about 0.1 arc secs/cent (0.01%/cent) and in a convoluted sentence says: Given the many problems with the data sets, one is not inexorably led to the conclusion that a negative secular solar radius trend has existed since AD 1700, but the preponderance of current evidence indicates that such is likely to be the case. (Gil:1150)

Section 5 - Replies to Critics

243

The eclipse method As the eclipse shadow passes across the earth, observers can time how long they have total darkness, and this will vary depending upon how far they are from the centre of the shadow. Dunham took the records of such timings made in 1715 and concluded that the sun’s radius had shrunk 0.34 arc seconds which is only 14% of the amount based on Eddy’s rate of shrinkage (Dun).

We would suggest that this one measurement, where the locations of the observers and their timings was not always known accurately, cannot compare with the records used by Eddy taken over many years.

The dates of publication Eddy presented his paper in June 1979, but Parkinson’s paper, severely critical of his findings, was received by Nature on 30 June 1980 and accepted in October 1980. It was therefore completed only 12 months after Eddy had presented his paper. Dunham’s paper was submitted even earlier - on 14 November 1979. In these two cases, there may have been some forewarning of Eddy’s paper long before it was presented, or much “burning of the midnight oil” to produce them as quickly as possible after Eddy’s presentation.

Whatever took place, the “Establishment scientists” made sure that these papers were presented in prestigious journals whilst Eddy and Boornazian’s revolutionary paper remains unpublished to this day.

244

Section 5 - Replies to Critics

SECTION 5.3. A CRITIQUE OF HAYWARD’S “CREATION AND EVOLUTION” Alan Hayward has written several books on creation, but is extremely critical of the “young earth” viewpoint. This is the main subject of his book Creation and Evolution: The Facts and the Fallacies (Hay) in which he presents his viewpoint in a very authoritative and convincing style.

His important omission He contends that those who claim the earth is young “have given the whole class a bad name. So it seemed best to disregard all arguments emanating from creationist sources” (p8). He therefore limits himself to simply repeating the evidence from uniformitarian evolutionists.

As we shall see, this means that he totally ignores any supporting evidence provided by creationists as replies or rebuttals, and he therefore presents an extremely biased case. How many of his readers failed to realise the significance of this brief sentence early in his book?

We should be clear that the time scale of Genesis is very important, for either the creation took place over 6 days, as the plain understanding demands, or it did not; it is the reliability of the Bible which is at stake. He provides the usual “re-interpretations” of “days”, etc. and many of his contentions have been answered elsewhere in this work.

His authoritative style and appearance of scientific integrity has caused more than one creationists to begin to wonder whether he has been misled by creationist propaganda and to question his position on the age of the earth. In view of this we will briefly examine just a few of the subjects he presents to see how he handles the evidence for the consumption of his less discerning or knowledgeable readers.

1. The speed of light He is scathing in his dismissal of Setterfield’s CDK evidence, saying: The full Setterfield paper is dressed with a great deal of theoretical analysis. Lest any reader should be overly impressed by this analysis, perhaps I should mention that I asked two professors of modern physics to look at it. One said it was unsound, selfcontradictory, and based on an antiquated and incorrect concept of the atom. The other used even stronger language (p140).

He references the first professor as Prof. John Billelo of State University of New York.

In November 1984 I debated the age of the earth with Alan Hayward at Westminster Chapel. In the exchanged of letters on the subjects we would be raising, he sent me a copy of the letter from Billelo who said (amongst other things) that the Bohr model of the atom was 50 years out of date, that Setterfield’s theory “leads to inconsistencies relating to the permittivity and permeability in Maxwell’s equations” and called Setterfield’s ideas “sillinesses”.

These criticisms were forwarded to Setterfield and in his full reply to all the points Billelo raised, he noted that: (a) All theories of the atom have the Bohr model as their first approximation.

The Bohr model has been used for the sake of simplicity for the reader. (i.e. the simple model he used was adequate to demonstrate his point.) (b) “This ‘inconsistency’ is in John’s own grasp of the situation and reflects his hasty summation of the subject;...However, he has failed to notice that

Section 5 - Replies to Critics

245

in the formulation there is the permeability term mu which is proportional to 1/c^2. Accordingly, from the formula that he has given we find that ..(here followed some atomic formulae) .. and the whole thing balances perfectly.”

From this it is clear that Setterfield’s grasp of atomic formulae is better than Professor Billelo’s whom Hayward consulted.

Now the whole of Setterfield’s reply was sent to Hayward before the debate, and with such a rebuttal, I assumed that these particular criticisms would not be used by Hayward as part of his case. One can imagine my surprise when he read out the same extract from Billelo’s letter during the debate. I hastily found Setterfield’s reply and read out the relevant extracts rebutting his criticisms. We continue this point later.

2. Coral reefs He fully accepts the case presented by Wonderly (Wond) that great depths of coral reefs have been found in the Eniwetok atoll, and dividing this by the very slow rate of their growth, they must have been in existence for “hundreds of thousands of years” (p85). During this same debate I read from Wonderly’s book that, on his own admission, “practically all of it is limestone, with many fossils - especially corals, foraminifera and algae - embedded in it” (Wond:35). Dividing the depth of a limestone mass by the rate of growth of some coral embedded within it is totally unscientific. One would have thought that both Hayward and Wonderly would have realised this.

3. Coral and shellfish growth rings The spin of the earth is slowing down making the days longer. This means the year had more days in the past. Some coral and shellfish exhibit daily growth rings, and fossils of these were obtained from the Devonian period.

They are said to show a pattern of 400 days in each yearly cycle (Scr, Mazz) which agrees with the calculations of astronomers.

Examination of these papers does not inspire much confidence in their conclusions for the patterns are very confused. One could make anything one wished from them and the difference they were looking for is only 9%.

Hayward, in fact, notes that these bands are “picked out” by researchers “with experience”. But why should it take “experience”? Surely the spacings of the bands should be independent of the researcher and accurate measurements of the spacings of the rings subjected to statistical analysis so that there was no personal element involved. One cannot help wondering if the “experience” necessary was that of finding the “right” answer!

Furthermore, a later paper (KahnP1978) using similar banding in fossil Nautilus, dismisses the use of corals. However, even in this paper, four results that were widely different to the others were ignored and the line was drawn through those results that gave the required trend. They were puzzled why their results did not fully agree with calculations of the slowing of the earth by the lunar tides - as discussed in Section 4 - The Age of the Earth.

4. Relativity We examine relativity later, but here note that Hayward accepts this theory as correct. Some creationists, dealing with the question of how light from distant galaxies could reach us within a few thousand years, quote a paper that referred to “Riemannian space” as a possible way in which light could take a “short cut” to reach us in a short time. Hayward dismisses this theory as “a curious mathematical abstraction”. He appears to be unaware that it is one of

246

Section 5 - Replies to Critics

the mathematical theories on which Einstein based his General Theory of Relativity.

5. Ocean chemicals We have shown in Section 4 - The Age of the Earth - that the amounts of many chemical elements in the oceans, when divided by the small quantity flowing into them, indicate a much shorter age for the earth than that stated by geologists. Hayward dismisses this evidence by noting that they are “residence times” of the elements in the oceans and are not indicative of age. If you have a 60 gallon storage tank with water running in and out regularly at a rate of 30 gallons a day, then the “residence time” is 60/30 = 2 days.

Hayward refers to a standard text book on the subject (Ril), but examination of this work gives him little real support. The quantity in the oceans is divided by the entry rate for many elements, and the result is labelled “Residence time”. These range from 260 million years (Sodium) to 100 years (Aluminium), and in general, the lower the concentration the shorter the “residence time” which is the opposite to what might be expected. The work was pioneered by Barth who “assumed a steady state system” whilst the “Residence times” in Table VI (p173) were said to be corroborated by “sedimentation” calculations, but the text mentions that these values were obtained by “presumed” rates of sedimentation. Hayward’s case therefore relies on unproven and speculative assumptions.

The subject is dealt with over 34 pages, with discussions about high concentrations in shells, ferromanganese nodules, etc. We would acknowledge the difficulties of obtaining data and there is much admission of values being “rough estimates”, “uncertainties”, etc. However, the significant question is “Do these means of removal equal the amounts entering so that stable conditions lasting millions of years can be established?” This basic question is never addressed.

Bearing in mind the enormous quantity of sea water above every square metre of sea floor, if there had been ongoing removal for vast periods of time we would expect to see much richer deposits of elements than the few mentioned.

Having examined the evidence on which Hayward has based his claims, we would conclude that in practice, very few elements have been removed in any significant quantity. This makes the “residence time” equal to the maximum time the system could have existed. As we have explained in dealing with the age of the earth, many elements would have been already present at creation (or the Flood), so if the quantity in the oceans is divided by the input rate, the resulting time span would be longer than the date since creation. In the few cases where the time is shorter, then either the quantity of an element flowing into the oceans is greater than before or there is a mechanism by which the element is being removed from the oceans. Aluminium, for example, is a common element in eroded rock compounds, and the authors say that its low concentration is due either to it settling out rapidly as a solid or its high reactivy in sea water (Ril:174).

No corrections?

Billelo’s criticisms were rebutted twice (by letter and at the debate). It was therefore surprising to find them still being presented in this latest edition of his book. It was written in 1985 but a third impression “with revisions” was published in 1994. In view of his claim of superior scientific integrity over creationists, one might have thought that this opportunity would have been

Section 5 - Replies to Critics

247

used to delete Billelo’s criticisms and to correct Wonderly’s unacceptable dating method, but this was not done. As we have pointed out, Hayward specifically decided to ignore the evidence provided by creationists.

Much more could be criticised in this book that has caused some creationists to express doubts about the young age of the earth, but let us review the whole of this section and deal with some fundamental factors in all such debates with “long-agers” and anti-creationists.

AN EXAMINATION OF PRINCIPLES Those that have been affected by any book critical of the creationist case have generally forgotten a basic principle of seeking the truth in any subject.

This is that they should never, ever be persuaded by a convincing-sounding argument until they have heard the opposite case presented by a competent authority in the subject. They have failed to heed Proverbs 18:17 - “He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him” (See Bow91:153).

When this is adhered to, it will be found that in virtually every case the young-earth creationists have by far the better evidence. Whether the enquirer is prepared to be persuaded by it is a quite different matter.

“Professional credibility” One aspect that greatly concerned Hayward was that “recent creationists have lost their credibility and antagonised the whole scientific world” (p157) and that “their unsound arguments for a young universe has stirred up a hornet’s nest, and turned many scientists into bitter opponents of evangelical Christianity” (p205). This does raise the very important issue of whether creationists should strive for “credibility” in the eyes of the secular scientific community.

The answer of this author (which will surprise some readers and annoy others) is “no”. In defence of such a striking conclusion we would make the following points.

There has been more than one creationist organisation whose principle aim was to present their evidence in a scholarly manner in the hope of convincing secular scientists of the rationality of their case. All such aims are doomed to failure. People at all levels of society, are well aware that if the creationist is correct, then an all-powerful creator exists, and they will one day have to answer to Him. This major “conceptual change” has first to be adopted, before any creationist evidence can be accepted as correct. Those who attempt to change a person at such a deep level of his “view of life” by purely rational arguments are displaying their lack of understanding of the way in which human nature works.

On this subject of the irrationality of mankind, there was an amusing letter in the Daily Telegraph pointing out that politicians were well aware that “man is not primarily a ‘thinking animal’ but a feeling, anxious, worrying, passionate and panicky being”. The writer advised; “A politician who thinks he is in a rational business ought to consider a new career in accountancy” This applies just as much to the fundamentally irrational way in which people treat the scientific evidence about creation. They will, indeed must, reject it to avoid a most painful reassessment of the whole basis of their life.

Those creation organisations that have maintained an uncompromising stance on a young earth and creation in six days have gradually grown in strength. Those that have embraced “long ages” or tried to appeal to the secular scientific community have had many problems.

248

Section 5 - Replies to Critics

Of course, critics will no doubt gleefully distort this dismissal of the opinions of the scientific community as “deliberately rejecting the findings of science” or some such, but this is not correct. The present scientific world is geared to distort or discredit any evidence that supports creation.

Repetitive questions A creationist often finds that he has to answer the same few questions that frequently arise - Cain’s wife; dinosaurs on the Ark, etc. This is understandable as we need to clear the ground for more positive enquiries.

What is less satisfactory is that for every question that creationists answer competently, three more will be posed by a sceptic. In this country at least, there are many more evolutionists than there are creationists. As nothing will convince those whose minds are made up, ultimately one concentrates on those who are willing to examine the evidence fairly, and these are invariably Christians or “earnest enquirers”.

Far from being “unscientific”, it will be found that the creationist case will ultimately be shown to be the only True Science, for it will be in complete accord with the One who created the scientific laws to begin with and this universe; hence the title of this book.

The search for truth In all discussions, there are many who hold firm opinions on certain topics which is good and acceptable. When faced with criticisms, ad hoc explanations will be presented by defenders - which is also perfectly reasonable. However, as the contrary evidence gradually mounts up against a particular viewpoint, the explanations become less and less acceptable until the point is reached where the position becomes indefensible. Those who continue to hold to their original views usually go silent - but rarely will they admit that they have been wrong and accept the conclusions of their opponents. To do so would result in “losing face” in the presence of one’s peers or critics, and this is a fearful prospect for us all. It is surely reasonable to conclude that those who maintain this position are not really interested in searching for truth for they have elevated their prestige above it.

We would suggest this would apply to the majority of evolutionists who try to defend their position. Regrettably, the creationist movement is not free from such attitudes. To publicly change one’s viewpoint on any important topic in creation is almost as rare as it is for evolutionists. There are also an increasing number of articles, often ill-founded, that are critical of some long-standing creationist evidence. More seriously, there is always the shadow of ambition and a desire for prestige hovering in the background - as with all large movements. The pride of the human heart doth surely go very deep.

Summary We have spent a very great deal of time and space on answering our critics, and it might be thought that some of the issues raised are little more than a technical “storm in a teacup” and hardly warrant such a lengthy examination.

The reason for studying them so thoroughly goes a little deeper, however. We have tried to show that when all the evidence of the opposition is carefully examined, it will consistently be found to be baseless. It is for this reason that we have taken the trouble to pursue a few of them to the end of the line in order to demonstrate this.

Many more books could be criticised and more space has been devoted to this subject than some may think it warrants. One common factor amongst

Section 5 - Replies to Critics

249

most critics of creationism is their condemnation of “young earth” creationists whilst claiming the “high moral ground” of “true scientific principles”. Such works are riddled with evasions, have an air of superiority and use some of the 28 misleading stratagems or “tricks of the advocates trade” that I have listed in another work (Bow91:213f). These criticisms would equally apply to similar works by Christians who defend evolution such as Wonderley in his God’s Time Records in Ancient Sediments (Wond. - see Bow91:8f) and Forster and Marsden in their Reason and Faith (For89A).