TABLE OF CONTENTS

Let's meet Mr. Gish.............................................................

.............................4
GISH'S POINT OF VIEW
morality ........................................................
.........................................9 definition of science...
.......................................................................17
Creationism in the schools......................................................
.........28
Creationists assume that Evolutionists think like Creationists......39
Why don't Creationists publish in journals?.............................
.......44
GISH'S POINTS OF DISAGREEMENT
Where have all the transitional fossils gone?...........................
......49
chance..................................................................
.................................67
mutations...............................................................
...............................71
objections to Evolutionist dating techniques............................
........ 77
time clocks.............................................................
.............................. 83
THE WORLD FLOOD
Baraminology 101........................................................
........................ 90
There's going to be a floody, floody!...................................
............93
Introductory Flood Geology..............................................
...............104
Applied Flood Geology...................................................
..................107
GISH'S FORMS OF ARGUMENT
miscellaneous...........................................................
..........................112
irrelevant purpose: origin of the Universe..............................
.......127
irrelevant purpose: origin of life ................................
....................132
outdated sources........................................................
.......................153
straw man...............................................................
...........................156
shifting the burden of proof............................................
...............160
out-of-context quotes...................................................
..................167
God of the gaps.........................................................
.......................175
guilt by association....................................................
.......................178
Evolutionist fallacies..........................................................
............................185
GISH'S DEEPEST PLOTS
To err is human.........................................................
.......................197
the McGowan-gate scandal................................................
..............201
A Tale of Two Archeological Digs........................................
.........203
The Corner-gate scandal.................................................
................207
the Popper-gate scandal ................................................
..................213
A Tale of Two Proteins ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,218
the Prigogine-gate scandal..............................................
................221
A Tale of Two Chemicals.................................................
..............227
THE TREE OF LIFE
the Cambrian explosion..................................................
..................233
invertebrates...........................................................
...........................248
from fish to amphibian..................................................
....................250
Saint George and the Dinosaur...........................................
............254
from reptile to bird....................................................
.......................259
from reptile to mammal..................................................
..................276
Let there be Triceratopses..............................................
................282
from ungulate to whale..................................................
...................285
other mammals...........................................................
.......................290
from ape to human.......................................................
.....................297
the Lucy-gate scandal...................................................
...................303
the Black-gate scandal..................................................
...................310
the O'Connell-gate scandal..............................................
................313
OTHER FRAMES OF REFERENCE
embryology..............................................................
...........................318
physical imperfections..................................................
.....................324
biogeography............................................................
..........................330
the nature of children..................................................
.....................333
the nature of adults....................................................
......................338
biochemistry............................................................
...........................344
age of the earth and age of the universe................................
.....350
Well?...........................................................................
.....................................360
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................
..............................367
Let's meet Mr. Gish.
Duane Tolbert Gish was born on February 17, 1921 in White City, Kansas, the youn
gest of nine children.
His education was interrupted for service in World War II. After returning from
service, he received a Bachelors degree from UCLA in 1949, In 1953, he receive
d a Ph. D. in biochemistry from UC Berkeley. He served as Postdoctoral Fellow
and Assistant Professor at Cornell University Medical College from 1953 to 1956.
In 1956, he returned to Berkeley, where he worked as Research Associate at the V
irus Laboratory until 1960. That year, he was employed as Senior Research Assoc
iate at Upjohn Pharmaceutical Company in Kalamazoo, Michigan until 1971.
During that time, Gish joined the faculty at the newly established Christian Her
itage College. He became Associate Director and Vice President of the research
department. In 1972, the research department changed its name to the Institute
for Creation Research. In 1981, it became independent.
Throughout his career, Gish has written 40 articles and several books. He has a
ppeared in 300 debates in 40 countries. This has brought him the title of "Crea
tionism's T. H. Huxley." Because of his immense work output, his fellow Creatio
nists have nicknamed him "the Energizer bunny."
Gish has had a wide influence on his listeners. Mark Looy, an officer in Answer
s in Genesis, has this to say:
When I first heard Dr. Gish speak in 1971 or 1972, it dramatically changed my li
fe. Even though I was attending a Christian school, I was a ‘baby’ Christian and
having severe doubts about the Bible’s reliability. That was because of the evo
lutionary bombardment I was receiving through the media, museums and my former p
ublic school.
But a 50-minute talk by Dr. Gish in the Los Angeles area completely changed my v
iew of the accuracy and authority of Scripture. I am thus so grateful to this br
illiant scientist and godly, Bible-believing man. And because of Dr. Gish’s infl
uence, I have been involved in the creation ministry for almost 30 years now.
In 2005, Gish retired as Senior Vice President of the Institute for Creation Res
earch. His arguments for Creationism, however, are still widely disseminated.
It is important for students of Evolution and Creationism to become familiar wit
h these arguments and their responses from Evolutionists. Although these argume
nts and responses have been sprinkled throughout the literature and throughout t
he Internet, they have never been collected in the same place. Hence the need f
or this book.
But is it really possible to present a sound and factual case for a doctrine whi
ch contradicts mainstream science? Evolutionists tend to say no. According to
most of these opponents, Gish, and his co-believers have assembled a collection
of sleight-of-hand tricks with which to deceive his readers and listeners.
There have been a few attempts to form a concise taxonomy of these alleged trick
s. Since Creationists are interested mainly in the paleontological evidence, C
racraft (1983) provides us with a list of strategies allegedly which Creationist
s use when discussing this subject:
(1) they quote liberally from various paleontologists as to the paucity of trans
itional forms
(2) they define the concept of "transitional form" in a way that is distinctly d
ifferent from the evolutionists use of the term
(3) they simply deny the existence of intermediate taxa, whilst ignoring the vas
t scientific literature opposing their position
We ask the reader to take a moment to study these three items, because they will
reappear throughout this book. Since Gish has been accused of all three, these
arguments will hereinafter be referred to, respectively, as Cracraft I, II, and
III.
Kitcher (1982: 116) provides us with a list of defenses used specifically by Gis
h:
(1) Overlook the fact that there are independent reasons for believing b
oth that the fossil record is incomplete and that it is biased.
(2) Construct demands about what characteristics are to be gradually mod
ified and then complain that the fossil record is incomplete in these respects
.
(3) Advance implausible speculations about what transitional forms would
have been like, and then point out that they do not occur.
(4) Ignore explanations given by evolutionary theorists about how the tr
ansition occurred.
(5) Assert that intermediate forms belong either to the earlier taxonomi
c class or to the later taxonomic class, so that they cannot be truly tran
sitional.
(6) Find scientists who disagree about details, and quote them judicious
ly so as to portray them as questioning a fundamental point.
These arguments will hereinafter be referred to as Kitcher I through VI,
You may notice some duplication in the above classification systems. Cracraft I
I and Kitcher III are identical, for example. You may also see that some of the
strategies already have traditional names. Kitcher VI, for example, can be call
ed the divide-and-conquer strategy.
Add Gish s law (Dietz 1983), which states that "As the fossil record becomes eve
r more complete, the number of gaps increases." In other words, instead of conc
eding that a newly discovered fossil fills a gap, the Creationist declares a gap
on either side of that fossil.
For instance, Zindler (1990) speaks of a gradual increase in brain size througho
ut the prehistory of the human species. First, there was the Australopithecus,
with brain size one third that of ours. Next was the Homo erectus, with brain s
ize less than two thirds that of ours. Finally, we have the Homo sapiens. Gish
(1997) responds by announcing a gap between these species.
Some Evolutionist writers see their work as a treadmill. Blackburn (1995) comme
nts, "The more successful a search for transitional forms is, the more self-perp
etuating that activity is likely to be." Myers (2006) comments, "It s a Sisyphea
n job, working as an evolutionist."
Eugenie Scott (1994, 2004), chief executive of the National Center for Science E
ducation, has coined the term Gish gallop to refer to the tactics of a Creationi
st at a public debate. Scott sees the Creationist firing a steady stream of lie
s, distortions, and half-truths for 45 minutes while the Evolutionist is forced
to listen quietly. Scott sees the debate format as favoring the Evolutionist, a
nd therefore discourages her fellow Evolutionists from appearing in such debates
.
However, I did not have to contend with this disadvantage in this project. So a
ny faults in this manuscript are my own.
Before proceeding any further, let me give you a brief outline of this manuscrip
t. First, we shall discuss Gish s point of view. Would chaos result if we too
k away religion? Gish says yes, other people say no.
Next, we shall discuss how Gish defines the word science. We shall try to under
stand his definition and see how it compares with those of his opponents.
Should Creationism and Evolution be given equal time in science class? Or shoul
d science class teach only what a majority of scientists agree on? That shall b
e our next topic.
Gish fights for the rights of other Creationist scientists in the minority, and
even suggests that they might be a silent majority. According to Gish, manuscri
pts written by Creationist authors are unjustly rejected by scientific journal e
ditors. Is this true? If so, why? Have Creationists really submitted manuscri
pts? And if so, have they been accepted? If they have not been accepted, is th
ere good reason for it or are the editors prejudiced against Creationists?
For the next topic, we shall look at Gish s points of disagreement with Evolutio
n. Gish s greatest contention is that there are no transitional fossils in the
fossil record. We shall examine that claim first. Next, we shall examine Gish
s use of the words "random" and "chance." Do Evolutionists really use these wor
ds? Or do Creationists merely pretend that they do?
Evolutionists say that Evolution can take place through mutations, but Gish seem
s to disagree. Here, we shall look at both sides.
Evolutionists base their claims on rock and fossil dating. Here again, Gish dis
agrees, and we shall look at both sides. If mainstream rock and fossil dating d
oes not give us a true estimate of the age of the earth, then how old is the ear
th and how can the age of the earth be measured?
For that matter, where did the fossils come from? Gish and his colleagues inter
pret the fossils in terms of the World Flood. We shall deal with this interpret
ation.
Next, we shall discuss Gish s forms of arguments. Are they valid arguments? If
not, what fallacies does he use? And how do his arguments fit the models provi
ded by Cracraft and Kitcher?
This does not imply that Gish s Evolutionist opponents will be treated with favo
ritism. They have committed fallacies too. We shall devote an entire chapter t
o this subject.
The Tree of Life has millions of species and thousands of branches. We will onl
y discuss those branches which Gish discussed the most frequently. Not surprisi
ngly, this will include the branch on which our own species appears.
Most of Gish s discussion has been about the fossil record. But there are there
other frames of reference by which the truth or falsity of Evolution has been s
tudied. We will discuss these frames of reference also.
Finally, we shall make an assessment on Gish s contribution. Is he honest or di
shonest? Is he right or wrong?
If Gish wants to answer back with Thomas Robertson s Greatest Hits, he is welcom
e.

morality
To the left, you see a drawing which is often reproduced in Creationist literatu
re. The implication, obviously, is that Evolutionary theory created all the oth
er evils in the world. Of course there was evil long before the teaching of Evo
lution, but who cares about about being rational.
I don t know if Gish thinks Evolution is the root of all evil, but he does think
that it is corrupting our youth. He wrote, "The teaching of evolution to young
people convinces many of them that . . . they are only responsible to themselve
s." (Gish 1989a) On another occasion (Wood 1996), he commented that Evolutiona
ry teaching was the cause of "this tremendous drug culture, legalized pornograph
y, legalized abortion, crime and violence on an unprecedented scale, an AIDS pla
gue, and all this."
For some people, the Creation/Evolution question may nothing more than an entert
aining riddle, but not for Gish. Gish gave up a well-paying job in a pharmaceut
ical company and devoted the rest of his life to this cause (Indoctrinhate 2009m
). One is not likely to make such a sacrifice for a mere parlor game. Since Gi
sh is so concerned about the moral consequences of teaching Evolution, we shall
now devote a chapter to the subject.
How does Evolutionary teaching spawn these various and sundry ills? As far as I
know, Gish does not discuss this. Other Creationists do, however. The best I
can do is to collect opinions from other Creationists. I do this with the full
realization that Dr. Gish is an individual, and I apologize if any of these opin
ions do not match with his own.
▶ Evolutionary teaching implies amorality.
Gish s associate Henry Morris (1974a) wrote:
The results of two generations of this evolutionary indoctrination have been dev
astating. Secularized schools have begotten a secularized society. The child is
the father of the man and if the child is led to believe he is merely an evolved
beast, the man he becomes will behave as a beast, either aggressively strugglin
g for supremacy himself, or blindly following aggressive leaders.
Hall & Hall (1974) wrote similar words:
Told in science class that they are just animals, students proceed to act as if
this were so in other classes, at home, and in their social lives. Seeing no pur
pose to life, they become selfish and churlish. It is a pitiful thing to see so
many youths so rudderless, so loveless -- so blameless, basically. The situation
is desperate in many urban schools. The time to expose evolution as a myth, and
 thereby begin to restore dignity and purpose to the learning process is now.
Because of this amorality, Evolutionary teaching has allegedly contributed to th
e crime rate. "As God has been removed from the classroom, so all kinds of evil
has multiplied on our streets." (Living Word Bible Church [1995] 2009)
▶ Evolutionary teaching implies that might makes right.
Some Creationists link Evolution with Social Darwinism (Morris 1985: 179), or th
e belief that the strong should overpower the weak.
▶ Evolutionary teaching implies racism.
Related to this is the alleged link between Evolution and racism. Morris (1974b
) sees Evolutionary theory as fueling not only White racism, but also racism on
the part of Blacks, Asians, and Native Americans. Other writers (Lienhard [1988
] 2004; Yahya 2003) have denounced Darwin as a racist.
▶ Evolutionary teaching implies human breeding programs.
Other Creationists link Evolution with eugenics (DeWitt 2002), or "the study of
or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or
a human population." The term can be subdivided into positive eugenics, which m
eans "encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable
traits," and negative eugenics, which means "discouraging reproduction by perso
ns having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits."
▶ Evolutionary teaching implies abortion.
Like Gish, other Creationists link the teaching of Evolution with abortion. Acc
ording to Creationists, Evolutionists argue that a fetus recapitulates its evolu
tionary past, and is therefore not truly human. Jackson (2005) and Humber (2009
) cite Sagan & Druyan (1990) as proponents of such a stand. Another source (For
erunner 2007) cites Burke (1974).
▶ Evolutionary teaching aggravates environmental problems.
Finally, Morris (1974b) blames Evolutionary teaching for our current environment
al problems.
Now for the Evolutionist rebuttal:
■ The connection between teaching Evolution and the crime rate is unfounded.
Regarding the alleged link between Evolutionary teaching and crime, Isaak ([2005
] 2007: 2) argues that:
● crime rates had been dropping since 1989.
● countries in which teaching of Evolution is more prevalent have lower
crime rates.
● belief in Creationism is more widespread in the Southern states, which
have a higher crime rate.
● most people in the United States still do not believe in Evolution.
● the argument is a post hoc fallacy
● Ecclesiastes 7:10 teaches, "Do not ask why the old days were better than the p
resent; for that is a foolish question."
Admittedly, one could reject that last argument as a tu quoque, or "look who s t
alking" argument. This argument is considered a fallacy because a true or false
statement is true or false regardless of its source. If a person 40 pounds ove
rweight says that a person 20 pounds overweight is overweight, that statement is
still as true as if it were made by someone else. We will later discuss this f
allacy as it is used by proponents on both sides.
■ Evolution does not imply abortion.
Abortion is not widely discussed among Evolutionists. The most thoroughly resea
rched pro-Evolution books (Isaak [2005] 2007; Strahler [1987] 1999) make no ment
ion of the subject, either pro or con.
One Evolutionary source (Future of Conservatism 2009) alleges that infanticide i
nhibits the survival of genes, is therefore contrary to the evolutionary interes
ts. Therefore, goes the argument, our species carries an instinct against infan
ticide.
Like infanticide, abortion inhibits the survival of genes. Our species does not
carry an instinct against abortion because "our ancestors were not capable of i
nducing abortions." The author rejects either practice as an "evil act."
■ Evolution does not imply Social Darwinism.
The founder of Social Darwinism was not Darwin but Herbert Spencer. In fact, th
e philosophy never received Darwin s endorsement (Tort 2000: 77-78. 130-132).
Furthermore, the philosophy never acquired its current name during Darwin s life
time. The term first appeared in the title of Social Darwinism in American Thou
ght by Richard Hofstadter, which was published in 1944 (Price, R. G. 2006).
Isaak [2005] 2007: 3) cites Social Darwinism as an example of the naturalistic f
allacy, or the belief that natural drives are necessarily good.
Isaak also notes that Social Darwinism, if put into practice, would reduce genet
ic variability. An unexpected catastrophe could happen to a species at any time
, and it could hurt a homogeneous species worse than it could hurt a heterogeneo
us species. Variability, then, is of evolutionary importance.
■ Racism predates Evolutionary teaching.
R. G. Price (2006) reminds us that racism existed long before Darwin s time. Th
e Egyptians felt superior to the Nubians. Price discusses the battles wrought b
y "God s chosen people" in the Old Testament. For example, Deuteronomy 7:1 exho
rts the Israelites to drive out "the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites
, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites."
Price also discusses the role played by racism in the conquest of the American s
upercontinent by the Europeans. The Spanish explorers considered themselves aut
horized by Pope to mass kill any South American natives who resisted their rule.
In 1634 John Winthrop, governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote, "For t
he natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared
our title to what we possess."
Evolutionists have used the tu quoque, or "look-who s-talking" argument, on this
question. R. G. Price (2006) claims that the Ku Klux Klan opposed the teaching
of Evolution. Isaak ([2005] 2007: 4-5; 2007) cites Creationist writer George M
cCready Price as a racist. He also quotes Creationist scientist Louis Agassiz a
s saying that the Black people were a separate species. Isaak also mentions the
role of Christian fundamental education in apartheid South Africa. Finally, Is
aak quotes from Morris (1985: 241):
Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual s
laves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mun
dane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intell
ectual and philosophical acume of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the
Semites.
R. G. Price (2006) and Isaak [2005] 2007: 5; 2005b) both mention Darwin s opposi
tion to slavery. They both (Price, R. G. 2006; Isaak [2005] 2007: 5; 2004a) ref
ute the argument that Darwin declared White supremacy in the subtitle to Origin
of Species, which reads The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for L
ife. According to Isaak, the term refers to "varieties." According to Price, i
t refers to "plants and animals." Both authors state that Darwin discusses the
human species very little in that book.
■ Evolution does not imply eugenics.
The founder of genetics was Francis Galton, another contemporary of Darwin. Lik
e Spencer, Galton acknowledged Darwin as an influence. However, like Social Dar
winism, eugenics never got Darwin s support (Tort 2000: 78-79).
Wilkins (2000) supplies us with a bibliography of Evolutionists who have opposed
eugenics.
■ Even if Evolutionists have been wrong, that doesn t mean Evolution is wrong.
What do the views of Creationists and Evolutionists have to do with Creationism
and Evolutionism anyway? As Isaak ([2005] 2007: 5; 2005b) says, "Evolution is b
ased on evidence, not on people s opinions."
■ The ethical teachings of the Creationists own guide are not beyond reproach.
Isaak (2004b. [2005] 2007: 205-206) cites passages in the Bible which condone mu
rder (Numbers 31:17-18, Exodus 32:27, II Kings 2:23-24, I Chronicles 13:7-11).
However, this can be seen as another tu quoque argument.
■ The moral behavior of some Creationists is not beyond reproach.
Isaak (2004c. [2005] 2007: 205-206) accosts Creationists for making out-of-conte
xt quotes, for claiming bogus credentials, for making fraudulent claims, for vil
ifying opponents, and for continuing to make claims after they had been refuted.
Here again, we have a tu quoque argument.
■ Teaching Evolution might help resolve our problems of pollution and overpopula
tion.
Other Evolutionists do not seem to address this issue, so I shall address it mys
elf.
Evolution has only endowed us with concern for those who were visible in our imm
ediate environment. Abortions were impossible for millions of years, so there w
as no need for genes for caring about unborn children. No one endangered the en
vironment, so there was no need for genes for caring about future generations.
No one traded with anyone on the other side of the world, so there was no need f
or genes for caring about anyone on the other side of the world.
Today, however, there is a need for genes for worldwide concern. We live in the
same neighborhood with people of people of different skin colors, we depend on
other countries for natural resources, and we need each other for emergency reli
ef.
However, we don t know any way to manufacture genes for worldwide concern. The
best we can do is to educate ourselves and each other about the chasm between Ev
olution and civilization and the problems created by this chasm. This will help
us understand these problems and hopefully find solutions.
Now to analyze the question from another point of view: If morality and Evolutio
n are really mutually exclusive, as the Creationists would have us believe, then
our animalian cousins must be immoral.
Are they? Let us listen to what animal scientists have to say:
■ Animals of other species are benevolent.
Peter Kropotkin was the first major proponent of altruism on Evolutionary ground
s. In his book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, published in 1902, he cited
numerous observations of animal benevolence. de Waal (2009) also recounts such
observations. Bekoff & Pierce (2009) provide such evidence from the animal labo
ratory.
■ Animals of other species show grief.
Bekoff (2008) reports a case of a mother gorilla grieving for its infant. Irvin
e (2009) reports a case of chimpanzees grieving over the death of an adult membe
r of their group.
■ Animals of other species are kind to species other than their own.
Dolphins have been observed helping humans escape from sharks (Bekoff & Pierce 2
009). Elephants have been observed helping antelopes escape from captivity (Bek
off & Pierce 2009).
■ There are other monogamous species.
Our species is susceptible to venereal disease. Moreover, we have the longest c
hildhood of any species on earth. Naturally, monogamy is in the Evolutionary in
terests of our species.
According to anthropologist Dennis O Neil ([2000] 2009), monogamous simian speci
es include "gibbons, siamangs, titi monkeys, indris, tarsiers, and apparently so
me pottos."
■ Animals of other species sacrifice themselves.
Hamilton (1963) observed that a ground squirrel delivers an alarm upon seeing a
predator. The alarm may save the ground squirrel s family, but it can spell sui
cide for the ground squirrel itself.
This may seem odd even to some Evolutionist readers. How could Evolution allow
this if it prevents the individual ground squirrel from reproducing? Hamilton
inferred that genes do not seek survival for their carriers, but rather for the
genes themselves. The ground squirrel is protecting relatives who carry genes s
imilar to his or her own. An animal would be more likely to sacrifice itself fo
r siblings than for cousins, and cousins more than for animals less related. Thi
s inference has come to be known as Hamilton s rule.
Are we so selfish and greedy that we need promises of Heaven and threats of Hell
to keep us in line? Frans de Waal (1997, 2006, 2009) doesn t think so. He dis
misses such an allegation as the veneer theory. His writings are replete with e
asy-to-read anecdotes about morality being displayed by animals of other species
,
including our simian cousins. According to de Waal, if other animals can mainta
in an orderly society without supernatural motivators, so can we. For anyone in
terested in moral behavior among animals, de Waal s books are highly recommended
.
As you may recall from earlier in this chapter, Henry Morris predicts that Evolu
tionary teaching will cause the youth of our society to behave like beasts. If
what animal observers and experimenters tell us about beasts is true, then let u
s hope so.
Definition of Science
A good persuasive tactic is to begin with something familiar to both you and the
listener.
Gish realizes this. That s why he starts one of his favorite arguments: that no
body is old enough to remember Creation. This is how he began the Zindler (1990
) debate:
There obviously were no human witnesses to the origin of life or the
origin of any living organisms. These events happened only once. . .
the Parrish (1991) debate:
There were no human witnesses to the origin of life. There were no huma
n witnesses to the origin of a single living organism. Those events happened
only once and they happened in the unobservable past. We can not repeat them
in the laboratory today.
and the Pigliucci (2000: 161) debate:
There were no human witnesses of the origin of the Universe. There were
no human witnesses to the origin of life. There were no human witnesses
of the origin of a single living thing.
After establishing this common point, Gish might work one or several semantic tr
icks:
▶ He might contend that neither Evolution nor Creationism is a scientific theory
.
In the debate with Saladin (1988d), Gish stated that "Neither creation nor evolu
tion is a scientific theory, that you cannot have scientific theories about uniq
ue events that happened in the unobservable past."
He made similar comments in the Zindler (1990) debate and in his response to Art
hur (Gish 1997).
▶ He might contend that both Evolution and Creationism are historical sciences.
In the debate with Trott, Gish (1994) says, "Neither creationism nor evolution i
s a testable scientific theory. They are theories about history. They are histo
rical sciences."
▶ He might dismiss any evidence for Evolution as "circumstantial evidence."
McKee (2001) stated that "The fossil witnesses are our tests," whereupon Gish co
untered that "The fossil record is circumstantial evidence." (cf. Zindler 1990;
Gish 1995b: 2, 1997)
▶ He might claim that evolution is not taking place today.
Here are excerpts from the Zindler (1990) debate;
I ve never seen God create anything, and Frank obviously has never seen
a fish evolve into an amphibian or an ape evolve into man.
the Parrish (1991) debate:
We don t see anything being created today and we don t see anything evol
ving today.
one of his books (Gish 1995b: 1):
There were no human observers to the origin of the universe, the origin
of life, or as a matter of fact, to the origin of a single living species.
his response to Arthur (Gish 1997):
There were no human observers to the origin of the universe, to the orig
in of life, or to the origin of a single living thing. These events took pl
ace in the unobservable past and are not repeatable in the present.
and his debate with Pigliucci (2000: 161):
These events happened in the unobservable past. They are not occurring
in the present.
Gish (1973a) has quoted Goldschmidt (1952: 94) as saying, "It is true that nobod
y thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is e
qually true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromut
ations."
▶ He might argue that Evolutionary theory cannot make predictions.
At the McKee (2001) debate, Gish said that:
A scientific theory . . . must be based on repeatable observations, there
must be some way you can test the theory, you can construct an experiment to tes
t the theory, you make predictions and see if the predictions are satisfied by y
our experiment.
▶ He might contend that Evolution is not empirical science.
Gish ([1985] 1991: 14; 1993: 37; 1995: 2; in Zindler 1990; in Trott 1994b) often
quotes an article by Birch & Ehrlich (1967), whom he identifies as "evolutionar
y biologists":
Our theory of evolution has become one which cannot be refuted by any
possible observation, every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It
is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can
think of ways in which to test it.
▶ He might split hairs.
In one debate, Gish claimed to be misquoted when Trott (1994) said, "Gish stated
that neither evolution nor creationism is scientific since, among other things,
neither is falsifiable. Gish proceeded to spend the remainder of his lecture at
tempting to falsify evolution."
Gish responded, "What I actually said was that neither evolution nor creation is
a scientific theory, that no theory on origins can be a scientific theory, sinc
e there were no human witnesses to the origin of the universe, life or even a si
ngle living thing."
Zindler, in the 1990 debate, understood that "Dr. Gish conceded at the beginning
of the debate that creationism was not science."
Gish said, "I did not say that, Frank. I said it s not a scientific theory . . .
I said both creation and evolution have scientific characteristics."
The moderator asked, "What s the difference? If it s not science and it s not a
scientific theory, what are we talking about here?"
Gish responded, "We re talking about inferences. We re talking about scientific
models of origins, and that s the best we can say for either creation or evoluti
on."
▶ He might accuse Evolutionists of changing their tune in order to fit the evide
nce.
In the debate with Saladin (1988d), Gish says:
Would you please explain to me how we could falsify the theory of evolut
ion? No way could you do that! Because the theory of evolution has become s
o plastic, it doesn t make any difference what the data is, you can explain it s
omehow, you just change the theory.
▶ He might concede that both viewpoints could be argued in scientific terms.
In the Zindler (1990) debate, Gish said, "Now both of these positions have scien
tific characteristics, of course. We discuss these matters related to the fos
sil record in thermodynamics and probability laws and all of that."
In his response to Trott, Gish (1994) wrote, "Evolution and creation have sci
entific characteristics, and can be discussed in scientific terms. Evolution
and creation are theories about history, inferences based upon circumstantial ev
idence."
Evolutionists respond:
■ Gish is right in saying that Creationism is not scientific.
Gould (1981) quotes Gish ([1972] 1976: 25) as writing, "We do not know how the C
reator created, what process He used, for he used processes which are not now op
erating anywhere in the natural universe."
Gould then responds, "Pray tell, Dr. Gish, . . . what then is scientific creatio
nism?"
Some opponents see "creation science" as an oxymoron. Suggested analogies have
included "round squares" (Zindler 1990) and "jumbo shrimp" (Trott 1994b).
Zindler (1990) defines science as a process whereby one tests a hypothesis and r
etracts if the evidence does not fit that hypothesis. Creationism, in its dogma
tism, cannot be scientific, according to Zindler.
Zindler refers to the ICR creed which reads:
All things in the universe were created by God in the six days of specia
l creation described in Genesis 1:1-23 . . . The creation account is accep
ted as factual, historical, and perspicuous and is thus foundational to the unde
rstanding of every fact and phenomenon in the created universe. Theories of ori
gins and development which involve evolution in any form are thus recogni
zed as false and sterile intellectually.
Zindler comments, "Gish had to promise that he would not change his mind, no mat
ter what evidence should turn up. No real scientist ever does such a thing. Gish
s procedure is a reversal of the scientific method."
Gish replies that his belief came first, not the signing of the creed (Zindler 1
990). "I was convinced totally of the truth of creation before I ever signed an
y statement. That s why I was able to do that."
Gish also replies that the charge leveled by Zindler (1990) is a boomerang in th
at Evolution is often referred to as a "fact."
Maybe Gish has a point there.
This is off the subject, but Gish s 1988 opponent Ian Plimer belongs to the Huma
nist Society of Victoria (Sarfati 2001), which requires the signing of a pledge
which says:
I subscribe to the objects and rules of the Humanist Society of Victoria
in order to create a society in which a person may reach their full potenti
al free from supernatural beliefs.
■ Gish contradicts himself.
According to Trott (1994b), Gish contradicts himself by claiming that Evolution
is both unfalsifiable and falsified, by claiming that Creationism is not a scien
tific theory, but then calling it a science and referring to it as a theory.
Saladin (1988d) sees a contradiction in that Gish states that Evolution cannot b
e falsified, whereas his literature and debates "consist of nothing but efforts
to falsify it."
■ Science studies the past.
Saladin (1988d) took issue with a statement by Gish that “You cannot have scient
ific theories about unique events that happened in the unobservable past.“
According to Pigliucci (2000: 161), such a definition "would baffle both scienti
sts and philosophers of science."
Kenneth Miller (1982a) writes, "He seems to say that not only is science based o
n observation (which is true) but that it requires eyewitnesses to all events (w
hich is false)."
Gish ([1972] 1976: 2; 1973a) quotes Simpson (1964) as saying that "statements th
at cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything . . . or at th
e very least, they are not science." By observation, did Simpson mean eyewitnes
s? Probably not. Does Gish want us to think he meant eyewitness? Gish is indul
ging in some deceptive word play.
Gould (1981) mentions history and geology as branches of science which Gish s de
finition would rule out. Pigliucci (2000: 162) cites geology and cosmology. Sal
adin (1988b) cites "astronomy, anthropology, and other historical sciences." Ken
neth Miller (1982a) cites "astronomy, chemistry, and geology" as examples. Rober
t Russell (Access Research Network 1999) mentions astronomy, cosmology, and gene
tics. According to Russell, "All of science would crumble if you say you can t
study events in the past."
Specific items have been cited as evidence of the past. Saladin (1988b) mention
s volcanic ash as evidence for a volcanic eruption. Zindler (1990) mentions evi
dence for the continental drift.
■ Science studies the invisible.
If the scientific profession honored Gish s demand for eyewitness accounts, Kenn
eth Miller (1982a; cf. Zindler 1990) would bemoan the loss of atomic theory:
No one has ever seen an atom, just its effects. Do atoms therefore not
exist? The wave and particle aspects of electrons have only been determined by t
he images they leave on film when certain experiments are performed.
■ Evolutionary theory makes discoveries and subsequently makes predictions regar
ding those discoveries.
According to Rushton (2000: 39), Darwin watched chimpanzees and gorillas, inferr
ed that they were our closest relatives, and called Africa "the cradle of mankin
d." At that time there was no evidence from genetics or archaeology, but such e
vidence has been found since that time.
Niles Eldredge (quoted in Cole, J. R. 1981) makes another prediction:
If evolution has occurred, there should be a regular change in the appea
rance of life as one goes further back in the fossil record. Progressively earl
ier forms within a group (for example, the horse family) should look more
and more like the early representatives of other closely related groups.
They do. The Eocene "horse" looks far more like an Eocene rhinoceros than it re
sembles a modern race horse.
Kitcher (1982: 80) disparages the popular notion that paleontologists "just set
out hopefully, hammer in hand, to tap whatever rock catches their eye." Rather,
every archeological dig starts with a prediction--or "postdiction" or "retrodict
ion." For example, paleontologists hypothesized that the marsupial animals migr
ated from what is now Antarctica to what is now Australia at a time when the two
were joined by land. They made a dig in Antarctica and found the expected mars
upial fossils.
■ Requiring eyewitness testimony everywhere could lead to disastrous consequence
s.
Kenneth Miller (1982a) and Pigliucci (2000: 162) argue that most crimes, which h
ave no eyewitnesses, could not be discussed in our legal system if Gish had his
way.
To the left, we see the work of an anonymous graphic artist with a similar idea.

■ Gish is wrong in pretending that evolution is not taking place now.

Elsewhere in this book, we present the Hawaiian wallabies mentioned by Saladin (
1988b), as well as the bacteria which feed on nylon, also mentioned by Saladin (
1988b).
Also, Kettlewell (1961) has seen peppered moths change colors for city life and
country life. Feder & Bush (1989) have seen a fruit fly species come into exist
ence.
Bakken (1987) also gives examples of recent speciation, including an AIDS virus
which speciated about 1970 from a virus affecting green monkeys, canine parvovir
us which speciated about 1977 from feline parvovirus, a crop plant genus called
triticale, which spans several species, and the rhagoletis fly, an apple pest wh
ich evolved from species living on hawthorne.
Weinberg (1986) cites numerous examples:
Among eukaryotes also, many examples of speciation have been seen: a
new marsh grass in Western Europe; a new copepod in the Salton Sea; five
new cichlid fish species in Lake Nabugabo in Uganda; five new banana- eating
moth species which have evolved in Hawaii since the Polynesians introduc
ed bananas into the Islands. Herring gulls are clearly in the process of evolvi
ng into two new, separate and distinct species. So is the red deer-wapiti
complex. New species are even created synthetically: triticale, a new, true spec
ies and a productive crop, resulted from a wheat-rye cross.
Boxhorn ([1993] 2004) has compiled a list of cases of latter-day evolution.
■ Evolution can even take place in the laboratory.
Green and black caterpillars have been made to evolve in the laboratory (Britt 2
009). In another laboratory setting, a population of Escherichia coli bacteria
developed the ability to metabolize a nutrient which the species normally cannot
use (Holmes 2008).
■ Gish leaves the word "religious" undefined.
Gish has repeatedly (Miller, K. 1982a; Saladin 1988b; Gish 1997) stated that Evo
lutionism is as religious as Creationism. This causes Saladin (1988b) to wonder
how Gish defines the term. Saladin defines religion as involving "a belief in
the supernatural, a system of worship, and a body of dogma," whereas others "de
fine religion so loosely as to include Confucianism, Marxism, and football."
It seems that Gish defines the term loosely. In the Zindler (1990) debate, he s
aid, "If I m goin to go in a debate on, and, and, discuss what we call creation
science, I m not gonna mention the Bible. I m not gonna mention the book of Gen
esis. I m not gonna mention the Humanist Manifesto, or any other religious liter
ature."
■ Gish was quoting Birch & Ehrlich (1967) out of context.
Here is Gish s Birch & Ehrlich (1967: 352) quote again:
Our theory of evolution has become . . . one which cannot be refuted by
any possible observations. It is thus "outside of empirical science," but not
necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. . . .
Hutcheson (1986, 2006) has found this quote in many Creationist writings, and no
tices that the Creationist writers always stop dead short of the next sentence,
which reads, "The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesi
s of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets."
With so much to talk about, this petty semantic quibbling seems to be a waste of
time. So why does Gish choose to spend so much time this way? We cannot be su
re what his motives are, but here are some possibilities:
● to overlook the scientific tests which Evolution can pass
According to Kenneth Miller (1982a), Evolution does indeed pass scientific tests
, including tests "in the fossil record, the phylogenetic trees for living and e
xtinct animals, the geographic distribution of organisms, the phases of embryolo
gic development, observed mutations, observed natural selection, observed geolog
ical changes, and laboratory experiments in biology, among other things."
● to overlook the scientific tests which Creationism cannot pass
In the words of Kenneth Miller (1982a), Evolution "predicts that the evidence wi
ll show life has changed through time," whereas Creationism "predicts an
absence of change, except for extinction." Since Evolution passes the tes
t and Creationism fails the test, Gish hides the test.
● to demote Evolution to the status of Creationism
Gish (1995b: 1-2) begins one of his books with his no-human-witnesses spiel, the
n follows it with the statement that "the notion, repeated incessantly by evolut
ionists, that evolution is a scientific theory while creation is nothing more th
an religious mysticism is blatantly false."
Gish s views are based on religion, but some of his listeners came to his debate
s expecting to hear about science. This sometimes put Gish in a pickle. Here i
s how Kenneth Miller (1982a) sees Gish resolving the problem:
It is crucial for creationists that they convince their audiences that e
volution is not scientific, because both sides agree that creationism is not.
So, Dr. Gish proposed this ingeniously stringent set of requirements for a
scientific theory.
Miller then continues:
Dr. Gish s narrow definition of science is simply self-serving. It is a
way of promoting confusion about evolution and bringing the acquired data of hu
ndreds of years of scientific research down to the level of Dr. Gish s brand of
faith. Only by such questionable thinking can creationism be seen as an eq
ual and alternate model.
Miller supports this by quoting Gish from one of his debates:
Let us dispense, once and for all, with the notion that this is a debate
between science and religion. Each concept of origins is equally scienti
fic and each is equally religious.
A perusal of Gish s other quotes further confirms that Miller s explanation. In
the Saladin (1988d) debate, Gish said, "Creation and evolution are inferences b
ased upon circumstantial evidence. They have exactly the same status scientifica
lly."
In his response to Arthur, Gish (1997) wrote, "One is no more scientific than th
e other and they are equally religious."
● once the two are seen as equal, to push Creationism into the public schools
In the Access Research Network (1999) debate, Gish said:
Both creation and evolution, neither is a scientific theory. They are th
eories about history. To insist, as Dr. [Eugenie] Scott does, that we can only
teach evolution in the schools because that s science -- creation is religion
-- no, that is not true.
Which brings us up to another subject: should Creationism be taught in the schoo
ls? Let s discuss that next.
Creationism in the schools
Gish and his fellow ICR members do not seek to eliminate Evolution from the scho
ols, but ask for equal time.
In one debate (Miller, K. 1982a), Gish made a fervent emotional appeal. As is c
ommon in emotional appeals, Gish likened himself to Galileo and likened his oppo
nents to Galileo s persecutors.
As Gish saw it, there were only two possible reasons why Evolutionists opposed a
n equal-time policy: either they wished to protect the students from any other o
pinion and indoctrinate them with their own, or they were afraid that Creationis
m would win out.
Gish and Company argue as follows:
▶ Evolutionists are abusing their power.
Gish (1997) wrote:
Just as the discredited Lamarckian genetics was at one time the exclusiv
e state-approved theory of genetics that was taught in the schools, colleg
es and universities of the Soviet Union, so has the theory of evolution bec
ome the unofficial, state-sanctioned theory of origins that is taught in the
textbooks and classrooms of American public schools.
▶ It is a matter of majority rule.
Gish (1997) wrote that "The overwhelming majority of the American people support
the teaching of both in our public schools."
In the Saladin (1988i) debate, Gish brought in statistics to prove this. A nati
onal survey in 1981 found that 76% of the American people wanted both Creationis
m and Evolutionism to be taught in the public schools, 10% wanted only Creationi
sm, 8% wanted only Evolution, and 6% were uncommitted. He decried the rulership
of the mere 8%.
▶ Religious opponents of equal time are contemptible.
Saladin (1988i) alluded to a 1981 law which was passed in Arkansas, mandating eq
ual time for Evolution and Creationism in the public schools. ICR defended the
law, whereas religious leaders opposed the law. These religious leaders include
d Rev. Bill McLean, head of the Presbyterian Church in Arkansas, Bishop Ken Hic
ks of the United Methodist Church of Arkansas, Rev. Andrew McDonald, Bishop of t
he Catholic Diocese of Little Rock, the Rev. Nathan Porter, a Southern Baptist m
inister, the American Jewish Congress, the Union of American Hebrew Congregation
s. and the American Jewish Committee.
Gish responded, "Sure there s a lot of liberal theologians on the side of evolut
ionists. Why wouldn t they be? All these liberal theologians are for ordaining h
omosexual ministers, for legalized abortion, and many other things."
▶ Atheism has become mandated.
At the Saladin (1988i) debate, Gish said that theistic evolution is banned becau
se it "requires God." That leaves only "atheistic, naturalistic, mechanistic ev
olution."
▶ The individual should decide.
Gish made a children s rights argument in the Zindler (1990) debate:
Now if one is taught in the science classroom in the schools, then the
other should be taught. We do have tremendously powerful, positive evidence for
creation. Our students should hear it, they should have the privilege and th
en they can make up their own minds what they think is right.
Gish (1997) also wrote, "We believe that this will restore academic freedom to o
ur students and teachers to consider both sides of this controversy."
▶ The Creationists wish to teach Creationism, not religion.
At the Zindler (1990) debate, Gish said:
I could not scientifically demonstrate that God created in six days. The
re s just no way possible to do that. What I m saying is that scientifically,
the evidence supports the fact of creation . . . We are not going into the s
chools, teach them Noah s Ark and Adam and Eve, and six-day Creation and all
that. We are not going to do that.
Gish (1997) would include in the curriculum what he considers the scientific evi
dence, such as "the fossil record, the laws of probability, the laws of thermody
namics, the evidence of purpose and design in biology, and evidence from other a
reas of science that provide evidence that strongly support the creation of livi
ng organisms by an intelligent agent external to and independent of the natural
universe."
▶ Eliminating religion from the schools is un-American.
In the Saladin (1988i) debate, Gish argued that eliminating religion from the pu
blic school would entail eliminating the Declaration of Independence. Gish cite
d the sentence which reads, "We take this to be self-evident, that all men were
created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable ri
ghts."
Evolutionists counter:
■ Students are learning little enough about Evolution as it is.
Saladin (1988h) occasionally asks incoming university students to define the wor
d Evolution. Here are a few of his prize items:
"Man developed from a lower case animal."
"The theory of evolution is basically that man resolve from the ape, I
think the theory could be true in some cases."
"The biological theory of evolution is that man has more than one life.
When someone dies they will come back as something else."
If students are passing through high school science class with no more understan
ding of Evolution than this, Saladin implies, then the public school students of
our nation are far from the indoctrinated, program-fed zombies which Creationis
ts would have us believe that they are.
■ If Gish does not regard Creationism as science, neither does Saladin.
Saladin (1988g) wrote:
 The reason that I don t believe that creationism belongs in the science
curriculum is for one thing the fact that creationists repeatedly assert that
it is not a science, as Dr. Gish does. I don t see why he wants it in the
science curriculum if it isn t a science.
■ Majority vote cannot decide what is true and what is not.
According to Saladin (1988g), Gish s argument regarding public opinion is analog
ous to "taking a public opinion poll to decide whether there is a unified field
theory of physics."
If every question could be decided by majority vote, then a research scientist i
s wasting time and money by running experiments in the laboratory. Rather, he o
r she should put a ballot box outside the office and post a notice saying, "If I
mix such and such a chemical with such and such a chemical, what do you think I
would get?" or "If I crossed such and such a species with such and such a speci
es, what do you think I would get?" The scientist would then count the votes, w
rite up the results, and mail it in to a scientific journal.
■ Majority vote cannot decide on issues which affect minority rights.
In the Arkansas case, a witness for the defense quoted a poll similar to that qu
oted by Gish (Geisler 1982: 120). The judge was not impressed. He ruled (in Ge
isler 1982: 188):
The application and content of First Amendment principles are not determ
ined by public opinion polls or by a majority vote. Whether the proponen
ts of Act 590 constitute the majority or the minority is quite irrelevant under
a constitutional system of government. No group, no matter how large or small,
may use the organs of government, of which the public schools are the most cons
picuous and influential, to foist its religious beliefs on others.
At first glance, religious issues in the classroom may not seem as serious a req
uiring Black people to sit in the back of the bus. But in some cases, they have
been. There have been cases in which Jehovah s Witness children have been mist
reated for not saluting the flag. There have also been cases in which children
of religious skeptics have been mistreated for leaving the classroom for religio
n class.

■ There isn t any Creationist content.

At one time in Columbus, Ohio, equal time for Creationism was mandated. The cur
riculum committee was asked to find Creationist evidence to balance the Evolutio
nist evidence. They made a serious attempt, but only returned empty-handed (Zin
dler 1990).
A similar problem developed when equal time was mandated in Little Rock, Arkansa
s (Geisler 1982: 97, 181-182).
■ A theory has to win scientific approval on its own merits.
Kenneth Miller (1982a) argues that theories taught in science class are chosen o
n the basis of acceptance in the science profession, not legislation. He gives
the examples of cell theory and germ theory, which have passed the scientific te
st rather than the legal test.
He claims that Evolution has been accepted in science class on this basis, not o
n legislation. "In not one of the fifty states has evolution been legislated in
to the classroom," he says. According to Miller, Gish is "trying to force creat
ionism into the schools through the back door."
■ Mandating Creationism is contrary to the interests of academic freedom.
Saladin (1988i) writes that Creationism is already permitted in the public schoo
ls, and is in fact taught in some of the schools. What the Creationists seek, t
hen, is "not to have creationism permitted, but to have it mandated, to force te
achers to cut out half of the science in their courses and replace it with
creationism regardless of whether the teachers believe creationism or not."
Kenneth Miller (1982a) sees Gish as making ironic use of the term "academic free
dom." "If creationism is being proposed in the name of academic freedom, why is
legislation involved?"
■ Some Evolutionist teachers already teach Creationism.
Saladin (1988g) claims to practice the two-model approach on the University leve
l. Saladin claims that:
● he advertised the 1988 debate on his own campus, took several students
with him to the debate, and raised funds to help defray their travel
expenses.
● he has purchased books from the Institute for Creation Research for th
e library.
● he routinely taught a seminar in which students were assigned
Creationist readings.
● he kept a library of Creationist literature in his office and routinel
y made it available to students for class and extracurricular read
ing.
● he has written an article advocating the use of Creationist literature
in the university, as have several other Evolutionist professors (Zindle
r 1985; Saladin 1986; Thwaites 1986).
Thwaites & Awbrey teach a two-model course at Diego State University. They take
advantage of their location in San Diego by inviting ICR personnel to speak to
their students (Saladin 1986; Thwaites 1986).
■ Creationists are throwing a boomerang.
This may be rejected as a tu quoque, or "look-who s-talking" argument, but while
Creationists charge Evolutionists with censoring expression of the Creationist
view, they have been accused of censoring expression of the Evolutionist view.
Saladin (1988g) wrote that "it would take me a whole volume to itemize the insta
nces of creationists censoring textbooks, libraries, and curricula."
■ Science is not controversial.
Shermer (2002) writes:
The multiple sides of issues is indeed a part of the general educational
process, and it might be appropriate to discuss creationism in religion,
history, or even philosophy, but most certainly not science.
■ Allowing a religious view in one class could put us on a slippery slope.
Saladin (1988h) gives us an example of Biblical math. Solomon s altar font was
supposed to be 10 cubits across and 30 cubits round (I Kings 7:23, II Chronicles
4:2).
Let s work this out:
C = πd (The circumference of a circle equals the diameter times
i.)
C = 30 (The circumference in this case is 30 cubits.)
d = 10 (The diameter equals 10 cubits.)
C = 3d (The circumference equals three times the diameter.)
π = 3 (Pi equals 3, whereas mainstream math teaches that
i equals 3.14159.)
If I understand Saladin correctly, he is asking if we should give Bible believer
s equal time in math class and allowing them to teach that π equals 3.
■ Allowing one alternative view in the schools could put us on a slippery slope.

Some opponents fear that proponents of other pseudosciences will also clamor for
a fair hearing. Kenneth Miller (1982a) gives the examples of "astrology, hollo
w-earth theory, ancient astronauts, and the search for Atlantis." Saladin (198
8i) gives the examples of astrology, pyramid power, and UFO s.
Moreover, Evolution and Creationism are not the only explanations of how life on
earth began. There have been other explanations, and we shall discuss those ex
planations later.
■ If Gish were sincere in his plea for all school children hearing both sides, h
e would take his campaign to the Christian schools also.
Read these excerpts from the catalogue of Gish s organization (Institute for Cre
ation Research 1985: 8, 12) and tell me what you don t see:
The writing activities of the Institute are particularly aimed at prepar
ing suitable textbooks and other literature for use in schools and colleges,
both public and Christian . . . The teaching materials are all developed with
in the integrating framework of scientific creationism. The goal is to prod
uce such materials in all fields and at all grade levels, so that the entire
educational process can be carried out within the framework of the scientific c
reationist Biblical world-view in Christian schools and on a purely scientific "
two-model" basis in public schools.
ICR maintains that scientific creationism should be taught along with th
e scientific aspects of evolutionism in tax-supported institutions, and th
at both scientific and Biblical creationism should be taught in Christia
n schools.
If ICR really wants every student to hear both sides, then why do they only want
Creationism mandated in the public schools? Why don t they also want Evolution
mandated in the Christian schools?
It is clear that Gish is merely compromising when he makes a plea for hearing bo
th sides. If that were what he truly regarded as the ideal, he would make the s
ame plea for the Christian schools.
You have now heard Gish s opinion. You have also heard the opinion of some of th
e Evolutionists. Now for my opinion:
Although I may not favor mandating teaching both sides, I would opt for teaching
both sides if I were teaching a science class. Here are my arguments:
▶ Just as it is wrong to mistreat religious skeptical minorities, it is wrong to
mistreat Creationist students.
I once knew a Creationist who had an Evolutionist science teacher in high school
. She spoke of having to write Evolutionist answers on her exam papers.
I have also had to express opinions contrary to my own opinion on exams. So I c
an understand her point.
If I were teaching the class, I would ask questions like "What did Spencer belie
ve?" "What did "Kropotkin believe?" "What did Bishop Ussher believe?" I might
also ask "What does Gish believe?" That is a far cry from asking whether these
individuals were right or wrong.
▶ False or dubious statements can become true if expressed as dependent clauses.
It may not be true that the Jews were a menace, but it is true that Hitler said
that they were. This is taught in history class everywhere. It may not be true
that Communism can liberate the working masses, but it is true that Marx said t
hat it could. This is taught in social studies class everywhere.
And if that is not enough, consider how much fictional content is taught in lite
rature class. Should Romeo and Juliet be thrown out just because they were not
real people?
If I were teaching a science class, I would not say that giraffes pass on acquir
ed characteristics to their offspring, but I would say that Lamarck said that th
ey did. I would not say that we should all submit to a eugenics program, but I
would say that Galton said that we should.
▶ It is important to learn to argue scientifically.
In upper elementary school, I was taught that a ship appears on the harbor masth
ead first. I was also taught that people on one hemisphere see the stars differ
ently from people on the other hemisphere.
A clearly thinking person might see this as evidence that the earth is round. T
his is better than teaching that the earth is round because the teacher says so
or because the textbook says so.
We cannot teach that the earth is round without considering false or dubious no
tions. By the same token, we cannot teach that living species have evolved with
out considering false or dubious notions.
▶ If the slope proves slippery, so much the better.
As we have seen, Kenneth Miller (1982a) and Saladin (1988i) are afraid that allo
wing Creationism in the schools would lead to allowing countless other wacko cla
ims in the schools.
Good! Let s open the floodgates! Zindler (1985) teaches a university course on
wacko claims; why not bring it on in the public schools?
There are countless ways that students could learn from the dementia which aboun
ds in our environment. The astrology columns tell us that we are Ares, Cancers,
Leos, and Pisces. It would be interesting for the students to run experiments
on their classmates to see if they are really as ovine, cancrine, leonine, or pi
scine as astrologers would have us believe.
Who knows, the students may even perform an experiment which will add to the tot
al body of knowledge. Meet Emily Rosa. In 1998, this 11-year- old fourth grader
ran an experiment which invalidated a pseudo-scientific healing art known as Th
erapeutic Touch. With the help of a few adults (Rosa et al. 1998), this experim
ent was written up and published in the Journal of the American Medical Associat
ion. If this sort of research is encouraged in the schools, there is no telling
how many more Emily Rosa s we can discover.
You may say, "Why waste all this time on crackpot ideas? Why not just tell the
students that they are a silly waste of time?" That would be just as wrong. Un
til someone tests Therapeutic Touch, we don t know whether it is valid or not.
If it is valid, we should take notice of it; if it is not valid, we should not.
Emily Rosa hypothesized that it was valid and she hypothesized that it was not.
It was only through her experiment that she found out which hypothesis was tru
e.
The line between debunking and skepticism may be thin, but it is very important.
We don t know all the independent variables, dependent variables, and correla
ting variables that there are to know. So any seemingly loony hypothesis could
uncover a variable which we don t already know about.
Only a few decades ago, people would have laughed if you suggested describing a
person from a hair follicle. And what are well-trained scientists doing in DNA
laboratories today? Making hair follicle readings!
▶ Classifying human knowledge is difficult and not that important anyway.
No matter how you compartmentalize human knowledge, you are going to find border
line cases. Librarians have a system of classification, but they still might ha
ve trouble shelving books on art history, which deal with both art and history,
or music education, which deal with both music and education. For an example cl
oser to the point, look how much debate time has been spent over what is religio
n and what is science.
It is wasteful to throw away anything which does not make a snug fit into one co
mpartment or another. I would rather remove the walls between the compartments.

▶ Teaching Creationism in the public schools is not much different from teaching
Creationism in the university.
As previously mentioned, at least three of Gish s critics (Zindler 1985; Saladin
1986; Thwaites 1986) already do exactly what Gish wants them to do--teach Creat
ionism.
The only problem is, they teach it on a university level, whereas Gish wants it
taught in the public schools. I do not understand why one of those critics (Sal
adin 1988g, 1988i) is among those who is fighting the hardest against Creationis
m in the public schools.
According to Piagetian theory, the highest cognitive level is usually reached at
about the age of 11. That is the age at when the child can think in the abstra
ct. So I would draw the line at the upper elementary level, not the university
level.
▶ We can never be absolutely sure which side is right.
Why won t the paleontologists show us any Cambrian vertebrates? Why do the foss
ils, the junk DNA, the vestigial organs, and the embryos all give us the same in
formation? Why do life forms have to be content with imperfect organs, such as
panda thumbs?
I know only one answer to any of these questions, and that s Evolution. But the
n again, I don t know everything. Maybe there are other answers. If there are,
then students should know about them.
▶ The art of discernment is a skill which is sorely neglected in a student s edu
cation.
What should you do when a religious pamphleteer approaches you on the street cor
ner? What should you do when a friend tries to sign you up for a multi-level ma
rketing scheme? What should you do when a stranger from another country accesse
s your e-mail address and promises to put millions of dollars in your bank accou
nt? What should you do when a propagandist visits your town, appears at a publi
c debate, and congratulates your local football team?
For most of us, our schooling leaves us unprepared for situations like these. I
f students are presented with two opposing views and encouraged to weigh both si
des, we might be better prepared.
Deceptive people realize that the educational system leaves this gap. Where do
religious cults set up their recruitment centers? Right outside university camp
uses!
Furthermore, it s not just the discouraged and troubled students who prove to be
likely recruits. Brilliant students are vulnerable, too. When I was in high s
chool, I knew a brilliant music student who was also an academic honor student.
I expected him to become famous in the music field. Instead, he is now working
in the administrative office of a notoriously ridiculous religious cult.
I wonder where he would be if he had taken a class under Dr. Zindler.
Creationists assume that
Evolutionists think like Creationists
In any interchange of opinion, understanding is as important as expressing. Thi
s means understanding underlying meaning as well as surface meaning.
This also means understanding assumptions which the other person might be making
about you. Remember, you are dealing with a person unlike yourself. Your way
of thinking could be completely foreign to the other person. The best that pers
on can do, then, is to imagine that you think like he or she does.
I argued with Creationists for a long time before I realized this. After runnin
g up against frustration after frustration, I noticed a simple pattern: in nearl
y every one of these frustrations, the Creationist was assuming that the Evoluti
onists were thinking like Creationists.
Let us look at some of these assumptions. For each item, let us consider whethe
r or not Gish makes this assumption:
■ Some Creationists think Evolutionists are never neutral on any question.
Since a Creationist may look to religion for most of the answers, he or she migh
t assume that Evolutionists look to Evolution for all the answers. For example,
religion purports to answer the question of how the Universe started. Naturall
y, then, they think Evolutionary theory purports to answer the question of how t
he Universe started.
Evolutionists tell Creationists over and over that Evolutionary theory does not
purport to answer this question, but it goes in one ear and out the other.
Kenneth Miller (1982a) and Bakken (1987) have both tried to explain this to Gish
, but Gish either did not understand or pretended not to (Gish 1993: 169, 295)
.
■ Some Creationists expect Evolutionists to follow authority.
Agassiz, Boyle, Cuvier, Faraday, Kepler, Mendel, Newton, Pasteur, so on and so f
orth--you may have also seen this procession of famous Creationist scientists.
Gish did not seem to subscribe to this list, but he informs us that Linnaeus was
a Creationist (Gish 1993: 234).
Gish also introduced us to current-day Creationist scientists (Saladin 1988d):
At the Institute for Creation Research we have eight scientists, some of
them have doctors, including one from Harvard University, Penn State Uni
versity, U.C. Berkeley, University of Minnesota, and University of Toronto and p
laces like that, we re going to add two more scientists with doctors soon. We
are scientists, and we are convinced creationists because we are scientist
s.
Saladin (1988d) makes a threefold rebuttal. Firstly, very few of those scientis
ts are biologists, because biologists "know better than to swallow their polemic
s."
Secondly, some of the members have questionable credentials. Gish cited the exa
mple of Richard Bliss, an Institute member with a doctorate from the University
of Sarasota. An acquaintance of Saladin travelled to Sarasota, drove to the str
eet address given as the campus address, and found "a building that looked like
a run-down Tastee Freeze."
Thirdly, Saladin regards a scientist s contribution to the field, not his academ
ic standing, as the true measure of his or her worth. According to Saladin, "Th
e test of one s expertise is whether one s work can pass the peer review process
as a prerequisite to publication." On the other hand, he regards Gish as "an u
nrecognized, armchair speculator of no scholarly merit."
In fairness to Creationists, Evolutionists should be consistent in applying this
third point. If a graduate of the University of Sarasota makes a contribution
of merit to science, that contribution should be received just as if it came fro
m an Ivy League graduate.
■ Some Creationists regard Evolution as a religion for Evolutionists.
Sample quote (Gish 1993: 223):
People like Kitcher live in a dream world where evolution is God--nothin
g is impossible with evolution.
In the McKee (2001) debate, Gish again stated that Evolution is a religion. He
supported his claim by quoting Michael Ruse, "this famous philosopher of scienc
e," who allegedly wrote that Evolutionary biology was a religion in direct contr
adiction to Christianity.
True to habit, Gish was misquoting. Ruse (2003) said that Evolution is perceive
d that way by some Creationists, and does indeed serve such a purpose for some E
volutionists. But nowhere does Ruse say that all Evolutionists are devout belie
vers in opposition to Christianity. In fact, Ruse (2000) has written a book ent
itled Can a Darwinian be a Christian? In his own words, Ruse (2008) says that "
affirms emphatically that this is to be answered with a yes. "
But let us suppose for a moment that Gish were accurately quoting Ruse. Would R
use have the right to accept Evolution, reject Christianity, and say that the tw
o are in conflict? Certainly. Ruse lives in the United States--a country which
guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
But would Ruse have the right to speak on behalf of all Evolutionists everywhere
? I hope Ruse does not think so. But Gish seems to think so. Why? Apparentl
y for no other reason than because he is a "famous philosopher of science."
A true religion would make people good and a false religion would not. In atta
cking Evolutionists as bad people, Gish could be insinuating that Evolution is a
false religion. In Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, Gish (1993) repea
tedly attacks the believer rather than the belief. Lippard (1994a) compiled a l
ist:
According to Gish, evolutionists are "smug" (pp. 12, 16), "gripped ... f
irmly [by] dogma" (p. 13), "arrogant" (pp. 16, 295, 306), "vicious" (pp. 19, 7
1, 162, 194, 205, 334, 343, etc.), "slanderous" (pp. 88, 96, 193), "virulen
t" (pp. 98, 141, 275, 334), and "bitter" (pp. 343, 357). Creationists, o
n the other hand, are "the voices of scientific reason" (p. 13), taking part
in a "renaissance" (p. 15), and are promoting "an open, free, and thorough scie
ntific challenge to evolutionary theory" (p. 18). It is impossible to read more
than a few pages of Gish s book without encountering emotion-laden adjectiv
es.
The ad hominem argument could be a valid form of argument in certain cases. For
example, I once met three children who played the violin very well, and they al
l told me that they took lessons from the same violin teacher. From this inform
ation, I inferred that their violin teacher might be a good teacher. Taking les
sons from this particular teacher was the independent variable, and playing the
violin well was the purported dependent variable, and I saw that one might indee
d follow from the other.
If someone said that adopting the Evolutionist credo could transform a person fr
om a "smug," "arrogant," "vicious" person to a "voice of scientific reason," Gis
h might have a valid counterargument.
Come to think of it, some of us do make such a claim. In later chapters, I sugg
est applying Evolutionary theory to the field of psychology. In that chapter, I
claim that learning Evolutionary theory can help us understand ourselves better
and understand each other better. I claim to have become a happier and better
person through learning Evolutionary theory, and I hope that other people will d
o the same.
So I hope that most readers of this manuscript will not find me coming across as
smug, arrogant, and vicious.
■ Some Creationists think Evolutionists want scripture.
We often see Creationists laughing with glee when this year s science textbook c
ontradicts last year s science textbook. They ask Evolutionists something like,
"Why do you follow a book which changes? Follow our book! Our book never chan
ges!"
Evolutionists try to tell Creationists that a book which approaches the truth is
better than one which is consistently wrong.
Gish does not use this ploy, but just the opposite ploy. Read on.
■ Some Creationists think Evolutionists already have scripture.
Instead of pointing out the fickle nature of scientific opinion, Gish thinks, or
pretends to think, that scientific opinion is not fickle. Given the premise th
at scientific opinion is not fickle, it is as fair to quote an out-of-date scien
tific source as it is to quote a two-thousand-year-old Bible verse.
As we shall see later, Gish is a repeated offender along this line.
■ Some Creationists expect Evolutionists to follow the crowd.
Creationists sometime cite statistics about how many people believe in Creationi
sm, how many people go to church, or how many people believe in God.
They must expect the Evolutionists to cower in the corner and say, "Oh, no! We
re surrounded by the enemy! We can t go on like this! What will we do? There is
only one thing we can do, and that s put out the white flag!"
Gish makes a twist on this argument. He does not argue that Evolutionists shoul
d join the majority in endorsing Creationism, but that they should join the majo
rity in approving of teaching Creationism in the public schools. In the Saladin
(1988i) debate, Gish quote a national survey in 1981 which found that 76% of th
e American people wished for both Creationism and Evolutionism to be taught in t
he public schools, whereas only 8% wanted only Evolutionism to be taught.
■ Some Creationists think Evolutionists regard Evolution as always good.
Creationists regard Creation as good. Doesn t it follow, then, that Evolutionis
ts regard Evolution as good? Some Creationists seems to think so.
I used to belong to a newsgroup for piano teachers. There was a thread about d
ifferences between teaching girls and teaching boys. I made what I thought was
an inoffensive and self-evident statement--that males and females evolved differ
ently.
The other newsgroup members immediately attacked me. According to them, I was a
sexist, a chauvinist, and a Leave It to Beaver fan. They seems to understand t
hat I wanted males and females to evolve differently, just because I said that t
hey did.
As far as I know, Gish never takes on the subject of feminism, but he has a simi
lar misconception: that Evolution is goal-directed. Later, we shall discuss thi
s misconception, which Saladin (1988b) calls evolutionary orthogenesis.

■ Some Creationists expect Evolutionists to make decisions based on feelings.

A Creationist may tell an Evolutionist about the "warm glow in your heart" which
comes from following their religion. If the Evolutionist doesn t respond, the
Creationist may change the wording to "Christian love." If that doesn t work ei
ther, the wording may change to "the peace which passeth understanding."
Gish does not seem to subscribe to this argument.
■ Some Creationists expect Evolutionists to share their impatience for definite
answers.
Sacred scripture does not ponder over what might be or what could be. It only d
eclares what is and what isn t.
When Creationists read Evolutionist literature, then, they are surprised to read
 about what might be or what could be. In his review of an Evolutionist book (B
eck 1976), Gish (1993: 87) commented, "One can read page after page of speculati
ons and interpretations by various workers in this field, but speculations are n
o substitute for definitive evidence."
As Gish says, speculations may not be a "substitute for definitive evidence," bu
t they are certainly a prerequisite. Every scientific experiment begins with su
ch a speculation, which scientists call a hypothesis. This might be too big a wo
rd for some Creationists, so they coin the term "just-so story." (Dembski 2002;
Moeller 2004) Gish (n. d. 1) uses this term too.
I wonder who was the first one to say that "there is no such word as maybe." It
could not have been a scientist.
Why don t Creationists publish in journals?
It seems to be generally agreed that Creationist scientists have published very
little in the scientific journals. Saladin (Saladin 1988a) quotes a computer se
arch of two million professional articles (Cole, H. P. & Scott 1982), which foun
d very few by ICR scientists.
Why is this? Here is Gish s opinion:
▶ Journal editors discriminate.
Gish (1993: 18-19) opened one of his books (1993: 12-13) with an attack on the "
refereed scientific journals," which are "under the tight control of evolutionis
ts," and which render it futile to "publish an article which challenged the val
idity of evolutionary theory itself or to suggest that creation is a preferable
or even a credible alternative to evolution."
In his debate with Saladin (1988d), Gish cited the example of A. E. Wilder-Smith
, who carries three earned Doctorate degrees, but preaches Creationism. Wilder
-Smith wrote an article which was rejected by four scientific journals. Gish al
so cited the example of Fred Hoyle, who had to express his opinions in a book be
cause he could not get his work published in a journal. In Gish s opinion, this
is "censorship," "book-burning." and "dogma that dominates our educational-scie
ntific establishment today."
Here are the opinions of some Evolutionists:
■ Creationists don t even try.
According to Lippard (1993), Creationists do not even submit articles, much less
receive rejection slips. Lippard cites Scott & Cole (1985), Lewin (1985), and
Numbers (1992: 92-94) for this claim.
Parrish (1991) also cites the case of the 1982 Arkansas trial, in which Judge Wi
lliam R. Overton asked the Creationist witnesses to produce any manuscripts whic
h they had submitted to scientific journals. None of the Creationists were able
to meet that challenge (cf. Geisler 1982: 178).
Regarding Gish himself, Saladin (1988a) comments:
Now Dr. Gish pretends he s an expert on fossils, but he s never contribu
ted a thing to any professional journal of paleontology and I doubt he s eve
r done any original research on the subject or even tried to publish. Yet
he acts as if he knows more about it than Simpson, Dobzhansky, Gould, and
Darwin all rolled into one!
■ Creationist scientists prefer to spend their time in other ways.
Saladin (1988a) comments, "Maybe they spend too much of their time dreaming up .
. . fire-breathing dinosaurs."
That is quite possible.
It is at first tempting to feel sorry for the poor, mistreated Creationist scien
tists. But after a moment s reflection, one realizes that Gish s books themselv
es are a case in point. With help from the Institute, Gish published a children
s comic book entitled Have You Been Brainwashed? in 1970 and 1974, Evolution: Th
e Fossils Say NO! in 1972 and 1976, a children s book entitled Dinosaurs: Those
Terrible Lizards in 1977 and 1988, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record
in 1985, 1986, 1988, 1990, and 1991, another children s book entitled Dinosaurs
by Design in 1992 and 1996, Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics in 1993, E
volution: The Fossils Still Say NO! in 1995, and Teaching Creation Science in Pu
blic Schools in 1995.
That is a lot of popular literature from a group which calls itself a research i
nstitute. They must have been well heeled to publish so much. If they feel so
strongly about Evolutionists cornering the market on professional literature, wh
y don t they do something about it? Have they ever thought about publishing the
ir own professional journal?
■ Look what happens when Creationists publish their own journal.
Saladin (1988a) and Parrish (1991) quote from an issue of the Creation Research
Society Quarterly (Peterson 1982):
When God the Son squeezed energy into atoms, he squeezed and held the at
om so tightly that there were no unstable elements and therefore no radioactivit
y. At the fall [of Adam and Eve], He relaxed His grip slightly ... which affect
ed every atom and allowed some to become unstable, i.e., radioactivity!
Writing in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Gish (1975, 1989b, 1989c, 19
89d) wrote reviews of other such articles. They are available on line. You are
welcome to print them out, read them, and make your own decision.
■ The Creationist manuscripts are probably not good enough.
Parrish (1991) coins the term lack-o -merit to refer to "poor presentation, ramb
ling, high school theme quality, failure to follow accepted scientific canons, f
ailure to follow accepted scientific canons," and "failure to properly use the l
iterature."
Saladin (1988d) suspects that Duane Gish and Henry Morris are unable to publish
in journals because "they simply can t produce anything that has enough intellec
tual merit to deserve consideration!"
■ Any faction can win with a convincing case.
Saladin (1988d) gives the example of Darwin, who proposed Evolutionism at a time
which the journals were dominated by Creationists. "Darwin didn t cry "Censors
hip!" and go running to the government for help getting published. Darwin won o
ver the situation by virtue of the logical and evidentiary force of his argument
s and that s something the creationists are unable to do."
■ Maybe the generalization applies to ICR members specifically, and not to Creat
ionists generally.
Saladin (1988d) cites Hubert Yockey and Robert Gentry as examples of Creationist
 scientists who have published in scientific journals.
The staff members at Creation Science Foundation, another Creationist organizati
on, do not complain that Creationists cannot publish. Rather, they brag about
how much they publish. Here is a list compiled by Sarfati (n. d.):
● Dr. Russell Humphreys, a nuclear physicist working with Sandia Nationa
l Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has over 20 articles in physics
journals,
● Dr. John Baumgardner s catastrophic plate tectonics theory was publish
ed in Nature.
● Dr. Edward Boudreaux of the University of New Orleans has published
26 articles and 4 books in physical chemistry.
● Dr. Maciej Giertych, Head of the Department of Genetics at the Institu
te of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, has published 90 papers
in scientific journals.
● Dr. Aw Swee-Eng was Associate Professor of Biochemistry at the
University of Singapore, and is now Head of the Department of Nuclear Medicine
and Director of Clinical Research at Singapore General Hospital.
■ At least one Creationist has turned down an invitation to publish.
And guess who that one Creationist is!
On his debate circuit, Duane Gish constantly sounded off on the Second Law of Th
ermodynamics rendering Evolution impossible. He repeatedly insisted that the Ev
olutionists ignored or misunderstood the law while he correctly understood the l
aw. This prompted a letter from Frederick Edwords, editor of the journal Creatio
n/Evolution:
Whereas:
1. Creationists believe that their "creation science" arguments against
the theory of evolution deserve to be taken seriously as critical challenges
to the validity of evolution. They say that their views cannot receive a f
air hearing through the normal route of publication in scientific journals b
ecause their submitted manuscripts would be rejected for publication by
prejudicial journal referees.
2. Evolutionary scientists tend to view "creation science" as pseudoscie
nce, i.e., an attempt to bolster invalid arguments by the inappropriate use o
f scientific terminology and scientific-sounding arguments. In this view,
pseudoscientific arguments succeed in debates before lay audiences only
because these audiences are not well enough trained in science to see through
a false argument when it is phrased with impressive scientific terms that they d
on t fully understand.
Therefore:
We would like to offer a friendly challenge to help establish which of t
hese two views of "creation science" is most correct. This challenge focuses
on a particular example of a creationist argument that many scientists b
elieve is pure pseudoscience: the creationist argument that the evolution
model cannot be correct because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I
s the creationists Second Law argument based on a valid thermodynamics ana
lysis, or is it simply a debating ploy that is effective with audiences who are
not trained in thermodynamics?
We now invite Dr. Gish to demonstrate that the creationists Second Law
argument is not pseudoscience by publishing the scientific details of such
calculations in a rigorous manner suitable for readers who are working scientis
ts specializing in thermodynamics. Dr. Gish need not worry that biased j
ournal referees will refuse to publish his analysis because at our request,
Frederick Edwords, editor of the journal Creation/Evolution, has agreed to prov
ide a forum for the creationists. He will publish this challenge and a creation
ist response of up to 15 typewritten double-spaced pages (limited exclusive
ly to a technical analysis of the evolution model in light of thermodynamics)
if the response is received before October 30, 1989. If no response is
received, then this challenge will be published alone, and readers will
be left to draw their own conclusions as to whether the creationist thermody
namics argument is science or pseudoscience.
We anticipate that the creationists will be eager to respond if they are
ableto rigorously support their Second Law claims and if they are sincere in
their desire to advance their arguments beyond the parochial readership
of creationist-sponsored publications. We hope that this challenge and the
creationist response will be a step towards converting an often acrimoni
ous battleground into a substantive exchange of ideas. If--as sometimes hap
pens when mathematicians are forced to write out the technical details of what
seemed to be a quite obvious proof--the creationists find that their Second L
aw argument against evolution cannot be rigorously and quantitatively supported,
and if they therefore decline to respond to this challenge, we hope that
they will refrain from using this argument in future debates.
October 30, 1989 passed, alas, with no word from Gish (Pigliucci 2000: 189-190).
I hope Edwords didn t feel too rejected.
Where have all the
transitional fossils gone?
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such interm
ediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic c
hain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be
urged against my theory.
Creationists quote this passage (Darwin 1859: 279-280) over and over again. Dar
win apologized for the incompleteness of the fossil record, but hoped that furth
er investigation would reveal the "finely graded organic chain" which he wanted.
So Darwin sounded his call, whereupon his loyal followers went out on the fiel
d, armed with shovels and pickaxes, in fearless battle for his honor. And where
are we now? Right where we were in 1859!
Or at least, that is what the Creationists such as Gish would have us believe.
In the Saladin (1988b) debate, Gish said:
Now Darwin realized the fossil record was an embarrassment to his theory
, but the expected the missing links to be discovered. Well we re a hundre
d and twenty-five, a hundred and thirty years after Darwin, and the missin
g links are still missing.
Gish (1995b: 33) also wrote:
We are now 136 years after Darwin and the situation is actually worse fo
r evolutionary theory than it was then. An intense search for the hoped f
or transitional forms has only served to solidify the gaps.
According to Gish, enough fossils have been unearthed to infer that there are no
transitional fossils. Here is an excerpt from one of his writings (Gish 1997:
32; cf. Gish n. d. 1; Saladin 1988b; Gish 1993: 111-112, 115, Parrish 1991; Zi
ndler 1990):
Our museums now contain in excess of 250,000 different fossil species
represented by tens of millions of catalogued fossils (the Smithsonian Natural H
istory Museum contains 40 million fossils). The fossil record has become a
lmost immeasurably rich.
However (Gish [1972] 1976: 32-33):
Hundreds of transitional forms should fill museum collections. As a mat
ter of fact, difficulty in placing a fossil within a distinct category shoul
d be the rule rather than the exception.
You may be tempted to say, "Oh, poor Darwin! And those poor paleontologists! T
hey went out and worked so hard to honor his name, and all they got was a sunbu
rn!"
Before you get too emotional, though, let s see what Evolutionists have had to s
ay:
■ Paleontologists have indeed confirmed Darwin.
Here is a sampling of transitional fossils which have been discovered since Orig
in of Species was first published:
● 1861: The first Archaeopteryx, a dinosaur/bird transition, was
discovered in Germany (Owen 1863).
● 1869: Cro-Magnon Man was found in France.
● 1874: Othniel L. Marsh found an early horse in North America, which
later became known as eohippus. (Marsh 1876)
● 1891: Eugene Dubois discovered Java Man (Homo erectus) (Dubois
1922).
● 1922: Roy Chapman Andrews discovered the first protoceratops, an
ancestor of the triceratops, in Mongolia (Andrews 1927).
● 1922: Henry Osborn discovered the first psittacosaurus, another
ancestor of the triceratops, and also in Mongolia (Osborn 1924).
● 1932: Gunnar Save-Soderbergh found the first ichthyostega, a
fish/amphibian transitional species, in Greenland (Save-Soderbergh 1932).
● 1947: Martin F. Glaessner discovered the Ediacaran fauna in Australia
(Cloud & Glaessner 1982), shedding considerable light on pre-Cambrian evolutio
n.
● 1971: Philip Gingerich discovered a whale ancestor in Pakistan, which
he named Pakicetus (Gingerich et al. 1983).
● 1973: Donald Johansen discovered Lucy (Australopithecus aferensis) in
Ethiopia (Johansen & Edey 1981).
● 1987: Jennifer A. Clack discovered the Acanthostega, another
fish/amphibian transitional, in Greenland (Clark 1989).
 ● 1994: Hans Thewissen discovered another whale ancestor in Pakistan,
which he named Ambulocetus (Thewissen, Madar, & Hussain 1996).
● 1996: Chinese farmer Li Yinfang found the first specimen of the
Sinosauropteryx, a dinosaur species which some scientists see as showing a
transition between scales and feathers (Ji & Ji 1996).
● 2001: A four-legged ancestor of the manatee was found in Jamaica
(Domning 2001).
● 2003: a feathered but wingless dinosaur, believed to be capable of
gliding, was found (Xu, Zhou et al. 2003).
● 2006: Three paleontologists found a Tiktaalik, still another
fish/amphibian transitional, in Canada (Daeschler, Shubin, & Jenkins 2006).
● 2009: a dinosaur showing vestigial digits was found (Xu, Clark et al.
2009).
■ Most paleontological work is not known to the general public.
After reading Evolutionist material, you may get the impression that most Evolut
ionist scientists are zealous crusaders against Creationism. Not so. Scientist
s like Saladin and Pigliucci are a small minority. In fact, in some locations i
n which Gish was scheduled to appear, it was difficult to find an opponent becau
se most of the local scientists were not interested.
On the other hand, there is a wealth of information available to science majors
and professionals. For just one example, Hunt ([1994] 1997) gives the example o
f Fossil Horses by Bruce J. MacFadden (1994). How interested are you in just th
at one branch of the Tree of Life? Are you interested enough to read 383 pages?
I don t think I am, either. And how much technical jargon do you know? Can y
ou follow a discussion of every bone and every muscle in the mammal body? I don
t think I can, either.
I think I ll stick to the Evolution-for-dummies books.
■ The fossil display is not as spectacular as Gish would have us believe.
According to Hunt ([1994] 1997), Europe and North America are the only continent
s which have been adequately explored for fossils. Parrish (1991) points out th
at there are only 8 tyrannosaurus specimens, 2 of which were unearthed as recent
ly as 1990.
In a debate with Gish, George S. Bakken (1987) of Indiana State University said
that "There are 2 million species today and only 200,000 fossil species. There i
s no way we can connect them all together with that few specimens."
■ Gish is not clear on what he is asking for.
On an episode of Saturday Night Live, the show hosts interviewed an average Amer
ican family, which had two and three-fourth children. Through a photographic tr
ick, they showed only three-fourths of one of the children.
Of course, that was only a joke. Nobody would actually believe that a fraction
of an organism could actually exist.
Gish s straw man seems to think so, though. Gish made frequent use of the phras
e "fully developed." (Gish [1972] 1776: 31; [1985] 1991: 41) He made even more
 frequent use of the phrase "fully formed." (Bakken 1987; Gish n. d. 3: 8; c19
96; [1992] 1996: 63; 1993: 64. 224; Trott 1994b) He used this phrase 4 times in
the Zindler (1990) debate and 6 times in the Saladin (1988b, 1988d, 1988f, 1988
i) debate. According to Gish, that is how every species makes its first appeara
nce in the fossil record, and that somehow proves that God planted it there.
I don t know who Gish is disagreeing with, but it s not Mc Kee (2001). McKee co
mments, "I know of no living organism that is not fully formed."
In another debate, Gish asked his opponent (Trott 1994b) for "incomplete specime
ns." His opponent asked. "What in the world would an incomplete specimen look
like? Gish is being ridiculous."
In his book, Teaching Creation Science in Public Schools, Gish (1995b: 40-41) ma
de a couple of more specific requests, but he still was not clear. He asked for
an intermediate between an insect which can fly and an insect which cannot. Wh
at would that be? A gliding insect? He also asked for an intermediate between
a bird with teeth and a bird without teeth. What would that be? A bird with ha
lf as many teeth? A bird with teeth half as large?
■ Gish himself does not know what he is asking for.
In 1982, David Milne met Henry Morris and Duane Gish for a debate at the Univers
ity of Arizona in Tucson. Milne set up a tablet showing the forelimb of a bird,
a blank tablet, and a tablet showing the limb of a small coelurosaurian dinosau
r. Milne thought that the Archaeopteryx would be a perfect intermediary, but cor
rectly predicted that Morris and Gish might disagree. So he asked them to draw
what should fit the link instead. Both Morris and Gish passed (Edwords 2002).
Gish ([1985] 1991: 115) writes, "Not only is it impossible . . . to find a smoot
h series of intermediates in the fossil record, it is even impossible to imagine
what such intermediates may have looked like (for example, try to imagine an em
ergent Pteranodon with half a jaw and half a wing!)"
If Gish doesn t know what he is asking for, the rest of us certainly don t know.
■ When Gish does describe a transitional form, it is nothing like what an Evolut
ionist would expect.
To his credit, he has made at least one clear description of what he meant by a
"transitional form." In Dinosaurs by Design (Gish [1992] 1996: 62-63), there is
a chapter entitled "Evolutionary Fairy Tales." This chapter describes the nasc
ent wings and nascent fins which were supposedly possessed by transitional repti
les. On page 62, illustrators Earl and Bonita Snellenberger show us an unhapp
y creature with hind legs and clawed wings, too heavy to fly but unable to walk.
The poor fellow is looking up enviously at a dragonfly. On page 63, another u
nfortunate dinosaur is confined on land with front legs and a useless tail fin,
angrily cursing his fate.
In reply to Gish s request for useless body parts, Arthur (1996) counters that "
evolution does not happen that way." I agree. Our unfortunate victims on pages
62 and 63 may or may not have lived at one time. But even if they did, they co
uldn t have survived, mated, or reproduced very well. Any Evolutionary scientis
t would tell you that they could not inundate the population with their own gene
s.
For that matter, think of our own species in our own time. A person born with a
disability is less likely to survive until maturity. Secondly, if the person d
oes survive until maturity, he or she is less likely to attract a mate. Thirdly
, even if he or she does attract a mate, any offspring which inherits the deform
ity is less likely to survive until maturity and attract a mate.
We can chalk this up as a Cracraft II offense.
■ A fully formed species of an earlier time period can evolve into a fully forme
d species of a later time period.
Regarding Gish s word play, McKee (2001) makes this response:
Dr. Gish has just stated that fish appear fully formed. Well, yes, they
’re fully formed, but the first fish we see are not the fish of today. The
earliest fish in the fossil record still have an armor-like coating, they still
have no jaws – that is something that evolves later in the evolutionary
redeployment of a gill slit into a jaw – something which we carry in our
own development today. The earliest fish still have a notochord, rather
than a segmented vertebral column like modern fishes. So yes, we do see
transitional forms. The jawed fish come later, the first segmented vertebral
columns come later.
■ Evolutionists are indeed able to make chains from existing fossils.
Evolutionist scientists claim evolutionary sequences for marine life:
sea urchin (Eldredge 1982: Miller, K. 1982a)
snail (Eldredge 1982: Miller, K. 1982a)
trilobite (Eldredge 1982)
and for mammals:
horse (Edwords 1982: Miller, K. 1982a; Bakken 1987)
elephant (Edwords 1982: Miller, K. 1982a)
camel (Edwords 1982)
deer (Edwords 1982)
tapir (Edwords 1982)
rhinocerous (Edwords 1982)
hominid (Edwords 1982)
reptile to mammal (Miller, K. 1982a)
Edwords (1982) gives the example of the titanothere, a horned mammal with a hist
ory of 20 million years during Tertiary (Cenozoic) time.
■ Evolutionists are indeed able to make chains between larger groups.
J. R. Cole (1981) and Saladin (1988c) quote Gould (1981):
It is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether
through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil
record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking
at the species level but are abundant between larger groups. The evolutio
n from reptiles to mammals . . . is well documented.
■ The fossils are not evenly distributed.
Do we find fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals evenly distributed all
the way from pre-Cambrian soil all the way to Cenozoic soil? Hardly! Yet, acc
ording to Anderson (2003), this is what would be necessary in order to confirm C
reationism.
■ The fossils show a trend toward resemblance to animals living today.
According to Anderson (2003), "one need only show that, as one goes further back
in the fossil record, the fossil forms become progressively different from the
forms existing today."
This pattern was seen even in Darwin s time, Anderson quotes Darwin (1859: 330)
, who wrote, "The more ancient any form is, the more, as a general rule, it diff
ers from living forms."
Anderson suggests Kitcher (1982: 30-54) and Futuyma (1982: 175-196) for further
reading.
■ The fossils show a trend toward larger size.
McKee (2001) comments on the "clear sequence starting 3½ billion years ago, with
the single cells being around for the first 2 billion years, then more com
plex cells for the next billion years. Only in the last 560 million years or so
do we have these more complex taxons that appear."
■ Cousins could provide as much information as ancestors.
Eldredge (1982: 125) speaks of the value in studying two or more species which h
ave descended from the same extinct species.
■ Let us not forget about homologous structures.
Shermer (2002) writes: "A poorly developed wing may have been a well-developed s
omething else, like a thermoregulator for ectothermic reptiles (who depend on ex
ternal sources of heat)."
Shermer (2002) takes issue with Creationists who see homologous structures (such
as the wing of a bat, the flipper of a whale, or the arm of a human) as proof o
f intelligent design. He asks:
Why should a whale have the same bones in its flipper as a human has in its arm
and a bat has in its wing? The answer is: none whatsoever. Surely an intelligen
t designer could have done better than that. These structures are indicative of
descent with modification, not divine creation.
For further discussion on this homologous structures, see the chapter on Other F
rames of Reference.
■ Let us also not forget about incipient stages.
Shermer (2002) also writes: "It is better to have partial sight versus complete
blindness, or the ability to glide, even if you cannot sustain controlled flight
."
■ Creationists ignore the branches with the fewest gaps and concentrate on the b
ranches with the most gaps.
In his debate with Gish, Saladin (1988a) did his dangdest to get in as much info
rmation in as possible. He showed a succession showing an ancestor common to bo
th dogs and bears. He showed another ancestor common to both snakes and lizards
. He showed fossils lying on the cusp between reptiles and mammals. He distrib
uted a journal article on insect evolution (Kritzsky 1987).
Gish swept it all under the rug. Saladin (1988a) noticed that Gish "simply igno
res the many fossil links that have been found. This represents his selective a
ttention only to the data that he thinks supports his viewpoint."
In effect, then, Saladin accuses Gish of a Cracraft III offense.
Edwords (1982) notices this pattern among Creationists in general:
Creationists . . . prefer to concentrate on animals further back in the
fossil record for which the evidence is less complete and where "abrupt appeara
nces" are more common. Dinosaurs and other Mesozoic reptiles are a prefer
red target.
■ The Tree of Life is too much for one person to know.
The contest between Evolutionists and Creationists is an unfair contest. A Crea
tionist could ask an Evolutionist for the history of any one of thousands of spe
cies. Unless it is a branch which is commonly discussed, the chances are that t
he Evolutionist would not know. Yet if an Evolutionist asked a Creationist the
same question, the Creationist only needs to answer with a simple "God did it."
Cuffey (1972) offers a bibliography of 220 sources which discuss the evolution o
f many different species. If a Creationist asks you to explain the evolution of
a taxon which he might choose at random, but the situation allows you time for
research, this list can help.
For an on-line source, you can do no better than to refer to the Tree of Life Pr
oject at: http://www.tolweb.org/tree
This is a catalogue of 9000 Web pages from biologists all over the world, tracin
g the evolution of thousands of species. This can not only help you in a situat
ion which allows time for research, but also in a public debate in which you are
allowed to bring a laptop computer on stage. You could check links from that s
ite while your opponent is giving his 30-minute speech.
For situations in which you are expected to answer questions on the spot, howeve
r, you can never be completely invulnerable.
■ Even one branch of the Tree of Life could be too much to discuss in one evenin
g.
According to Edwords (1982), the mere Evolutionary history of the camel is too e
xtensive to cover in a single book.
In his debate with Gish, Trott (1994b) would liked to have discussed the interme
diates among the duck-billed dinosaurs and many other dinosaurs, but was unable
to do justice to the topic for this reason.
In the debate with Saladin (1988d), Gish smugly commented that Saladin "did not
explain how an invertebrate could change into a vertebrate during a hundred mill
ion years and not leave one single transitional form--never even made any attemp
t to do that." In the transcript of the debate, Saladin (1988d) wrote, "No, I d
id not make an attempt to do this in the debate, but only because so many things
come up in the debate there is not enough time (without keeping the audience th
ere until breakfast!) to address many of them."
In the transcript, however, he did address the question. He began with an anima
l fossilized 550 mya in the Burgess shale. This animal, closely resembling the
amphioxus of today, was invertebrate but had many features resembling those of i
ts piscine successors. Saladin noted the irony of the modern-day amphioxus bein
g classified as an invertebrate and the lamprey being classified as a fish when
the two are so closely similar.
Saladin then proceeded through the ostracoderms, which were the first vertebrate
s in the Ordovician Period, the bony-armored cephalaspids in the Devonian Period
, and the placoderms, who were the first jawed vertebrates, also in the Devonian
Period. These animals lay so close to the borderline that a authorities could
not agree over whether or not to classify these species as fish.
■ Some species lie on the border between phyla.
In the debate with Saladin (1988d), Gish made the statement that "all Evolutioni
sts admit we have no transitional forms between any of the phyla."
It was nice of Gish to serve as spokesman for all Evolutionists, but it might be
better to listen to an Evolutionist. In the transcript of the debate, Saladin
(1988d) gave not only the example cited above, but several more examples:
The Pentastomida have wormlike adults and crustaceanlike larvae, leading
to considerable disagreement whether they should be classified in the ph
ylum Arthropoda or a phylum of their own.
The Onychophora show several features in common with annelids and others
in common with arthropods, and likewise have an uncertain status
somewhere between the two.
The phylum Acanthocephala shares several features with Platyhelminthes
and other features with Nematoda,
The phylum Tardigrada has both nematode and arthropod characters.
Cuffey (1972) mentions not only the Archaeopteryx, which lies on the cusp betwee
n reptiles and birds, but the Diarthrognathus, between reptiles and mammals, the
Seymouria, between amphibians and reptiles, and the Elpistostege, between fishe
s and amphibians.
Saladin (1988d) comments, "Most good college general zoology or invertebrate zoo
logy textbooks will reveal how Gish overstates this case."
■ A specimen tends to get placed in an existing phylum.
gen2rev (2003) comments on what he calls the Problem of Categorization:
Creationists take advantage of the fact that creatures are classified as either
one type or another, and will argue that there are no transitional forms, just a
s one could claim that there are no colors between red and orange.
Morton (2001), like most Evolutionists, has probably heard Gish s old refrain ab
out the millions of specimens displayed in our museums with the transitional spe
cimens conspicuously absent. He replies:
Taxonomists are reluctant to define a new phylum for a specimen which
does not fit into any of the existing phyla. Because of this, there is a
tendency to shoehorn problematical fossils into one of the existing phyla.
■ A specimen can get placed in two phyla.
Morton (2001) again:
Since many problematical fossils that give evidence of either incipient phyla or
transitions between the phyla have been difficult to classify, they have been p
laced in different phyla by different authors.
Morton gives the example of Wiwaxia, which has been classified both as an anneli
d and as a mollusk.
Raup (1983: 157) likewise comments on this dilemma, citing the Archaeopteryx as
an example.
■ If taxonomists won t apply the shoehorn, Creationists will.
When a Creationist sees a fossil which lies on the cusp between two phyla, all h
e has to do is notice the characteristics of one phyla and pretend not to see th
e characteristics of the other. Monroe (2003) comments on Gish s refusal to see
the reptilian characteristics of the Archaeopteryx and seeing only its avine fe
athers and wings (Gish 1979: 90).
And for goodness sakes, a Creationist must not admit that our own species has ev
olved. That is why Gish pretends that we have not changed any since Neanderthal
days.
Between 1911 and 1913, scientists erroneously believed that the Neanderthal was
stoop-shouldered. This misconception was based on a single specimen which was
infected with arthritis.
Gish may commit fallacies of his own, but that does not stop him from noticing o
ther people s fallacies. Here, the paleontologists are committing a fallacy of
accident: just because this particular Neanderthal was stoop-shouldered doesn t
mean that all Neanderthals were stoop-shouldered.
So Gish jumped on this one difference, pretended that it is the only difference,
and inferred that a Neanderthal was nothing more than an arthritic homo sapien
s (Gish [1972] 1976: 103, [1985] 1991: 204; 1995b: 47; Saladin 1988b, 1988c; Ind
octrinhate 2009e).
According to Gish, any one of our prehistoric ancestors could be "dressed up and
taught some table manners" and pass as a modern person (Saladin 1988h; cf. Gish
[1985] 1991: 204; Indoctrinhate 2009e). This comment usually gets a good laugh
, and a good laugh helps his audience feel good, which in turn helps Gish win co
nverts.
Saladin (1988c) argues that there are other Neanderthal/homo sapiens differences
besides the one which Gish mentions. For further information, Saladin refers t
he reader to Conrad (1986).
■ If each specimen fits so securely in an existing category, Creationists should
agree on the subject.
Elsewhere, we speak of Morris (1974a: 174) calling the Homo erectus a man and Gi
sh ([1972] 1976: 85; 1979: 127) calling it an ape.
Perhaps the Creationists should hold a shoehorn convention.
■ Sometimes Evolution takes place rapidly.
In the above examples, we have seen confirmation of phyletic gradualism, or the
belief in slow evolution. Saladin (1988b), however, tells us that this "isn t t
he only theory of evolution around."
A taxon could even change in a single generation. Pigliucci (2000: 168) speaks
of phenotypic plasticity. This term refers to the ability of an organism with a
given genotype, or genetic make-up, to change its phenotype, or observable phys
ical or biochemical characteristics of an organism, in response to changes in th
e environment. Pigliucci gives the example of a goat which was born with short
forelimbs and therefore learned to walk on two legs (Slijper 1942).
A paleontologist finding this goat in the fossil record might puzzle over the la
ck of intermediate forms. Pigliucci (2000: 170) comments, "We do not currently
know how many missing links are actually due to evolution by phenotypic plasti
city and genetic assimilation."
■ Fossilization is restricted to certain conditions.
From listening to Gish, you may get the impression that the geological column is
a complete record of the Tree of Life. Anything not fossilized, therefore, nev
er existed.
This is far from the truth. There are only certain conditions in which a specim
en can get fossilized. For example, when animal carcasses are carried downstrea
m and deposited at a bend in the river, a pile of fossils could accumulate (Sala
din 1988b).
A hyperlimnion, or a cold, still layer of a lake is conducive to fossilization.
This is where fossil bats have been found (Saladin 1988b).
A lagoon which is rich in lime silt but poor in oxygen could also be hospitable
to fossils. This is where Archaeopteryx fossils were found (Saladin 1988b).
Although a quick catastrophe, such as an eruption of a volcano, could result in
fossilization, fossils are usually found in sedimentary rock. Hunt ([1994] 1997
) refers to the "the folding, crushing, and melting" which could destroy an olde
r fossil.
■ Some taxons do not preserve well.
On at least three occasions (Trott 1994b; Gish 1994; McKee 2001), Gish announced
with glee that bat fossils have been found in the soil "fully formed."
Let us assume, for the moment, that the bats appeared unannounced in a cloud of
smoke--although, as we discuss elsewhere, they didn t. Even that will not prove
that God created bats on the very spot where they are found. Trott (1994b) rep
lied:
Flying creatures are not good candidates for fossilization. Their remain
s are generally light and fragile and they usually do not inhabit environments
conducive to fossilization. Their sparse fossil record should hardly be
surprising.
Hunt ([1994] 1997) refers to types of animals which are less susceptible to foss
ilization, such as "terrestrial animals, small animals, fragile animals, and for
est-dwellers."
Birds and insects are likely to die in places where sedimentation is not occurri
ng and where their delicate skeletons will be extremely vulnerable (Raup & Stanl
ey 1978; Kitcher 1982: 107).
Gish was not so easily convinced, however. In the McKee (2001) debate, Gish cal
led attention to fossils of invertebrates such as "worms and jellyfish" and even
microbes such as "bacteria and algae." From this premise, he asks why there ar
e no fossils of the invertebrate ancestors of vertebrate taxons. This, too, we
discuss elsewhere.
■ No matter how far you move the ball, the opponent can still move the goalposts
.
In a debate in 2002, William McGinnis of UC San Diego told Gish of an experiment
in which brine shrimp were evolved into insects. Gish only responded, "Would i
t survive? Sure, you can produce cripples, you can have humans with no arms tha
t are born as a result of a mutation or something like that." (Grocott [2002] 20
08)
So now, the experimenter would have to perform a longitudinal study to see how m
any generations of insects would survive. But would that convert Gish to Evolut
ionism? Probably not. Gish would only ask another question.
We can supply Gish with transitional fossils by the truckload but he will keep a
sking for more. Regarding the evolution of fish into amphibians, Gish ([1972] 19
76: 32; [1985] 1991: 41) writes:
If fish evolved into amphibia, as evolutionists believe, then we would p
redict that we would find transitional forms showing the gradual transition
of fins into feet and legs.
Regarding the evolution of reptiles into birds, Gish ([1972] 1976: 32; [1985] 19
91: 41-42) writes:
If reptiles gave rise to birds, then we would expect to find transitiona
l forms in the fossil record showing the gradual transition of the forelim
bs of the ancestral reptile into the wings of a bird, and the gradual transiti
on of some structure on the reptile into the feathers of a bird.
Just in case you haven t heard of the pteranodon, Gish hopes you believe this (P
arrish 1991):
Well let s look at the 25% along the way. Now why did this creature get
25% wings? Obviously not only can this thing not fly, he can t run any
longer either! He d run along dragging these useless things. He can t fly,
he can t run, he can t do anything. Foolish, you see, absolutely absurd, and
ladies and gentlemen, there s not a trace of an ancestor, not a trace of an
ancestor has ever been found for the flying reptile. Fossils of flying reptiles
and fossils of non-flying reptiles but not one single intermediate.
But in case you have heard of the pteranodon, Gish hopes you believe this (Salad
in 1988b):
Next slide please. Here s the flying reptile, the pteranodon. These rept
iles had enormously long forefingers, supposedly a genetic accident, a geneti
c mistake or mutation, made the forefingers of the ancestral reptile sligh
tly longer. For some strange reason it conferred survival value, struggle for
existence, and the reptile with slightly longer fingers replaced the original
one, and a thousand years later it had another happy accident, fingers got
just a wee bit longer and longer and longer, and we end up with this flying
reptile.
I can t imagine how this reptile, with his forelimbs changed into wings,
25 percent wings, it couldn t fly, and it couldn t get around on the ground
anymore, either. How could it catch its prey? How could it escape predators? Rid
iculous! And furthermore, ladies and gentlemen, there s not a trace of a trans
itional form, not even a trace!
There are one hundred degrees in the percentage continuum. So the next time you
debate a Creationist, be sure to have a 1% specimen, a 2% specimen, and so on.
And even then, hope that the opponent doesn t ask for decimal percentages.
■ If there is a discernible sequence in an incomplete fossil record, we can reas
onably guess what is in the missing links.
Suppose someone wrote a simple sequence of numbers with a few of those numbers r
ubbed out:
2 4 6 8 __ 12 14 __ 18 20
You can bet that the missing numbers are 10 and 16, don t you think?
Gish doesn t seem to think so. In the Saladin (1988d) debate, the subject of el
ephant evolution came up. Gish showed an illustration by Archer & Clayton (1984
). There were dotted lines showing hypothesized links. Gish got all the mileag
e he could out of those dotted lines:
All right, the solid lines indicate where fossils are found. The dotted
lines are imaginary; there are no transitional forms. Notice, ladies and gentl
emen they have all of these elephants, different kinds, and most of them appe
aring simultaneously. Look at the transitional forms. Every place has dotted l
ines! There are no transitional forms, ladies and gentlemen. And Dr. Saladin
used the elephants as an example of evolution! Why the, ev--- evolutionists on
ly wish that they do not have any transitional forms [sic]. Every one of tho
se connections are by dotted lines, which means they have found no fossils
. That s an example of evolution. Dr. Saladin s example of evolution.
Saladin (1988d) responds:
It is a common and prudent practice in drawing phylogenies to represent
the connections with dotted lines, but it does not signify that no transitions
have been found. It distinguishes empirical from inferential information, and
it bespeaks the tentativeness of science. One can never be sure that between an
cestor A and descendent D there might not later be found additional transitions
B and C; or that reinterpretation of fossil evidence and new discoveries
might not cause a re-assessment of the phylogenetic connections and relationship
s. If I found a "missing link" between bivalve molluscs and gastropods,
I would still connect it to those groups by a dotted line just to denote the te
ntative nature of any scientific conclusion. Gish is mistaken when he says th
e use of dotted lines "means they have found no fossils."
In the same debate (Saladin 1988d), the opponent cited Gould (1981) on the subje
ct of the evolution of reptiles into mammals. Gish looked at an illustration to
the article and found that 2 of the 16 links in the illustration have not been
found and were therefore hypothetical. So let s listen to Gish again:
All right now, the idea is to illustrate that there are no gaps in this
mammal-like reptiles. Ladies and gentlemen, this article says, two of those
creatures are totally hypothetical! Of course there s no gaps in there, because
they put in hypothetical organisms. The article says some of the structur
es on those creatures, other creatures, are hypothetical, merely drawn in
. The article says they are not arranged in a true time sequence. If you h
ave A, B, C, D, they did not occur in that order. They re maybe put ther
e, to make it look as if they did, and none of them are drawn to scale .
. . Ladies and gentlemen that s fabricated data. Unless they tell you that the
se things are true that is simply not right to do such a thing. If I had done
that on the basis of any of these things I would be crucified by evolutio
nists. That s, that s the sort of data that they use.
Now let s listen to Gould (1981):
The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only
one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian
ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw.
The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nu
bbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely
a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have
discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-li
ke reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and
articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamos
al and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transi
tional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afa
rensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacit
y larger than any ape s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centi
meters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discove
red in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of pro
gressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and
teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our fait
h thereby?
Which quote block did you learn more from, the one from Gish or the one from Gou
ld?

■ If questions about Evolution are not answered, that does not disprove Evolutio
n.
At one time, people were unable to explain thunder in scientific terms. But thu
nder was always caused by hot air meeting cold air, and it was never caused by T
hor wielding his mighty hammer. People were unable to explain in scientific ter
ms what the Sun was. But the Sun was always a giant ball of helium and hydrogen
, and it never was Apollo driving his golden chariot across the sky.
Why, then, should we default to supernatural explanations when we encounter ques
tions which are not answered today?
Some of the question may never be answered. H. G. Wells won t loan us his time
machine, and Hermione won t loan us her time turner. So we may never know every
little change which has taken place on the Tree of Life.
But unanswered questions do not warrant throwing out the whole topic. We don t
know where Amelia Earhart is. But we don t deny that there was such a person.
We don t know how or why Kennedy was assassinated. But we don t deny that he wa
s assassinated.
So what is your verdict? Is there enough evidence to suggest that evolution mig
ht have taken place? Or do you insist on seeing every missing link?
chance
According to Evolutionists according to Gish, everything "eventually from hydrog
en gas and more recently from some little microscopic single-celled soft-bodied
organism over how many hundreds of millions of years." (Zindler 1990) This was
all "supposedly produced by chance" (Bakken 1987) or through "random chance muta
tions" (Zindler 1990).
Gish comments specifically on amino acids, which chain together to form proteins
, or compounds which are essential to the different parts of the body (Gish 1997
: 22). According to Evolutionists according to Gish, the amino acids "all go to
gether randomly." (Bakken 1987) Gish imagines the amino acids aiming and missin
g endlessly before finding a effective arrangement, so they must have been creat
ed just as they are now (Indoctrinhate 2009c).
I hope you read carefully the opening words of this chapter. I said that all th
is was true "according to Evolutionists according to Gish," not "according to Ev
olutionists." Now that Gish has spoken for Evolutionists, let us allow Evolutio
nists to speak for the Evolutionists:
■ Some Evolutionists advocate randomness, some Evolutionists don t.
Ridley (1985: 61-72) discusses at length two schools of thought which he calls s
electionism and neutralism. The former places greater weight on natural selecti
on whereas the latter places greater weight on randomness. Ridley sees no quest
ion that both factors are in effect. The only disagreement he sees is over the
ratio between the two.
■ Brain evolution is cumulative.
Zindler counters that the human brain "could have come about over hundreds of
millions of years from smaller brains." He make an analogy for card players:
Just as the chances of being dealt a "perfect hand" at bridge are very s
lim, achieving a perfect hand is no problem at all if one is allowed to keep
all the spades from a given deal, return the rest of the cards to the dealer
, take part in a second deal, keep the new spades, etc.
■ More than one particular protein would work.
Gish s favorite example seems to be cytochrome c, a chemical responsible for cel
l respiration. Sure enough, cytochrome c works, but according to Saladin (1988h
), many other proteins would have worked also.
■ A complex protein could evolve from simpler proteins.
Gish does not even mention the possibilities of proteins evolving from simple to
complex. He would have us assume that the protein would have to make a sudden
appearance in its present form.
Saladin (1988h) comments:
No scientist would ever make the preposterous assumption that modern
cytochrome-c sprang into existence, any more than we d assume you could
mix a bunch of amino acids together and have an elephant come out of the
test tube.
■ A similar formula would produce a similar result.
To listen to Gish, you might think that one cannot change just one atom without
sending the entire structure toppling like a house of cards. Not so. According
to Saladin (1988h), many other sequences could also constitute an effective enz
yme. Ridley (1985: 59) gives the example of hemoglobin, which shows differences
and similarities from species to species.
■ Some sequences of amino acids are more probable than others.
According to Saladin (1988h), "Amino acids are selective about the order in whic
h they will combine. They do not combine randomly in a Miller-type of experimen
t."
Saladin (1988h) offers an analogy: "The literature shows they do not join togeth
er randomly any more than a snowflake results from random assembly of water mole
cules."
■ Chemical reactions cannot take place by chance in the first place.
In regard to the whole notion of randomness, Saladin (1988h) comments:
No biologist could seriously maintain that chemical reactions occur at
random or by mere chance. Otherwise there would be no science of
chemistry at all, chemistry being a study of the regularities or "laws"
followed by interacting compounds and elements.
When Gish filibusters about fossils and rocks, we should perhaps grant him some
leeway. After all, Gish is a biochemist, not a geologist or paleontologist. Bu
t here, he is speaking in his own field. If what his opponents tell us about pr
oteins and amino acids is true, then Gish is deliberately misleading his audienc
e.
Why did Gish want his audience to think that Evolution rolled a die or flipped a
coin? Here are some possibilities:
▶ Gish wanted to portray Evolutionism as superficial.
Randomness or chance usually denotes superficiality. Who do you respect more, a
person who got rich through good, honest, hard work? Or a person who got rich
by winning the State lottery?
It is the lottery winner that Gish wants us to associate with Evolutionists.
▶ Gish does not want his readers and listeners to think about the survival of th
e fittest.
Some Creationists criticize the notion of "survival of the fittest" as circular.
Gish, however, does not use that argument. In fact, I cannot find those four w
ords in any of his writings or debates,
That is probably because he didn t want us to think about the concept. If we di
d, we might see that it is circular because it is self-evident.
Look how bizarre Evolutionary theory would look without the survival of the fitt
est. First, some invisible power changed some of the invertebrates into fish.
Then this unknowable essence changed some of the fish into amphibians. Next, th
is unidentifiable force--we don t know who or what--changed some of the amphibia
ns into reptiles. Finally, he, she, or it changed some of the reptiles into bir
ds and some of them into mammals.
What is this force governing the planet which Gish s straw men believe in? Not
the survival of the fittest, because we aren t supposed to know about the surviv
al of the fittest. Not God, because Gish does his dangdest to associate Evoluti
on with atheism.
There is one agency which Gish will admit to, and that is mutation. Even that i
s no good, because nearly all mutations are supposed to be bad. In the next cha
pter, Gish is going to tell us all about it.
mutations
Just to make sure you know what we are talking about, let us first define a few
words. A DNA molecule is a long molecule which transmits genetic information A
gene is a hereditary unit consisting of a sequence of DNA that occupies a speci
fic location on a chromosome and determines a particular characteristic in an or
ganism. A chromosome is one of 23 pairs of arrangements of genes.
Here is a definition of mutation:
a. A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resul
ting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type.
b. The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome.
c. A mutant.
And now, it is time for another rant-a-thon (1990a: 43; 1997; cf. Indoctrinhate
2009f):
Evolutionists say most mutations are bad, but they also believe that onc
e in awhile---maybe one in 10,000---a mutation just happens to be good. Just
by accident, they say, once in a great while a mutation produces a change
in a plant or animal that is good. That is, the creature that inherits the gene
with the good mutation is changed in such a way that it has gained some adv
antage, compared to the original creature. Perhaps now, they might imagine, it c
an run faster, fight better, obtain more food, or produce more offspring. Accord
ing to evolution theory, the creature that inherits the good mutation will repro
duce in larger numbers than the original, and so, in the struggle for existence,
it will eventually, after hundreds or thousands of years, replace the original.
This causes only a slight change, and it takes hundreds, perhaps thousands, of
these slight changes to convert a creature into a new species. Thus, the su
pposed origin of a new species, by evolution, would require tens of thousands of
years. To bring about the evolution of an invertebrate into a fish, or a reptil
e into a bird, would require perhaps 100 million years or more.
Now let us discuss mutations as Gish understands the subject, point by point:
▶ Mutation is the only vehicle of evolution.
Gish (1990a: 43) also wrote that "Mutation is the commonly accepted mechanism re
quired, by evolution, to change the first form of life into all other living cre
atures."
▶ Mutations are always bad.
Gish ([1972] 1976: 29) would have us believe that:
The mutations we see occurring spontaneously in nature or that can be
induced in the laboratory always prove to be harmful. It is doubtful that of
all the mutations that have been seen to occur, a single one can be definitely s
aid to have increased the viability of the affected plant or animal.
In a later writing, Gish ([1992] 1996: 83) took an even harder stance: "all muta
tions are bad."
▶ Mutations, good or bad, are rare.
According to Gish ([1972] 1976: 30), "a mutation of any kind in a gene is a rare
event."
▶ A mutation can make only a minor change.
Gish ([1972] 1976: 29) wrote of the "slight changes" wrought by mutations. And d
on t forget that "hundreds, perhaps thousands, of these slight changes" which ar
e necessary "to convert a creature into a new species." (Gish 1990a: 43)
▶ Mutations must be increasingly complex.
Evolutionists have called attention to the British peppered moths, in which the
city-dwelling population, living in a sooty environment, has adopted a soot colo
r as a camouflage (Kettlewell 1961). Gish ([1972] 1976: 22) discounts this case
as a case of evolution, since it is not a change toward greater complexity.
Thank you, Dr. Gish. Now let us learn about mutations as understood by Evolutio
nists:
■ Mutation is not the only vehicle of evolution.
According to Arthur (1997), Gish downplays the role of natural selection. Accor
ding to Arthur, a well-suited individual holds an advantage in terms of mate sel
ection, competition for limited resources, and life span.
In Arthur s opinion, it does not take a mutation for an individual to be larger,
smaller, lighter-skinned, darker-skinned, fatter, or thinner than most other in
dividuals. Yet these regional differences in our own species arise in response
to regional differences in our environment.
Gish (1997) counters that he "specifically [mentions] differential reproduction,
which according to evolutionary biologists, such as Richard Lewontin, is natura
l selection."
■ It is the beneficial mutations which survive.
Ask any opera lover about I Medici, Zaza, or Gli Zingari, and he will respond wi
th a puzzled frown. But ask about Pagliacci, and he will respond with a smile o
f recognition. Those first three operas are unsuccessful operas by Ruggero Leon
cavallo which were not well received, and have therefore been forgotten. The la
st opera, also by Leoncavallo, was well received and is therefore still remember
ed.
The same principle works here. It is not the burden of the Evolutionists to sho
w a high ratio of beneficial mutations to harmful mutations. Rather, it is only
necessary to explain that the beneficial mutations survive and the harmful muta
tions do not.
■ Mutations are good or bad depending on circumstances.
I remember one time when mercury poisoning in tuna fish was a big news issue. D
oes that mean that tuna fish is good and mercury is evil? Not necessarily. At
about that time, there was an item about a worker in a mercury processing plant
who was eating a tuna fish sandwich for lunch and accidentally dropped it into t
he supply of mercury. The supply of mercury had to be discarded because it was
polluted with tuna fish.
The moral of this story is, there is a time and place for everything.
The same principle is in operation here, but Gish doesn t understand that. Or a
t least, he doesn t want his public to understand that. If a mutation renders a
n individual better suited for a hot or cold climate, how does that affect the i
ndividual? That depends on which climate the individual lives in. If a mutatio
n renders an individual larger or smaller, how does that affect the individual?
That depends on which poses a greater hardship, scarcity of resources or predat
ors.
That is why Saladin (1988b) sees the words "mistake" and "accident" as inapplica
ble to nature. Saladin (1988b) illustrates with the case of a pair of wallabies
which escaped from a zoo in Oahu, found a home in the wilderness, and engendered
a new species. This new species developed a liver enzyme which enabled its memb
ers to eat plants which would be poisonous to their Australian cousins (Lazell 1
980, 1981; Lazell, Sutterfield, & Giezentanner 1984).
Saladin (1988b) also responds with the case of the Flavobacterium, which feeds f
rom nylon by-products (Thwaites 1985). Suppose that an organism with a craving
for nylon by-products were born before nylon were invented. Or suppose that suc
h an organism were born in an isolated area where modern Technology had not been
introduced. In such a case, the mutation would not be favorable and a new spec
ies would not likely arise.
For further examples, Saladin recommends Futuyma (1982: 138-139).
Gish (1975) wrote, "Evolutionsts readily admit that the vast majority of mutatio
ns are harmful." I don t know what Evolutionists he is referring to, but obviou
sly not Saladin, Thwaites, or Futuyma.
Why did Gish speak of mutations in terms of good and evil? Probably because he
was so accustomed to thinking in religious terms that he has come to judge mutat
ions as God would judge souls.
Or probably because Gish is deliberately using a "loaded term," as Saladin (1988
b) suggests. The words "mutant" and "mutation" are popular words in the mass me
dia. The Saladin debate took place before Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles came out
as a movie in 1990, but after these figures appeared in a comic book in 1984.
Gish was probably hoping that some of his readers saw the comic book.
■ Gish refused to look at beneficial mutations.
Pigliucci (2000: 177) claims to have seen beneficial mutations in his own labora
tory.
He invited Gish to visit his laboratory for a close look, but Gish never accepte
d that invitation.
I hope Pigliucci didn t feel too rejected.
■ Mutations do not need to be increasingly complex.
The sooty-colored city-dwelling peppered moths may not be more complex than thei
r country-dwelling cousins, but they have adopted a color which renders them les
s visible to predators. The sooty color makes them more fit, and therefore more
likely to survive. The word Evolution refers to a trend toward fitness for sur
vival, not toward complexity.
Or at least, that is how it is defined by most people besides Gish. Just as Lew
is Carroll s Humpty Dumpty re-defines the word glory. Gish re-defines the word E
volution.
What causes Gish to concoct this re-definition? He probably has a notion that e
very move taken by an Evolutionist is an attack on human evolution. Regarding D
arwin s finches, Gish (1975) wrote that "the molecule-to-man idea" was not "supp
orted by such evidence." But Darwin was not writing about men, he was writing a
bout finches. Let s stick to one subject at a time--please!
Gish probably discounted Kettlewell s moths as an example of Evolution in order
to defend Adam and Eve. I haven t read Kettlewell s report, but I doubt very se
riously if he was trying to hurt Adam and Eve. Rather, I think he was only tryi
ng to learn more about peppered moths.
■ Mutations are not rare.
Isaak (2001, [2005] 2007: 51-52) cites statistics indicating the ubiquity of mut
ations.
Dobzhansky et al. (1977: 71) write, "Mutations are either rare or ubiquitous eve
nts depending on how we choose to look at them. The mutation rates of individua
l genes are low, but each organism has many genes, and populations consist of ma
ny individuals."
■ Mutations are necessary even for evolution within what Gish refers to as "kind
s."
Which would you rather be?
1. a dark-winged moth in the city
2. a light-winged moth in the city
3. a dark-winged moth in the country
4, a light-winged moth in the country
I ll take either 1 or 4.
Which would you rather be?
1. a brown-furred bear in the forest
2. a white-furred bear in the forest
3. a brown-furred bear in the tundra
4, a white-furred bear in the tundra
I ll take either 1 or 4.
Which would you rather be?
1. a Black person in Africa
2. a White person in Africa
3. a Black person in Europe
4, a White person in Europe
I ll take either 1 or 4.
Gish might say, "That s only evolution on a smaller scale! Moths are still moth
s, bears are still bears, and people are still people!"
Okay, I ll lay that point aside for now. But what causes this smaller scale evo
lution, if it s not those deadly, venomous mutations which Gish so deeply abhors
?
■ A mutation can make a major change.
Arthur (1997) counters that Gish is "ignoring the fact that slight changes to ge
nes often result in large, coordinated changes to organisms."
Saladin (1988b) speaks of single mutations which have created populations of dwa
rf sheep. Saladin suggests Stanley (1979: 162-163) for further reading.
Let us close this chapter with a story which Gish ([1992] 1996: 83) told his you
ng readers:
The little bombardier beetle is a mighty argument for creation. His def
ense mechanism is so complex and exacting that if it all doesn t work exactly
right, he could explode! Evolutionists believe that he evolved from an
ordinary beetle by a series of thousands of genetic mistakes (mutations).
Besides the fact that all mutations are bad, the first time one of these
intermediate beetles mixed the chemicals together, without the whole system, in
place, he d blow up. End of beetle family line.

objections to
Evolutionist dating techniques
Joseph Farnsworth (2001) was reading Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Reco
rd (Gish [1985] 1991). He got to page 51, in which Gish says, “Recent publicati
ons have exposed weaknesses and fallacies in radiometric dating methods.” (cf.
Gish [1972] 1976: 42; [1992] 1996: 15). Farnsworth almost believed this. But t
hen he looked up the footnotes and found them all to be Creationist sources.
It is good that Farnsworth did not get fooled, as many of Gish s other readers p
robably have. But let us not err in the opposite direction. All messages from
unreliable sources are not necessarily false. Hypochondriacs sometimes get sick
, paranoids sometimes get persecuted, and Creationists sometimes write something
which is scientifically valid.
So let us look up the footnotes from page 51 and see:
▶ "The age of the earth can only be known by means of divine revelation."
These are the words quoted in the first source (Whitcomb & Morris 1964: 346).
▶ Carbon dating is reliable only up to a certain age.
Cook (1966: 8) speaks of the unreliability of carbon-14 dating for fossils past
a certain age.
▶ Dating techniques do not take past catastrophes into account.
According to Slusher (1981: 1-2), mainline science fails to account for past cat
astrophes, such as volcano eruptions.
▶ Dating techniques do not take changes in the decay rate into account.
Slusher (1981: 22, 49) also accuses scientists of failing to account for changes
in the decay rate. He mentions the difference in the decay rates of cesium 133
and iron 57 as examples.
In the McKee (2001) debate, Gish said a person making a radiometric reading woul
d "have to assume the decay rates have always been constant, even though “nobody
was back there millions of years ago to measure those decay rates.”
▶ There have been inaccurate readings from lava flows.
Clementson (1970) argues that new rock in the form of hardened lava flows produc
ed estimated ages as great as 3 billion to 10.5 billion years, when they were ac
tually less than 200 years old.
Gish has added some arguments of his own:
▶ Radiochronologists may fail to account for intrusions and extrusions.
In the McKee (2001) debate, Gish spoke at length on the "uranium salts, potassiu
m salts, rubidium salts, or solvent water" and on the "lead 206, 207, and 208" w
hich "could have an apparent age of millions and even billions of years to begin
with." According to Gish, the age of these intrusions and extrusions could be
mistaken for the age of the sample itself.
▶ Radiochronologists are guilty of cherry picking.
In the McKee (2001) debate, Gish said that when radiochronologists find a sample
which does not give the desired reading, "they simply throw it away."
When geological samples were taken from the Moon, Gish criticized the geologists
for rejecting the samples which did not give the desired reading of 4.6 billion
years.
Now for the Evolutionist side:
■ Scientists recognize the limitations of carbon dating.
Scientists are aware that carbon is valid only up to about 50,000 years. If a s
pecimen seems to be older, Scientists use other techniques (Isaak [2005] 2007: 1
46-147).
■ Radiometric dating is secure from differences in the decay rate.
Isotopes are "two or more atoms having the same number of protons but a differen
t number of neutrons." The accompanying illustration (Williams, P. 2009) provid
es an example.
S. Brush (1982: 52) argues that the two elements mentioned by Slusher are stable
isotopes. Therefore, they have no decay rates to be changed.
Dalrymple (1984: 88) argues that the only significant case of decadence of isoto
pes
is that of internal conversion, meaning that energy is transmitted directly from
an excited nucleus to an orbital electron, causing ejection of that electron fr
om the atom. Dalrymple writes, "These changes are irrelevant to radiometric dati
ng methods." Dalrymple (1984: 88) furthermore states that decay rates are essent
ially unaffected by temperatures between -186°C to 2000°C, Dalrymple ([1984] 20
06) refers interested readers to Steiger & Jaeger (1977).
■ Scientists recognize that rocks of different dates can be found in the same pl
ace.
Isaak ([2005] 2007: 151-152) was unable to locate one of Gish s references (Clem
entson 1970), but is aware of the danger of dating xenolyths, or older inclusion
s, by accident. Are xenolyths known only to Creationists? Not very likely.
■ Intrusions and extrusions could be younger than the fossils in the rock.
In the 2001 debate, McKee mentioned a site in which the intrusions were younger
than fossils. However, even these intrusions and extrusions were not young enoug
h to confirm Young Earth Creationism.
■ Geologists reject samples in which readings could be affected by outside facto
rs.
Isaak ([2005] 2007: 157) quotes Henke (n. d. a) as calling attention to the high
cost of radiometric testing. It is unlikely, therefore, that one would spend h
undreds of dollars on a sample reading, just to throw out the results if they do
not meet one s own fancy.
Kenneth Miller (1982a) and Isaak ([2005] 2007: 157) counter that geologists reje
cted samples in which the readings could be affected by outside factors.
What is a geologist supposed to do if a sample contains older and younger elemen
ts which could be confused? Make one reading for the whole sample? Then the C
reationists would accuse the geologist of ignoring the younger factors in order
to get an older reading. Or reject the sample on the grounds that the outside f
actors could confound the reading? Then the Creationists would accuse the geolo
gist of hiding the sample for fear of getting a younger reading. So the Creatio
nists have the geologist in a double bind.
■ Even when radiometric readings disagree, they do not confirm Young Earth Creat
ionism.
McKee (2001) gives the example of a fossil collection found in East Africa which
was originally dated at 2 million years and later corrected to 1.75 million yea
rs. Big deal. Now we re .25 million years closer to confirming Young Earth Crea
tion.
■ ICR s field work is deceptive.
In 1992, the ICR members took a break from writing their Creationist propaganda,
took a trip to Mount Saint Helens, gathered up some rock samples, and sent them
in to radiometry laboratories for testing. Their venture was later written up
by a member of their team (Austin 1996).
Isn t that exciting? The Institute for Creation Research actually went out and
did some good, honest, valid field work!
Or did they? Let s see:
In the McKee (2001) debate, Gish said that ICR sent lava extrusions to two diffe
rent radiometry labs and got two different readings--2-3 b y a and 1.3 b y a.
What Gish does not say was that the Institute sent samples from different lava f
lows to these different labs (Stassen [1994] 2003).
In the same debate (McKee 2001), Gish also told us that the Institute found a ro
ck sample which was only 12 years old at the time, sent it to a radiometry lab,
and got a reading of 300,000 years old.
What Gish did not tell us was that the lab did not purport to accurately measure
samples less than two million years old (Isaak [2005] 2007: 154).
Furthermore, Gish did not tell us that the samples were contaminated by crystals
from other sources (Stassen [1994] 2003; Isaak [2005] 2007: 153-154). Excuse
the tu quoque fallacy, but Creationists first accuse mainstream scientists of a
llowing foreign elements to invalidate a reading, now they do the exact same thi
ng!
Pietruszewski (1998) claims that he asked the ICR members why the researcher did
not try other radiometric tests. He received a reply that he "maybe hasn t don
e it yet." This was in October 1997, after the Institute posted a report on th
e Web as if it were complete.
It is almost incredible that a party would spend so much time, money, and energy
on a project just to pull a trick on an opposing party. But apparently it is t
rue.
Isaak ([2005] 2007: 154) recommends Henke (n. d. b) for further reading about th
is venture.
■ Radiometric readings are cross-tested.
McKee (2001) and Isaak ([2005] 2007: 146) speak of the tireless efforts to cross
-test the various dating techniques. The best known techniques are the radiocar
bon, potassium-argon, and uranium-lead techniques, but other techniques include
samarium-neodymium, rubidium-strontium, uranium-thorium, fission track, chlorin
e-36, and optically stimulated luminescence.
How could these dating techniques agree closely with each other? There are only
three explanations that I can think of.
The first explanation is that they are all close to accurate. Have you ever see
n two identical test papers with low scores? Neither have I.
Or perhaps they are all wrong, but come from the same unreliable source. Maybe
Satan and his imps are registering all these laboratory readings.
My third explanation is that God is testing us to see who are his true Bible bel
ievers, who can remain loyal and faithful in the face of contradictory evidence.
Can you pass that test? Good. Neither can I. I ll see you in Hell.
time clocks
Either Gish shies away from the age-of-the-earth question or he find it unnecess
ary. At the Saladin (1988b) debate, he said, "We are not debating about the age
of the earth." At the Zindler (1990) debate, he said "The time question is irr
elevant to the how question."
If Gish doesn t agree with the Evolutionists on how old the earth is, then how o
ld does he think it is? And how does he know?
The best-known Young Earth calculation is Bishop James Ussher s six-thousand-yea
r figure. But as far as I know, Gish never mentioned Bishop Ussher, so it would
be unfair to assume that he accepted this figure.
There are, however, several calculations which Gish ([1985] 1991: 51; 1995b: 50-
51) cites as possibilities. He calls these calculations time clocks, so that is
what we shall call them.
He doesn t like the way the Evolutionists do it; let s see how they do it:
▶ measurement of the dipole component of the magnetic field
Thomas Barnes (1971), also of the Creation Research Institute, proposed this you
ng-Earth argument: the dipole component of the magnetic field has decreased slig
htly over the time that it has been measured. (The dipole component is the part
of a magnetic field which approximates a theoretically perfect field around a si
ngle magnet.) In his 1975 review of Creationist literature, Gish quotes Barnes
as saying that "the earth cannot be much older than 10,000 years."
▶ accumulation of meteoritic dust on the Moon
Lyttleton (1956) and Pettersson (1960) seem to be the most prominent claimants o
n this one, but there have been others. The argument runs that meteors hitting
the Moon get smashed to smithereens. Therefore, there would be a thick accumula
tion of dust on the Moon if the Moon is millions of years old.
▶ accumulation of helium in the atmosphere
Thanks to Mormon chemist Melvin A. Cook (1957) for this one. Cook calls attenti
on to the helium which is constantly being created and added to the atmosphere.
Helium is not light enough to escape the Earth s gravity, and will therefore ac
cumulate. Cook reaches his dead end at 200,000 years in the past.
▶ accumulation of mineral elements in the ocean
Goldberg (1965) published a list of residence times of the minerals in the ocean
. This term is defined as "the average time that any small amount of an element
remains in seawater before it is removed" (Dalrymple [1984] 2006). Stassen ([1
996] 2005) presents the list, which ranges from 100 years for aluminum to 260,00
0,000 for sodium.
Creationist writers have put Goldberg s calculations through considerable abuse.
Such writers have used these figures for what they called "upper limits." Stas
sen ([1996] 2005) notes that Creationists tend to quote whichever values are in
accord with their dogma while ignoring all other values on the list.

▶ the lifetime of comets

Slusher (1980: 43-53) would have us believe that all of the comets were created
at the time of Genesis.

▶ the time required for galaxy clusters to disperse

This argument was also advanced by Slusher (1980: 7-14).
▶ the Poynting-Robertson effect
This is defined as "the gradual decrease in orbital velocity of a small particle
such as a micrometeorite in orbit about the sun due to the absorption and reemi
ssion of radiant energy by the particle."
According to W. Brown (1995: 20, 30), the Poynting-Robertson effect causes orbit
ing particles (on the order of a centimeter in diameter) to slow and fall inward
because solar radiation falls slightly more on their leading edge, like raindro
ps on a speeding car. If the solar system were old, the Poynting-Robertson effec
t would have caused all particles above a certain size to spiral into the sun, r
emoving them from the solar system, but we still find interplanetary dust. On th
is argument, Slusher (1980; Slusher & Robertson 1982), limits the age of the Uni
verse to 10,000 years.
▶ the presence in plutonium in rock samples
Gentry (1986; quoted in Geisler 1982: 153-155; mentioned in Geisler 1982: 239) a
nd Snelling (2000) argue that polonium, which has a short half-life, is found in
rock which conventional geologists would have us believe is millions of years o
ld. Therefore, according to Gentry s reasoning, the rock itself must also be yo
ung.
▶ the pressure of oil in petroleum deposits
Cook (1966: 254-279) argues that oil and gas is trapped in the earth under inten
se pressure. According to Cook, the oil or gas would have escaped long ago if t
he earth were millions of years old.
▶ the rate of cooling of the earth (taking into account heat produced by the dec
ay of radioactive substances)
You ve heard of global warming? Slusher & Gamwell (1978) speak of a global cool
ing. They argue that the interior of the earth is very hot, and therefore could
not be very old, considering the cooling rate.
Evolutionists reply:
■ The magnetic field has fluctuated throughout history.
In fact, the magnetic field has even reversed. This means that if a person livi
ng today travelled through the distant past with a compass, there would be times
that the compass needle would point to the south.
Critics also argue that the nondipole components, or the so-called messy remaind
er which Barnes considered negligible, has become stronger while the dipole comp
onent has become weaker.
Stassen ([1996] 2005) recommends Dalrymple (1984: 106-108) or Strahler ([1987] 1
999: 150-155) for further information.
■ There is confusion about how much dust should be expected on the Moon.
Creationist writers Snelling & Rush (1993) reviewed the literature on the subjec
t. In an effort to be fair, they took other Creationist writers to task for exp
ecting too much. However, they also criticized Evolutionist writers for expecti
ng too little. Perhaps they are right on both counts. You are welcome to check
the literature and do your own calculating. Stassen ([1996] 2005) suggests Dal
rymple (1984: 108-111) and Strahler ([1987] 1999: 143-144).
■ Helium escapes at a rate at least as fast as the rate at which it is produced.
Critics argue that helium does indeed escape from the atmosphere, and at a rate
almost as fast as the rate at which it is produced. Technical readers may be in
terested in an analysis by Dalrymple (1984: 112).
■ Mineral elements escape from the ocean as well as accumulate in the ocean.
Like the atmospheric helium argument, the argument about mineral elements in the
ocean only observes what goes in and ignores what goes out. M. A. Cook (1966:
73), although a Creationist, pointed out that minerals are removed from the ocea
n, thereby creating a state of approximate equilibrium. Therefore, such calcula
tions are useless for determining the age of the earth.
■ Comets are still being born.
Matson ([1994] 2002) tells us that astronomers witness the birth of comets at th
e rate of about one per month.
■ Stars fluctuate in relation to galaxy clusters.
Matson ([1994] 2002) counters that each star moves back and forth through the ce
nter of the cluster. Net expansion of the cluster, then, is all Slusher s idea.
■ There are forces opposing the Poynting-Robertson effect.
For the tiny particles orbiting the Sun, Isaak ([2005] 2007: 181-182) counters t
hat radiation pressure helps to preserve the dust in stable orbits.
Matson ([1994] 2002) and Strahler ([1987] 1999: 145) say that reflected sunlight
counters the light absorbed through the Poynting-Robertson effect. When a come
t with a trail of dust passes the sun, the trail of dust is repelled rather than
attracted by the sun.
For further information, Isaak ([2005] 2007: 182) recommends Wong (2001) and Tho
mpson (n. d.).
■ Polonium can intrude into younger rock.
Isaak ([2001] 2003; [2005] 2007: 198-199) cites Brawley (1992) and Wakefield (19
98), who argue that polonium forms from a gas which can travel through small cra
cks in the earth. The colorful haloes formed by polonium are commonly found in
such cracks.
Moreover, algae intrusions were found in Gentry s samples, showing that life beg
an before the time of the samples, which Gentry claimed were formed in the begin
ning (Wakefield 1998).
■ Oil and gas deposits migrate.
Matson ([1994] 2002) argues that geological shifts result in migration of oil an
d gas deposits. It is after the migration that the pressure builds up. Further
more, such migration takes more time than is allowed by Young Earth Creationism.
■ The earth has other heat sources.
Dalrymple ([1984] 2006) comments that Slusher & Gamwell (1978) neglect important
heat sources. This includes primordial heat (heat left over from the formation
of the Earth) and radioactivity.
Dalrymple also cites neglected sources of heat loss. Slusher & Gamwell consider
conduction (transfer of kinetic energy at the atomic and molecular level), but
ignore convection (the transfer of heat by motion of the hot material itself).
According to Dalrymple, very little is known about these factors, so these facto
rs cannot be used to conduct an estimate of the age of the earth.
Dalrymple also accosts the two writers for not accounting for the differences be
tween continents and ocean basins on the Earth s surface.
Dalrymple furthermore objects to the two writers considering radioactive element
s lying on the outer crust of the Earth, but neglecting such elements lying deep
er.
Now to talk once again about Evolutionist dating techniques: Dalrymple (1986: 44
) cites a case in which five radiometric dating methods agreed on the age of one
of the oldest rocks on earth. Unless the same mistake was made in five differe
nt places, those must have been five valid methods.
In other words, Evolutionist dating methods converge. Do Creationist dating met
hods also converge? It doesn t look like it. If we look at the magnetic field
argument, we see that the earth is 8,000 years old. If we look at the helium ar
gument, we see that the earth is 200,000 years old. If we look at the ocean min
eral argument, we are left with a range between 100 and 260,000,000. If we look
at the countless moon dust calculations, we don t know what to say.
Assuming that those calculations should converge on the most Biblically accurate
figure, where should they converge to? Bishop Ussher seems to have the best ca
lculation: 6,000 years ago. Through all their efforts, the Creationists are sti
ll unable to reconcile science with religion.
This manuscript is supposed to be about Gish, and we still haven t heard from Gi
sh. As we have seen, Gish usually side-steps the question (Miller, K. 1982a; Pa
rrish 1991). Nevertheless, Zindler (1990) got him to say that the age of the Un
iverse is "is around ten thousand years, plus or minus."
As far as I know, he never explains how he arrives at that figure. I have two h
ypotheses: one is, he probably realizes that Bishop Ussher s four-digit figure w
ould seem foolish to many of his readers and listeners, and hopes that adding on
e more digit would effect a satisfactory compromise. In other words, he is worki
ng J. C. Penney s $9.98 trick, only in reverse.
My other hypothesis: in his 1975 review of the Creationist literature, Gish cite
s Barnes (1971) as calculating 10,000 as the approximate maximum age of the Eart
h, based on his measurement of the magnetic field. In the article, Gish does no
t cite any other estimates of the age of the Earth. This may be the figure whic
h Gish has chosen to believe.
Why was Gish reluctant to discuss the topic of the age of the earth? Saladin (1
988b) infers that Gish evaded this point "out of fear that he cannot publicly de
fend it." Zindler (1990) refers to the age question as "the Achilles heal of t
he creationist debater."
And what is Gish s attitude toward Old Earth Creationists? In his debate with S
aladin (1988b), Gish said, "So creationists take both views, so obviously it s n
ot an issue in creation and evolution." According to Zindler (1990), that was a
false front: "Privately, when evolutionists aren t looking, Gish excoriates old
-earth creationists for not being true to the Bible."
We are reminded of the adage which says, "Me against my brother, me and my broth
er against my cousin, me and my brother and my cousin against the rest of the wo
rld."
Which figure, then, will you pick? Creationists are offering a wide variety of
choices. The Evolutionists, on the other hand, are saying that you have to go
with the 4.5 billion figure. Bossy, aren t they!
Baraminology 101
In order to understand Gishian terminology, we must understand the word kind, wh
ich Gish varies as basic kind and Genesis kind (Gish ([1972] 1976: 18; 1993: 34)
. Perhaps the best definition of that term lies in Item Number 3 of the ICR cre
do:
Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally
complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism
. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizon
tal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward" changes (e.g., h
armful mutations, extinctions).
This concept is not original with Gish, but was first proposed by Frank L. Marsh
(1941). Marsh used the Hebrew word baramin to denote a kind. From this, his c
lassification system has come to be known as baraminology.
Eldredge (1982: 116) expressed some confusion in understanding the term. Other
Evolutionist writers, accustomed to phyla, classes, orders, families, genii, and
species, also express confusion. There are 35 species in 14 genera, not counti
ng extinct species, classified as dogs (Saladin 1988g). There are 850 species c
lassified as bats (Kitcher 1982: 155; Saladin 1988g). There are 28,000 species
in 18 phyla classified as worms, which is over half the phyla in the Animal King
dom. (Saladin 1988g).
Gish (1993: 242), however, says that it could be understood by "any high school
student with average intelligence." He is probably right. The Evolutionist wri
ters cited above are probably missing the forest for the trees. After spending
all day in the classroom or the laboratory, they might forget that some biologic
al terms are common lay terms and some are not. You may use the word "worm" in
a friendly conversation, but I doubt if you would use the term Dracunculus insig
nis.
As one might predict, the human species has its own slot in the baraminological
taxonomy (Gish ([1972] 1976: 18). Vaughan (1978: 146) notices that Gish s brush
strokes when considering the Primate Order are not as wide as when considering
other taxons. The reason for this is obvious: he otherwise would have to lump a
ll the apes and monkeys with God s chosen species.
We may wonder how Australia became the Marsupial Capital of the World. Is Austr
alia the world s only good place for mammals to possess a pouch in which to rear
one s young?
Did God create one pair of marsupials in Australia and let them speciate? Or di
d God decide that Australia would be the perfect place for kangaroos, wallabies,
koalas, Tasmanian devils, bandicoots, and wombats and create each one individua
lly? Gish does not mention marsupials in his discussion of kinds (Gish [1972] 1
976: 20), so we can only guess.
Despite his claim that the system is simple enough for a high school student, Gi
sh himself cannot remember his own taxonomy. Monroe (2003) notices that Gish as
signs a slot each to gibbons, chimpanzees, and gorillas on page 35 of the 1978 e
dition of Evolution: The Fossils Say No! but designates all apes as a "major kin
d" on page 47.
Why did Gish and company set up this field of study? Here are possible reasons:
■ out of consideration for Noah
There are at least one million insect species, including half a million beetle s
pecies (Zindler 1990). Gish (1990b) himself admits that there are 40,000 land-d
welling animal species, including those which have gone extinct.
So let s ask Noah to take only two members of the beetle genus and let the other
half a million speciate later. If we do the same with the other species, that
will reduce Noah s load still more.
Besides reducing the population, that will allow Noah to choose the smallest of
each kind. If he takes two eohippi instead of two horses big enough to ride on,
that will cut his expenses on livestock feed.
This does not release the Creationists from a dilemma, however, True, the fewer
kinds they allow, the less burden they put on Noah and his seven trusty assistan
ts. However, the fewer kinds they allow, the more evolution they are demanding
since 2347 BC. It is nice that the Noah family did not have to feed 850 pairs o
f bats, but that left the poor bats with a long way to go and a short time to ge
t there.
■ to reconcile Creationism with evolution which is taking place now
Gould (1981) has another idea. Creationists are confronted with evolution which
has taken place before our eyes. They can t deny that fruit flies have speciat
ed or that peppered moths have changed color, so "toy poodles and Great Danes co
me from the dog kind and moths can change color, but nature cannot convert a dog
to a cat or a monkey to a man."
So how exactly does Gish, who we thought was the great crusader for the Creation
ist cause, stand in the C/E controversy? Some of his opponents wonder. Saladin
(1988a) commented, "I m led to wonder why we re even having this debate. It se
ems we don t disagree that much." In the transcript of the debate, Saladin (198
8a) calls Gish a "closet evolutionist." Parrish (1991), who has also debated wi
th Gish, similarly comments, "He s GOT to believe in as much evolution as I do."
After a brief discussion of other Creationists and their use of this term, Edwor
ds (1982) expresses hopes of eventual victory:
It is no problem for evolution if creationists do this. It is rather a p
roblem for creation. It means that creationists are retreating in the face of o
ver- whelming evidence. It means that they are admitting to more and more
evolution. It means that they are gradually giving their case away.
Before I close this chapter, I would like to add a hypothesis of my own:
■ Human evolution is taking place right now, so Creationists are evolving into E
volutionists.
There s going to be a floody, floody
If you are planning to debate a Creationist, here are three words of advice:
Number one: bring up the subject of Noah s Flood. Zindler (1988) suggests this
because it puts the burden of proof on the side of the Creationists. On the oth
er hand, most of the topics which Creationists like to bring up (half an eye, Ar
chaeopteryx forgeries, arthritic Neanderthals) put the burden of proof on the si
de of the Evolutionists.
Number two: Read what the Bible has to say about the Flood. Cracraft (1983: 183
) and Plimer (Indoctrinhate 2009g) both commented on the improbability of Noah t
ravelling all over the world collecting animals. Gish interprets Genesis 7:14-1
6 as saying that God commanded animals all over the world to come to Noah, and t
herefore ridiculed Cracraft (Zindler 1988; Gish 1993: 329) and Plimer (Indoctrin
hate 2009k) for this supposed mistake. Read Genesis 7:14-16 and see if you inte
rpret it as Gish does:
They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and e
very creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl
after his kind, every bird of every sort.
And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, where
in is the breath of life.
And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had co
mmanded him: and the LORD shut him in.
Number three: be sure you know your opponent s stand on Noah s Flood. Plimer br
ought the subject up in the debate of 1988 (Indoctrinhate 2009f, 2009g). Plimer
responded very little to any of Gish s writings. Gish was sharp enough to noti
ce this. When Gish took the stand for the second time (Indoctrinhate 2099j), th
en, he said, "Now: all of this funny stuff about Noah and the Ark and the Flood
and all that--that is just a caricature. I don t know of any Creationist scienti
st who believes what he just said."
Either I am misunderstanding what Gish means by "all this funny stuff" or Gish l
ied. Gish ([1972] 1976: 42; [1985] 1991: 52; 1993: 328; 1995b: 57) himself has
argued that the stratigraphy of the earth is a record not of its geological hist
ory, but of plants and animals deposited by the Flood. Gish ([1992] 1996: 74-75
; 1995b: 56) himself has argued that legends about the Flood have been found all
over the world.
And if he didn t "know of any Creationist scientist who believes what he just sa
id," then he forgot that his comrade Henry Morris co-authored an entire book on
the subject (Whitcomb & Morris 1964), which he repeatedly alluded to (Gish 1975,
[1985] 1991, 1993, 1995b).
Apparently, Gish found it easier to change his stance than to refute Plimer s ar
guments. If Plimer had done his homework, however, Gish would not have gotten o
ff so easily.
While you are debating the Creationist, see if he or she can answer some of thes
e questions:
■ Does the universality of a legend really prove the truth of that legend?
The Flood story is universal, but so is the Cinderella legend. Does that mean t
hat the Cinderella legend is true also? Or could the Flood legend and the Cinde
rella legend owe their universality to human instincts?
Furthermore, Noah and his family are commonly regarded as the lone survivors of
the Flood. If all of the Flood legends are true, then did a small family in eac
h culture in the world also survive? Or do different cultures merely have diffe
rent names for the same person?
■ How deep was the Flood?
According to Zindler (1990), the Flood would have to be at least 5 miles deep, b
ecause that is the record elevation of Mount Everest. Remember that "the mounta
ins were covered." (Genesis 7:20)
In reply, Gish suggested that Mount Everest was not in existence at the time of
the Flood. Rather, it has been uplifted since then.
But let us not forget how recent the Flood was; Zindler (1990) comments that a
5-mile uplift since 2347 BC would have to be very fast indeed.
Let us be cooperative, however, and say that Mount Everest was in existence at t
he time, but was not as high as it is now. That will bring the Flood down to 3
miles deep, because that is the height of Mount Ararat (Zindler 1990). So Moun
t Everest has only uplifted 2 miles since then.
■ How large would the Ark have to be?
According to Genesis 6:15, the Ark was 300 cubits long by 50 cubits wide by 30 c
ubits high. That s 150 x 25 x 15 meters or 492 x 825 x 49 feet. That s a lot,
but is it enough to do the job?
■ How many animals did Noah have to take?
Since the Genesis account is copied from two different sources, we are not sure
how many of each kind of animal Noah had to take. Did he have to take 7 of ever
y clean beast and 2 of every unclean beast, as Genesis 7:2 tells us? Or did he
have to take only 2 of every beast, as Genesis 7:9 tells us? The 7:9 version is
better known, because the smaller number is easier to fit into illustrations in
Sunday School books.
Besides, the 7:9 version makes Noah s job easier. So let us be lenient with Noa
h and say that 7:2 was a typo. Gish (1990b) insists that there would be no prob
lem in accommodating that many species, but it doesn t look that way. We still
have a few more problems.
Where were the water-dwelling species? Swimming around in the Flood, of course!
 Or at least, that is what Gish told the audience in a debate with Pigliucci (A
nonymous 2003).
But Zindler (1988, 1990) has an objection here. Zindler points out that water-d
welling animals tend to prefer either fresh water or sea water, and very few spe
cies can survive both. A world-wide flood would be hospitable to neither. To k
eep all the water-dwelling species alive, then, the Ark would also have to carry
a huge aquarium. That aquarium would not only take up space but add weight. (M
cGowan 1984: 57; Zindler 1988, 1990)
Besides, why are different fish species are found in different parts of the worl
d? According to Zindler (1988), Lake Victoria alone has 170 species of cichlid f
ish which are found nowhere else in the world. Barombi Mbo, a volcanic crater l
ake in Cameroon, has 12 more cichlid species of its own. This would not be expe
cted if the water-dwelling animals shared one giant puddle a few thousand years
ago. Nor would this be expected if Noah built a giant aquarium and emptied it o
ut from his perch on Mount Ararat.
In response to these objections, Gish (1989c) mentions an experiment by Smith &
Hagberg (1984) which found that some fresh water and salt water species could su
rvive a term in salt water overlaid with fresh water. It would be interesting t
o read that study to see if those species could survive for 190 days. Remember,
"the rain was upon the earth" for 40 days (Genesis 7: 12) and "the waters preva
iled upon the earth" for 150 days (Genesis 7: 24).
■ How did animals of other habitats survive?
McGowan (1984: 58) brings up this question, but maybe we can answer it ourselves
. Notice that many inhabitants of one climate have relatives inhabiting another
climate.
So maybe Noah took two brown bears. Some of their descendents immigrated north
and became polar bears. Maybe Noah took only a few birds. Some of their descen
dents flew north and became puffins and some flew south, lost their ability for
flight, and became penguins.
■ How did carnivores survive?
According to McGowan (1984: 56-57), Noah would need 10 tons of meat to feed the
two lions. Moreover, he would have to keep that meat fresh for almost a year, a
nd in a time when there were no refrigerators.
According to Grzimek (1975, vol. 11: 179), an anteater can eat as many as 25,000
ants a day. Fezer (1993a), then, wonders how an anteater can survive on Noah s
Ark, where there were only two ants, and where even those two ants were preserv
ed.
Zindler (1988) poses a similar question. Anteaters and aardvarks eat termites.
Termites are ritually unclean, so Noah could take only two. Of course, the term
ites could reproduce during the cruise, but what could the anteaters and aardvar
ks do for their first meal? Besides, how did Noah protect his Ark from the term
ites?
■ How did carnivores prey survive?
Weber (1980) wonders how Noah managed to preserve the meek and mild species, suc
h as the koalas and the marmosets, while at the same time housing the mean and f
erocious species.
You may say, "Maybe all animals were vegetarian back then." Not so. According
to Gish (1977: 37; [1992] 1996: 68), God created all the animals as vegetarian,
but some species turned carnivorous at the time of the Fall of Man. So the anim
als which are carnivorous now were carnivorous in Noah s time.
■ How did parasites survive?
Schadewald (1982; cf. Parrish 1991; cf. Indoctrinhate 2009g) creates a brilliant
scenario regarding disease germs. The microbes responsible for measles, pneumo
coccal pneumonia, leprosy, typhus, typhoid fever, small pox, poliomyelitis, syph
ilis, and gonorrhea can survive only on a human host or in a well-equipped labor
atory.
Noah boarded the Ark with his wife, his 3 sons, and their 3 wives. So all those
microbes must have boarded the Ark thanks to their 8 human hosts. Fezer (1993a
) expresses admiration and sympathy for those 8 long-suffering hosts.
Not only that, but we must remember that all animal kinds were created in the be
ginning. That means that Adam and Eve must have been infected with all of these
diseases and passed them down to Noah s time (Schadewald 1982).
As for the battle between the hosts and the parasites, Schadewald (1982) sees th
at as a dilemma. If the two hosts recover and develop an immunity, the parasite
s have nowhere else to go and therefore go extinct. If the two hosts succumb to
the disease and die, that would mean extinction for both the host AND the paras
ite species.
Parrish (1991) adds another complication: many diseases caused by parasites kill
the host in only a few weeks. That must have put a strain on those parasites w
hich live on unclean species and therefore had only two hosts. They had to surv
ive on a meager diet for 190 days.
■ For that matter, how did vegetarians survive?
Even some of the vegetarian species must have put a strain on Noah and his trust
y crew. An African elephant eats 160 kilograms of fodder per day. McGowan (198
4: 56) multiplies that number times 2 times the number of days on the Ark, and a
rrives at the figure of 96 metric tons.
Noah also had some very choosy species to contend with. McGowan (1984: 57) wond
ers how Noah satisfied the koala bears, who reject anything but fresh eucalyptus
leaves.
In light of these myriad problems, Weber (1980) says, "it would be much simpler
and easier for God to create them all from scratch again after the Flood, and ju
st forget the floating zoo."
We have now discussed the major problems on Noah s Ark. But suppose that Noah a
nd his crew survive this catastrophe. Once the land dries, Noah has only to ope
n up his doors and let all the animals out. God unveils his splendid rainbow an
d promises that there will never be another world Flood.
So now Noah s problems are all over, right? Wrong! There are still a few more
bugs which we have to work out:
■ How did the animals survive without Noah s protection?
What did the animals do after the Flood? Did they settle in the habitat where t
he Ark landed? Or did they make a prompt return trip?
First, let us assume the first hypothesis and say that they settled in the habit
at where the Ark landed. On the Ark, the hot-climate animals came out of their
heated units and the cold-climate animals came out of their refrigerated units.
McGowan (1984: 58) asks how those animals survived now that they were on their
own. We can alleviate this problem somewhat by remembering that Noah had two ta
ke only two animals of each kind. Two prototypical dogs might eliminate the nee
d for two coyotes and two prototypical deer might eliminate the need for two car
ibou. So all of the swamp animals, desert animals, Arctic animals, and Antarcti
c animals have microevolved from their Near Eastern prototypes--and they all did
this in the last 4000 years.
That may solve the problem for the land animals, but what about the water animal
s? What if Noah took the advice from Zindler (1988) and built an aquarium? How
could he empty the fresh-water fish into fresh water and the salt-water fish in
to salt water after his ark lands on the mountain?
So let us consider the second hypothesis: they all returned home after their ple
asure trip. Here we run into some more problems:
■ How did the animals migrate without getting eaten?
When Noah let the animals out of the Ark, they were on their own, whether they s
ettled in the Near East or whether they returned home. This causes Zindler (198
8) to wonder what kept the predators from rendering their prey extinct.
The Australian marsupials have aroused special comment (Zindler 1988; Kitcher 19
82: 141-142). Throughout most of history, Australia has been a peaceable kingdom
. The marsupials have never had to grow mean and fierce because they have not h
ad to compete with mean and fierce species. This all changed when European sett
lers brought in some mean and fierce species. The change was too rapid for Evol
ution, so it rendered some of the marsupial species extinct (Zindler 1988). Why
didn t this already happen when they emigrated all the way from Turkey to Austr
alia?
■ How did the animals cross the ocean?
How did the two anteaters got to South America (Fezer 1993a)? How did the two p
andas got to China (McGowan 1984: 58)? How did the two kangaroos get to Austral
ia (McGowan 1984: 58; Fezer 1993a)?
We don t know when Gish places the Continental drift, but we can eliminate these
problems by placing it after the Flood. Under this assumption, all the world s
land mass was one continent at the time. That provided a nice dry path to Sout
h America for the anteaters, a nice dry path to China for the pandas, and a nice
dry path to Australia for the kangaroos.
Mainstream scientists may tell us that the continental drift took place 120 mill
ion years ago, but what do they know!
■ Why did some animals reject one habitat and accept a similar habitat hundreds
of miles away?
Zindler (1988) asks about the cougars in South America. Assuming the Flood stor
y, their ancestors rejected the African climate and settled in South America, wi
th a similar climate, hundreds of miles away.
Maybe we can answer that question in baraminological terms: lions and cougars ar
e both cats, and therefore members of the same kind. So the primordial tomcat an
d his spouse disembarked from the Ark and migrated to Africa. There, some of th
eir descendents settled and became lions while some of their descendents emigrat
ed westward and became cougars. They made this hike all on dry land because the
 continents had not drifted yet, contrary to what those know-it-all scientists t
ell us.
■ How did the blind species migrate?
Zindler (1988) feels sorry for the many blind species which live in caves all ov
er the world. He says, "We can imagine the trouble they had reading road-maps w
hile finding their ways to caves in Patagonia, Florida, New Zealand, and Sardini
a."
In the 1988 debate, Plimer (Indoctrinhate 2009g) sympathisized with "our poor bl
ind unprepared mole," who "comes out of the Ark--nothing to eat, can t see, does
n t know where to go--but he just happens to come back to Australia where his fo
ssil ancestors lived."
■ How did the species migrate so far?
Zindler (1988) takes pity on those poor flightless birds, who had to walk all th
e way. Or were they flightless at the time?
We have already commented on the meek nature of the marsupials. But those speci
es would have had another problem, too: they are not noted for their speed. Kit
cher (1983: 141) finds it difficult to imagine koalas, wombats, or marsupial mol
es charging toward Australia at a "hectic speed."
■ How did the kinds evolve into present species so fast?
According to Grzimek (1972-1975, vol. 10: 130, 147-173), there are 50 kangaroo s
pecies. Assuming that only one kind of kangaroo was represented on the Ark, Fe
zer (1993a) wonders how those species could have evolved in so little time.
Fezer (1993a) also wonders about the small flightless bird known as the moa. Ac
cording to Grzimek ([1972] 1975, vol. 7: 106-107), there are 19 species of this
bird, all of which are found only in New Zealand. That means that Mama and Papa
Moa walked all the way from Turkey to Australia, sired 19 branches in Australia
, and did it all in record time.
■ How did some species populate the whole earth?
The worldwide species pose another problem. Parrish (1991) mentions earthworms,
and salamanders as land animals found on every continent.
Here again, the recent continental drift saves the day: The earthworms stayed in
the Ararat Mountains long enough to sire a generation or two. Then their desce
ndants diverged, and then the continents drifted.
■ Why didn t the animals leave any fossils while migrating back home?
Zindler (1988) and Parrish (1991) remind us that animal fossils are found only i
n their habitats. Yet it must have taken several generations for the kangaroo t
o make that trip. So why don t we have a scattering of kangaroo fossils from on
e point to the other?
In case you wonder why fossils of all species are not found in the Holy Land, be
careful. Your opponent might remind you that Evolutionists ask Creationists to
allow for fossil gaps. He or she could then ridicule you for not granting Crea
tionists the same allowance (Zindler 1988).
A tu quoque argument could be embarrassing, whether it s fallacious or not.
■ Why aren t any animals mentioned in the folklore anywhere but in their present
habitat?
Kangaroos are characters only in Australian folk tales, anteaters are characters
only in South American folk tales, and so forth (Zindler 1988). If all the ani
mals made their alleged odyssey from Mount Ararat, we should find folk tales abo
ut kangaroos between Turkey and Australia and folk tales about anteaters between
Turkey and South America.
■ Why are only animals native to the Near East mentioned in the Bible?
The Creation story mentions only whales (Genesis 1:21) and cattle (Genesis 1:24-
26). The Flood story mentions only cattle (Genesis 6:20, 7:14, 21, 23, 8:1, 17)
, ravens (Genesis 8:7), and doves (Genesis 8:8-12).
Imagine yourself living at a time when people in any part of the world knew very
little about any other part of the world. Suppose that an event took place in
which hundreds of animals, hitherto unknown to your people, came to you from all
over the world. Wouldn t you write a description of these creatures of all sha
pes and sizes?
We are asked to believe either that Noah left no description of this exotic mena
gerie or that the author of Genesis ignored that description. Either explanatio
n seems improbable to me.

Now for a few miscellaneous questions:

■ Where did the water go after the Flood?
Zindler (1990) describes the earth as "a sphere and not a table-top." This mean
s that if the water covered the earth at one time, it should cover the earth sti
ll.
McGowan (1984: 66-67) tries all the angles:
Could it have become locked up in the polar ice caps? Hardly--they only
account for about two percent of the world s water (fresh and salt), and
it has been estimated that if all this ice melted, sea levels would not ris
e by more than about 40 m. Could it have seeped down through cracks in the
earth s crust? This does not seem very likely considering how hot it gets
down there. Perhaps the water all evaporated and went up into the atmosphere.
Yes, that must be it, that explains why it rains so much!
■ How did the coral reefs survive?
A worldwide flood would destroy all existing coral reefs, because corals can onl
y grow in still fresh water (Weber 1980; Zindler 1988; Pietruszewski 1998).
Does this mean that all the coral reefs arose since the Flood? Not very likely.
Corals grow at a rate of 1.0-2.5 centimeters per year. Reefs grow only millim
eters per year. Even this is true only under ideal conditions, with no competit
ion from the ocean surf (Weber 1980). This dates the Eniwetok atoll as 138,000 y
ears old (Ladd & Schlanger 1960).
■ Why do we find very few fossils of surviving species?
If all species, both surviving and extinct, were alive at the time of the Flood,
and if most of the fossils are remains of life killed by the Flood, then we sho
uld find many fossils of surviving species as well as those of extinct species.
Such is not the case, however. Simpson (1967) tells us that there are very few
fossils of species living today.
■ Why don t we see better signs of Flood geology?
This topic is broad enough to merit a whole new chapter. Please read on.
Introductory Flood Geology
Welcome to Flood Geology 101. This is the branch of science which interprets th
e geologic column not as a record of prehistory, but as a series of layers laid
by the Flood, It is important that we understand Flood Geology, since Duane Gis
h ([1972] 1976: 42; [1985] 1991: 52) is an advocate.
Henry Morris, also an advocate of this study, speaks of three factors which dete
rmine where a fossil deposited by the Flood will be found. Gould (quoted in Gei
sler 1982: 90) calls these factors sorting mechanisms.
Ironically, most of the Flood Geology terminology has been coined not by its adh
erents but by its opponents. Saladin (1988a), Schadewald (1982), and Kitcher (1
982) have suggested names for the sorting mechanisms, and we will use all three
sets of terms.
First, we shall look at the hydraulic selection hypothesis (Saladin 1988a), hydr
aulic sorting (Schadewald 1982), or hydraulic characteristics (Kitcher 1982: 131
). Whitcomb & Morris (1964: 276) speak of "decreasing density and other hydrod
ynamic factors tending to promote earlier and deeper sedimentation." According
to this hypothesis, species which settled the quickest are found in the lower la
yers and those which settled the slowest are found in the higher layers.
This hypothesis can be subdivided. Whitcomb & Morris (1964: 273) cite two facto
rs in sedimentation denoted by Krumblein & Sloss (1951: 156). One is particle d
ensity. Although a log is heavier than a coin, a coin is more dense. This expl
ains why a log floats on the water whereas a coin immediately sinks to the botto
m. This also explains why endomorphs float on the water more easily than ectomo
rphs.
However, McGowan (1984: 66) does not agree that this prediction comes true in th
e geological column. He would expect to find "a predominance of trees" in the h
ighest layers and "the densest organisms, like corals and shells" in the lowest
layers. Saladin (1988a) asks why microbes appear lower than animals with hard s
hells.
Another factor cited by Krumblein & Sloss (1951: 156) is particle sphericity. T
he more spherical an object is, the more quickly it settles. This factor explai
ns why kites, which are designed to float in the air, are flat. It also explain
s why paper airplanes sail through the air better than paper wads.
Here again, Evolutionists see Creationist predictions as failing. Strahler ([19
87] 1999: 379) speaks of small extinct marine creatures called graptolites. The
se little animals came in an assortment of designs, but all of them were almost
flat. They most likely floated on the surface when they were alive, and Flood g
eology would predict that they would be found on the surface today. Instead, th
ey are found in the Ordovician and Silurian strata of the Paleozoic Era. This i
ndicates to Evolutionary geologists not that they were deposited by the Flood, b
ut that they lived 500-400 million years ago.
Moreover, Whitcomb & Morris (1964: 273) make no mention of a third factor denote
d by Krumbein & Sloss (1951: 156): particle diameter . This factor predicts tha
t the largest animals should be found on the bottom. McGowan (1984: 66) makes a
n analogy with sediments laid on the beach, with "the largest boulders . . . at
the bottom, grading into pebbles, coarse gravel, sand, and then mud and clays at
the top."
Instead, Evolutionists find the exact opposite. Schadewald (1982) asks why smal
ler trilobites are not found in higher strata than larger trilobites. Strahler
([1987] 1999: 377) also asks why giant dinosaurs and giant mammals are not found
in the lowest layer. Furthermore, why aren t adults of each species found in l
ower strata than juveniles of the same species? (Strahler [1987] 1999: 378)
Next is the ecological zonation hypothesis (Saladin 1988a), victim habitat (Sc
hadewald 1982), or habitat (Kitcher 1982: 131). Whitcomb & Morris (1964: 276) s
peak of "increasing elevation of habitat and therefore time required for the Flo
od to attain stages sufficient to overtake them." In other words, the lowest la
yers will be occupied by species with lowest habitats,
Here again, the Evolutionists see theory contradicting fact. Saladin (1988a) as
ks why microbes are found in the lowest strata and why marine fossils are often
found in higher strata than land animals and plants.
Finally, there is the upward mobility hypothesis (Saladin 1988a), victim mobilit
y (Schadewald 1982), or mobility (Kitcher 1982: 131). Whitcomb & Morris (1964:
276) speak of "increasing mobility and therefore increasing ability to postpone
inundation." In other words, those species which can run the fastest were those
species which could run uphill the farthest before the Flood got to them.
But plants cannot move by themselves. So Saladin (1988k) asks why there are no
plants in the lowest, or the pre-Cambrian and Cambrian layers.
Schadewald (1982) adds that plants should appear at the bottom of the column for
two reasons: their habit as well as their immobility. So why don t flowering p
lants appear until the Cretaceous Period (Mesozoic Era)?
To illustrate the upward mobility hypothesis, Georgia College art and biology st
udent Scott Fuss drew the above cartoon for the first Saladin-Gish debate in 198
4. An anthropomorphic oak tree is shown running up the hill, followed by a pine
, followed by a nervous-looking fern.
You are now ready for promotion to Applied Flood Geology class.
Applied Flood Geology
Welcome to Flood Geology 102. We will now see where geology shows evidence of a
Flood and where it does not:
■ Kaibab Plateau
According to Gish (in Saladin 1988d), scientists date the Kaibab Plateau in Ariz
ona at 65 mya and the Colorado River at 4 mya, thereby making it impossible for
the Colorado River to form the Kaibab Plateau.
According to Kenneth S. Saladin (1988d), Associate Professor of Biology at Georg
ia College, Milledgeville, Georgia, Gish had his facts wrong. Saladin reports t
hat the plateau began its uplift 9 mya and the Colorado River was already in exi
stence at the time. This uplift caused the river to carve through the sediments
.
Although Gish wishes for us to believe that the sediments were laid one by one b
y the Flood, Saladin does not see this as possible.
■ shale deposit at Grand Canyon
Amateur geologist Christopher Gregory Weber (1980) calls attention to a shale de
posit at Grand Canyon National Park which looks exactly like river deltas which
formed above sea level. The shale bears animal footprints, mud cracks, and iron
oxide, thereby showing that it was formed above sea level.
If it was formed above sea level, then Grand Canyon could not have been formed b
y the Flood. Weber cites Shelton (1976) as a source for further information.
■ Specimen Ridge
Weber (1980) also calls attention to Specimen Ridge at Yellowstone National Park
, where there is a column of 27 fossil forests which were buried by eruptions of
a volcano. In each of these layers, the petrified trees are still standing upr
ight.
According to Erling Dorf (1964), the oldest tree in each layer was about 500 yea
rs old. Igneous rock takes about 200 years to decay into soil. This adds up to
700 years per layer. Multiply times 27 and you get 18,900 years:
27 x (500 +200) = 18900
Either this calculation is wrong or the 2347 BC date for the Flood is wrong.
Coffin (1983) would have us believe that the trees were transported in the uprig
ht position. He calls attention to a recent eruption of Mount St. Helens. This
eruption transported trees to Spirit Lake. Some of those trees were weighted b
y their roots and thus remained in the upright position. According to Coffin, t
he trees in Specimen Ridge could have been similarly transported by the Flood.
Fritz (1983) contends that only 10-20% of the trees in Spirit Lake were upright
as opposed to more than 50% of the trees in Specimen Ridge.
For more technical discussion on the topic, see Isaak (2004b; [2005] 2007: 132-1
33).
For an entertaining account of a trip to Grand Canyon, see McIver (1987). The a
uthor of this story managed to disguise his true beliefs long enough to get on b
oard for a Creationist field trip.
■ geological faults
Amway recruiters claim that anyone can get rich selling Amway products. If you
know of a person who sold Amway products and didn t get rich, the recruiters may
say that the person merely did not try hard enough.
According to Freud, every nighttime dream is about a disguised wish fulfillment.
If you dream about something unpleasant, his followers might say that that is
because of what Freud calls the reversal mechanism.
Reverend Moon claims to be appointed by God as the Lord of the Second Advent, we
should all follow his teachings. If you have arguments against his teachings,
his followers may say that you should squelch those ideas, because they were pla
nted in your mind by an evil force called partial knowledge.
These are all examples of escape clauses, or excuses which can be used whenever
a claimant is confronted with contradictory evidence. Now let s apply this conc
ept to the Geologic Column. An Evolutionist will tell you that certain taxons a
ppeared at certain times, evolved at certain times, or went extinct at certain t
imes. The Evolutionist will also tell you that the surviving history can be rea
d in order from the deepest soil to the most shallow.
But what if these layers of soil are found out of order? Not to worry! The Evo
lutionist will only tell you about geological faults. A geological fault, also
called an overthrust, is a feature in which a sedimentary layer is overturned so
that the youngest layer appears on the top and the oldest layer appears on the
bottom. Here we see an overthrust near Broad Haven, Pembrokeshire, Wales.
So is the Evolutionist merely resorting to an escape clause? Gish (1975, 1989a)
seems to think so. Gish does not deny the existence of such features, but he i
ntroduces the reader to Burdick (1969, 1974, 1975, 1977), who lists what he cons
iders necessary properties of thrust faulting. These are gouge (rock powder), m
ylonite (coarsely ground rock), tectonic breccia (conglomerate including rock fr
agments set in a matrix) and slickensides (striations on rock surfaces).
Burdick (1975) found these features present at Loch Assynt in Scotland. However
, these features were found missing at the Glarus Formation in the Swiss Alps (B
illings 1955; Lammert 1972; Burdick 1975), the Lewis Formation at Glacier Nation
al Park (Lammert 1966; Burdick 1969, 1974), the Franklin Mountains near El Paso,
Texas (Slusher 1966), Heart Mountain in Wyoming (Burdick 1977), and Empire Moun
tain in Arizona (Burdick & Slusher 1969).
Gish must regard Creation Research Science Quarterly readers as more scientifica
lly educated than his book readers. In Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics
, Gish (1993: 304) quoted Raup (1983: 160) as writing, "Not uncommonly . . . dem
onstrably young rocks are found beneath older rocks." In the original source,
Raup immediately afterward showed the geological evidence for geological faultin
g, but Gish conveniently ignored this (Lippard 1994a).
Is this whole topic really a mere escape clause for Evolutionists? Here is what
Evolutionists say in their defense:
● The layers are always found in exact reverse order.
In the words of Schadewald (1982), the geological layers "read backwards." For e
xample, the three periods of the Mesozoic Era, reading from oldest to youngest,
are Triassic-Jurassic-Cretaceous. There are 6 possible arrangements of 3 items,
since 3 times 2 times 1 equals 6. In this case, one of these arrangements is t
he original:
Triassic-Jurassic-Cretaceous
If these three layers got inverted in a geological fault, we would expect to fin
d:
Cretaceous-Jurassic-Triassic
That leave four other permutations:
Triassic-Cretaceous-Jurassic
Jurassic-Triassic-Cretaceous
Jurassic-Cretaceous-Triassic
Triassic-Cretaceous-Jurassic
If any of these four permutations were ever found in a geological feature, there
would indeed be a problem for Evolutionists.
● The fossils appear upside-down, too.
Schadewald (1982) also notes that the fossils themselves, as well as the layers,
 are inverted. "The trilobites that are usually found belly down in the rock wi
ll now be found belly up." Schadewald also cites "worm and brachiopod burrows,
footprints, fossilized mud cracks, raindrop craters," and "graded bedding." He
concludes, then, that "upside-down sediments are clearly a problem" for the Crea
tionists, not for the Evolutionists.

Anyway, if all of the fossils were left by the Flood, all this radioactive datin
g wouldn t be necessary. Fox (2009) suggests that it would be possible to carbo
n date all of the fossils, since the half-life of carbon 14 is about 5700 years.
Fox made this suggestion in 2009, only 4357 years after the supposed date of t
he Flood.
Gish s Fallacies: miscellaneous
No-one can quote a scientist s words out of context quite the way Gish
can; no-one can quite so brazenly cite a twenty-year-old source as if it
were bang up-to-date; no-one can use the Abracadabra effect with quite such pan
ache; no-one can so authoritatively present black as white, white as black
. No, Gish is the master, the source.
In a sense, these words from paleoanthropologist Colin Groves (1993) are discour
aging to me. I had been hoping for another Creationist crusader to take Gish s
place now that Gish has retired. Then I could write a sequel to this manuscript
and give it a title like John Doe s Greatest Hits. Then when John Doe gets rep
laced, I would write still a third manuscript about Richard Rowe s Greatest Hits
.
But if what Groves says is true, my dream may never get fulfilled.
In this chapter, we shall cover some of Gish s fallacies, and in the following c
hapters, we shall discuss some of his favorites. As Groves says, we may never k
now the secret of Gish s magic, but at least we will be protected from his spell
.
■ post hoc ergo propter hoc
"After it, therefore because of it"--Gish s entire career seems to revolve aroun
d this form of reasoning.
In an interview (Wood 1996, cf. Gish 1989a), Gish said that "the kids are being
indoctrinated with evolution theory as an established fact," and that this was t
he cause of "this tremendous drug culture, legalized pornography, legalized abor
tion, crime and violence on an unprecedented scale, an AIDS plague, and all this
."
We shall later mention Gish s routine speech recounting of the universe coming i
nto existence through nothing but hydrogen. He usually followed this with a des
cription of 30 trillion cells, and including 12 billion brain cells with 120 tri
llion connections (Bakken 1987; Gish n. d. 3: 20; 1993: 161; 1994; 1997: 11; Tro
tt 1994b; cf. Saladin 1988b, Zindler 1990, Gish 1993: 161; 1994; Trott 1994b; In
doctrinhate 2009b). Zindler (1990) has met a follower whom Gish has misled into
thinking that Evolutionists claim that the human brain was formed directly fro
m hydrogen.
■ Gishian post hoc
Gish is a wonder: not only can he use existing fallacies, he can even create new
ones. Here is an invention which we shall call the Gishian post hoc fallacy.
To commit this fallacy, follow these three steps:
 1. Relate one event first.
2. Relate an earlier event second.
3. Pretend that the later event occurred earlier and caused the earlier
event.
Gish often tells of an australopithecine skeleton, known as Lucy, which was disc
overed in Ethiopia (Gish [1985] 1991: 148; 1993: 133; 1995b: 45; Saladin 1988b
; Parrish 1991: 33). That is Step 1.
Gish next tells about a book by Solly Zuckerman, arguing that humans could not b
e descended from the australopithecines (Gish [1985] 1991: 151; 1993: 134; 1995
b: 46; Saladin 1988b; Parrish 1991: 33). That is Step 2.
Gish does not tell us, however, that the event recounted in Step 1 occurred in 1
973 and the event recounted in Step 2 occurred in 1970. Rather, he misleads us
into thinking that Zuckerman examined the skeleton, rejected it as a human ances
tor, and subsequently wrote his book. That is Step 3.
Thanks to Arthur (1996) for catching this trick.
Here is another example:
Gish (1981: v) tells us about work which dealt with the jaw muscles of reptiles
and mammals (Crompton & Parker 1978; Crompton & Jenkins (1979). This work affir
med the notion of evolution from reptile to mammal. That is Step 1.
Gish then tells us about work which cast doubt on evolution from reptile to mamm
al (Kermack, D. M.; Kermack, K. A.; & Mussett 1968; Kermack, K. A.; Mussett & Ri
gney 1973). Unless you check the dates on the bibliographic notes, you might as
sume that this work took place later. That is Step 2.
Finally, Gish pretends that the earlier work happened later and that "Kermack an
d his co-workers now reject this idea." That is Step 3.
Thanks to Kitcher (1982: 185) for catching this trick.
■ card stacking
This is defined as "selecting only those facts–-or falsehoods–-which support the
propagandist’s point of view and ignoring all others."
Gish demonstrated this fallacy whenever he was shown an parent species and a dau
ghter species. He would ignore the similarities and concentrate on their differ
ences.
In the transition between fish and amphibians, he sees only the piscine features
in the crossopterygian and calls it a fish. Then he sees only the amphibian fe
atures in the ichthyostegid and calls it an amphibian (Gish 1979: 78-79). When
the therapsid was presented as a transition between a reptile and a mammal, Gish
ignored its mammalian traits and called it a reptile (Gish 1979: 85). When the
Archaeopteryx was presented as a transition between a reptile and a bird, Gish
ignored its reptilian traits and called it a bird (Gish 1979: 90).
One time, however, Gish made a goof. As officers in the Institute for Creation
Research, Henry Morris and Duane Gish are supposed to be united. Yet Gish ([197
2] 1976: 85; 1979: 126-127) called our homonid ancestor Homo erectus an ape whil
e Morris (1974a: 174) called it a man. If it is so clearly one or the other, th
en how can there be any confusion in the minds of these two brilliant experts?
This has been a source of amusement for Evolutionists ever since (Brace 1986; Sa
ladin 1988b; Parrish 1991; Fezer 1993a).
■ appeal to flattery
As the name implies, this is defined as "excessive compliments to win support fo
r one s side."
Gish is a good ol boy if ever there was one. Gish opened debates with complime
nts to the Auburn University football team (Saladin 1988b), the Kutztown Univers
ity hockey team (Trott 1994a), the Murray State University basketball team (Wild
1998), and the Mississippi State University football team (Pigliucci 2000: 159)
.
We wonder whether Gish was really a sports fan or whether he merely checked up o
n the local sports news the day before every debate.
■ inverse argumentum ad populum
You see this every election season. You see happy, cheerful people standing tog
ether on a corner and greeting you. Wouldn t you love to join that group and be
come as happy and cheerful as they are?
This fallacy, herein called by the Latin equivalent of "appeal to the people," i
s based on the dubious premise that the majority must be right. Other names are
appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the p
eople, argument by consensus, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy. Oth
er Latin names are argumentum ad numerum, or "appeal to the number," and cons
ensus gentium, or "agreement of the clans."
Fallacious or not, this form of argument is powerful. In 1959, RCA Victor relea
sed a compilation album entitled "50,000,000 Elvis fans can t be wrong." The re
lease paid very handsomely. In 1963, Pepsi Cola launched an advertising campaig
n bearing the slogan "Join the Pepsi generation!" The advertising campaign paid
very handsomely.
Gish makes a subtle twist on this technique. His message is not so much "Join t
he happy Creationist family" as "Don t join the unhappy Evolutionist family."
In the Saladin (1988b) debate, Gish said:
I want to point out that there s tremendous, tremendous turmoil in this
field of evolution today. I m not saying that thousands and millions of evolut
ionists are losing faith in evolution. But I do want to say this: that they re
becoming very troubled about many aspects of the theory. They re beginnin
g to see problems, they re beginning to see that there s something drastica
lly wrong with Darwinism.
He doesn t tell us who "they" is.
■ argumentum ad ignorantiam
This translates as "proof from ignorance." It refers to the assumption that a c
laim is false because no one has proven it true or true because no one has prove
n it false.
Creationists are good at this. Once they put the burden of proof on your side,
they can hold you responsible for identifying every single one of the countless
places on the Tree of Life. According to them, if one of those places is not fil
led, then the entire Tree of Life falls like a house of cards.
The pteranodon was a flying reptile of the Cretaceous Period of the Mesozoic Era
. Evolutionists have not found ancestors or successors, and Strahler ([1987] 19
99: 429) admits it.
According to Gish ([1972] 1976: 66-67), this one confession is enough to rest hi
s case. "They did not evolve--they were created!"
■ hand waving
If you see something unpleasant, just wave it aside. Or, to use another metapho
r, hide your head in the sand.
In the radio debate with Zindler (1990), the opponent said, "I want to ask Dr. G
ish, how come not only are the hemoglobins of chimpanzees and humans identical,
but we share even pseudogenes. These are genes that are there in our DNA makeup,
but the genes are non-functional. They can t do anything. How is it that we got
the same useless genes from the creator that the chimpanzee did?"
Gish asked, "What is a pseudogene, Frank?"
Zindler replied, "A pseudogene is a stretch of DNA that codes for a protein, but
it lacks one of the control regions, and therefore it can t be turned on to act
ually produce protein."
"You re saying there s a section of gene that has no function?"
"That s correct."
"It s useless?"
"That s right. It s identical . . ." At first, Zindler thought that Gish s requ
est for a definition was a mere rhetorical question. He thought that Gish was h
oping to pounce on a real or imagined weakness in his definition, thereby posing
as an authority on the subject. It soon became obvious, however, that Gish rea
lly was unfamiliar with the subject.
"And you say that these have been carried on in the chimpanzee and the human for
millions of years."
"Yes . . ."
"That s nonsense!"
Just call it "nonsense"! It s as easy as that!
Zindler (1990) comments on the importance of this topic which Gish was ignoring:
In actual fact, pseudogenes are very useful to scientists in reconstruct
ing evolutionary histories (phylogenies) of plants and animals. Since the p
seudogenes no longer code for a protein or enzyme product which might determin
e the survival of its owner, pseudogenes have broken free from the constraints
of natural selection and are free to mutate completely at random over the
course of time. Analysis of the different changes that have accumulated in t
he pseudogenes of humans, apes, and other primates make it possible to r
econstruct the pathways by which those species have separated from each other in
the course of evolution. A good example of a pseudogene that is shared by hum
ans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans is the yh-globin gene.
Zindler referred interested readers to S. A. Williams & Goodman (1989).
Zindler (1990) then commented, "I hope that everyone else who debates Gish begin
s with the subject of pseudogenes. If Gish continues to deny their existence, he
will look very foolish when the evidence is presented."
In fairness to Gish, however, it must be said that Gish studied up on pseudogene
s some time between 1990 and 1996. That was when Max Amarillo, who probably re
ad Zindler s article, brought up the subject, This time, Gish (c1996) maintained
not that pseudogenes did not exist, but that "the idea that pseudo genes are us
eless DNA is simply a statement of our ignorance of their true function." Gish
quoted Nowak (1994): "The 97% of the human genome that does not encode protein
has taken a bad rap. But now this so-called junk DNA is turning out to play vita
l roles in normal genome function."
Just what those "vital roles" were, he did not say.
In the same debate (Zindler 1990), Gish waved another topic aside. Zindler said
that Noah s Ark "would have to contain aquaria with all the salt-water fishes a
nd all the fresh-water fishes, all the aquatic invertebrate . . ."
Gish laughed and said, "Oh no! Oh, that s nonsense!"
Zindler said, "Because they could not have possibly. . . well you need to study
a little biology, Dr. Gish."
Gish said, "Heh, heh, you re making a caricature of it, heh, heh."
■ argumentum ad ridiculum
Speaking of caricatures, Gish has made a few himself. Nearly every debate offer
ed a few opportunities for the argumentum ad ridiculum, or appeal to ridicule. H
e made sure that his audience knew about Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958), who pr
oposed that a transformation from one species to another, or even from one phylu
m to another, could be effected in a single generation. This hypothesis has bee
n called the saltation or the hopeful monster.
In his book entitled The Material Basis of Evolution, Goldschmidt (1940: 395) an
nounced that “the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg” (1940: 395). Gish re
ally made something out of this. In the Parrish (1991) debate, he said, "Must h
ave been a shock to Mama Reptile." Gish also took every opportunity to share th
e story with his readers (Gish [1972] 1976: 118-119; [1985] 1991: 234; 1993: 13-
14). (Thanks to Lisa Marion for the cartoon.)
The Archaeopteryx, which is widely believed to be a transition between the repti
les and the birds, was discovered in 1861, long before Goldschmidt s time. But G
ish doesn t want you to notice that. Rather, Gish wants you to think that there
are no transitional fossils between the reptiles and the birds, so that Goldsch
midt s hypothesis became necessary.
Also, forget the fact that most Evolutionists did not agree with Goldschmidt. G
ish won t tell you that, either. Or if he does, it is either to support a state
ment that Evolutionism is afflicted with internal strife (Gish 1993: 71) or to p
redict that the majority of Evolutionists will someday agree with Goldschmidt (G
ish 1993: 138).
Furthermore, forget that the majority of Evolutionists realize that the world s
only bird would have difficulty in finding a mate (Stanley 1979: 159). Gish doe
sn t want you to know that either.
All this noise may give you the impression that Goldschmidt s hypothesis is impo
rtant to Evolutionists too. Yet the Evolutionist writers seem to pay little att
ention to the subject. McGowan (1984) makes no mention of Goldschmidt. Kitch
er (1982: 148-149) and Strahler (1999: 396) mention the hypothesis as a number o
n Gish s program. Strahler (1999: 345) presents Goldschmidt s view as one which
has now been abandoned, but sees "vestiges" of it in Gould s theory of punctuat
ed equilibrium.
■ fallacy of denying the antecedent
The fallacy reasons that:
A implies B.
Not A.
Therefore, not B.
For instance:
If Stonehenge is in London, Stonehenge is in Great Britain.
Stonehenge is not in London.
Therefore, Stonehenge is not in Great Britain.
A. H. Brush (1996) said that birds could not have inherited their feathers from
dinosaurs, as formerly believed by Evolutionists. However, in the same article,
Brush suggests that birds could have inherited their feathers from scutes, or b
ony or horny plates, from either the dinosaurs or from a common ancestor. Gish
(n. d. 3: 15) conveniently quotes the first part and omits the second part.
In this case, then, Gish s fallacy operates as follows:
If birds inherited their feathers from dinosaur scales, bird feathers ev
olved.
Birds did not inherit their feathers from dinosaur scales.
Therefore, bird feathers did not evolve.
Gish (1989b) cited a study in which Waisgerber, Howe & Williams (1987) examined
two layers of limestone at the Grand Canyon. Mainstream scientists maintain tha
t one layer was laid first during the Cambrian Period of the Paleozoic Era and t
hat the other was laid during the Mississippian Period. also of the Paleozoic Er
a. The researchers found that there was no such time gap.
From this, according to Gish, one can conclude that "the Paleozoic Era cannot be
real."
■ argument from authority
This fallacy has a couple of other names. If you want to learn some Latin, try
argumentum ad verecundiam or ipse dixit.
In the debate with Saladin (1988f) Gish alluded to a John Keosian, "a man who
was doing research in this origin of life field." He referred to a book and an
article by Keosian, but, according to Saladin, "[failed] to state the substance
of Keosian s argument. He merely says, as usual, we ought to believe it because
so-and-so says it."
Read the works of Keosian (1964, 1978) and learn from them if you want to, but
don t thank Gish.
In the Saladin (1988i) debate, Gish found a quote that said:
Contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it
has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scient
ific community, who have stuck rigidly to the facts, and adhered to a more
strictly empirical approach.
That s hardly surprising, considering that he was reading from a book entitled E
volution: A Theory in Crisis (Denton 1985: 353).
Some readers may ask, "If we have to follow authority, then shouldn t we should
uncritically accept Evolution, since most scientists are Evolutionists?"
Gish (1993: 17-18) is prepared for this question. He pleas for those Creationis
t scientists "who accept creation but choose to keep silent for fear of loss of
position or promotion cannot be estimated, although it must be considerable."
Lippard (1993) asked Gish for evidence of these "thousands of scientists." As f
ar as I know, Gish never responded.
It would be interesting to test Gish s claim by sending out a questionnaire and
promising anonymity.
■ argumentum ad baculum
The word baculus means "stick." This form of argument threatens the reader or l
istener with dire consequences for disagreement.
The Institute for Creation Research (1985: 14-15) has drawn up its Tenets of Cre
ationism, which state that "Those who reject Him, however, or who neglect to be
lieve on Him, thereby continue in their state of rebellion and must ultimately b
e consigned to the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
Gish was always diplomatic enough not to begin his public debates with this argu
ment, but he likely kept it under his hat.
This is only conjecture, but when Gish was a university student, he was probably
frightened when he was confronted with evidence for Evolution. Although the Te
nets of Creationism had not been written up at the time, he probably became afra
id of becoming convinced of Evolutionary theory and consequently being cast into
the Lake of Fire. After finishing his studies, he might have still been afraid
of H F and D, and consequently gone out on the debate circuit in hopes of convi
ncing himself.
Some people marvel that Gish could be such an ardent Creationist in spite of his
scientific background. Here I am suggesting that Gish might be an ardent Creat
ionist because of his scientific background.
■ ad hominem
An ad hominem attack is an attack on the believer rather than the belief. There
are many of these flying both ways in the Creation/Evolution debate--or for tha
t matter, almost any debate. We shall deal with the Evolutionist attacks later,
but here, we shall deal only with Gish s attacks.
To add some humor to his debates (Saladin 1988b; Parrish 1991; Indoctrinhate 200
9b), Gish sometimes quoted an Evolutionist who "[thought] about going into a fie
ld with more intellectual honesty, the used car business."
Gish would probably value any display of fallibility on the part of Evolutionist
s, relevant or otherwise. In a debate with Trott (1999a, 1999b), Gish claimed t
hat Evolutionists had predicted that life would be found on Mars, and that Mars
was now found to be uninhabited. (Gish was probably referring to the meteorite
found in Allan Hills, Antarctica in 1984.) If this had any relevance to Evoluti
onary theory, Trott (1994b) failed to see it.
In the Saladin debate, Gish presented an argument which Saladin (1988j) calls an
ad hominem attack, but which you may prefer to call guilt by association. When
Saladin mentioned that there are religious believers who are Evolutionists, Gis
h condemned such believers as "liberal theologians" who were "for ordaining homo
sexual ministers, for legalized abortion, and many other things." Gish then pro
ceeded to attack the "liberal theologians" of various major denominations who te
stified in the McLean case of 1982.
Saladin wondered if this meant that Pope John Paul II was a "liberal theologian,
" but the debate format did not allow him to ask. Saladin also wondered whether
Gish had actually done the research to find whether or not the Presbyterian, Un
ited Methodist, Episcopal, Southern Baptist, Catholic, and Jewish organizations
really supported ordination of gay clergy and abortion on demand.
Gish also likes to present Evolutionary hoaxes. In a future chapter, we shall d
iscuss the Piltdown Man, which he mentioned at least 7 times, the Nebraska Man,
which he mentioned at least 8 times, and the Ramapithecus, which he mentioned at
least 8 times.
Lippard (1994a) comments on the frequency of ad hom s in Creation Scientists Ans
wer Their Critics (Gish 1993). Lippard tabulated incidents of the words "humanis
t" (21, 22), "atheist" (72), and "Marxist" (145, 253). Lippard found all three
words on page 29. In fairness to Gish, we must cite Lippard for a tu quoque off
ense when he quotes Gish as objecting to the "vicious, ad hominem attacks" (pp.
71, 107) wrought by Evolutionists.
■ inverse ad hominem
In this form of argument, instead of portraying the opponent as a treacherous vi
llain, one portrays oneself as a brave and virtuous hero. The inverse ad homine
m and the right-side-up ad hominem often occur in pairs, and Gish s case is no e
xception. Lippard (1993) notices both forms in Creation Scientists Answer Their
Critics (Gish 1993):
Those who support evolution are "arrogant," "smug," "vicious," and compl
etely in the grip of dogma, while creationists are "the voices of scientific rea
son," taking part in a "renaissance," and promoting an "open, free, and thorou
gh scientific challenge to evolutionary theory."
In the fight for equal time in the science classroom, Gish is in league with God
and the Evolutionists are in league with Satan. In the closing words of the Sa
ladin (1988i) debate, Gish told the audience:
I am pleading for academic and religious freedom, ladies and gentlemen,
I am pleading for your academic freedom. You may not like it, you may not
agree with me, but you have every right to hear the scientific evidence
for creation. You have every right to know the failings, the fallacies, the
weaknesses, what we believe to be the insuperable barriers to an evolutionary o
rigin of life, an evolutionary origin of cells. Why shouldn t you hear? What
s wrong with that? . . . Are we a democracy? Or are we not?
On the next patriotic holiday, be sure to hang out a flag for Gish.
■ ad hominem tu quoque
This argument, also called the hypocrisy argument, is defined as the accusation
of inconsistency between the opponent s beliefs and the opponent s behavior. It
can also be called "practice- what-you-preach," "look-who s-talking," or a boom
erang.
In the Zindler (1990) debate, Gish s opponent claimed that there was a correlati
on of 98.4% between the DNA of a chimpanzee and that of a human. To test his si
ncerity, Gish asked Zindler if he would allow his daughter to date a chimpanzee.
Zindler merely laughed at this charge, so we may never know whether or not Zindl
er would give his consent. But whether he would or not, let us keep in mind that
the debate is about Evolutionism and Creationism, not Evolutionists and Creatio
nists.
■ fallacy of accident
This is another name for over-generalizing. "That spotted horse is male, theref
ore all spotted horses are male."
This fallacy is the cause of many social ills. Through this fallacy, one might
meet form stereotypes after meeting one dumb blonde, one rowdy teen-ager, or one
miserly Jew.
However, one can err in the opposite direction. This fallacy differs from induc
tive reasoning only in degree, and it would not be practical to eliminate all in
ductive reasoning.
Here are a couple of borderline cases, and I will let you decide:
Gish (1975) reviews an experiment in which Tinkle (1971) effects a mutation on a
sample of tomato plants. The mutation proved to be harmful. In Gish s opinion
, this was "additional evidence that mutations . . . are inevitably harmful."
In the same article, Gish (1975) cites a study in which Moore (1974) took a bact
erial sample, subjected it to all manner of stress, and found that it did not e
volve. Lammerts & Howe (1974) conducted a similar experiment on 5 plant species
.
With all due respect to the researchers cited, these studies are a far cry from
proving that a million species never evolved in 3.5 billion years.
■ equivocation
This refers to changing definitions of a word during a logical operation. An ex
ample of this is:
Only some dogs have floppy ears.
My dog has floppy ears.
Therefore, my dog is some dog!
Gish pulled a dandy one in the Saladin (1988b) debate:
Vertebrates, you see, fish are supposed to be the first vertebrate,
vertebrates have no ancestors. We are vertebrates, therefore, we have no
ancestors, and evolution simply is impossible.
Saladin (1988b) responds, “Even if the vertebrate as a subphylum did have not an
cestors . . . , it would not follow that humans are without fossil ancestors amo
ng the vertebrates.”
Here s another: In a telecasted debate (Access Research Network 1999), Gish comp
lained that public school science class teaches that human embryos have gill sli
ts.
Myers ([2003] 2004), on the other hand, regards "gill slits" as a metaphorical n
ame, like "table leg" or "airplane wing." Although the slits found on the necks
of all vertebrate embryos indicate common ancestry, there is no pretense that t
he slits have anything to do with gills.
The correct name is pharyngeal arches. Do you suppose Gish would contend that
human embryos do not have pharyngeal arches?
Here s another: Gish sometimes quoted Swedish scientist Soren Lovtrup (1987: 422
), who wrote, "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the grea
test deceit in the history of science." (Gish 1993: 321; McKee 2001; Anonymous
2003)
Here Gish is changing definitions of the word Darwinism. From the context of Lo
vtrup s book, it is obvious that Lovtrup is referring not to Evolutionary theory
in general, but to Darwin s particular proposals regarding Evolution. Gibson (
1989) sees Lovtrup as differing from Darwin by attributing Evolution to gene cha
nges rather than natural selection. For other explanations, see Daniels (2005)
and Caton (2006).
Gish s makes up his own definition of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to create
is favorite equivocation tactic. We shall deal with this in a later chapter.
■ suggestio falsi
As if clever word play were not enough, we have cases in which Gish out-and-out
lied.
Gish quoted Norman Macbeth (1979) as writing that "Darwinism is not science." W
e are offered no information on Macbeth; we are merely expected to accept that s
tatement because it was written by someone we never even heard of before but who
must be famous because Gish does not bother to identify him. Gish usually thre
w this quotation into a sea of other quotations, both in and out of context, mad
e by scientists. This tricks the reader into believing that Macbeth was also a
scientist, whereas in fact he was a lawyer (Pigliucci 2000: 186).
Furthermore, Gish stated that Macbeth is not a Creationist (Gish [1985] 1991: 14
; 1993: 56), whereas in fact he was a Creationist, and has published several boo
ks on the subject (Pigliucci 2000: 186).
So here we have appeal to authority, suppressio veri, and suggestio falsi, all i
n one stroke.
You re right, Groves, "Gish is the master, the source!"
Gish s Fallacies: Irrelevant Purpose:
origin of the Universe
A kindergarten boy once laughed at something which his older sister didn t think
was very funny. When the sister commented, he defended himself by claiming tha
t he could beat up any of the other boys in his kindergarten.
This, of course, was irrelevant. The sister was speaking of his sense of humor,
not his muscle power. This is an example of the fallacy of irrelevant purpose,
or the allegation that a claim has not fulfilled a purpose which in fact is not
its intended purpose. In this case, the kindergartener claimed that his sister
s objection failed to disprove how strong he was.
A kindergartener is incapable of thinking in the abstract. But Creationist disp
utants are grown men and women from whom we should expect a little more. That i
s why I was a little surprised the first time I saw a Creationist trying to hold
Evolutionists responsible for explaining how the Universe started.
I have tried every approach I could think of to explain that Evolutionary theory
does not purport to explain how the Universe started. I have asked Creationist
s if an electric toaster is useless since it can t wash laundry. I have asked t
hem if a violin is useless since it can t call soldiers to the mess hall. I hav
e given one example after another, but all to no avail.
A person debating with Gish would have the same frustration. Here are a few of
Gish s tactics:
▶ He attributes the big bang theory to Evolutionists.
Gish not only brought up the subject of the big bang, he related it with Evoluti
on with deceptive names, such as "astronomical evolution" (Ross 1992), "naturali
stic evolutionary origin" (Gish 1995b: 19), "stellar evolution" (Gish 1995b: 19)
, and "the evolutionary theory of the origin of the universe." (Gish n. d. 3: 21
)
▶ He indulges in deceptive word play.
Gish referred to Evolutionary theory as a "theory of origins," hoping that the r
eader or listener would not ask "origins of what?" (Pigliucci 2000: 161. (See G
ish n. d. 3: 6, [1972] 1976: 122, 1993: 295, 336; Zindler 1990 for examples.)
In fact, he opened one of his books (Gish 1995b: v) with the words "The question
of origins is a subject that extends far beyond the biological and physical sci
ences."
▶ He makes an argumentum ad ridiculum out of it.
In public debates, Gish milked the big bang theory for all it was worth. To aid
in the comedy effect, he coined a metaphor about a "cosmic egg." The followin
g example is from the Parrish (1991) debate. (See Gish [1972] 1976: 14; 1993: 1
53; 1994; 1997: 11; Saladin 1988b; Indoctrinhate 2009b for other examples):
Because you see, one of the popular theories on the origin of the univer
se today is called the big bang theory. According to that theory, billions
of years ago all the energy, matter, of the entire universe, everything in
your body, everything in this building, everything in the entire universe was
crammed together in a huge cosmic egg. Now nobody has the foggiest
notion of where it came from or how it got there. Someone has suggested
perhaps the cosmic chicken laid the cosmic egg. I ve never heard a more
scientific explanation of the origin of the cosmic egg yet, but anyhow that s
their thoughts.
▶ He makes another argumentum ad ridiculum out of it.
He also ridiculed the idea that hydrogen transformed into people (Bakken 1987; S
aladin 1988b; Gish 1993: 154). In the Parrish (1991) debate, he said, "You, acc
ording to Dr. Parrish and evolutionists, you are the product of this evolutio
nary process starting with hydrogen gas."
He also treasured the following witticism (Parrish 1991; cf. Saladin 1988b, Pigl
iucci 2000: 173), which is attributed to Creationist astronomer George Mulfinger
(Gish 1993: 154):
So you see according to this theory we ve gone from hydrogen to people
and if that s true one could say hydrogen is the odorless, tasteless, invisible
gas which if given the time becomes people.
▶ He dabbles in astrophysics.
Sites (n. d.) reviews a booklet in which Gish rejects scientific speculations of
the origin of the moon and insists that God did it.
▶ He makes a moral issue out of it.
In an interview with a journalist (Wood 1996), Gish said:
In our public schools, evolution is taught as established fact. They re taught t
he Big Bang theory and everything started out as hydrogen gas. The kid s sitting
there and hearing the teacher say that everything started out as hydrogen gas a
nd concludes that his ultimate destiny is a pile of dust and there is no God. Th
erefore, there is no one to whom he is responsible.
Here are some responses which have been made to Gish s routine:
■ Just because Gish gets a laugh does not mean he is right.
Saladin (1988b) comments, "Anything can be made to look ridiculous expressed in
the right terms."
■ Gish has not explained why the big bang theory is not possible.
Saladin (1988b) has taken the big bang step by step, asking Gish which step or s
teps are not possible:
Is it unbelievable or impossible that, as they cooled, subatomic particl
es would assemble into the simplest of atoms, hydrogen (a negative electron
attracted to a positive proton)? Is it impossible that hydrogen nuclei would
combine to yield helium? Just what step in the evolution of the elements
does he believe to be impossible, and why, exactly?
Given the existence of the elements, is it impossible they would form co
mpounds? Is there some reason hydrogen and nitrogen could not possibly form amm
onia? That carbon and oxygen could not form carbon monoxide?
As far as I know, Gish never responded.
■ Gish cannot prove that Evolution implies the Big Bang.
As you have no doubt seen by now, Gish has a dandy quote collection. When he fi
nds an out-of-date quote, he uses it. When he finds an out-of-context quote, he
uses it. When he finds a quote which can make an Evolutionist look ridiculous,
he uses it.
Yet Gish would have us believe that all Evolutionists everywhere say that Evolut
ion implies a giant hydrogen explosion, So why can t he name a single Evolution
ist who says that?
■ All this has nothing to do with Evolution anyway.
Any good dictionary will tell the difference between Evolution and abiogenesis.
However, most of Gish s opponents did not seem to realize that Gish was off the
subject. As far as I know, Kenneth Miller (1982a) and Pigliucci (2000: 161) are
the only Evolutionist writers who have commented that Gish is off the subject h
ere.
■ All this has nothing to do with science anyway.
According to Kenneth Miller (1982a), "Notions of how the universe originated are
altogether outside the province of science. Such questions of first cause prope
rly belong to the realms of philosophy and theology."
Trott (1994b) wrote, "Evolution is not a theory of cosmogony and asking it to an
swer questions of cosmogony is silly."
So naturally enough, Gish s opponents never brought up the subject in the first
place, So Gish always had to bring the subject up for them.
But why? If he didn t think the big bang was a good idea, why did he bring it u
p? Here are some possible reasons:
● He sincerely thinks the two topics relate.
Gish (1993: 169) explains that "The origin of life, the origin of each basic typ
e of creature which produces a fertilized egg, and the origin of its reproductiv
e process has everything to do with evolution."
It is possible that he really believes this, but it is dangerous to take at face
value anything Gish ever says or writes. Let us continue.
● It was a ploy to make the opponent look like an atheist.
If he could make the theory look atheistic, then he could get the opponent to lo
ok like an atheist. And Gish undoubtedly knew his supporters felt about atheis
ts.
Kenneth Miller (1982a) writes, "Dr. Gish made the key issue of the debate a theo
logical question over whether or not God exists."
● Gish cannot conceive of a neutral stance.
A religious-minded person, who is expected to be absolutely sure of his or her b
eliefs, may not understand a neutral stance taken by another person. Consequent
ly, a religious-minded person may not understand a religious skeptic who does no
t take a stand on how the universe started or on how life started.
Gish s critics have tried to express their neutral position on the origin of the
Universe. Kenneth Miller (1982a) wrote, "A creator could have created life and
then everything could have evolved from there." Bakken (1987) wrote, "In fact
we don t know where the universe came from. Dr. Gish says God made it, but then
where did God come from? The ultimate question of origins can t be answered."
This all goes right over his head. In the Bakken (1987) debate, Gish said:
Now the evolutionist says he can explain the origin of everything utiliz
ing nothing but natural laws and natural processes . . . they go beyond the
limits of mere science, they say we can explain the very origins of the
universe and the origin of life and the origin of living things, utilizing these
same natural laws and natural processes.
Do you also take a neutral stance, like Miller and Bakken? If so, what shall yo
u do the next time a Creationist confronts you? Maybe forget the whole game, li
ke some leading Evolutionists suggest.
Gish s Fallacies: Irrelevant Purpose:
origin of life
In the Access Research Network (1999) debate, Gish said, "Evolutionists insist t
hat we use these same natural law and processes to explain the origin of the uni
verse, the origin of life, the origin of all living things. Now, you cannot do
that."
In the McKee (2001) debate, he said, "There were no human witnesses to the origi
n of the universe, there were no human witnesses to the origin of life."
In one of his books (Gish [1972] 1976: 1), he wrote:
The general theory of organic evolution, or the evolution model, is the theory t
hat all living things have arisen by a materialistic evolutionary process from a
single source which itself arose by a similar process from a dead, inanimate wo
rld. This theory may also be called the molecule-to-man theory of evolution.
The creation account found in Genesis, on the other hand, records the fa
ct that all basic animal and plant types (the created kinds) were brought i
nto existence by acts of God using special processes which are not operative
today.
In another of his books (Gish [1985] 1991: 11), he wrote:
The general theory of organic evolution, or the evolution model, is the
theory that all living things have arisen by a materialistic evolutionary proces
s from a single source which itself arose by a similar process from a dead, in
animate world. This theory may also be called the molecule-to- man theory of ev
olution.
The creation model, on the other hand, postulates that all basic animal
and plant types (the created kinds) were brought into existence by acts of a
supernatural Creator using special processes which are not operative tod
ay.
In still another of his books (Gish 1995a: 1), he wrote, "The theory of creation
and the theory of evolution are attempts to explain the origin of the universe
and of its inhabitants."
In the Saladin (1988b) debate, he went charging at the enemy:
Now, we contrast that to creation, basic creation. Basic creation is the
istic and deliberate acts of an intelligent Creator. Natural laws now existing
were not responsible for the origin of the universe and its living organ
isms. They are the products of the Creator. We must step beyond these natural
laws and processes to explain the origin of the universe and the origin of
living things. Now I would agree with Dr. Saladin that a scientist must use
only natural laws and natural processes to explain the operation of the
natural universe and the operation of living organisms. That s the only way
a scientist can operate. Certainly as a biochemist I assume what I saw
happening today had happened in the past and would happen in the future.
That s the only way a scientist can operate. But that is when we re trying
to understand and explain the operation of the universe, and the operation
of living organisms. The evolutionist goes beyond that. He steps outside the
limits of empirical science. He says, we must also use those very same natural
laws to explain the origin of the universe, and the origin of life, and
the origin of man and all other living organisms. Now he s beyond empirical
science. He s not dealing with the here and now, he s not dealing with the
empirically observable, testable theories. But he s trying to infer what may
have happened in the unobservable past, and that s what the creation-scientist i
s doing. And they have equal scientific validity and certainly evolution is just
as religious as creation.
In his manuscript for the Creation Science Fellowship in Pittsburgh (Gish n. d.
3), we see a long procession of straw men:
...the wholly unscientific evolutionary hypothesis that the natural univ
erse with all of its incredible complexity, was capable of generating itself,
and maintains that there must exist, external to the natural universe, a Cre
ator...
Our students are told that the spontaneous origin of life on earth was a
lmost inevitable.
Evolutionists persist in believing that life arose in the absence of ozo
ne.
The evolutionist . . . insists that we must not only use natural laws an
d processes to explain the operation of the universe and its living organi
sms, but that we must use those same natural laws and processes to explain th
e origin of the universe and the living organisms it contains.
Now that we have listened to Gish s pep talk, let us explore Gish s favorite sub
-topics:
▶ the Miller-Urey experiment (1959)
In the Saladin (1988a) debate, Gish spoke at considerable length on the Miller-U
rey (Miller, S. L. & Urey 1959) experiment. In this experiment, a graduate stud
ent sought to simulate the atmospheric conditions of prehistoric times and to de
termine whether or not it was possible for life to form under such conditions.
Gish s motive was probably to impress rather than to inform the audience. Gish
kicked around the terms DNA, RNA, amino acids, proteins, nucleotides. polymer,
peptides, and enzymes, which most of his followers probably could not understand
.
▶ Yockey (1977)
At the Saladin (1988f) debate, Gish also quoted Yockey (1977) as calculating tha
t only one gene could come from 49 amino acids in a billion years--and Yockey wa
sn t even a Creationist!
And just to make sure you get the point:
Ladies and gentlemen, if there s 20 different amino acids, and of course
there d be many more than 20 amino acids on primitive earth, and you had
to pick them out blindly, the probability of getting each one in order i
s only one out of 20. By the time you ve multiplied ten or 20, take one over 20
and multiply it times itself 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 or 100 times, you re b
eyond probability. It would never happen. And if it did happen, what would
you have? One single molecule of one single protein. That s all. But ladies
and gentleman, in order to get life started, you d have to [have] billions of
tons of hundreds of different kinds of protein molecules, and hundreds o
f different kinds of DNA and RNA molecules, even more complex than that.
And still you d not have a living cell.
And while we re at it, let s have another exercise in probability math (Saladin
1988f; cf. Indoctrinhate 1988d):
Why, if I asked 17 people to line up here in front of the auditorium, do
you know that 17 people can line up with more than three hundred and fifty-f
ive trillion different ways? Three hundred and fifty-five trillion. In other wo
rds, if I wrote their names down on a piece of paper, and they lined up they d
have only one chance out of three hundred and fifty-five trillion of lini
ng up the way I d wrote their names down on a piece of paper. But, proteins have
hundreds of amino acids that must be arranged in order. It s never going
to happen, not by any evolutionary process. Thank you.
▶ Morowitz (1979)
In Gish & Asimov (1981), Gish quoted Morowitz (1979: 12, 68) as calculating the
chances against matter arranging itself into a bacterium as 1 followed by 100 bi
llion zeroes.
True to pattern, Gish presents this finding with an appeal to authority, with no
explanation of how Morowitz arrived at that figure.
▶ Hoyle & Wickwramisinghe (1981)
Gish quoted astronomers Fred Hoyle & Chandra Wickwramisinghe (1981: 24) as sayin
g that the chances of life originating on this planet in 5 billion years is 1 fo
llowed by 40,000 zeros (in Bakken 1987; in Saladin 1988b; Gish 1995b: 23).
▶ Hoyle (1983)
A quote from Hoyle again. In his debate with Bakken (1987), Gish quoted Hoyle (
[1983] 1984) as saying that "the probability of evolution is equal to the probab
ility that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a Boeing 747.
This became one of Gish s favorite quotes. Gish repeated this quote in his 1988
debate with Saladin (1988b), his 1988 debate with Plimer (Indoctrinhate 1988d),
his 1990 debate with Zindler, his 1991 debate with Parrish, his book Creation S
cientists Answer Their Critics (1993: 275), his book Teaching Creation Science i
n Public Schools (Gish 1995b: 23), his 2002 debate with McGinnis (Grocott [2002]
2008), and his undated manuscript for the Creation Science Fellowship in Pittsb
urgh.
But did Hoyle really say that? And if so, was Hoyle making a mathematical state
ment? Or was he merely making a modus tollens argument? ("When cockle shells t
urn silver bells, then will my love come back to me.")
At the Arkansas trial, Wickramasinghe made the statement that one event "was abo
ut as plausible" as the other (Geisler 1982: 151). One could interpret this sta
tement either way.
On pages 12-17 of The Intelligent Universe ([1983] 1984), Hoyle makes a calculat
ion of the chances against the proteins and enzymes falling in place. Yet his j
unkyard scenario seems to be a mere analogy, not a calculation. On page 19, he
writes:
A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered
and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is
the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, w
ill be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornad
o were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe.
This may seem like a mere analogy.
Korthof ([1999] 2007), however, tells us that a yeast cell and a Boeing 747 each
have 6 million parts, and that Hoyle s calculation was based on this figure.
So it looks like Gish s quote is accurate after all.
It is now time to hear what the Evolutionists say:
■ There was more than one chance for life to form.
Saladin (1988f Note 6) argues that one could be led to assume "that the experime
nt is only being done once." Ancient prehistory, on the other hand, offered mil
lions of years and millions of square miles for life to originate chemically.
■ Gish s sources might be biased.
In response to the Yockey (1977) quote, Kenneth Miller (1982a) argues that a che
mical sequence does not have to assemble by chance, that more than one chemical
sequence could be acceptable, and that small nucleotide chains are capable of se
lf-replication.
Fox (1984) notes that Yockey (1977) makes "numerous quotations of scripture" whi
ch raise a "question of the purity of his scientific premises." This suggests t
hat Yockey might be a Creationist, despite Gish s statement that "Yockey, is not
a creationist. He just did good science." (Saladin 1988f)
In fairness to Gish, however, one might question Fox s argument as an ad hominem
attack. Even if Yockey is a Creationist, that doesn t mean he s wrong.
Saladin (1988b Note 15) also refutes the Hoyle & Wickwramisinghe (1981: 24) quot
e on the grounds of dubious assumptions. Saladin (1988b Note 13) also attacks t
he quote on the grounds that life can arise abiotically on this earth more easil
y than is commonly believed.
■ The first proteins did not have to form all at the same time.
Kenneth Miller (1982a) questions Gish s assumption that the proteins would have
to form simultaneously. Miller knows of many studies which show that "the many
modern proteins appear to have derived from a few ancestral proteins."
■ The ancestral cells did not have to have as many proteins as the cells living
today.
Kenneth Miller (1982a) also questions Gish s assumption that "if modern cells ha
ve two hundred proteins, the earliest protocells also had two hundred proteins."
Here, too, he sees abundant evidence to the contrary.
■ Living cells can be formed more easily than Gish would have us think.
According to Saladin (1988f), "Creationists may wear out a hundred calculators c
omputing the impossibility of primitive cells forming without Fiat Creation, whi
le all the time dozens of investigators in a score of laboratories are observing
these impossible events."
■ Scientific study does not necessarily involve tracing origins back to the begi
nning.
Jet Black (2010) drew an analogy with dendrochronology, or the science of readin
g tree rings. Through such reading, "we can see what sorts of conditions the tr
ee has been exposed to over its lifetime--however we can t see where the seed ca
me from." He then commented that "we don t dump the whole science just because
it doesn t tell us where seeds come from."
■ None of this has anything to do with Evolution anyway.
The correct term for the origin of life is abiogenesis. If Gish wanted to talk
about abiogenesis, then perhaps he should have gone on a debate circuit on abiog
enesis as well as a debate circuit on evolution. He probably considered this id
ea, but decided that "abiogenesis" was too big a word to market to the public.
Gish probably heard few if any complaints from the Creationists in the audience,
probably because they were not concerned about staying on topic either. They m
ight have attended the event to see religious skeptics fed to the lions, and Gis
h was probably happy to oblige.
Gish managed to get some of his opponents sidetracked into talking about abiogen
esis, but Zindler (1990) was too smart. He remarked, "Even if it were a fact th
at origin-of-life hypotheses were untestable, it would have no bearing on
the question of whether or not life, once begun, had evolved."
At the Saladin (1988b) debate, Gish tried to change the debate topic:
What we are here to discuss is how did this universe and its living orga
nisms come into being. Were they created naturalistically, by a process of self-
transformation, or are they results of the deliberate creative acts of an intel
ligent Creator?
One may wonder who "we" is. Gish may have hoped to lure Saladin into wasting pr
ecious debate time in pursuing his red herring, but he didn t succeed. Saladin
(1988b) did indeed comment on the topic of origin of life, but only in his writt
en commentary. There, he wrote:
Gish attempts to erect a dichotomy in which one must choose either "godl
ess evolution" or "theistic creation." The fallacy of this dichotomy is
evident in his earlier statement that "certainly, not all evolutionists are
atheists; as a matter of fact most are not." It would be more to the point
to say that creation is inescapably theistic, whereas evolution is noncommittal
on this point.
Saladin (1988h) also commented:
The whole thing is really irrelevant to evolutionary theory, because if
God created our planet, if we grant that, it doesn t affect evolution one bi
t . . . The theory of evolution concerns only the changes in populations of livi
ng organisms on the earth. It assumes that the earth and life already exis
t. God could have created the cosmic egg and let it go from there; God
could have created the cosmic egg and let it go; God might even intervene
in every little day to day event of mutation and natural selection. We have
no way scientifically of proving or disproving any of these, and acceptance
or rejection of any of these is a matter of personal religious faith.
What is the purpose of all this foolishness? Doesn t Gish know better? He must
. Any good dictionary would tell you the difference between evolution and abiog
enesis. Surely Gish has a good dictionary and knows how to use it.
Or does Gish think his opponents associate evolution with abiogenesis? This, to
o, is unlikely. Surely he has noticed that the subject of abiogenesis was never
brought up in any of his debates by anyone but him. Surely he has noticed that
none of his opponents even responded to his raving and ranting over the subject.
Surely he has noticed that the subject was never discussed in any of the many
Evolutionary writings which he has carefully scrutinized for out-of-context nugg
ets.
What is his purpose, then? This question comes to light when we notice a simple
 pattern. Gish pulls his trick on the very first page in most of his books (Gis
h [1972] 1976: 1; [1985] 1991: 11; 1995: 1). His very first utterance in the Ac
cess Research Network (1999) debate was on what Evolutionists allegedly believe.
His spiel in the Saladin (1988b) debate took place in his opening statement.
This cannot be a mere coincidence. It is apparent, then, that Gish saw some adv
antage in opening every book and every debate with his straw man.
Gish has likely considered that a first impression is a lasting impression. If
he could start the reader or listener in the right direction, then the reader or
listener will be too emotionally laden to even consider what the opponent has t
o say.
All this is coming from a believer in the Bible, which says, "Thou shalt not bea
r false witness against thy neighbor." (Exodus 20:16)
Gish s Fallacies: equivocation
To disseminate Creation Science, you have to solve a dilemma: you have to effect
an aura of scientific respectability. In order to do this, you have to speak s
cientific jargon. However, you also have to speak enough of the common lingo to
hold the attention of that audience.
Gish found the perfect solution. He decided to borrow the term Second Law of Th
ermodynamics, with a good five syllables in the last word.
This law states that "In any closed system, the entropy of the system will eithe
r remain constant or increase." (Jones 2008) Most of us can t understand this
either, so let s go another step. The word entropy means "the quantitative meas
ure of disorder in a system."
We will talk about closed systems later, but for now, let s hear Gish s definiti
on. According to Gish, the Law says that everything tends toward disorder. Unl
ess God intervenes, the final result is doomsday. Ever the stirring orator, Gis
h gave a grim description of the lachrymose day when the lights will go out. "D
oesn t make any difference if you pay your electric bill or not." (Parish 1991)
According to Gish, the Law renders impossible the Big Bang, which begins with hy
drogen gas and ends with a complex universe (Gish 1994; in Trott 1994b; cf. Gish
c1996; in Saladin 1988g; Indoctrinhate 2009c). "It was hydrogen gas than trans
formed itself into the universe today including you." (Saladin 1988b)
According to Gish, the Law also renders impossible Evolution, which tends toward
order.
Although Gish seems to be the author of this interpretation, other Creationists
followed suit. On the right, we see an illustration from another Creationist s
Website (Sarfati 2007). On the following page are some samples of Creationist c
lip art.
Now for the Law as the mainstream scientists understand it:
■ The Law only applies to closed systems, whereas the Creationists are trying to
apply it to open systems.
Strahler ([1987] 1999: 86-92) not only specifies that the Law applies only to cl
osed systems, but claims that there is no closed system except for the entire Un
iverse (Strahler [1987] 1999: 91). If I understand Strahler correctly, the clos
ed system is a hypothetical construct devised for academic purposes, much like t
he infinitely small point and the infinitely thin line which we all pondered ove
r in geometry class.
Asimov (1981; Cole, J. R. 1981) defines such a system as one "that does not gain
energy from without, or lose energy to the outside." He, too, does not recogni
ze any closed system except for "the universe as a whole."
In the Saladin (1988b) debate, Gish rejected the Universe as a closed system. H
e argued on the basis of a "supernatural Creator" which is "external" to the Uni
verse. This is what he said:
Now in Dr. Saladin s view and the view of the evolutionists, the univers
e is an isolated system. Nobody did any work on it, nobody brought anything i
n from the outside, everything that took place during the origin of univer
se, was a process of self-transformation . . .
Just in case you missed Gish s attack on religious skeptics, here is a similar p
assage from one of his writings (Gish n. d. 3: 21):
Evolutionists believe the universe is an isolated system. No one outside did an
y work on it and no matter or energy was brought in from the outside.
■ Gish is redefining "closed system."
You may remember the equivocation fallacy from the chapter on miscellaneous fall
acies. This is a fallacy in which the user changes definitions in the middle of
a syllogism.
Here he redefines closed system, pretends that Evolutionists abide by the same d
efinition, and concludes that all Evolutionists are atheists.
If any of you ever find any such theological discussion like in a science textbo
ok, please write back.
Probably since Isaac Asimov was such a well-known writer, Gish (1993: 160, 373;
cf. n. d. 3: 20; in Saladin 1988b; in Parrish 1991; Indoctrinhate 2009c) highly
prized this passage (Asimov 1970):
Another way of stating the Second Law, then, is, the universe is constan
tly getting more disorderly. Viewed that way we can see the Second Law all
about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room. If left to itself it
becomes a mess again, very quickly and very easily. Even if we don t enter
it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses and machinery,
and our own bodies in perfect working order. How easy to let them deteriorate
. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses,
breaks down, wears out, all by itself--and that is what the second law is a
ll about.
Gish (1993: 160) quipped, "If that is what the Second Law is all about, it does
indeed appear that evolutionary theory is in trouble."
Kitcher ([1982] 1989: 91) doesn t see it that way, however. He calls attention
to the words "takes place by itself," which limit the statement to closed system
s.
If Gish values Asimov s views on the Second Law so highly, why doesn t he quote
from another article by Asimov (1981), in which Asimov relegates the Creationist
interpretation of the Law to the "kindergarten level"?
■ Gish is redefining "order" and "disorder."
Gish sees the Big Bang as a violation of the Law on the grounds that "disorder s
pontaneously generated order." (Miller, K. 1982a) In Gish s terminology, the exp
losion was disorderly and the Universe as we see it today is orderly. Kenneth M
iller (1982a), however, defines order as "energy available for work" and disorde
r as "energy unavailable for work."
In the Trott (1994b) debate, Gish explained that "an isolated or closed system w
ill always deteriorate, becoming less organized, less complex, going from o
rder to disorder, from complex to simple". Trott (1994b) responded:
This is not what the Second Law says. The Second Law merely says that
total entropy will not decrease. . . Even closed and isolated systems can
spontaneously become more "organized" and go from "disorder" to "order"
fully in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Isaak ([2005] 2007: 191) interprets the Law as saying that "heat will not sponta
neously flow from a colder body to a warmer one," or that "total entropy (a meas
ure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease." In other words, if
you add heat to a system, that causes the molecules and atoms to speed up (Jone
s 2008).
If what Isaak says is true, and if what Gish says is true, then Evolutionary the
ory is somehow threatened by the fact that warmer molecules are more active than
cooler molecules.
■ The Institute for Creation Research writes in clauses which were not in the or
iginal law.
Freske (1981) describes the three components of the Creative Trinity, as set for
th by Morris (1976):
Number one is free energy. Freske comments:
This is actually incorrect, since a loss of energy can also generate an entropy
deficiency; however, the need for the system to be open is universally recognize
d, so further discussion is unnecessary.
Number two is an energy conversion mechanism. Freske comments:
When creationists are pressed, we find that just about anything qualifies as hav
ing a "mechanism," including matter itself, so the statement becomes quite m
eaningless.
Number three is a directing program. Freske comments:
This is variously referred to as intelligence, information, control system, and
so forth by creationists. The idea is that this directing program did not arise
through natural processes but was created by God.
In the Saladin (1988g) debate, Gish talked about number two. He christened bot
h photosynthesis and the automobile gas tank as "machines."
Up until this point, we talked about mostly a priori arguments. Now for some a
posteriori arguments:
■ Evolution takes energy from elsewhere.
Evolutionist writers regard the Earth as an open system. Pigliucci (2000: 174)
cites "material from space" and from "the interior of the earth" as external sou
rces..
Evolutionist writers are also quick to cite the sun as a source of energy (Asimo
v 1981; Cole, J. R. 1981; Miller, K. 1982a; Kitcher 1982: 92; Pigliucci 2000: 17
4). Saladin (1988h) supplies some statistics: "The earth receives 51 billion kil
owatts of solar energy every second." Saladin wishes he could harness a second
s worth of that energy and say goodby to the power company.
On a more local level, Bakken (1987) gives the example of a chicken, which give
s off less energy than it takes. Jones (2008) gives the example of a pregnant wo
man drawing energy from food for the sake of the fetus.
■ There are examples of order being created from disorder.
Since water and oil separate (Trott 1994b), and since vineger and oil separate (
Saladin 1988g), these have been cited as examples of order being created from di
sorder.
Bakken (1987) offers the example of a runny, disorderly egg being organized int
o a chicken.
For examples of order increasing as the temperature decreases, Saladin (1988d) m
entions "the coiling of DNA into a double helix when cooled below its melting po
int" and "the crystallization of water when cooled below its freezing point."
■ There are examples of complexity being created from simplicity.
Trott (1994b) offers the example of hydrogen being transformed into helium, even
though helium atoms are more complex than hydrogen atoms.
Saladin (1988b) contrasts "the simple agrarian skills of Cain" with "the complex
industrialized society of today."
■ Evolution does not presuppose a smooth unfolding from simple to complex or dis
order to order.
Shermer (2002) writes: "The history of life is checkered with false starts, fail
ed experiments, small and mass extinctions, and chaotic restarts."
And finally, a few miscellaneous arguments:
■ The Law was not in effect at the time of the big bang.
According to Saladin (1988b, 1988g), not only to this law, but other laws, such
as the speed of light and the gravitational constant, were not in effect until a
fter the big bang.
■ Gish errs in his probability math.
Mathematically inclined readers are welcome to refer to an article on an article
on amino acid chains, which Freske (1981) wrote in response to Gish (1978b).
■ The Creationist Law of Thermodynamics is probably religion in disguise.
We are playing a game which one commentator on Intelligent Design calls "hide-th
e-Bible." Just as Noah s Flood gets renamed as a "hydraulic cataclysm," Origina
l Sin gets renamed as the "Second Law of Thermodynamics."
In the Saladin (1988g) debate, Gish posed a challenge to anyone who wanted to be
at the Second Law: "live forever." That s what Adam and Eve were about to do.
■ Why aren t we devolving?
All this time, we have been hearing that plant and animal species cannot grow mo
re orderly and complex because the Second Law creates disorder and simplicity. I
f the Creationists are right, then that explains why plants and animals can t ev
olve. But note that the Creationist Law says not only that nothing can increase
in order of complexity, but that everything has to decrease in order and comple
xity.
Doesn t that apply to plants and animals? If it does, then the Tree of Life pos
ed by the Creationists should apply, but in reverse. Mammals should change into
reptiles and amphibians should change into fish. This trend should continue un
til we are all lowly microbes again. And that would be very nice, because we wo
uld hardly notice when all the lights go out.
Why, then, isn t life devolving? I have posed this question to several Creation
ists but received only one response (O Daniel 2008):
Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis.
We are not "devolving" simply because God did not create us to "devolve.
" God created all organisms "after their kind" (Genesis 1:21-25) and it is
biologically impossible for them to "devolve" (or "evolve" for that matt
er) into anything other than their kind. See the link:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/370.asp
We can see creatures like zorses (cross between a zebra and a horse, an
example of which we have at the Creation Museum Petting Zoo!) but we would never
see a cross between a zebra and a lion, for instance. The horse kind and the c
at kind can never interbreed.
■ Why won t Gish take this up with Evolutionary scientists?
So it s his side against theirs. Which side is right? To be truthful, I don t
know myself. Most of the Evolutionist scientists are probably too busy with the
ir work to even listen to what Gish has to say. Those who do listen to Gish are
probably hearing a simplified version of his views, whereas he might be able to
give a more detailed and more convincing description to a professional audience
.
The perfect solution is for Gish to address the scientists and for the scientist
s to listen, don t you think? That s what Frederick Edwords thought. In 1989,
Edwords invited Gish to write a technical article on the subject in Creation/Evo
lution, of which Edwords is the chief editor.
For some reason, though, Gish never responded (Pigliucci 2000: 189-190). Appare
ntly, he prefers to address the "ladies and gentleman" who have no choice on the
matter.
For details on this incident, see the chapter on Why don t Creationists publish
in journals.
■ miscellaneous
For further information on Creationist use and abuse of the Second Law, Saladin
(1988b) recommends Freske (1981) and Thwaites & Awbrey (1981).
In other words, this whole thing is a fallacy of irrelevant purpose.
Gish s Fallacies: argumentum ad infinitum
This refers to argument by repetition. Hitler rallied the masses with the sloga
n "One people, one empire, one leader!")
But we are not Germans living in the Third Reich, so we are more resistant to re
peated messages.
Or are we? No, we re not, and advertisers know that. One might think that an a
dvertiser would do well to run ads in as many newspapers, magazines, and TV chan
nels as possible in order to reach as many consumers as possible. That is not t
rue. On the contrary, it is well-known among advertisers that many ads in the s
ame newspaper, magazine, or TV channel work better. Savvy consumer Sara Aye (20
07) comments:
Show us something once, and we might sense it with peripheral vision. Show us so
mething twice, and we recognize it from before. Something triggers our brain to
remember it. Show it to us again, and we might actually process it. Show it to u
s so many times, that it becomes part of something bigger? Now we really get it.
Gish uses the same device to sell Creationism. Here is an excerpt from the deba
te with Saladin (1988b):
One of the more popular theories on the universe is called the Big Bang
Theory. According to that theory all the energy and matter in the universe,
everything in your body, everything in the entire universe, was crammed
together in a huge cosmic egg or subatomic particles and radiation. Now of
course, nobody knows where the cosmic egg came from, or how it got there. S
omebody suggested perhaps the cosmic chicken laid the cosmic egg. Of cours
e then you have to ask the question of where d the cosmic chicken come fro
m? But anyhow, it exploded, and out of this huge explosion, hydrogen gas was gen
erated. And some helium. And these gases expanded out in the vast stretche
s of the universe. Now at that time, that s all there was. Hydrogen gas was th
e universe. And somehow from this hydrogen gas stars created themselves, galaxi
es created themselves, our solar system created itself, life evolved int
o everything living today, and that has ever lived, including people.
We have thirty trillion cells in our bodies, of more than two hundred varieties,
including twelve billion brain cells, and more than one hundred twenty trillion
connections in the human brain. And that has all been produced by hydrogen
gas. According to this theory. Someone has said that if that s true then we coul
d say that hydrogen is an odorless, tasteless, invisible gas, which if given su
fficient time, becomes people. And of course this is precisely what evolutionist
s believe, because there was nothing but hydrogen then, now we have people, obvi
ously the only place we could have come from is from this hydrogen gas. I, as a
scientist I find that notion to be absolutely incredible, I don t know how anybo
dy could even believe such a thing, but they do believe it.
Now notice furthermore, according to this theory, everything is a produc
t of evolution, not only the galaxies and stars and our solar system and all
living organisms, but our consciousness, our ability to remember the past
and plan for the future, as a matter of fact our very faith in God is nothing
more than a product of evolution, beginning with this hydrogen gas.
The word hydrogen was used 8 times. Did you get the point?
Another of Gish s favorite soliloquys is about the "billions upon billions" of f
ossils which adorn the museums of the world (Saladin 1988b; Gish 1993: 111-112,
115, Parrish 1991; Zindler 1990; Gish 1997: 32), and not one of those fossils ha
s half a leg or half a fin!
Just in case you did not understand that, here is his rampage in the Saladin (19
88b) debate:
Now, let us leave this world of the present. Let us go and see this worl
d of the past, the fossil record. Let s take a look now, of course on the
basis of evolution we would expect the fossil record to produce a tremendous
number of transitional forms. After all we have a quarter of a million differen
t fossil species in our museums today, a quarter of a million different fossil s
pecies. If evolution is true, tens of thousands of those things should be
of undoubted transitional forms, I mean beyond dispute, there d be no qu
arrel. I could not be here tonight, there d be no debate about the subjec
t. If evolution is true, the evidence would be so overwhelming in our museums th
ere d be absolutely no question about it. If the fish evolved to an amphibian
, fins have to change into feet and legs. If a reptile evolved into birds, sc
ales have to change into feathers, forelegs into wings. If apes evolved into
people there d be a whole series of transitional forms. Why, most everything yo
u d find in the fossil record would be a transitional form. Hundreds and hundr
eds of millions of years of evolution producing millions of these things. We
ought to have a vast storehouse of those transitional forms today.
On the other hand if creation is true, we d expect each one of the creat
ion kinds, what we might call basic morphological designs, or basic types, w
e d expect each one to appear abruptly, fully formed, with no indication tha
t they had evolved from a common ancestor. Now look, the contrast between
creation and evolution, the prediction based upon creation and evolution as
far as the fossil record is so immense, it should be a rather simple thing
and there s just simply no contest. When this is done creation wins hands
down.
Let s take a look at the fossil record now or some aspects of it. Next s
lide please. Here s a reconstruction of animals whose fossils are found in C
ambrian rocks. Evolutionists believe the Cambrian rocks began to form 600 millio
n years ago, as sediments slowly settled out of the water. I don t have the fogg
iest notion how you d ever get a single fossil under conditions like that, becau
se when animals die and float around in the water, or lie around on the ground,
you never get a fossil that way. Oxidation, bacterial decomposition, chemical
decomposition, all kinds of processes, scavenging and so forth, destroys everyt
hing. To get a fossil they have to be buried and buried quickly. Now we have bil
lions times billions of fossils like this. We have tens, even tens of millions o
f fossil fishes in our museums. Billions of fossil fishes can be found in rathe
r small areas. I don t see how in the world you d ever get all of that by so-c
alled process, but, let s just look at their model shall we? Let s assume that
that all happened. In the sedimentary material which formed rocks, and rocks wil
l form rapidly with cementing agents, we find this tremendous array of very
complicated creatures. We find for example the jellyfish, branching sponges, sea
urchins, trilobites, the swimming [1-2 words inaudible], sea lilies, clams,
snails, brachiopods, worms, a great variety of very highly complex invertebrates
. Now, evolutionists believe that these things evolved beginning with a l
ittle single-called microscopic organism, and there s supposed to be hundreds
of hundreds of millions of years, even three billion years from the appearan
ce of that first microscopic organism and this explosion of these very, ve
ry complicated invertebrates. Now, in the rocks that are supposedly older th
an the Cambrian rocks, Precambrian rocks, many of which are undisturbed, perfect
ly suitable for the preservation of fossils, in those rocks, there are many repo
rts of microscopic, single-celled, bacteria and algae. Ladies and gentle
man if we can find fossils of little microscopic bacteria, we could certa
inly find fossils of everything between those creatures and these creatures. Our
museums should have millions and millions of fossils of the evolutionary predec
essors of these creatures. Ladies and gentleman they don t have one. Not even on
e! Not a single evolutionary ancestor of these creatures have ever been
found.
While Saladin had far more material than he could share in one evening, Gish spe
nt all that time bucking and snorting about "hundreds and hundreds" and "million
s and millions."
Gish was not quite as repetitious on paper, but there is one subtle case which s
hould be mentioned. In Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, Gish (1993: 23
3-234) quotes Eldredge (1982: 34, 36) as saying that Evolutionary theory predict
s a branching Tree of Life, which is precisely what is found in the real world.
On page 234, Gish attempts to refute this statement by pointing out that Linnaeu
s, a full-fledged Creationist, catalogued his taxonomic system a full century be
fore Darwin published Origin of Species.
Gish later (1993: 311-313) quotes Cracraft (1983: 170-173) for predicting a bran
ching Tree of Life, just as Eldridge did. On page 314, one more time on page 31
4, and finally on page 316, Gish repeats the fact that Linnaeus found a branchin
g Tree of Life.
It is nice of Gish to keep us reminded of this argument, but it would be even ni
cer if he could explain what his point is. Is his point that Linnaeus made the
discovery a hundred years before Darwin, so Creationists must be a hundred years
ahead of Evolutionists? If so, he has a weak case, because in Linnaeus time,
Evolutionists were few and far between.
Or is his point that Linnaeus could not have uncovered evidence for Evolution wi
thout recognizing it as such? That is a dubious premise. People saw ships appe
aring in the harbor masthead first long before they recognized this as evidence
that the world was round. Why, then, couldn t people see toads and frogs, croco
diles and alligators, and white oaks and pin oaks without seeing that as evidenc
e for Evolution?
Or is his point that Eldredge and Cracraft were misusing the word prediction? P
erhaps both writers could have chosen a better word. Perhaps they should have u
sed the word retrodiction (Popper 1980). But I thought we were discussing biolo
gy, not semantics.
Evolutionists have found some amusement in Creationist slogans and buzzwords. T
o the right, you see a parody which has been floating around on the Internet.
I am sure that Creationists could compile just as many Evolutionist cliches ("Ev
olution is science, Creationism is religion.")
Everywhere you go, you get attacked with slogans and buzzwords. Go to an Alcoho
lics Anonymous meeter, and you will be told that "you have a thinking problem, n
ot a drinking problem." Enroll in a Silva Mind Control course, and you will be
told that your life is getting "better and better." Turn on the TV, and you wil
l be told that "we do it all for you." The programs themselves abound with catc
h phrases ("Dynomite!" "God ll get you for that!")
Even the fine arts abound with such morsels. Edgar Allan Poe keeps us reminded
that the raven says "Nevermore!" If you happen to be a cello player, I m sure y
ou hate playing the same eight notes over and over in Pachelbel s Canon.
Don t let advertisers or Creationists or Evolutionists or advertisers or screenw
riters or poets or composers control your life. You have your own life to live.

Gish s Fallacies: Outdated sources

A cursory Net search brought up these quotes:
The Word of God is the same yesterday, today and forever.
God is the same yesterday, today and forever.
The Holy Word of God endures forever.
This may be true of religion, but in scientific research, yesterday s news is to
day s history.
Some devout believers may not realize this. It seems that Gish doesn t understa
nd this. Or else he takes advantage of the fact that his readers don t understa
nd. If Gish understood how fast scientific literature got outdated, and if he d
idn t want to take advantage of his readers, he would study the latest scientifi
c literature and share it with his readers.
Such is not the case. Lippard (1993) compares the dates of the sources cited in
Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics (Gish 1993) with those cited in Scienc
e and Earth History (Strahler 1987). He found that 6% of Gish s sources were pu
blished in the preceding 8 years as opposed to 45% of Strahler s sources.
Does this really make a difference? Let us look at a few of Gish s outdated sou
rces and find out:
▶ D. E. Green & Goldberger 1967
In the Zindler (1990) debate, Gish quoted D. E. Green & Goldberger (1967) as say
ing, "The macromolecule to cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions whi
ch lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis." Gish made this quote to prove
that Evolution was untestable, and therefore not scientific.
Zindler made the mistake of not asking for dates. After the debate, however, Zi
ndler went to the library. After searching for several hours, he found the publ
ication date to be 1967--23 years before the date of the debate. According to Z
indler, scientific knowledge had multiplied. "Entire journals--such as Origins
of Life--have appeared which are devoted almost completely to experimental studi
es on the origin of life."
After learning from his mistake, Zindler (1990) cautions other Evolutionists deb
ating Creationists to "ask for dates of citations, so that outrageously out-of-d
ate sources can be immediately seen for what they are."
▶ Dobzhansky 1972
Gish ([1985] 1991: 214; McKee 2001) quotes Dobzhansky (1972: 75):
It is almost incredible that a century after Darwin, the problem of the
origin of racial differences in the human species remains about as baffling as
it was in his time.
At the time Dobzhansky made that statement, this statement may have been true.
At the time that Gish lifted the quote, however, it was not. Gish probably hope
d to focus our attention on the time interval between Darwin and Dobzhansky so t
hat we would forget about the time interval between Dobzhansky and the present.
It is now agreed--by almost everyone except Young Earth Creationists--that the h
uman species evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago (Rushton 2000: 39). In A
frica, a dark skin became necessary as protection from the sun (Rushton 2000: 40
). Kinky hair was adopted because of its ability to inhibit intake of ultraviol
et rays (Iyengar 1998).
About 100,000 years ago, a population emigrated into Europe and Asia (Rushton 20
00: 39). There, they encountered a cloudy climate which restricted their intake
of Vitamin D. To compensate for this, lighter skin and lighter hair became adv
antageous (Loomis 1967; Rushton 2000: 40; Jablonski 2006). To aid in reception
of ultraviolet rays, straight hair was adopted (Iyengar 1998).
About 40,000 years ago, still another population emigrated into Eastern Asia (Ru
shton 2000: 39). There, they encountered more sunshine but a colder climate. A
layer of fat became necessary for insulation (Rushton 2000: 40). Thicker eyeli
ds became necessary to shield the eyes from cold, wind, and glare from the snow
(Chen, B. 2007).
In 1978, NASA launched the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer. This instrument in
dicated the amount of ultraviolet light which reaches earth in every region on t
he globe. Jablonski & Chaplin (2000) measured the skin tone of the people indig
enous to 50 areas of the world. True to their hypothesis, they found a correlat
ion between UV intensity and darkness of skin.
When a person travels outside of his or her native habitat, this all becomes pai
nfully obvious. We all know that a light-skinned person going to the tropics sh
ould take along a good supply of sun lotion. Dark-skinned people going to light
-skinned territory also have problems. Such problems have included rickets, ost
eomalacia, and osteoporosis are manifestations of Vitamin D deficiency, since th
ese are manifestations of Vitamin D deficiency. Such problems have prevailed am
ong Ethiopian immigrants to Isreal (Fogelman, Rakover & Luboshitsky 1995), amon
g Indian immigrants to Great Britain (Hodgkin et al 1973; Henderson et al. 1987)
, and among Afro-Americans (Harkness &Cromer 2005).
Gish s explanation, on the other hand, is that "Blacks tended to migrate into th
ose areas where their black skin offered protection from intense sunlight, while
the fair-skinned, blue-eyed Scandinavian race naturally migrated to the far nor
th to escape the more intense ultraviolet light encountered near the equator."
(Gish ([1985] 1991: 215).
In other words, the change in skin color took place first, and the emigration to
ok place second. So how did the change in skin color take place? Gish does not
tell us. Strahler ([1987] 1999: 495) suggests that Gish might think that God c
hanged us into different skin colors as well as different languages after the To
wer of Babel crisis.
Back to the subject of outdated sources: why does Gish do it? Is it because he
doesn‘t realize that they are outdated? Or is it because he realizes that they
are outdated but didn t want his public to notice?
The first explanation is possible. Creationists follow a scripture which never
changes. So they might not understand Evolutionists do not also follow a script
ure which never changes. Gish himself might not understand this.
However, the second explanation is also possible. You may notice that his books
(Gish [1972] 1976, [1985] 1991, 1993) use superscripts and endnotes, even thoug
h bibliographic notes in parentheses became the vogue long ago. Perhaps that is
because the reader is less likely to look up endnotes than to notice bibliograp
hic notes in parentheses. That way, the reader is less likely to see the public
ation dates.
Gish s Fallacies: straw man
The term straw man refers to a misrepresentation of an opponent s claims.
The term applies whether the claimant is misunderstanding the opponent s claims
or deliberately misrepresenting them. When it comes to straw men created by Gis
h, it is sometimes difficult to tell which is which.
One thing is for sure, however, and that is that Gish s misrepresentations are m
anifold. Here are some of his major whoppers:
▶ that Evolution implies that God did not create the ozone layer
To curry favor with his church-going audience, Gish began most of his debates wi
th Genesis 1:1. If Gish can contrast the Big Bang with Genesis 1:1 and associat
e his opponent with the Big Bang, then it follows that his adversary opposes Gen
esis 1:1. This portrays Gish as a brave and noble Armageddon warrior and his op
ponent as a godless atheist.
With such a simple and powerful emotional appeal, scientific discussion might no
t even be necessary, but Gish occasionally threw in a few technical terms for go
od measure. In the McKee (2001) debate (cf Gish c1996), Gish vilified his oppon
ent for not being thankful for the ozone layer.
Maybe God did say, "Let there be an ozone layer." I wasn t around, so I don t k
now.
▶ that Evolution implies that God did not set photosynthesis in motion
In the same debate (McKee 2001, cf. Gish c1996), Gish chastised his ungodly oppo
nent for not giving thanks for photosynthesis. Since the system is "incredibly
complex," we shall use the common premise that only God can create anything comp
lex.
Maybe God did say, "Let there be photosynthesis." I wasn t around, so I don t k
now.
▶ that Evolution implies that an animal is driven to reproduce as much as possib
le even in the face of overpopulation
Gish (1975, 1989c) claimed that most Evolutionists think that animals continue r
eproducing con tutta forza regardless of the population level, leaving their off
spring to fight for survival in the case of overpopulation.
This is not true. Smith (1973, 1985) found that flatworms cut down in case of p
opulation density. Wynne-Edwards (1962) and Lack (1952) both claimed that birds
cut down in case of food scarcity, but not in case of population density.
▶ that Evolutionists expect a parent species to go extinct before a daughter spe
cies comes into existence
Gish ([1972] 1976: 29) wrote that "Evolutionists believe that after many thousan
ds of generations eventually the mutant would completely replace the original, u
nchanged variety."
Surely no Evolutionist believes that. If one population emigrates to a differen
t environment while another population stays in place, one population could be s
ubjected to a strain to which the other population is not subjected. One popula
tion, then, might evolve whereas the other population might not (Blackburn 1995)
.
In some cases, Gish is not willing to allow "many thousands of generations," but
only one generation. Archeologists have discovered bird species living at the
same time as the Archaeopteryx. By Gish s logic, the bird class could not be d
escended from the Archaeopteryx, or the Archaeopteryx would go extinct first (Gi
sh [1985] 1991: 116).
Gish (1980: v) also writes of the three-toed horse ancestor Neohipparion and the
one-toed horse ancestor Pliohippus being found in the same stratum in Oregon.
Since the former is considered the ancestor of the latter, Gish expects this dis
covery to be embarrassing to Evolutionists.
In response to a hominid discovery by Louis Leakey in Tanzania, Gish (1995a: 271
; cf. [1985] 1991: 203; cf. Fezer 1993b) asked, "If Australopithecus, Homo habi
lis, and Homo erectus existed contemporaneously, how could one have been ancestr
al to another?"
Strahler ([1987] 1999: 444) calls Gish s misconception the "linear, or bamboo-st
alk, model of evolution."
▶ that Evolution is a series of ladder steps
Gish (1979: 87-88) cannot understand how the mammal class could evolve from a sm
all reptile species at a time when the dinosaurs were ruling the earth. Further
more, Gish ([1985] 1991: 94) cannot understand how the mammal species remained s
mall for so long after coming into existence. This indicates that Gish might se
e Evolution as a hierarchy of mammals over reptiles over amphibians over fish ov
er microbes.
As we have seen, there is a misconception which Saladin (1988b) calls evolutiona
ry orthogenesis, which contends that evolution moves in a unilinear fashion towa
rds a perfect goal.
Perhaps Gish believes that "God created man in His own image" and therefore thin
ks Evolutionists believe that Evolution is evolving toward God s own image. McG
owan (1984: 30) is certainly one Evolutionist who doesn t believe that:
Some people might like to think that man stands at the very pinnacle of
evolution, and that our appearance on earth was what evolution has all been abo
ut, but that is not the way I see it.
This misconception is not new with Gish, or even to Creationists. It dates back
at least to the time of Darwin (1859: 345):
The inhabitants of each successive period in the world s history have be
aten their predecessors in the race for life, and are, insofar, higher in
the scale of nature; and this may account for that vague yet ill-defined
sentiment, felt by many paleontologists, that organization on the whole has
progressed.
▶ that traits are good or bad, regardless of the environmental niche of the orga
nism
Since different species can emigrate to different habits, different species evol
ve different ways. The ichtheostega emigrate from sea to land, whereas the whal
e emigrated from land to sea. Naturally, the ichtheostega evolved into a land a
nimal and the whale evolved into a sea animal.
When amphibians evolved into reptiles, they gained the teeth which they needed.
When reptiles evolved into birds, they lost the teeth which they didn t need.
Since reptiles evolving into birds lost their teeth, Gish ([1985] 1991: 114; cf.
Trott 1994b, Lubenow 1983: 51) inferred that losing teeth was supposed to be an
 evolutionary trait anywhere and everywhere. Since the platypus and the anteate
r lack teeth, Gish infers that both species should be considered higher than hum
ans.
▶ that old and new traits cannot exist in the same organism
McGowan (1984: 140) speaks of mosaic evolution, which refers to new and old feat
ures in the same organism. One example given by McGowan is that of the reptilia
n and mammalian traits in the platypus. Another example is that of the reptilia
n and avine traits in the Archaeopteryx.
As McGowan sees it, Gish does not understand that old and new traits can exist i
n the same organism. We can never be sure, however, how much Gish is unable to
understand how much he refuses to understand.
At any rate, I am willing to let Creationists explain Creationism as long as the
y let Evolutionists explain Evolutionism. Aren t you?
Gish s Fallacies:
shifting the burden of proof
Till Eulenspiegel, the German prankster of early Renaissance folklore, was trave
lling to Prague and posing as a venerable scholar. This so angered the instruct
ors at the university that they subjected him to an oral examination.
One of the questions was "Where is the center of the world?"
Eulenspiegel answered, "It s right here. I m standing in exactly the center of
the world. and see whether that s true, have it measured with a string. If I m
off by even a straw s length, I ll admit I m wrong."
Another question was, "How big is Heaven?"
Eulenspiegel answered, "It s a thousand fathoms wide and a thousand ells high. I
f you don t want to believe it, take the sun, moon and all the stars of Heaven,
and measure them together. You ll find I m right."
The university scholars, unable to meet Eulenspiegel s challenge, had to admit d
efeat. (Oppenheimer [1991] 2001:55-56)
Of course, this is all a joke and Till Eulenspiegel was not a real person. But
when a real person takes Eulenspiegel s debating tactics into his hands and peop
le fall for it, the consequences can be serious.
That is exactly what happens when Duane Gish takes the stand: First, he shifts a
n unsurmountable burden of proof onto the opponent. He challenges the opponent
to draw the entire Tree of Life in a single evening, complete with every millime
tric change which every species has ever undergone.
But if the opponent asks him a question? Simple: he has only to say don t ask h
im, ask God.
Let us now rephrase all this with logic terminology:
The disjunctive hypothetical syllogism works like this:
A or B.
Not A.
Therefore, B.
When the premises are false or dubious, this is known as the limited alternative
s fallacy, the either-or fallacy (Shermer 2002), the fallacy of false alternativ
es (Shermer 2002), or bifurcation (Saladin 1988b).
Saladin (1988h) and Trott (1994b) have both noticed a pattern in which Gish argu
es:
Evolution or Biblical Creationism.
Not Evolution.
Therefore, Biblical Creationism.
This entitles Gish to attack Evolution but not defend Creationism. Saladin (198
8e) asked his audience to imagine the same practice being applied in reverse. I
f he disproved the Bible, would that prove Evolution?
Futuyma (1982: 176) also notices the trick:
In actuality, almost all creationist literature simply consists of attac
ks on evolution, rather than positive evidence for creation. To the creationis
ts any
[negative] evidence against evolutionary theory apparently constituted [discrimi
natory] evidence in favour of creation.
Kenneth Miller (1982a) suggests other alternatives to either Evolution or Creati
on. According spontaneous generation, life could generate itself given the right
conditions. According to panspermia, "life originated elsewhere and came to th
is planet through space." There are also various cyclical hypotheses, which pro
pose "fluctuation or change back and forth."
Miller furthermore calls attention to the "infinite number of supernatural expla
nations." Zindler (1990) offer two examples. According to the Crow Indians, O
ld Man Coyote created the first people out of mud. According to the Dogon tribe
of West Africa, all of humanity is descended from two pairs of twins who mature
d inside an egg.
In a few debates, Gish was confronted over his disjunctive hypothetical syllogis
m. In the Saladin (1988g) debate, a member of the audience said, "You still have
n t seemed to have given an outline of your proof. You keep criticizing evolutio
n, but I don t think you ve given a very good outline of your major points of pr
oving creation science."
The audience applauded and whistled. Gish then proceeded to speak of fossils sp
ringing into existence with no predecessors. After that, he shared his interpre
tation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. He never answered the question, and
the audience probably noticed that.
In 1990, he made arrangements to debate with Frank Zindler. Zindler noticed Gis
h s devious pattern after watching several of his debates, so he pulled a sneaky
trick: he entitled the debate "Is creationism science?"
Gish agreed to the thesis question before the debate, but tried to wiggle out of
it during the debate. Early in the debate, Gish said, "Let s leave the Bible o
ut of this, let s stick to scientific questions."
No dice. The thesis question was clear from the very beginning. Zindler said,
"There are hundreds of different competing possible explanations, you see. The q
uestion that we are debating tonight is, is this thing called creationism which
masquerades as a science . . . They even call it creation science. Is it indee
d a science? And that s what we re debating. We can concede if we want to, just
for the sake of debate, that evolution has no support whatsoever, so that s an i
rrelevant thing. What we have to now see . . . is there any science in creationi
sm?"
The moderator asked, "Okay, Duane?"
Gish said, "Well, Frank, he wants to put me in a position heads I win tails you
lose. What we are . . ."
Zindler said, "No, I want you to put your money where your mouth is."
Gish tried changing the subject. "Now Frank, I said right off the bat, no theor
y on origins can be properly called a scientific theory. That applies to both ev
olution and creation. Now if one is taught in the science classroom in the
schools, then the other should be taught. We do have tremendously powerful, pos
itive evidence for creation. Our students should hear it . . ."
Zindler said, "Well give some."
Gish proceeded with his monologue: ". . . they should have the privilege and the
n they can make up their own minds what they think is right."
That was a noble speech, but not noble enough to distract Zindler. "What eviden
ce do you have?"
Or to distract the moderator, either: "I must say as moderator of this program,
so far I haven t heard any evidence for the defense of creationism. Let s hear i
t."
Gish said, "All right, let me give you two very powerful facts." He then procee
ded to tell the listeners of the many invertebrate species which allegedly appea
red in the fossil record fully formed.
The moderator asked, "What s the other one?"
Gish said, "Now furthermore . . ."
Zindler asked, "How does that support the Biblical account?"
Gish said, "Furthermore, well the fact, you see, now let s leave the Bible out o
f this, let s stick to scientific questions."
The moderator said, "Well first of all let s hear this other second point, get t
hat one on the table . . ."
Gish then proceeded to tell about the "hundreds of millions" of transitional fos
sils which would be on display in our museums if Evolutionism were true.
If Gish thought that attacking Evolution would put Zindler on the defensive, he
must have been disappointed. Zindler only said, "Okay, now of course he s gotte
n back into attacking evolution, and not really defending creation."
Gish said, "Oh, yes, there s positive evidence for creation."
Zindler said that "we should have all the fossils of everything right at the beg
inning of the fossil record. We should have not only trilobites but snails and p
uppy dog s tails, and everything from fish to Gish. We should have in the oldest
fossil record . . . and they don t appear there."
Gish defended Creationism by saying that there are Christians who believe in "a
progressive creation, and they do accept the idea of the geological column and a
ll of that."
Zindler then reminded Gish that he signed the Institute for Creation Research cr
eed, which specifies the Genesis account, which in turn specifies that God creat
ed the Universe in six days. Gish again tried to iggy out of the situation by d
elivering his speech about presenting both points of view in the public schools.
Zindler told of a debate in which he asked another Creationist for evidence for
the Flood, but to no avail. Gish repeated his line about the fossils appearing
full bloom. Then he presented the quote about Hoyle s jumbo jet, his line about
science not being able to study the past, and his line about the Universe comin
g from hydrogen gas,
In short, Gish wandered all over the place, but never once touched upon the titl
e of the discussion: "Is creationism science?"
Another confrontation took place in the radio debate with McKee (2001). A liste
ner called in, introduced himself as Rick, and said, "Creationists are starting
with an assumption that there is a God. I’d like to hear what evidence he has t
o present that there is a God, and then let him go and defend creationist theory
."
Gish tried to dump the burden of proof back on the caller: "Well, he said we sta
rt with the assumption of creation; evolutionists start with the assumption of e
volution. Evolution is their basic dogma, they assume that that is true, and al
l the data is interpreted within this concept. That’s their paradigm, that’s th
eir method of looking at things."
That didn t work. Rick said, "Doctor, I’d like to hear you defend creationism a
nd not attack evolution…. You’re putting an attack on evolution and not a
defense of creationism."
Gish then proceeded with his splendid panorama of species springing full bloom i
n the fossil record, just as he did in the Zindler debate.
That didn t work either. The caller said, "I would suggest that science does no
t present either/or alternatives, that there will be many theories. Disproving
one does not prove the other."
Gish ignored Rick s objection and continued right on. He marvelled over the com
plexity of "the flagellum of a little bacterium" and "the metamorphosis of a but
terfly," which, in his opinion, could not emerge from any evolutionary process.
Rick said, "Doctor, you’re asserting that there is no way . . ."
Gish proceeded with his monologue: "There’s no way that evolution could do that,
and that’s positive evidence for creation, the evidence for design, the evidenc
e for purpose. The chrysalis has a purpose, and a design for a purpose."
Rick finally gave up. "Doctor, I want to get . ."
"You see incredible evidence for an intelligent agent."
"Doctor, I wanted… Dr. Gish, I want to get Dr. McKee into this."
McKee said that he would admit defeat if someone found "some burnt dinosaur bone
s next to a prehistoric equivalent of a Weber grill" or "a zebra in the fossil r
ecord long before reptiles had evolved," but so far, that has never happened.
What is the reason for Gish s eloquence on anti-Evolution and his silence on pro
-Creation? It could be any one of the following reasons:
● Gish believes that God created the Universe "using special processes not opera
ting today."
These were Gish s words in the debate with Dr. Russell Doolittle (Miller, K. 198
2a). An assumption like that will stop any scientific discussion real quick.
● Gish does not want his readers and listeners to see how religion and science c
ould conflict.
Saladin compiled a list of statements in the Bible which contradict modern scien
ce (1988a, note 11) and a list of historical incidents in which church leaders o
pposed scientific thought and investigation (1988d, note 3).
For discussion on Biblical creation account, Saladin (1988b) recommends Skehan (
1986a, 1986b).
● Gish has to discuss Evolution because that is the only way he could discuss sc
ience.
In the Zindler (1990) debate, Gish said, "We do not pretend to defend the biblic
al record of creation, say the six day creation and so forth and so on. Scienti
fically we couldn t do that."
Zindler sees this as a contradiction of the position paper presented by the Inst
itute for Creation Research, which says that "all genuine facts of science suppo
rt the Bible." Zindler further commented, "He certainly could defend the propos
ition if in fact there were any evidence at all with which to do so!"
● Defending Biblical mythology could be embarrassing.
After the debate, Zindler (1990) commented, "Understandably, Gish did not wish t
o try to defend such preposterosity on the radio!"
While we wish to ask Gish for evidence for Creationism, Gish (in Saladin 1988g)
in turn asks, "What greater evidence could you have for creation?"
How would you answer that question?
Here s how I would answer it: When I started the research for this manuscript,
there were several questions which I expected him to answer. Where is there a d
ating instrument which is more accurate than the ones the Creationists say are u
nreliable? Where is there a dating instrument which stops at 10,000 BC and whic
h registers that date as the first appearance of every species on earth? Where
is there a dating instrument which indicates a world-wide Flood at 2349 BC? Whe
n was there ever an archaeological dig which found that our species originated a
t the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers? Where are the paleontologi
sts hiding all the pre-Ordovician fish, pre-Devonian amphibians, pre-Pennsylvani
an reptiles, pre-Jurassic birds, and pre-Tertiary mammals which they say they ca
n t find?
After reading Gish s books, reading Gish s articles, and reading transcripts of
Gish s debates, I have never found answers to any of these questions.
Gish s fallacies: out-of-context quotes
My mother hated to get out of bed in the morning. To justify lying in bed after
waking up, she quoted the first part of Isaiah 5:11, which begins, "Woe unto th
em that rise up early in the morning." She conveniently omitted the rest of the
verse, which reads, "that they may follow strong drink; that continue until nig
ht, till wine inflame them!"
My mother only meant that as a joke. But when a person quotes a source out of c
ontext to someone who is not familiar with the context, it is no laughing matter
. The deception has been practiced so widely that it has earned several names.
It has been called contextomy and quote mining. Pigliucci (in Anonymous 2003)
calls it the quotation game. I call it the Cracraft I offense.
Whatever it is called, Zindler (1985) considers it an essential ingredient of Cr
eationist argument: "If everything were quoted in context, with full understandi
ng of the import of the source material, there would be no such thing as creatio
nism books."
Gish (1993: 74-75) continually denied such accusations. At the Saladin (1988d)
debate, Gish said, "If anybody accuses me of quoting out of context in one of my
publications I want to see the documentation, because I do not do that."
What was Gish asking for which he was not already given? At the time he spoke t
hose words, at least three parties have listed authors whom Gish had quoted out
of context.
Number one: In 1981, Gish was present at the McLean vs. Arkansas case, where ins
tances of his out-of-context quoting were read into the record (Saladin 1988d).
Number two: J. R. Cole (1981) wrote an article about authors who were indignant
for being quoted out-of-context by Gish. Stephen Gould, Isaac Asimov, Richard L
ewontin, and Derek Ager were among those writers.
Number three: Friedlander (1986) compiled a nice long list, using only quotation
s which appeared in the 1979 edition of Evolution: The Fossils Say NO!
Let us give those misrepresented writers a fair hearing:

■ Simons 1962
If you read the words of anthropologist Elwyn Simons (1962) as quoted by Gish (1
979: 108-109), you might think that the human species sprang into existence from
nowhere:
Not a single fossil primate of the Eocene epoch from either cont
inent appears to be an acceptable ancestor for the great infraorder of the
catarrhines, embracing all of the living higher Old World primates
, man included.
Gish apparently hopes that the reader doesn t notice the words "either continent
" and wonder which two continents are meant. Friedlander (1986) looked up the s
ource and found that it meant North America and Europe. This is hardly shocking
, because Evolutionists seem to agree on an African Genesis.
Gish also doesn t want the reader to know that Simons further wrote, "The evolut
ionary process made by prosimians during the Eocene both in North America and Eu
rope is obvious."
■ Engel et al. 1968
Gish ([1985] 1991: 55) quotes some phrases from an article by oceanographer Albe
rt E. J. Engel et al. (1968), expressing doubt about certain pre-Cambrian fossil
claims.
Establishing the presence of biological activity
during the very early pre-Cambrian clearly
poses difficult problems . . . skepticism about this sort of evidence of earl
y Precambran life
is appropriate.
Fezer (1993a) comments, "The fact that Engel‘s article begins by saying there ar
e many undoubted pre-Cambrian fossils is ignored by Gish. This is plainly disho
nest."
■ Dobzhansky 1975
Friedlander (1986) supplies us with a quote which Gish (1979: 14-15) makes from
the writings of Ukranian biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1975):
It is just such impossibility that is demanded by anti-evo
lutionists when they ask for "proofs" of
evolution which they would magnanimously accept
as satisfactory.
This looks like an apology until one reads the very following sentence, which re
ads "This is about as reasonable a demand as it would be to ask an astronomer to
recreate the planetary system, or to ask an historian to reenact the history of
the world from Caesar to Eisenhower."
Have you ever argued with a Creationist who expected you to re-create the entire
Tree of Life? I have too. It looks like Dobzhansky has too.
■ Oxnard 1975
Gish ([1985] 1991: 150-151) quotes Oxnard (1975: 389)
as saying that the australopithecine walked like an orangutan:
Most of the fossil fragments are in fact uniquely differen
t from both man and man s nearest living
genetic relatives, the chimpanzee and the gorilla.
To the extent that resemblances exist with living
forms, they tend to be with the orangutan.
He ends the quote with a statement that the australopithecines "are not on a hum
an pathway." (cf. Gish 1979: 122; 1995b: 46; cf. Oxnard & Lisowski 1980 as indi
rectly quoted in Gish 1995b: 46).
Saladin (1988d) refutes this by quoting another passage which says the exact opp
osite (Oxnard 1975: 394):
And because similarities with the orangutan are only in some anatomical
regions and not in others, because the overall composition is mosaic in
nature, it is clear that the actual overall mode of locomotion of the orangutan
today is not the model for these creatures.
Kitcher (1982: 183) and Strahler ([1987] 1999: 482) find another passage from th
e same article which says the exact opposite:
Their locomotion may not have been like that of modern man, and may,
though including a form or forms of bipedality, have been different enough
to have allowed marked abilities for climbing. Bipedality may have arisen
more than once, the Australopithecinae displaying one or more experiments
in bipedality that failed. The genus Homo may, in fact, be so ancient as to
parallel entirely the genus Australopithecus, thus denying the latter a direct
place in the human lineage.
At first glance, one may wonder why our inveterate quote miner doesn t take that
last sentence and isolate it:
The genus Homo may, in fact, be so ancient as to parallel entirely the
genus Australopithecus, thus denying the latter a direct place in the human
lineage.
After all, that sentence, by itself, could be made to imply Creationism for the
human species. Maybe Gish was afraid that the word "ancient" could denote Old E
arth Creationism. And he probably thinks the Old Earth Creationists are only a
step above the Evolutionists.
Here is another quote from Oxnard (1982: 242) which Gish has put to use and abus
e:
Most of the fossil fragments are in fact uniquely different from both ma
n and man s nearest living genetic relatives, the chimpanzee and gorilla.
Gish (1973b: 12; [1985] 1991: 151) takes this and says, "Oxnard s conclusions ar
e that Australopithecus is not related to anything living today--man or ape--but
was uniquely different."
According to J. R. Cole (1981), Oxnard did not hold such a view. Rather, he saw
the dental and cranial similarities as signs of common ancestry. The resemblanc
es with the orangutan he saw as "functional similarities, not a closer relations
hip of Australopithecus to Pongo (the orang) than to Homo."
■ Ager 1976
Gish (1993: 44) quotes geologist Derek Ager (1976) as writing:
It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learne
d as a student, from Trueman s Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers Zaphrentis delano
uei, have now been debunked.
This would naturally lead the reader to think that Evolution in general has been
debunked. The fact is, however, that Ager was only saying that the evolution o
f a few bivalve mollusc species had been misinterpreted (Saladin 1988c).
Ager wrote to Saladin (1988c):
I get rather tired of these things.... It is true I have been clasped to
the fundamentalists Californian bosoms because of things which I have writt
en about evolution and about the stratigraphical record. Of course they ha
ve misunderstood and misrepresented me (and in some cases taken my perhaps
overfacetious nature too seriously).
In his later book, The New Catastrophism (Ager [1993] 1995: xi), he decried the
work of the "bible-oriented fanatics, obsessed with myths such as Noah s flood."
He specifically stated, "I wish to say that nothing in this book should be tak
en out of context and thought in any way to support the views of the creationis
ts (who I refuse to call scientific )."
■ Gould 1977
Another of Gish s favorite sports is playing the punctuationists (those who see
evolution happening in spurts) off against the gradualists (those who see a stea
dy stream of evolution throughout history). When one camp attacks the other, he
pretends that the camp is criticizing Evolution in general.
Since paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould is a leading punctuationist, he has becom
e one of Gish s favorite victims. For example, Gish (1979: 171-172) quoted Goul
d (1977b) as writing "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no su
pport for gradual change . . ." and conveniently omitted ", , , and the principl
e of natural selection does not require it--selection can operate rapidly."
This quote has been caught by Friedlander (1986), Pigliucci (2000: 186), and Kit
cher (1982: 185). According to Kitcher, Gould confronted Gish over this at the
Arkansas trial.
Other misrepresented writers, unfortunately, have not had this lucky chance.
■ Crompton & Parker 1978
On pages 85-86 of his 1979 opus, Gish commits a Kitcher V. He seeks to prove th
at mammals did not descend from reptiles, and that the mammal-like reptiles were
wholly reptilian. To do this, he quotes A. W. Crompton & Pamela Parker (1978)
for saying that one of these reptiles, the Thrinaxodon, had a reptilian middle e
ar, reptilian tooth replacement, and reptilian jaws. During the discussion on j
aws, he put in a series of dots.
Friedlander (1986) looked up the material omitted in those dots and found that t
he transition from reptile jaws to mammalian jaws "is well-documented in the fos
sil record." To support this, Crompton & Parker include three bibliographic not
es. Friedlander comments, "Drs. Crompton and Parker were furious about the misq
uotation."
■ Crick 1981
Gish (1993: 375) quoted British biologist and physicist Francis Crick (1981: 88)
:
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge
available to us now, could only state that, in
some sense, the origin of life appears at
the moment to be almost a miracle, so many
are the conditions which would have had to
have been satisfied to get it going.
Pieret ([2003b] 2004b) and Hurd (2004) invite the reader to look at what immedia
tely follows the quote:
But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe tha
t it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of f
airly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is the time available was too
long, the many microenvironments on the earths surface too diverse, the various
chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too fe
eble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have ha
ppened such a long time ago.
As Pieret ([2003b] 2004b) interprets the book, Crick is only saying that life on
our planet only seems like a miracle, not that it is a miracle. In fact, Crick
even suggests that life could have started by ordinary chemical processes with
no outside agent.
Hurd (2004) reminds the reader that considerable research has been made since th
e time of the quote. Therefore, he concludes, the quote is not only out-of-cont
ext but outdated.
■ Leach 1981
Gish (1993: 377) quotes E. R. Leach (1981) as writing:
Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin.
He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing a
nd seem likely to remain so.
Leach was speaking out of his field, since he is an anthropologist and not a pal
eontologist. Furthermore, Leach was not questioning that evolution has taken pl
ace, but only asking how it took place. To correct the misunderstanding, Hurd (
2004) offers the following quote from the same article:
The evolution of species from earlier species is not seriously questione
d; nor is the theory that most species are specially adapted to the environmenta
l niche in which they are encountered. But it is becoming increasingly difficult
to understand just how they came to be that way.
■ Wyss, Novacek, & McKenna 1987
This seems to be a more recent addition to Gish s collection (Gish in Zindler 19
90; Gish 1993: 376):
To a large extent, the mutual affinities of the mammalian orders continue to
puzzle systematists, even though comparative anatomy and amino acid sequences of
fer a massive data base from which these relationships could potentially be a
dduced . . . Qualitative comparisons between the morphologically based and molec
ularly based trees were also made; only moderate congruence between the
two was observed.
Zindler (1990) inserts a sentence which was omitted in the ellipses (or "Gish do
ts," as Friedlander (1986) calls them):
Consistency indices were calculated for previously published alpha cryst
allin A chain and myoglobin amino acid-sequence cladograms and for four origin
al amino acid-sequence cladograms (alpha crystallin A, myoglobin, and alpha an
d beta hemoglobin); these were found to be comparable to the consistency indi
ces of morphologically based cladograms.
Gish would have us believe that the authors are rejecting the entire study of mo
lecular relationships in the mammalian branch of the Tree of Life. By inserting
the deleted passage, Zindler tells us that the authors are merely calling for a
different method of mathematical analysis for those relationships.
If you do a computer search on some of these quotes, you will find them in their
uncorrected versions on numerous Creationist Websites. Although Schafersman (1
998) attributes Raup s out-of-context quotation to Josh Anderson, we don t know
where most of the started. It would be interesting to investigate to see if th
ey started with Gish.
In Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, Gish (1993: 367-386) devotes an ent
ire chapter to Evolutionist quotes which are excerpted to seem like apologies.
If you can locate any of the quotes which are not included here, please write ba
ck.
Through all this, how does Gish stand on out-of-context quotations? He is very
much against them! In the H. Ross (1992) debate, Gish made the statement that "
a text without context is a pretext."
We just saw a lot of pretexts!
Gish s Fallacies: God of the gaps
 Here s a monarch butterfly. Next slide. It lays eggs, if it s female, o
n the left is a newly laid egg, on the right s a developing egg. Next slide. O
ut of this egg a caterpillar hatches. We see the caterpillar, notice that it s
eaten a hole in the leaf, it had mouth parts for chewing leaves, and it crawls
. Next slide. Then it goes through a number of molts as it, as it matures,
and, and, it becomes larger, and uh, then, I guess it got an urge to han
g- glide up in the air and fly. It had a wonderful idea you see, nothing ab
out a caterpillar that would recommend it to be a butterfly, so it had to go r
ight back to ground zero, next slide please. And go right back to ground zero
, next slide please. It s shed its outer covering, its final molt. Next sl
ide. And now there it is, the chrysalis. It has converted itself into a mass
of jelly in this cocoon. There it is, just a mass of jelly.
We can be sure that the audience was dazzled with this slide show (Saladin 1988b
; cf. Bakken 1987; Parrish 1991; Pigliucci (2000: 165-166; McKee 2001; Isaak ([2
005] 2007: 67-68; Indoctrinhate 2009e, 2009f). Isn t nature beautiful? Isn t
nature colorful? Furthermore, isn t nature marvellous! Can you imagine how a c
aterpillar can change into a butterfly? Neither can Gish. There can only be on
e explanation, and we all know what that is!
Gish is paying homage to the god of the gaps, who is responsible for anything w
hich we cannot immediately explain.
The god of the gaps plays a major role today, but it was a greater role in ancie
nt times. We know more about the Sun, so we don t need a Sun god. We know more
about thunder, so we don t need a thunder god.
True, there are still some questions which science has not answered. We don t
know how life is created, and we don t know what causes consciousness. Some peop
le say, "Those are miracles." Maybe, maybe not. But scientists will keep invest
igating, all the same.
Here are some responses to Gish s nature exhibit:
■ The rate of evolutionary change has nothing to do with the rate of development
al change.
Gish argues that it takes only a few minutes for the butterfly to emerge from th
e cocoon, so the process of natural selection could not have taken millions of y
ears.
Pigliucci (2000: 165) responds with another analogy: it could not have taken sev
eral years to build the Empire State Building; otherwise, one could not get to
the top floor in only a few minutes.
One could also draw an analogy with a work of fine art. A literary work is more
slowly written than read, a musical composition is more slowly composed than l
istened to, and a work of visual art is more slowly constructed than viewed.
■ In some situations, instinct can render learning unnecessary.
Again we quote from the Saladin (1988b) debate:
Do you really believe that a caterpillar could somehow learn to program
a mass of jelly to become a butterfly, a butterfly that has wings and had
mouth parts for sucking nectar, totally different, you see, than what we
would expect for the caterpillar?
Saladin (1988b) responds that "Learning has nothing to do with the matter."
■ Caterpillar/butterfly metamorphosis can be scientifically explained.
Let us now visit Truman & Riddiford (1999), a husband-and-wife team from the Uni
versity of Washington. They seem to be the authorities when it comes to butterf
ly evolution. According to T & R, the earliest insects lacked metamorphosis. At
that time, an adult merely looked like a large juvenile.
Later, some flying species evolved. These species developed metamorphosis on a
smaller scale. The juveniles bore wings which could function only after further
maturity.
The butterflies belong to still a later branch, in which the juveniles bear no r
esemblance to the adults. Truman & Riddiford explain this difference in terms o
f interactions of the hormones. Unlike the earlier species, the metamorphosing
species developed juvenile hormones which suppressed the development of adult st
ructures. These hormones disappeared when the individual reached maturity.
This branching took place about 300 mya. This led to the Pennsylvanian Period o
f the Paleozoic Era, which was the heyday for the Insect Class.
A layman can be surprised at how many variables a hormone could make. Just as a
mere hormonal difference could affect a person s size, maturity, or gender char
acteristics, it could make the difference between a caterpillar and a butterfly.

Truman & Riddiford s work is summarized on-line (A & S Perspectives 2000; Strich
erz 2006).
Why do Evolutionists reject the Creationists ubiquitous statement that "God did
it," "God did it," "God did it"?
A possible answer is that Evolutionists are rebels who hate all their former Sun
day School teachers.
Another possible answer is that Evolutionists are arrogant snobs who look down t
heir noses on everyone else.
A third possible answer is that Satan is alive and living in the science classro
om.
A fourth possible answer is that a falsifiable and verifiable hypothesis would b
e more acceptable.
McKee (2001) promises that "the scientific community would stand up and listen"
if Gish would "come up with a falsifiable hypothesis or any theory whatsoever."
On the other hand, stating that "God did it" cannot be proven true or false.
Why does Gish persist in his God-did-it explanations? Saladin (1988b) regards t
his as a personal need. For every transitional fossil that takes place, his God
will diminish unless he can successfully discount that finding. Saladin commen
ts, "Such a religion rests on precarious ground indeed, and is forced to retreat
with every little advancement in human knowledge."
Gish s Fallacies: Guilt by Association
It seems that nearly every culture or subculture has a word which means "everyon
e but us." For the Jews, it was "Gentiles." For the Romans, it was "barbarians
." For the beatniks, it was "squares." For the Latin Americans, it is "gringos
."
The tendency to dump all outsiders in the same bag has engendered a fallacy know
n as guilt by association. Here, one equates a second and third party because o
f one similarity.
In other words:
Group A makes claim P.
Group B also make claim P.
Therefore, group A fits into group B.
Gish s favorite application is:
Evolutionists deny that God created animals, plants, and humans in their
present form.
Atheists also deny that God created animals, plants, and humans in their
present form.
Therefore, all Evolutionists are atheists.
In most of his debates, Gish s audience and readership consisted largely of loya
l church-goers, many of whom hated--excuse me, were "righteously indignant" towa
rd--atheists. Gish realized that his audience members held such feelings and mi
lked those feelings to capacity.
For just one example, Gish ([1972] 1976: 122) has called Evolution "a purely ath
eistic, materialistic, and mechanistic explanation for origins to the exclusion
of an explanation based on theism."
In fact, Gish even wrote atheism into the definition of Evolution. In the 1982
debate with Dr. Russell Doolittle of the University of California (cited in Mill
er, K. 1982a), Gish said, "No supernatural intervention of any kind was involved
. In fact, by definition, God is excluded." In the Saladin (1988b) debate, Gish
said, "By definition, God is excluded from this process. He had nothing to do
with it."
Gish even regarded Evolution as an invention for the purpose of advancing atheis
m.
In the Saladin (1988b) debate, Gish presented Evolution as "a nature myth that m
an has invented to explain this origin without God."
For a definition of the word Evolution, Gish (1993: 156-157; Saladin 1988b) has
quoted Julian Huxley (1955: 278):
Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and esse
ntially irreversible process, occurring in time, which in its course gives rise
to an increase of variety, and an increasingly high level of organization
in its progress. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that
the whole of reality is evolution, a single process of self-transformation.
In the Saladin (1988b) debate, Gish subsequently supplied his own commentary:
Now, first of all, ladies and gentleman, please note, according to evolutionary
theory, everything has come into being by a process of self-transformation. Now
certainly, not all evolutionists are atheists; as a matter of fact most are
not. But the theory of evolution is a non-theistic theory. By definition, G
od is excluded from this process. He had nothing to do with it. It was a pro
cess of self-transformation.
Gish might even assume, without even asking, that his opponent in a debate denie
d the existence of God. In his debate with Trott (1994b), Gish asked Evolutioni
sts to "explain how the natural laws and processes that are now leading inevitab
ly to the death and destruction of the universe (if there is no God), also could
have been responsible for its origin. Trott does not respond to this challenge.
"
Trott (1994b) commented, "he is correct that I make no pretense of explaining
them. Maybe God did it. Fortunately, neither the Big Bang nor evolution rules o
ut this possibility."
Gish sometimes made a cursory disclaimer. In the 1982 Doolittle debate (cited i
n Miller, K. 1982a), Gish said, "Thus, while not all evolutionists are atheists,
the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory." In the Saladin (1988b) debate
, Gish said, "Now certainly, not all evolutionists are atheists; as a matter of
fact most are not."
Gish s use of the double negative is interesting. It would have been simpler to
say "Some Evolutionists are believers" instead of "Not all Evolutionists are at
heists." So why didn t he? A double negative may equal a positive in mathemati
cs and in English grammar, but it could equal a negative in the mind of a listen
er.
(I am reminded of a teacher in eighth grade who said, "I m not worried about Tho
mas. I understand that he is doing a lot better this year." That came as a sho
ck to me because I hadn t realized that she was supposed to be worried about me.
)
Gish s opponents speak out:
■ Evolutionists do not see Evolutionary theory as implying atheism.
At the Arkansas case, Michael Ruse (Geisler 1982: 69), Francisco Ayala (83), and
Stephen Jay Gould (91) said that Evolutionary theory did not presuppose that th
ere was no God.
■ Some individuals claim to be theistic evolutionists.
Kenneth Miller (1982a) sees Gish s stance as personally insulting on the grounds
that he is a Roman Catholic. He knows of scientists of other religions also.
Saladin (1988g) noted that the American Scientific Affiliation is composed of Ch
ristians.
■ Other fields of study do fine without dealing with religion.
According to Kenneth Miller (1982a), "The reason evolutionary science does not m
ake references to a creator is for the same reason that mathematics, cell biolog
y, organic chemistry, and hydraulic engineering do not make references to a crea
tor: none of these are theological subjects." Given Gish s premise, "elementary
school teachers who instruct our children in nonmiraculous math are teaching a
basic dogma of agnosticism, humanism and atheism. "
Saladin (1988b) asks, "Why doesn t Gish attack the educational establishment for
teaching atheistic, materialistic trigonometry ? Did his chemistry profes
sors explain reaction kinetics theistically?"
■ Evolution is not a process of self-transformation.
In misrepresenting Evolution, Gish leaves out the concept of organisms being mol
ded by the environment. He would have us believe that organisms are supposed to
transform themselves. Saladin (1988b) takes objection to this notion. Rather,
After his debate, Saladin (1988b) regretted not presenting what he considered a
scientific definition of evolution, which states that "Populations of organisms
exhibit genetic change over a period of time, and this enables them to adapt to
changes in their environment."
■ Evolutionary theory was founded by believers.
Saladin (1988b) accredits evolutionary theory to three founders, all three of wh
om were believers. Those three founders were Charles Darwin, who received a sem
inary training, Alfred Russel Wallace, who attributed evolution to divine guidan
ce, and Gregor Mendel, who was an Austrian monk.
Saladin challenges Gish to back up his claim that Evolutionary theory was founde
d to explain life without God.
■ The god of the Old Testament was as cruel as a god of Evolution would be.
In the Saladin (1988g) debate, Gish decried Evolution as a "wasteful," "ineffici
ent," and "cruel" process relying on "genetic mistakes" and "death." Saladin rep
lied that the god of the Old Testament was also cruel. Saladin calls attention
to "the murder of innocent people and even children still in the womb for the s
ins of a few others." Saladin also asked if the story of the Flood presents a b
enevolent God.
Is this a tu quoque argument? Maybe so.
■ The Deist position reconciles Evolution with theism.
In the same Saladin (1988g) debate, a member of the audience suggested that "God
might have kicked the evolutionary wheel and it s been spinning ever since."
Lest anyone suggest that God designs each unique snowflake, Saladin (1988h) attr
ibutes their differences to "the inherent probabilities of water molecules."
Saladin continued: "And even if we choose to believe that God made water this wa
y, then by the same token we can believe he also made carbon, and nitrogen, oxyg
en, and so forth in such a way they could produce amino acids and proteins witho
ut needing his constant supervision."
■ Entire religious organizations oppose Creationism.
Saladin (Saladin 1988h) lists the Episcopal General Convention, the Unitarian-Un
iversalist Association, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Lutheran
Church, the Presbyterian Church, the United Presbyterian Church of the USA, the
Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta, the Lexington Alliance of Religious Leaders, and t
he American Jewish Congress.
Saladin (1988a) suggests reading a book entitled The Truth: God or Evolution? (
Hall & Hall 1974), which deals with the alleged dichotomy between theism and Evo
lution.
Lippard (1993, 1994a) lists the American Scientific Affiliation, the Interdiscip
linary Biblical Research Institute, and Hugh Ross s Reasons to Believe Institute
.
■ Some individuals might be theistic evolutionists if it were not for the dichot
omy.
Gish s aim, obviously, is to get his Christian listeners to sustain their belief
in Christianity and reject Evolution. But a listener could also resolve the su
pposed dichotomy other way: by sustaining belief in Evolution and rejecting Chr
istianity. Friedlander (1986), who calls himself both a Christian and an Evolut
ionist, has seen this happen.
Now, let us hear from an opponent who does not claim to be an Evolutionary theis
t:
■ A god of Evolution would indeed be wasteful, as Gish says.
If scientific philosopher Massimo Pigliucci were in the opponent s place
In the Saladin (1988g) debate, Gish decried Evolution as a "wasteful," "ineffici
ent," and "cruel" process relying on "genetic mistakes" and "death." Gish also
commented that God would surely not take "billions of years" to create Man, when
"he could have made man instantaneously."
If scientific philosopher Massimo Pigliucci were in the audience, he might agree
, and then conclude that the evidence favors Evolution rather than theism. In a
debate with William Lane Craig (1995), Pigliucci expressed the opinion that our
species is only one of "millions of possible trajectories that could have start
ed billions of years ago when life on earth originated." Pigliucci asked what w
ould happen if the dinosaurs did not go extinct. Possibly, "we would have a nic
e assembly of reptiles tonight talking about the fact that there are these littl
e creatures called mammals that somehow have failed to evolve and that used to b
e competitors for us dinosaurs."
Just in case you had trouble following that, in the Saladin debate, Gish was arg
uing through a modus ponens operation, which states that:
A implies B
A is true.
Therefore B is true.
In this case:
A (God exists) implies B (Evolution is false).
A (God exists) is true.
Therefore, B (Evolution is false) is true.
Pigliucci was arguing through a modus tollens operation:
A implies B.
B is false.
Therefore A is false.
In this case:
A (God exists) implies B (Evolution is false).
B (Evolution is false) is false.
Therefore, A (God exists) is false.
It s nice to see Gish and Pigliucci agreeing on at least one premise.
Before closing the chapter, let us mention one more case of guilt by association
: Gish also equates the big bang with atheism. In a debate, Gish met Hugh Ross
(1992), an astronomer who believes in the big bang. Ross does not believe in Ev
olution, but through this fallacy, Gish attacked Ross anyway:
If Hugh could explain to me what is the difference between what he belie
ves --what his theory is--and if I go talk to an atheist I can t if I talk
to an atheist astronomer and tell him, "Would you explain to me the big
bang cosmology and what took place" and ask Hugh the same thing, I don t
detect any difference.
Gish s reasoning, apparently, was:
Atheists believe in the big bang.
Ross believes in the big bang.
Therefore, Ross is an atheist.
During the debate, Gish also insisted that Ross was an Evolutionist, thereby rea
soning:
Evolutionists believe in the big bang.
Ross believes in the big bang.
Therefore, Ross is an Evolutionist.
When Ross denied the charge, Gish said, "Anybody who accepts big bang cosmology-
-that s evolution. There s no question about it."
Ross allowed Gish to speak for Gish. It would have been nice if Gish could also
have allowed Ross to speak for Ross.
Evolutionist fallacies
If you re an Evolutionist, don t get too smug. I m not granting you any immunit
y, because Evolutionists should abide by the rules, too.
So let s give Gish a little rest and put some of his opponents on trial.
■ ad hominem
Some of us attribute human hostility to our simian past, some of us attribute it
to the handiwork of Satan. At any rate, most of us agree that humans are hosti
le. That is why people in a supposedly intellectual debate often get distracted
from the issue at hand and attack the opponents instead. Such an attack is cal
led an ad hominem attack.
Since all humans are hostile, either an Evolutionist or Creationist could succum
b to the temptation to attack the belief rather than the believer. Have Evoluti
onists succumbed to this temptation? Gish thinks so. In one debate, Gish (1997
) made a lengthy attack against "the vicious unprincipled attack against our int
egrity and science" launched by Evolutionist opponents, whereas they should "jus
t state the facts and let the facts speak for themselves."
Is Gish justified? On some occasions, yes. Saladin (1988d) claimed that the Cr
eation Research Institute went on a wasteful expedition in search of Noah s Ark.
Gish denied these charges. I don t know whether the charges are true or not,
but that has nothing to do with the question of Creation or Evolution.
Later, we will learn about the bombardier beetle. At one time, Gish thought tha
t this little fellow squirted two chemicals at its predators, thereby creating a
n explosion.
Awbrey & Thwaites mixed the two chemicals stored by this little geezer and showe
d that they only changed color and did not explode (Weber 1981a). Gish (1993: 1
03) did not contest that the experiment took place as described by Awbrey & Thwa
ites, but commented that the two professors "made no attempt whatever to explain
how the bombardier beetle could have evolved, but trumpeted loudly, everywhere,
this minor slip in the story."
Gish has a point. Even if the two chemicals do not explode, that fact alone doe
s not disprove Creationism for the bombardier beetle. Bomby s evolutionary hist
ory has indeed been given serious thought, but by Weber (1981a, 1981b), not by A
wbrey & Thwaites.
Not that Weber is totally innocent, either. So we shall now put him to trial.
In one of his articles, Weber (1981a) briefly strayed from the announced topic t
o remind us that Gish "brings up the bombardier beetle to help prove that fire-
breathing dragons may have actually existed." Weber was referring to a chapter
in a children s book (Gish 1977: 50-55), in which Gish argues this point. You
may agree with Weber that belief in fire-breathing dragons is ridiculous. But k
eep in mind that one cannot disprove Creationism by proving that a Creationist b
elieves in fire-breathing dragons.
Perhaps we should not serve a warrant on Jim Lippard (1991). Lippard is one Evo
lutionist who tries to play the game fair. Lippard takes on Barry Price, author
of The Creation Science Controversy (1990), which he says is "light on science
and heavy on ad hominem argument." The Creation Science Foundation (1991), an A
ustralian organization, found enough lies and distortions in this book to warra
nt publishing a book of their own.
In Price s book, he accused the CSF of embezzlement of money in their funds. Th
is accusation has prompted a defamation suit by Robert Stephen Gustafson, former
director of the organization.
When it comes to ad hom s against Creationists, the most serious offender seems
to be Australian geologist Ian Plimer. When Plimer met Gish for a debate in 198
8, he opened his first address with the words, "Creation Science is a contradic
tion in terms. I accuse the leaders of fraud, perversity, [unintelligible], fab
ricating their evidence, and lying about the scientific evidence." (Indoctrinhat
e 2009f) Later in the debate (Indoctrinhate 2009i), Plimer made a hand gesture
toward Gish and said, "They are telling lies for mammon. Here is Satan. He wan
ts God s claiming for the Devil s word." Plimer finally closed the debate (Indo
ctrinhate 2009n) with the words, "Out of the temple, money changers!"
Plimer (1991a) identifies the Institute for Creation Research "essentially as a
money laundering organisation for the personal enrichment of the leaders of the
creationist movement."
Plimer furthermore alleges that Gish took indecent liberties with a group of imm
ature boys which accompanied Gish on his travels (Plimer 1991a, 1994: 62; Creati
on Ministries International n. d.). Gish (1991) denied these charges, stating t
hat his only travel companions in Australia were his wife, his host, and his hos
t s wife.
Barry Price (1990: 165-166) and Plimer (1989; 1991b) both quote an article Marty
(1983) as asking his readers to go into libraries armed with razor blades and g
lue bottles and to go to work vandalizing any mention of evolution in the encycl
opedias.
Lippard (1991) has read the article cited and found that it advocated censorship
in Christian schools, but mentioned nothing about mutilating library materials.
(Censorship in Christian schools may also be wrong, but that is another matter
.)
There have also been ad hom battles on certain branches of the Tree of Life.
Hoyle, Wickramasinghe & Watkins (1985) contended that the Archaeopteryx skeleto
ns were nothing more than doctored Compsognathus skeletons. Flank (1995) respon
ded that the two senior authors also made many other bizarre claims. Hoyle & Wi
ckramasinghe have claimed that life on earth originated from outer space, that i
nsects are more intelligent than we are, and that the insects are engaged in an
international conspiracy against humans.
Fezer (1993b) is at least a one-time offender. Gish insisted on identifying the
Basilosaur, an alleged ancestor of the whale, as a reptile. In a public debate
with Gish, Fezer commented that "an expert on fossils [which is how ICR describ
es Gish] not being able to tell the difference between mammals and reptiles . .
. is like a good mechanic not knowing the difference between a gasoline and a di
esel engine."
Don t get me wrong. I have also personally attacked Creationists also. I once
participated in an Internet thread on the C/E question. Attacks flew both ways
until the moderators finally got fed up and shut us down.
Do ad hominem attacks help an intellectual case? Most likely not. There has pr
obably never been an opponent who converted to the opposite camp in response to
an ad hominem attack. As for its effect on uncommitted parties, such attacks pr
obably do not fare much better. There have been reports that Plimer s performan
ce in the 1988 debate resulted in converts the wrong way.
If ad hom attacks are so harmful, why do we make them? There is a simple Evolut
ionary explanation for that: In prehistoric times, there was no disagreement be
tween Evolutionists and Creationists, Communists and capitalists, or Protestants
and Catholics. Mere survival was a chorse which left no time for such flights
of fancy. The only disagreements, then, were with enemies and predators.
What does that have to do with us living now? Plenty. Evolution is a slow proc
ess. Your outer brain may keep up on the latest innovations, but your inner bra
in is a million years behind the times. So what does your inner brain tell you
when someone disagrees with you? That person is an enemy or predator! You can
t repel an enemy or predator with neat syllogisms and careful documentation, you
can only repel an enemy or predator by ejecting hormones. So that is what your
inner brain tells you to do.
Whichever camp you favor, I exhort you not to insult those of the opposite camp.
If you are tempted to insult your opponent, put yourself in their place for a
moment. Suppose you received a package containing a hard fact and an insult. W
ould you accept the whole package? Most likely not, because the insult in the p
ackage is too repellant. So would you accept the hard fact and reject the insul
t? That is also unlikely. Chances are that you are reacting so strongly to the
insult that you cannot even separate the two. Would you reject the whole packa
ge? If you are like most people, you would. And that is what kind of response
you can expect from an opponent receiving an ad hom.
■ ad hominem tu quoque
We have seen this fallacy defined as the boomerang. Creationists have been guil
ty, but so have Evolutionists.
Gish (1993: 186-187) wrote that the Nobel prize-winning physicist Ilya Prigogine
"hasn t spent any time in the laboratory in years." Arthur (1996) countered th
at Gish himself was "a biochemist who has not spent any time in the laboratory i
n years,"
Maybe Gish hasn t, but does that prove that Prigonine has?
In his debate with Gish, Saladin (1988g) responded to Gish s charge that scienti
fic journals refuse to publish work written by Creationists. After mentioning
Creation/Evolution and Creation/Evolution Newsletter, both of which have publish
ed work submitted by Creationists, Saladin commented that he has "never heard of
an ICR publication giving space to an evolutionist."
So what is Saladin s point, that two wrongs make a right?
I must admit that I myself am guilty of this fallacy. While reading Creation Sc
ientists Answer Their Critics (Gish 1993), I collected some statements which, al
though directed toward Evolutionists, seemed perfectly applicable to Creationist
s:
This is nothing more than a twentieth century myth that man has invented
to explain his origin without God. As with all myths, it is intellectua
lly bankrupt and devoid of any real scientific support. (194)
They abandon reason for the god of evolution. (246)
When interpreting the operation of the universe and the operation of liv
ing organisms, creation scientists perform their science in a purely scienti
fic manner-in a more scientific manner than evolutionists, in fact, for thei
r work is unencumbered with evolutionary myths. (255)
Last but not least, you probably caught a couple of look-who s-talking fallacies
which I committed right here in this manuscript. In case you missed them, they
are at the end of the chapter on out-of-context quotes and at the end of the ch
apter on out-of-date quotes.
Did my fighting instinct make me do it? Or did the Devil make me do it? You de
cide.
■ argumentum ad ridiculum
This is the argument that a claim cannot be true because it seems ridiculous. E
volutionists often hear Creationists make fun of the notion that an ancestral sp
ecies could be half cow and half whale. They take offense at this, but let us b
e consistent.
Earlier, we saw that Flank (1995) lashed out at Hoyle & Wickramasinghe for their
claim that we are transported ET s and their claim that insects are waiting in
ambush for just the right moment to take over the world. Since Flank was using
these claims as an argument against other claims made by H & W, this was counted
as an ad hominem attack.
Flank s argument could also be counted as an argumentum ad ridiculum. H and W s
claims sound bizarre, but I haven t heard their arguments for their claims. Ha
ve you? Neither have I heard Flank s arguments against these claims. Have you?
Then how can we be sure whether they are true or not?
■ guilt by association
As we have seen, guilt by association reasons as follows:
Group member A makes claim P.
B is also a group member.
Therefore, Person B also makes claim P.
Evolutionists often apply this mode of reasoning to the topic of Biblical inerra
ncy, such as in the following:
Some Biblical inerrantists claim that the earth is flat.
Creationists are Biblical inerrantists.
Therefore, Creationists also claim that the earth is flat.
In his debate with Gish, Saladin was a repeat offender along this line. At that
debate, Saladin (1988a, 1988b) brought up the subject of Biblical errancy. He
cited Psalm 93:1 and Psalm 104:5 as saying that the earth does not move. He als
o cited Joshua 10:12-14 as saying that the sun revolves around the earth. He al
so cited Genesis 1:14-18 as saying that the stars exist for the purpose of illum
inating the earth.
Saladin cited verses which allegedly say that the earth is disk-shaped (1 Thessa
lonians. 4:16; Revelation 1:7), has four corners (Revelation 7:1), or has four e
nds (Isaiah 40:28).
Saladin offered verses which say that the earth floats in a sea (Psalm 24:1-2, P
salm 136:6), that the earth stands on pillars (Job 9:6; Psalm 75:3), that the s
ky is a solid dome (Genesis 1:6-8; Job 37:18; Psalm 104:2), and that rain comes
through windows in this dome (Genesis 7:11; Psalm 78:23).
Saladin also cited passages which allegedly state that insects have only four le
gs (Leviticus 11:20), that badgers and hares chew cud (Leviticus 11:5-6; Deutero
nomy 14:7), and that bats are birds (Leviticus 11:13-19; Deuteronomy 14:11-18).
Lest his motives be misunderstood, Saladin explains, "The point of this is not c
riticism of the Bible but to point out that it was written from the standpoint o
f the cosmological and biological knowledge prevalent in its time, and therefore
cannot be used as a literal scientific authority today."
Saladin also said a few words about church history. According to Saladin, Luthe
r and Calvin were both ardent geocentrists. Regarding Copernicus, Luther said,
“People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revo
lves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon . . . This fool wis
hes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us th
at Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
Saladin further alluded to the excommunication of Galileo and the murder of Gior
dano Bruno. He also alluded to Ulrich Zwingli, leader of the Protestant Reformat
ion in Switzerland, who believed that a solid floor separated the water, the ang
els, and the rest of the heavens from the earth.
Since Saladin is not openly accusing Gish of saying that insects have four legs
or that bats are birds, perhaps we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Pe
rhaps Saladin was only making a modus tollens operation:
A implies B.
B is not true.
Therefore, A is not true.
In this instance, the operation would read as follows:
If the Bible can be used as a literal scientific authority, bats are birds.
Bats are not birds.
Therefore, the Bible cannot be used as a literal scientific authority.
However, Saladin showed a pattern of portraying the Creationists as ridiculous.
Saladin (1988j) also referred to fundamentalists of Alabama and Tennessee who w
anted the fairy tales of Hans Christian Anderson thrown out of the public school
s.
Like Flank, Saladin takes a swat at Hoyle & Wickramasinghe. At one point in the
debate, Gish cited some statistics calculated by Hoyle & Wickramasinghe. Salad
in (1988h; cf. Pietruszewski 1998) countered by quoting those same authors as sa
ying that "insects are smarter than humans," that "life on earth began with micr
obes in space," that a 1978 flu epidemic began with "a virus from outer space,"
and that "children catch colds from comets."
Although Hoyle & Wickramasinghe have their own ax to grind, a claim should be ju
dged by its merit, not by its source.
Saladin (1988d) added that some ICR publications purport to expose alien encount
ers as a Satanic conspiracy. Norman Geisler, who was a witness for the defense
in the McLean trial, "stunned the courtroom as he testified to this belief."
Perhaps Gish (1997) had a legitimate grievance when he said:
We creation scientists agree with those skeptics who reject claims of th
e paranormal such as practiced in seances, so-called contacts with the dea
d, supposed contacts with non-humans and similar UFO mythology, the mytholo
gical notions of such cults as the Heaven s Gate cult which led to their ma
ss suicide, and other bizarre notions. Attempts to lump creationists with suc
h groups is an effort to discredit anyone supporting our position.
■ extrapolation fallacy
In the Plimer debate of 1988 (Indoctrinhate 2009i), Plimer read a 55-word excerp
t from one of Gish s writings, stopping 5 times to say "That is a lie." From th
is sample, Plimer calculated that Creationist writings in general contain an ave
rage of one lie every 11 words.
Is Plimer arguing from the premise that any and every statistic can be projected
? If so, then let s try that premise. The average newborn boy in the United St
ates is 1 9" tall. The average newborn girl is 1 7" tall. The average newborn
boy grows 9" the first year. The average newborn girl grows 8.5" the first year
. If Plimer s premise is true, then the average boy and the average girl will c
ontinue growing at the same rate throughout an average lifespan of 77 years. Th
at means that the boy will eventually reach a height of 59 6" and the girl will
reach a height of 56 1 1/2".
A well-known application of this fallacy is found in Life on the Mississippi by
Mark Twain. He noted that the Mississippi River became shorter by 242 miles in
176 years. From this information, he calculated that the river was 1,300,000 mi
les long in the Silurian Period and that Cairo, Illinois and New Orleans, Louisi
ana would merge together in 742 years.
But I was just joking about growth rates, and Mark Twain was just joking about t
he Mississippi River. Plimer was serious.
■ inverse argumentum ad populum
Earlier, we accused Gish of a subtle twist of the "appeal to the people," or the
notion that the majority is always right. But could Gish s adversaries be just
as guilty?
Wickramasinghe was called to the witness stand in the Arkansas case. A lawyer a
sked, "Could any rational scientist believe the earth s geology could be explain
ed by the single, a single catastrophe?"
He answered "no."
The lawyer asked, "Could any rational scientist believe the earth is less than o
ne million years old?"
He answered "no."
The lawyer asked for his opinion on scientific creationism, and he answers "clap
trap," The lawyer asked for his opinion on Gish s belief that each form of life
was created separately, and he answers "claptrap" (Geisler 1982: 148-153).
Saladin (1988h; cf. Pietruszewski 1998) commented, "So here we have Duane Gish b
asing an elaborate argument on a scientist who . . . says Gish s opinions are c
laptrap ."
Saladin does not explain what his point is, so we will have to guess. The point
is probably that Gish has one fewer ally than he thought he had.
The occasion may have been very embarrassing for Gish, but let us not become so
hostile to Gish that we rejoice over any misfortune that befalls Gish. If Gish
wrecks his car, if a burglar breaks into Gish s house, or if Gish s house catche
s on fire, will that strengthen the case for Evolutionary theory? Of course not
!
Furthermore, lest you assume that Wickramasinghe‘s vote against Creationism coun
ts as a vote for mainstream Evolution, keep in mind that Wickramasinghe advocate
d panspermia, or the theory that we are all descended from microbial extraterres
trials. I think we can safely relegate him to a third party.
■ argumentum ad infinitum
Gish (1993: 252), in his review of Lewontin (1983), calls the writer "simply ano
ther one of those evolutionists who believes that the incessant repetition of E
volution is a fact will, in itself, suffice to convince many people that, indee
d, evolution theory is true."
You are welcome to read Lewontin s work and see if you agree.
■ argument from authority
In the debate of 1988, Plimer claimed that Michael Denton turned diametrically f
rom Creationism to Evolutionism after writing his book Evolution: A Theory in Cr
isis. Lippard (1991) argues that Denton was not a full-fledged Creationist, nor
did he make a full-fledged conversion to Evolutionism.
But what difference does it make what Denton s position was then or what his pos
ition is now? A belief should stand on its merits, not on celebrity endorsement
s.
In a debate in 1994, astronomer Carlson Chambliss made frequent appeals to autho
rity, including himself. Trott (1994a), who attended the debate, overheard occa
sional comments from the audience, such as "How modest!"
■ hasty generalization
This fallacy has a host of other names:
fallacy of insufficient statistics
fallacy of insufficient sample
fallacy of the lonely fact
leaping to a conclusion
hasty induction
law of small numbers
unrepresentative sample
secundum quid
Whichever name you choose, they all mean "reaching an generalization based on to
o little evidence."
We see this fallacy everywhere we go. When I was in high school, a group of my
friends asked a Ouija board if our team was going to win the next game. The boa
rd said yes, and sure enough, our team won. That proved that Ouija boards are v
alid fortunetellers!
I once tried to apply for a job in a day care center. The center once hired a m
an who didn t do very well. That proved that men cannot work in day care center
s!
A foreign English teacher in Korea once told me that none of the Korean English
teachers knew the language well enough to qualify for the job. I asked, "How do
you know? Have you met all of the Korean English teachers?" He said, "No, but
none of the ones I ve met know the language well enough to qualify for the job.
"
In the Lippard (1993) debate, Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for
Science Education, said that "creationists are merely a religious people."
Scott s statement was also an ad hominem attack. Isn t it funny how fallacies o
ften come in clusters?
■ bifurcation
As we have already seen, Creationists sometimes misrepresent themselves as the o
nly opponents for Evolutionists and Evolutionists as the only opponents for Crea
tionists. We have also seen that there were other alternatives, such as spontan
eous generation, panspermia, and cyclical hypotheses.
Geisler (1982: 219-221) also argued that there were only two possible positions.
To support this view, he quoted George Wald, Robert Jastrow, Davis & Solomon,
authors of The World of Biology, and, to top it off, Darwin himself, who also ar
gued that there were only two positions.
With all due respect to Geisler, and with all due respect to the authors whom he
quoted, no one is qualified to speak for the entire world population.
■ straw man
According to history, gold was brought to Australia in 1788 and coal was discove
red there in 1791.
Creationists, however, know better. They tell us that gold chains were fossiliz
ed in Australian coal seams since Deluvian times.
Or do they? According to Lippard (1991), this story was concocted by Plimer (19
86, 1987b). According to Plimer (1994: 198), Andrew Snelling, a geologist belon
ging to the Australian Creation Science Foundation (CSF), claimed to find fossil
ized gold chains and iron anchors in Australian coal seams.
Snelling (1988) did in fact cite a story of a person in Illinois making such a c
laim in 1891, but denied ever making such a claim for himself. In a later artic
le (1991), Snelling even expressed doubts about the 1891 Illinois claim.
Here is a quote from Lippard (1991):
When commitment to a particular theory is greater than commitment to sci
entific methods, the scientist becomes a "true believer" who falls back upon irr
ational modes of defense. This analysis is frequently applied to creationists,
but unfortunately there are times when it applies to the opponents of creationis
m as well.
Are you a "true believer" in Evolution? I hope not.
■ out-of-context quotes
Just to prove that two can play the game as well as one, Kitcher (1982: 185) del
iberately quoted Gish (1981: ii) out of context:
There should be no room for question, no possibility of doubt, no opport
unity for debate, no rationale whatsoever for the existence of the Institut
e for Creation Research.
Kitcher closed the chapter with the words "How true."
To err is human
Sometimes it is not clear whether Gish s battle was against Evolutionism or Evol
utionists. Whenever he see him pouncing on the following Evolutionist hoaxes, w
e are tempted to opt for the latter:
▶ 1912: the Piltdown Man
The Piltdown Man was discovered in a British gravel pit in 1912. A half century
later, it was discovered that the jawbone and the skull did not match. Further
more, it was found that the specimen was treated chemically and the teeth were a
ltered. The final consensus was that the jaw was an ape jaw and the skull was a
human skull (cf. Gish n. d. 3: 18, [1972] 1976: 91-92, 1993: 134, 1995b: 47; S
aladin 1988b; Parrish 1991; Indoctrinhate 2009e).

▶ 1922: the Nebraska Man

Another of Gish s favorite stories was that in which a prehistoric hominid was e
xtrapolated from a single tooth. When the complete organism was found, it was d
iscovered that the organism was only a peccary, or a close relative of the pig (
cf. n. d. 3: 18, [1972] 1976: 91, 1993: 134, 1995b: 47; Parrish 1991).
Gish told this story again in the Saladin (1988b) debate. In his slide presenta
tion, he showed the above illustration, which Amedee Forestier drew for the Illu
strated London News. He commented, "Science is a fascinating subject, isn t it!
"
Gish usually takes the occasion to make a cruel metaphor. Either "a pig made a
monkey out of an evolutionist" (Gish [1972] 1976: 91) or "a scientist made a ma
n out of a pig and the pig made a monkey out of the scientist." (Gish [1985] 19
91: 188; cf. Indoctrinhate 2009e)
Aren t you overwhelmed with his Christian love?
▶ 1934: the Ramapithecus
In an investigation in India, G. E. Lewis (1934) first discovered the Ramapithe
cus, which he suggested as an ancestor to the human species. Subsequent discove
ries were made in India and Africa. These discoveries, however, eventually esta
blished the Ramapithecus as an ancestor of the orangutan (Lipson & Pilbeam 1982)
.
Gish (n. d. 3: 18, [1972] 1976: 75-78, 1973a: 103, [1985] 1991: 140-143, 1993: 1
34, 349-350; 1995b: 47, Saladin 1988b, Parrish 1991, Indoctrinhate 2009e) took e
very chance to relate this story as evidence of Evolutionary fallibility.
Gish ([1972] 1976: 77-78) compares the teeth of the Ramapithecus with that of th
e Ethiopian Theropithecus galada. The animal is "nothing but a baboon in every
other feature, and living today."
It is too bad that Gish retired from his debate circuit too soon to miss the Arc
heoraptor. This hoax, consisting of reptile and bird parts, was assembled in 19
99, promoted in the popular press, exploited by the Creationists, and ignored b
y the Evolutionists, (Isaak ([2005] 2007: 134). I am sure that Gish would enjoy
this one, too.
The Evolutionists respond:
■ Gish is dragging a red herring.
Saladin (1988b) comments, "He finds it convenient not to devote any attention to
responsible scientific scrutiny of the hundreds of well-documented and meticulo
usly studied fossil hominids."
■ The misidentified fossils are not used as evidence for Evolution today.
According to Zindler (1985), even a scientist is more likely to learn about the
Nebraska Man from Duane Gish or Jack Chick than from any science textbook.
Stassen (1994a, 1994b) challenges his readers to find a current science textbook
which cites the Piltdown Man or Nebraska Man as evidence for Evolution.
■ Scientists regulate themselves against such misidentifications.
Parrish (1991) notes that the Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man were both exposed by
scientists rather than Creationists.
Also, you can try looking up the name of David Pilbeam, one of the leaders in c
orrecting the identification of the Ramapithecus. You will see that he is the au
thor or co-author of numerous books on human evolution.
Some writers reply with some ad hom s of their own. Zindler (1985) explains tha
t "creationists do not make scientific discoveries." Kenneth Miller (1982a) wri
tes that "the errors were originally discovered by scientists themselves—not by
creationists who have made no significant contribution to the literature of evol
ution." According to Schadewald (1986), "these errors were uncovered and correc
ted from within the scientific community," whereas "creationists rarely expose t
heir own errors."
Now, now, we re talking about Evolutionism and Creationism, not Evolutionists an
d Creationists.
■ Sometimes scientists are not fooled in the first place.
The Nebraska Man went over like a lead balloon. It was discovered in 1922, cont
ested in print in 1922 and 1923, subjected to field work at the site in 1925, an
d totally rejected in 1927 (Saladin 1988b).
According to Blanton (1997), George G. MacCurdy (1924) quickly dismissed the Neb
raska Man in his famous two-volume work. According to Kenneth Miller (1982a), "
it was contested by scientists worldwide."
Although some scientists were not quite as skeptical about the Piltdown Man (Bla
nton 1997), it was never fully accepted in the United States (Parrish 1991), As
 early as 1944, 11 years before the hoax was exposed, American anthropologist Sh
erwood Washburn wrote, "You could make sense of human evolution if you didn t tr
y to put Piltdown into it." (Lewin 1987)
■ Creationists are cherry-picking.
Kenneth Miller (1982a) argues that the techniques which exposed the Piltdown hoa
x were the same techniques which authenticated Lucy. "However, Dr. Gish refuses
to accept in one case the same sort of dating evidence he is delighted to use a
gainst evolutionists in another."
■ Gish is wrong about his analogy with the gelada baboon.
McGowan (1984: 177) studied the gelada baboon teeth and found them to be less di
fferent from hominid teeth than Gish would have us believe. Therefore, the Rama
pithecus goof was not as serious as Gish would have us believe.
■ Creationists are vulnerable, too.
In 1985, a prankster found a piece of railroad tie and soaked it in teriyaki sau
ce to create an aging effect. He then concocted a story about seeing Noah s Ark
at the Ararat Mountain range, which he had never visited, and he pretended that
the piece of wood was a fragment thereof.
He approached leading Creationist advocates with his story. Although the pranks
ter failed to gain the support of Ark-hunter Bill Crouse of Christian Informatio
n Ministries International, he gained the support of several ICR personnel, incl
uding Gish. The news media accepted his story, and a documentary on the subject
was telecasted in 1993 (Lippard 1994b).
You can call this argument a tu quoque attack, but at least it shows that both s
ides are fallible.
the McGowan-gate scandal
In the next section of the manuscript, we shall recount the major acts of dishon
esty wrought by Gish. To prevent any confusion in this story, we will tell each
story step by step.
Here is the first story:
1795: A geologic map is printed.
In 1795, a geologic map was compiled (McGowan 1984: 100; Lippard 1994a). At thi
s time, most scientists were Creationists because most people in general were Cr
eationists.
The scientists noticed that different species of fossils were found in different
layers, but the thought of Evolution did not occur to them. Rather, they infer
red that a different creation took place in each period (Arthur 1996).
1809: Charles Darwin is born.
1822: Gregor Mendel is born.
1823: Alfred Russel Wallace is born.
1972: Gish writes that the geologic column presupposes Evolution.
In 1972, Gish ([1972] 1976) first published Evolution: The Fossils Say NO! On p
age 38, he presented a full-page diagram which he identified as a "geological co
lumn," and which he said was "based on the assumption of evolution."
1982: Gish sees the geologic map printed in 1795.
At a public forum at the University of Toronto, zoology professor Chris McGow
an, pictured on the left, showed Gish a geologic map dating from 1795, and t
herefore dating from before the birth of Darwin, thereby provi
ng that the geologic column was not founded on the assumption of evolution. Th
is forced Gish to admit that such an assumption was not true (McGowan 1984:
99-100; Lippard 1994a; Arthur 1996).
1983: Raup contributes a chapter to a book compiled by Godfrey (1983).
Raup (1983a) wrote that "Geochronology depends upon the existence of a virtually
exceptionless sequence of distinctive objects in rocks; that sequence just happ
ens to exist in the fossils." In other words, geochronology does not editoriali
ze, it merely reports the news.
1985: Gish repeats his claim.
In 1985, Gish ([1985] 1991) first published Evolution: The Challenge of the Foss
il Record. On page 48, he presented a geologic time table, as before. On page
47, he again explained that "Its arrangement is based on the assumption of evolu
tion."
Arthur (1996) notes that the book was published "three years after he admitted i
n public that his argument about the geologic column was in error."
1993: Gish partially concedes.
Gish reviewed the article by Raup (1983a) in Creation Scientists Answer Their Cr
itics (1993: 294-305). On page 303, he wrote:
Raup challenges the claims of some creationists that the construction of
the geologic column and the use of fossils in geologic dating is dependent u
pon biological theories of evolution.
In the following sentence, Gish admitted this much:
He points out that the geologic column, as we know it, was completed by 1815, ne
arly 50 years before Darwin published his book, and was completed by 1815, nearl
y 50 years before Darwin published his book, and was developed largely by people
who were creationists.
A Tale of Two Archeological Digs
This story is longer and more complicated than the previous one. Read carefully
.
1890: Eugene Dubois discovers two skulls in Wadjak in Java.
Actually, a mining engineer discovered one of those skulls two years earlier, bu
t Dubois was the first archaeologist who saw either skull (Foley 1997b). He reg
arded these skulls as hominid.
1891: Eugene Dubois discovers a hominoid fossil in the location of Trinil in Jav
a.
This discovery, too, Dubois regarded as hominid. He called his second discovery
Pithecanthropus erectus, but it has since been dubbed Homo erectus and Java man
. Don t let the conflicting terms confuse you.
1972: Gish accuses Dubois of Evolutionist bias.
Here are some announcements which Gish made regarding the two findings:
▶ that Homo erectus, the second finding, was an ape
Gish ([1972] 1976: 85; 1979: 126-127) called the Homo erectus an ape. He suppo
rted this claim with a quote mine (Brace 1986; Arthur 1997). Gish ([1972] 1976:
87) quoted Boule & Vallois (1957) as saying that the skull and teeth were decid
edly simian. He overlooked a passage on page 118:
In its principal characters, the Trinil skull-cap is really intermediate
between that of an ape, like the chimpanzee, and that of a man of really
low status, such as Neandertal man.
and another passage on page 145:
It is evident, by the volume of their brains and by what we know of the
structure of their skulls, Sinanthropus and his brother Pithecanthropus fall
between the great anthropoid apes and man properly so called in the series
of higher primates.
▶ that Dubois was fraudulently pushing Evolution by concealing another finding
Gish mentioned the two human skulls, both with brain capacity greater than the a
verage brain capacity today, which were found by Dubois in 1890. Gish ([1972] 1
976: 86; 1997; 1979: 124-125) describes the location as "nearby Wadjak at approx
imately the same level."
Brace (1986, cf. 1992) counters that Wadjak is one hundred miles from Trinil and
that the Trinil finding is a half million years old while the Wadjak finding is
less than ten thousand years old.
According to the suspicions of Gish (1997), Dubois announced the Trinil finding
and kept the Wadjak finding secret, merely to promote Evolutionary doctrine. Gi
sh ([1972] 1976: 86) contended that "It was not until 1922, when a similar disco
very was about to be announced, that Dubois revealed the fact that he had posses
sed the Wadjak skulls for over 30 years." This, in the opinion of Gish (1979: 1
25), was "an act of dishonesty."
▶ that there was no reliable dating for the Wadjak site.
Gish (1997) doubted that the Wadjak site was 10,000 years old. "As far as I can
determine the Wadjak skulls were never dated, the alleged age of the Wadjak sku
lls being based on their morphology."
Arthur (1997) counters that the date is based on "associated faunal remains, not
morphology."
Besides, how is Gish distinguishing between reliable and unreliable dating syste
ms? I thought we were supposed to be living in a young earth and that all mains
tream scientific dating methods were supposed to be faulty!
▶ that dates for modern man and his alleged ancestors overlap.
From a variety of sources, Gish (1997) cites overlapping dates for the Australop
ithecus, the Homo erectus, and the Homo sapiens. He infers that one could not b
e descended from the other if their dates overlap.
Arthur (1997) counters that "overlapping dates for various known transitional ho
minids are exactly what we would expect if evolution is true. According to Gish
s theory of evolution, a parent species must die as soon as it spawns a daughter
species, but this is, of course, sheer nonsense." Gish s misconception, which
I call Gishian evolution, will be discussed elsewhere.
I wonder how Gish fits these three species with the story of the Flood? Were al
l of the hominid species living in Noah s time and drowned in the Flood? If so,
then God must have turned his wrath on the hominids!
1982-1992: Gish s mistake of 1972 is pointed out to him.
According to Foley (1998), C. Loring Brace met Gish in a debate in 1982, where h
e informed Gish that Dubois (1890a, 1890b, 1892) made earlier accounts of the sk
ulls. In a public debate, Foley showed the bibliographic information for these
articles on an overhead transparency.
In 1986, Brace wrote an article on the subject. In his bibliography, Brace list
ed the later article mentioned by Gish (Dubois 1922) but the earlier articles as
well (Dubois 1890a, 1890b, 1892).
Gish was told about these sources for a third time in a debate with Karl Fezer i
n 1992. They are also mentioned in readily available books (Theunissen 1988) in
cluding at least one Creationist book (Lubenow 1992). According to Arthur (1997
), Gish should now be aware of these sources.
1991-1997: Gish continues with his accusation.
None of us know everything, so perhaps we should excuse Gish for not knowing eve
rything. Foley (1998) comments that Dubois earlier articles were published in
obscure journals, so Gish might have missed those articles.
But human fallibility does not explain why Gish continued to repeat his claim.
On page 181 of the 1991 printing of Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record, G
ish repeated his charge that Dubois "failed to reveal" his earlier findings. He
also repeated these claims in his 1992 debate with biologist Karl Fezer. Comme
nting on Gish s misrepresentations in general, Fezer (1993b) wrote, "Appearance
is everything. Truth seems not a high priority."
In 1995, Gish surreptitiously conceded on one point. Arthur (1996) noticed that
Gish, in one of his editions of Evolution: The Fossils Still Say NO! (Gish 1995
a: 281), "quietly deleted" his claim that the two findings were on the same leve
l.
Gish (1997) defended himself with a quote from Howells (n. d. 3: 19; 1946: 191;
cf. 1959), an acquaintance of Dubois. This Evolutionary anthropologist referred
to "two other skulls which he [Dubois] kept entirely secret until 1920, for rea
sons which he never chose to explain." Gish has also defended himself with a si
milar quote from Sir Arthur Keith (1925), a prominent scientist at the time. Gi
sh (1997) then commented, "Perhaps Brace could supply a copy of the article and
thus inform his fellow anthropologists as well as the rest of us."
The Corner-gate scandal
Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the theory of evolution--from
biology, bio-geography, and paleontology, but I still think that, to the unpreju
diced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.
Using these words, written by botanist Edred John Henry Corner (1961), Gish outd
id himself: misquoting, quoting outdated literature, quoting out of context, and
making an ad hominem attack.
Gish has been absolved of some of these charges, but not all of them. The story
is somewhat complicated, so read carefully.
1972: Gish quotes botanist Corner.
Gish ([1972] 1976: 116; 1973a; [1985] 1991: 232; 1993: 81, 378; 1995b: 34) used
the above quote as an apology for the alleged weakness of Evolutionary theory.
1982: Miller criticizes this quote, but makes an error.
Regarding this quote, Kenneth Miller (1982a) accused Gish of quoting out of cont
ext. In so doing, he inadvertently inserted a word: "The fossil record of highe
r plants is in favor of special creation."
After inserting the word "higher," he accused Gish of omitting that word.
1982: Kofahl calls this error to Miller s attention.
Kofahl (1982) made note of Miller s mistake in a brief essay, ending with this c
omment:
I wonder where Dr. Miller found that word, higher? Evidently creationist
s are not the only people who on occasion goof by accepting uncritically
something they find in secondary or tertiary sources. But we knew that all
the time, didn t we?
1982: Miller admits his error.
Kenneth Miller (1982b) responded:
Because I am used to discussing the higher plants as the most spectacula
r example about which Corner is talking, I carelessly inserted the word hi
gher into the quote when I typed the manuscript and then faulted Gish for
not using it. That was a careless error, and the readers of this journal
have my apologies for that.
but continued to accuse Gish of quoting out of context:
Nevertheless, the charge of misquote against Gish is more serious. Why?
Because Dr. Gish did more than insert a single word, he deleted all of the
references that Corner made in support of evolution . . .
Well, we all make mistakes, and I can t excuse my error by noting his. B
ut Gish s misquotation is not a mere mistake, typographical error, or failu
re of memory; it is a misuse of Corner s intent.
By working from the false premise that Corner s version of creation was
supportive of the ICR or CSRC doctrine of a single creation event, he made
a misrepresentation of the first rank.
Although Miller apologized with good grace:
Finally, I d like to thank Dr. Kofahl for bringing my error to my attent
ion, and I am glad to have had the opportunity to correct it.
he wielded a two-edged sword:
Because Dr. Kofahl is so interested in making sure that Corner and other
scientists are quoted correctly, I await an explanation of how Dr. Gish happene
d to leave out special and eight other words from his reading during the debate
with Doolittle and also why Dr. Kofahl did not correct that matter in his let
ter pointing out my error. I ll keep watching my mail.
1988-1993: Gish continues to rail at Miller.
Long after this retraction, Gish (1993: 88-89; in Saladin 1988) continued to att
ack Miller s 1982 accusation as false. Gish waxed eloquent at the Saladin (1988
d) debate:
The same Kenneth Miller accused me of deliberately misquoting Dr. Corner
, a botanist who said that he believes, this doctor said he believes, even thoug
h he s an evolutionist, he believes that the fossil record of plants is in favor
of creation. I quoted this. Dr. Kenneth Miller accused me of deliberately misqu
oting Corner. He said what Dr. Corner really did say was that the fossil recor
d of higher plants was in favor of creation, and I had deliberately left out the
word "higher." I don t know what difference it would make anyway. Ladies and g
entlemen, I did not leave out that word it is not in that paper by Dr. Corner. N
ow if a scientist makes a charge like that against another scientist accusing hi
m of being dishonest, wouldn t he have both statements in front of him? How woul
d he dare make a serious charge like that against another scientist unless he ha
d my statement in front of him, and the statement by Corner. If he did, he would
know that I quoted Corner correctly. I did not leave out that word, it is not t
here. Now Dr. Miller proceeded to be inexcusably careless for he was dishonest h
imself about it. I was not dishonest, I quoted him correctly. That happens all t
he time. If anybody accuses me of quoting out of context in one of my publicati
ons I want to see the documentation, because I do not do that.
and in a radio broadcast, (Lippard 1993):
Now, I can t understand how a professor like Ken Miller could have made
a charge against a fellow scientist of that nature unless he had both stat
ements right in front of his eyes, or he had complete documentation, and if h
e had that right in front of his eyes, he d have known that I did not misquote
Corner, that Corner did not use the word "higher." So it was Professor Miller
who was misquoting, not me.
But that was a charge that was commonly reported in the literature again
st a creationist, a totally false charge. So, often these charges are made.
Now, when these charges are made against me personally, I challenge these
people (to) go to my literature, my books, and so forth, or any statements I
have made, and specifically document those charges. They ve never been able to
do that. They ve never really done that. They ve made similar charges against He
nry Morris, and other creation scientists.
Now, in doing that, they accuse us of dishonesty, you see. And when peop
le do that in a debate that I have, for example, I just point out to the
audience, that apparently, this person feels that his case is weak. Because
if his case was strong, if he had adequate scientific evidence, he would not
have to resort to these ad hominem attacks against a creationist, you see.
Saladin (1988d) and Lippard (1993, 1994a) pointed out that Miller s accusation w
as no longer ongoing, and that Gish s continued ranting was unfair.
(And here I thought Christians were always so willing to forgive!)
Besides, Saladin "[failed] to see how his vendetta against Miller has anything t
o do with the content of this debate."
(Then again, perhaps it is also an ad hominem attack to accuse an opponent of ma
king an ad hominem attack. In which case, Lippard, Saladin, and I are as guilty
as he is.)
Now that all the excitement is over, let us forget about hating Gish, hating Mil
ler, or hating any other protagonist in the story, and let us concentrate on wha
t Corner was trying to tell us. For your convenience, here is a larger block qu
otation block:
The theory of evolution is not merely the theory of the origin of specie
s, but the only explanation of the fact that organisms can be classified in
to this hierarchy of natural affinity. Much evidence can be adduced in favo
ur of the theory of evolution - from biology, bio-geography and palaeontolo
gy, but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants
is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be fo
und for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theor
y of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have
come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The
evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would
break down before an inquisition. Textbooks hoodwink. A series of more a
nd more complicated plants is introduced - the alga, the fungus, the bryo
phyte, and so on, and examples are added eclectically in support of one o
r another theory - and that is held to be a presentation of evolution. If th
e world of plants consisted only of these few textbook types of standard bota
ny, the idea of evolution might never have dawned, and the backgrounds of t
hese textbooks are the temperate countries which, at best, are poor places
to study world vegetation. The point, of course, is that there are thousa
nds and thousands of living plants, predominantly tropical, which have never
entered general botany, yet they are the bricks with which the taxonomist has
built his temple of evolution, and where else have we to worship?
What shall we make of Corner s passage? Here are some interpretations:
■ The flowering plants gave the appearance of creation.
Kenneth Miller (1982a) wrote:
What did Corner mean by that? He meant that the major form of higher
plant (the angiosperms or flowering plants) appeared on earth about 135
million years ago, and we have no good fossil evidence as to what forms
they evolved from. Corner meant to emphasize in his statement just that
lack of ancestral evidence and pointed out that the higher plants appear so
suddenly that one could almost believe that they had been specially created--jus
t as if a creator had said "Let there be angiosperms," and so they appeared.
At this point, there may not seem to be any difference between Miller s interpre
tation and Gish s interpretation. But let us continue.
■ There are other frames of reference besides fossils.
Saladin (1988h) interprets Corner as implying that "the principle evidence for p
lant evolution is from the comparative study of extant species rather than from
their fossil remains." To support this statement, Saladin calls attention to th
e passage which reads, "The life history of flowering plants teems with evolutio
n."
Since this out-of-context quote contains the word "fossil," it is especially han
dy for Gish. Here we see Gish in one of his favorite ploys, which is to ignore
all other frames of reference and to pretend that the fossil record is the only
one. He even makes certain to include the word in his major book titles:
 The Fossils Say No!
The Fossils Still Say No!
The Challenge of the Fossil Record
■ Even if the flowering plants appeared all at once, that would still disconfirm
the Creation story.
Kenneth Miller (1982a) reminds us that other land plants appear in the geologic
column before flowering plants. In order to confirm "Gish s notion of a single
creation event," all plants would appear in the oldest rocks available.
Even in his apology, Kenneth Miller (1982b) stood firm on this position, saying
that if Creationism were true, "all forms we see today should exist throughout t
he record."
Saladin (1988h) points out that flowering plants would have to appear in pre-Cam
brian rock in order to confirm Creationism as advocated by Gish, whereas plant e
volution took place for 365 million years before the 135 million years ago when
flowering plants appeared.
■ Coevolution could explain the sudden appearance of flowering plants.
Let us assume that flowering plants made a sudden appearance, as Gish--who never
lies--would have us believe. What shall we make of it? Saladin (1988h) sugges
ts "the coevolution of pollinating insects" as a possible explanation.
■ Gish is overlooking his own Flood geology.
Doesn t Gish contradict himself when he argues that fossils make sudden appearan
ces in the geologic column? Remember, the column is not supposed to be a record
of prehistory, but rather a record of deposits laid by the Flood (Gish [1972] 1
976: 42; [1985] 1991: 52).
Perhaps Gish is arguing that Evolution is untenable even assuming the premises h
eld by most Evolutionists. Or perhaps Gish takes whichever position is more con
venient at the moment.
■ The quote is outdated.
We have little reason to apologize even for the fossil record. According to God
frey (1983: 202), later publications, such as those of Beck (1976) and Hughes (
1976) tell us of fossil discoveries made since the time of the quote. Those dat
es are later than 1961, when Corner made the statement, but earlier than 1978, w
hen Gish made his quote.
the Popper-gate scandal
Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a
metaphysical research programme.
Sure enough, Popper (1976a: 151; Schilpp, ed. 1974: 134) wrote these words
, just as Gish (in Asimov & Gish 1981; Gish 1993: 35) quoted them.
This quote has sparked some comment from Evolutionists:
■ It would be nice to put the quote back into context.
Popper rejected the "survival of the fittest" as circular. What does "fit" mean
? Able to survive! And who is the most able to survive? Those who are the mos
t fit!
This trip around the mulberry bush inspired Popper to reject the "survival of th
e fittest" as "almost a tautology" and therefore untestable (Popper 1972: 69; 19
63).
Although some would make a distinction between the two (Sonleiter 1986), Popper
equated survival of the fittest with natural selection.
One could mistake this passage for a rejection of Evolutionary theory. Or one u
nderstand the passage correctly, but pretend to mistake this passage for a rejec
tion of Evolutionary theory.
Hence, the above quote excerpt.
■ Gish did not know, or pretended that he did not know, of other passages in whi
ch Popper testified for Evolution.
Some quotes establish that Popper was not making a wholesale rejection of Evolut
ionary theory. These quotes are cited by Sonleitner (1986):
I see in modern Darwinism the most successful explanation of the relevan
t facts. (Popper 1957: 106)
I have always been extremely interested in the theory of evolution and
very ready to accept evolution as a fact. (Popper 1976b: 167)
This one is cited by Saladin (1988g):
. . . a brilliant scientific hypothesis concerning the history of the va
rious species of animals and plants on earth. (Popper 1957: 106)
and this one is cited by Wilkins ([2004] 2006):
And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our kno
wledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experi
ments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clea
r that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is
metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical research
es. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a pen
icillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence o
f a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the m
echanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that. (Pop
per 1976b: 171-172)
■ Gish might be borrowing this quote from another Creationist writer.
If you Google search some of these Creationist quotes, you will find that they a
re widely disseminated. It would be interesting to trace each of these quotes t
o find which quote miner found the nugget, but time does not permit.
Zindler (1990), however, traces this particular quote to Creationist writer Luth
er Sunderland. Gish might have seen Sunderland s quote and accepted it at face
value.
■ Popper recanted 2 years after making the above statement.
J. R. Cole (1981), Sonleiter (1986), and Saladin (1988g) all cite this quote (Po
pper 1978):
The doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical rese
arch programme . . . I have changed my mind about the testability and logical
status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportun
ity to make a recantation . . . The theory of natural selection may be so fo
rmulated that it is far from tautological.
At the Saladin (1988g) debate, Gish went off on a tangent, denying that Popper e
ver made such a recantation:
Dr. Karl Popper is recognized as one of the leading philosophers of scie
nce, and this is what he said. That evolution is not a testable scientific
theory, it is a metaphysical research program. He maintains that it s not
falsifiable. The theory of evolution is not falsifiable, therefore it is not a
scientific theory it is a metaphysical research program. I agree 100 percent.
I will agree furthermore that creation is a metaphysical research program.
Now if somebody were to try to claim that Dr., that Karl Popper has revo
ked that statement. He has not! In a letter he wrote to New Scientist, he said
that evolution has scientific characteristics. I believe that. It does
have scientific characteristics. But everything that has scientific characte
ristics is not a testable, falsifiable scientific theory. And then he refers t
o natural selection. Natural selection is not evolution. As he said evolutio
n, the theory of evolution is not falsifiable, there s no way to falsify
it, because no matter what we say, there s always some way to get around
it. You just, you just change the theory, and that s what happened with
evolutionary theory. And some, many evolutionists have said that, many
philosophers of science have said that neither natural selection nor the
theory of evolution are testable. They are not falsifiable, therefore they
are not scientific theories. That doesn t mean that evolution does not have
scientific characteristics. So does creation have scientific characteristics.
We talk about thermodynamics, probability, the fossil record, and all of that.
But it is not a testable scientific theory.
Either Gish has reading problems or the rest of us do. This is from the letter
which he referred to (Popper 1980):
Some people think that I have denied scientific character to the histori
cal sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life
on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science
.
This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other histor
ical sciences have in my opinion scientific character: their hypotheses can i
n many cases be tested.
It appears as if some people would think that the historical sciences ar
e untestable because they describe unique events. However, the description
of unique events can very often be tested by deriving from them testable
predictions or retrodictions.
■ What difference does it make anyway?
I felt a little guilty even writing this chapter. I promised that this manuscrip
t would be about Evolution and Creation, not Evolutionists and Creationists. As
Isaak ([2005] 2007: 5) wrote, "Evolution is based on evidence, not on people s
opinions."
What difference does this question make? Or if Sir Isaac Newton was a Creationi
st? Or if Darwin was a racist? Or if Hitler was an Evolutionist?
■ Evolution is indeed testable.
According to Gish (1993: 35), Evolution could not be falsified because "the deta
ils of the general concept can always be modified to accommodate new facts."
Yet Evolutionists have suggested some conditions as falsifications for Evolution
:
● if fossils were found out of sequence
As we see elsewhere in this manuscript, McKee (2001) suggests that Evolution wou
ld be falsified if someone found "a zebra in the fossil record long before repti
les had evolved,"
● if biogeography suggested Creationism
Later, we shall discuss biogeography, or the branch of science deals with the wo
rldwide distribution of species. Cline (2010) implied that he would question ev
olution if every species existed "wherever an environment could support them, as
opposed to being distributed according to their apparent relationship to other
life forms."
● if the frames of reference contradicted each other
Later, we shall discuss embryology. Animal embryos tend to undergo stages in wh
ich they imitate their evolutionary ancestors.
We shall also discuss vestigial organs. Many species continue to carry organs w
hich have outlived their usefulness, and have therefore tended to grow smaller.
We have a fossil succession from land mammals to whales. Whale embryos develop
body hair and teeth which later get resorbed. Whales carry vestigial leg bones.
Research in all three areas, then, indicates that whales are descended from la
nd mammals.
Could it be a mere coincidence that the evidence from all three frames of refere
nce point in the same direction? Yes, it could. That is why we cannot be absol
utely sure that Evolutionary theory is true.
There are infinite ways that these frames of reference could disagree. We may s
omeday discover fossil evidence that the polar bear descended from a myna bird,
embryonic evidence that it descended from a salamander, and vestigial evidence t
hat it descended from a cocker spaniel. In such a case, according to Kenneth Mi
ller (1982a), "evolution would thereby be disproved."
Then, we will have to form another theory to replace Evolutionary theory.
A Tale of Two Proteins
Do you know what lysozyme is? Or lactalbulmin?
You do? Then maybe you can understand this technical discussion:
http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/criticsc.htm
You don t? Good! Neither do most other people. And Gish doesn t want you to k
now. That way, he can dazzle you with professional jargon.
Let us hear a story about these two words, and let us start from the beginning:
n. d. At a conference in Austria, Berkeley geochronologist Garniss Curtis hears
that someone had found bullfrog blood proteins very similar to human blood prote
ins.
Curtis (quoted in Schadewald 1986) had only a vague memory of the story. It is
possible that a speaker illustrated a point with a retelling of The Frog Prince.
Even professional audiences like to be entertained with an occasional fictiona
l scenario, and many convention speakers realize that.
n. d. Gish hears Curtis mention this story and gets the story all garbled.
In this case, Gish might have gotten the fictional scenario and lost the rest of
the message. Or maybe Curtis did.
1983: Gish repeats the story in a televised debate.
In a PBS debate in 1983, biochemist Russell Doolittle pointed out that proteins
in chimpanzees and humans are quite similar, and, in some cases, identical. Doo
little
presented this as evidence for common descent.
Gish responded, "If you look at certain other proteins, you ll find that man is
more closely related to a bullfrog than he is to a chimpanzee." For good measur
e, he added that some human proteins were more closely related to the correspond
ing proteins of a chicken than to those of a chimpanzee.
This was all news to Schadewald (1986), so he quizzed a few biochemists. None o
f the biochemists ever heard of such a thing. He then wrote to Gish, but he had
to write twice. That is how the story got traced to Curtis.
1983: Schadewald makes a first effort to get Gish to elaborate.
Schadewald (1986) and John W. Patterson attended the 1983 National Creation Conf
erence in Roseville, Minnesota. They met Kevin Wirth, research director of Stud
ents for Origins Research. Schadewald and Patterson told Wirth about Gish s cla
ims. Wirth invited both Gish and Schadewald & Patterson to present written acco
unts of the matter, and promised to submit them to Origins Research, the publica
tion of the organization.
Schadewald & Patterson honored Wirth‘s request, but Gish did not. Consequently,
the publication appeared in the Spring of 1984, with S & P s account but alas,
no word from Gish.
1984: Schadewald makes a second effort to get Gish to elaborate.
The 1984 National Bible-Science Conference was held in Cleveland. Schadewald ag
ain met Gish and again pressed him for details. According to Schadewald (1986),
Gish replied merely by referring him to Curtis.
1985: Kitcher makes an effort to get Gish to elaborate.
In 1985, Gish appeared in a debate with Philip Kitcher, then of the University o
f Minnesota. Gish failed to comply with Kitcher s request for details. This bro
ught cries of "Bullfrog!" from the audience.
1985: Weinberg makes an effort to get Gish to elaborate.
In a later appearance the same day, a similar question was posed by Stan Weinber
g, a founder of the Committees of Correspondence on Evolution.
On the matter of bullfrog protein, Gish again cited Curtis. On the matter of ch
icken protein, he gave a response which was nonsensical to biologists but impres
sive to everyone else, using the words "lysozyme" and "lactalbumin." Schadewal
d (1986) reduces Gish s argument as follows:
If human lysozyme and lactalbumin evolved from the same precursor, as sc
ientists claim, then human lysozyme should be closer to human lactalbumin than t
o chicken lysozyme, but it is not.
Schadewald responds:
Well, although it is true that human lysozyme is not closer to human lac
talbumin than to chicken lysozyme, this comes as no shock and does not make a c
ase for creationism. Furthermore, it doesn t at all address the issue th
at we raised. We were talking about Gish s earlier comparison of human, c
himp, and chicken proteins, and Gish changed the subject and started comparing h
uman lysozyme to human lactalbulmin!
Schadewald further counters that human and chimpanzee lysozyme are identical and
that chicken lysozyme differs from both by 51 out of 130 amino acids.
So there you have it. The allegations of bullfrog proteins were based on the va
gue memories of another person, and the allegations of chicken proteins were, as
far as we know, pulled out of thin air.
1993: Gish continues telling the story.
Has the pressure from Gish s opponents silenced Gish? Yes and no. At least as
recently as 1988, Gish used the story in his debates (Indoctrinhate 1988k). In
his latest book, Gish (1993: 97) not only repeated his bullfrog saga, but cited
Curtis as a reference.
He did not use the story in the Zindler (1990) debate, but devised another respo
nse instead. In that debate, Zindler reminded Gish of the 99% DNA correlation b
etween chimpanzees and humans. Gish attributed this to similarity in diet. Zi
ndler replied, "I once had a dog that ate all the same things that I ate, includ
ing black walnuts. Why wasn t his DNA 99% the same as mine?"
Gish also said that clouds and watermelons both have high water content, and ask
s if clouds and watermelons are related.
Analogies are difficult to refute sometimes. If you can answer this one, please
write back.
the Prigogine-gate scandal
The point is that in a non-isolated system there exists a possibility fo
r formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low tempera
tures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered
structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transiti
on.
Unfortunately, this principle cannot explain the formation of biological
structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic
number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly-ordered structures a
nd to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanis
hingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is
therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of the billions of years du
ring which pre-biotic evolution occurred.
Can you understand that passage (Prigogine, Nicolis, & Babloyantz 1972a: 23)? D
on t feel bad. Neither can a lot of other people. Besides, the Creationists hav
e you right where they want you.
They would like for you to understand:
--that the laws of physics allow for crystals to form
--that the laws of physics don t allow for life to form
--yet sure enough, life exists
--so the only explanation is "God did it."
We will put this quote back into context to see if that is what it really says.
But first, let us make a timeline:
1972: Prigogine and two junior authors write two articles.
Prigogine and his two junior authors (Prigogine, Nicolis, & Babloyantz 1972a, 1
972b) wrote two articles explaining how life could originate in spite of the Sec
ond Law of Thermodynamics. The first of these articles contains the quote given
above.
As Arthur (1996) interprets the law, "in a closed system, useful energy that c
an do work becomes gradually converted over time to energy that is unavailable f
or use---entropy, or an increase of disorder."
Arthur (1996) also describes the usual Creationist interpretation: "Creationists
interpret this to mean that complex living systems could not have evolved from
simpler forms because overall, things run down rather than build up."
Arthur refutes the Creationist interpretation:
Living things are open systems and as Prigogine emphasized, are far from a state
of equilibrium. They acquire energy from the sun and can locally decrease
entropy and even increase their order and complexity without a violation of the
Second Law.
1977: Prigogine wins the Nobel Prize.
In 1977, Prigogine won the Nobel prize for his work on thermodynamics.
1982: Prigogine s name comes up in a debate with Brace.
In 1982, C. Loring Brace mentioned the Prigogine article, describing it as "an u
nassailable refutation of Gish s claims." (Arthur 1996)
1987: Gish attacks Prigogine in a debate with Bakken.
Some time between 1982 and 1987, either Brace s words sank in or Prigogine s wor
ds in their proper context sank in. Gish then came to realize that Prigogine wa
s not an Evolutionist apologist to be quoted as such, but rather an Evolutionist
enemy to be confronted. In the debate with Bakken (1987), Gish went on a whole
sale Prigogine bash. First, he read from another writing in which Progogine was
the junior author (Nicolis & Prigogine 1977: 12):
There seems to be no doubt that dissipative systems play an essential ro
le in the function of living systems as we see them today. What was the ro
le of dissipative structures in evolution? It is very tempting to speculat
e that prebiotic evolution corresponded essentially to a succession of instabil
ities leading to an increasing level of complexity.
Just to save you the trouble of looking it up, dissipative means "losing strengt
h to the point of disappearing."
Gish then went on the following tirade:
 What did they say? "It is tempting to speculate." Perhaps. Maybe. Who
knows? These same processes in living things as we see them today may have wor
ked in prehistoric evolution. No, he did not demonstrate that they did func
tion in evolution. No. Not at all. As a matter of fact, when Prigogine gets h
is speculation off the paper and out into the real world of biochemistry, wh
ich is my world, one can easily destroy these speculations. Utterly without
any foundation in science. Certainly, he did not explain how that could b
e. And Dr. Bakken also cites the example of crystallization as somehow getting
around the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Finally, for good measure, Gish proceeded with the quote at the opening of this
chapter.
Bakken (1987) commented, "You ve got to know the difference between crystallizat
ion and evolution, and that is very elementary."
Bakken and Gish then debated the reason for Prigogine winning the Nobel Prize.
According to Bakken (1987), Prigogine received the prize "for showing that, far
from preventing order, the Second Law of Thermodynamics permits order to develop
, and in almost all cases, order is REQUIRED to develop in a system which is far
from thermodynamic equilibrium. REQUIRED. It is certainly allowed."
Gish (in Bakken 1987) countered that Prigogine "got the Nobel Prize for his work
on living organisms, not for explaining evolution."
You are welcome to read the presentation speech at the ceremony (Claesson 1977)
and Prigogine s acceptance speech (Prigogine 1978) and decide whether or not Gis
h is right.
Saladin (1988d) also recommends an article by Procaccia & Ross (1977).
1993: Gish attacks Prigogine in print.
As recently as 1993, Gish was still mad at Prigogine. On pages 186-187 of Creat
ion Scientists Answer Their Critics, Gish (1993) wrote:
Prigogine s theoretical ideas are buttressed with a large amount of comp
licated mathematics which few biochemists and molecular biologists can unde
rstand, but it all does look deliciously scientific. Since Prigogine s speculat
ions lend comfort to his fellow evolutionists among the biochemists and mole
cular biologists, they are only too eager to bow to the authority of this Nob
el Prize winner.
Arthur (1996) was not impressed:
A logical inference from this statement is that Gish, a biochemist who h
as not spent any time in the laboratory in years, likely does not understan
d Prigogine s mathematics himself. Unwilling to admit this, he imputes hi
s lack of understanding to other scientists and concludes that they are pa
ying blind obeisance to a Nobel prize winner.
1996: Arthur accuses Gish of taking Prigogine s words out of context
Arthur (1996; cf. Pietruszewski 1998), commenting on the Bakken (1987) debate, a
ccused Gish of taking Prigogine s words out of context. In Arthur s view, "Prig
ogine s words were taken from the beginning of his article where he summarized t
he position that he was about to spend the next several pages refuting. Perhaps
Gish only read the first page. However, he definitely knew before that debate wh
at Prigogine really said."
1997: Gish answers Arthur.
Gish, (1997), responding with the Nicolis & Prigogine (1977: 12) quote, criticiz
ed Arthur for making no reference to the appendix of his book (Gish 1993: 397-40
4), in which he makes a technical criticism of Prigogine s views.
Arthur did, however, refer to this section in a later critique (Arthur 1997). T
he section (Gish 1993: 397) begins with the words: "Prigogine s speculative mode
l is enshrouded with a considerable amount of complex mathematics that is diffic
ult if not impossible to understand by non-mathematicians."
Arthur (1997) commented, "As for Gish s total dismissal of Prigogine s Nobel pri
ze-winning work in chemistry, Gish begins his critique of it by saying that
few biochemists and molecular biologists can understand Prigogine s ideas. So G
ish can?"
2003: Prigogine settles the question of the alleged misquote.
In January, 2003, someone wrote in to the talkorigins Website, copying the quote
which opens this chapter, and asking what it meant.
Moderator Chris Ho-Stuart (2003) responded that "the quoted paper is proposing t
hat thermodynamics and the second law is a major contributing factor to then spo
ntaneous formation of complex structures in prebiotic evolution."
After proceeding with a technical explanation, Ho-Stuart then summarized:
The second law is, roughly, that entropy increases in all processes, or
that heat will flow from hot things to cold things. Roughly speaking, entropy
measures the extent to which energy is dissipated in a system. Open syst
ems in a state of great energy flux (like the Earth) will tend to remain
far from equilibrium. More importantly, Prigogine shows that in these conditions
, ordered structures tend to form which facilitate the net dissipation of energy
. Such systems help to drive the universe as a whole to states of increasing
entropy, while being maintained in ordered state themselves. The paper go
es on to give examples.
Far from proposing thermodynamics as a problem for the origins of life,
this paper is proposing that thermodynamics and the second law is a major
contributing factor to the spontaneous formation of complex dissipative
structures in prebiotic evolution.
After recommending an on-line reading (Albert 1978), Ho-Stuart closes the essay
with a paragraph which clinches the argument once and for all:
[Professor Prigogine has kindly reviewed this feedback at my request, an
d concurs with my conclusion that the quoted paper is proposing that therm
odynamics and the second law as a contributing factor, not a problem. Any erro
rs or defects this response, however, remain my own.]
Ho-Stuart contacted Prigogine just in time. On May 28, 2003, Ilya Prigogine pas
sed away.
We can debate endlessly over whether Prigogine is right or wrong. But we cannot
debate over what Prigogine meant. Neither Prigogine nor any other researcher i
s infallible as a scientist. But Prigogine, as well as anyone else, was infalli
ble as his own spokesman.
All Gish contributed was some word play. Word play can be fun. You know why a
bicycle can t stand up by itself? Because it is two-tired! This joke is perfec
tly harmless, because no one really believes that bicycles can be anthromorphize
d.
However, word play could become harmful if it is believed. And Gish is widely b
elieved.
A tale of two
chemicals
Meet the brachynid. If that s too hard to pronounce, you can call him the bomb
ardier beetle.
This little creature can repel predators with a noxious chemical. This geeze
r has two reservoirs (Eisner 1970), otherwise known as collection bladders (Sch
ildknecht, Maschwitz, & Maschwitz 1968) or storage chambers (Gish 1997), where h
e stores hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone. We know very little about how this
little wonder keeps the two chemicals from reacting, so he may keep a third che
mical known as an inhibitor.
When Brachy is endangered, he releases the chemicals to the vestibules (Eisner 1
970) or explosion chambers (Schildknecht, Maschwitz, & Maschwitz 1968). Here, h
e mixes the chemicals with a brown mixture of enzymes, otherwise known as cataly
sts or anti-inhibitors (Gish 1980), or chemicals which aid in a chemical reactio
n but which do not take part in the reaction (Weber 1981a).
This is what he squirts out at the big bad predator, through two combustion tube
s (Gish 1997) or rifle barrels (Kofahl 1981).
Gish ([1992] 1996: 83) displays this amazing specimen as a masterpiece of God s
handiwork:
If it all doesn t work exactly right, he could explode! Evolutionists b
elieve that he evolved from an ordinary beetle by a series of thousands of gene
tic mistakes (mutations). . . . the first time one of these intermediate be
etles mixed the chemicals together, without the whole system, in place, he d b
low up. End of beetle family line.
Gish has introduced this brave little superhero to the next generation of Creati
onists. In the 1988 printing of Terrible Lizards, he devoted pages 51 through 5
5 to the subject, with a full-page cartoon illustration on page 54. Here is an
excerpt:
Perhaps millions of years ago there was this little beetle . . . One day
his Mom and Dad gave him a chemistry set for his birthday, and a little whil
e later he decided to mix up some hydrogen peroxide, hydroquinone, and the
enzymes to see what would happen.
So he did. Yep, you re right. BOOM! He blew himself up and splattered
himself all over the walls of his chemistry lab. Poor little Beetle Bai
ley!
He makes sure the reader doesn t lose interest. Within those pages, "boom" is b
oldfaced 5 times, "pow" is boldfaced 2 times, and "whammo" is boldfaced 1 time.
Not everybody has seen this little fellow as Gish sees him. Let s go over the h
istory of the research:
1968: Three German scientists write an article about the chemicals released by t
he bombardier beetle.
Schildeknecht, Maschwitz & Maschwitz (1968) wrote a scholarly article in honor o
f this amazing chap.
Let s take the first look at the scoreboard:
SCHILDKNECHT 1968
two chemicals explosive? no
inhibitor? not mentioned yet
n. d. Kofahl writes a pamphlet which unintentionally misquotes the German articl
e.
In the Sixties, Kofahl wrote a pamphlet entitled Darwin and the Beetles. In thi
s pamphlet, Kofahl cited the article by Schildknecht, Maschwitz, & Maschwitz (1
968), but inadvertently mistranslated "unstable" as "explosive." Kofahl found i
t remarkable that the two chemicals could be stored together without an explosio
n taking place.
Let s take a second look at the scoreboard:
SCHILDKNECHT 1968 AS UNDERSTOOD BY KOFAHL n. d.
two chemicals explosive? yes
inhibitor? not mentioned yet
1997: Gish quotes Kofahl.
This pamphlet became the source for Gish (1997). Gish began to wonder how the t
wo chemicals kept from exploding in the storage chamber, so, at least as early a
s 1977, he postulated a third chemical, which he called an inhibitor (Weber 1981
a).
The scoreboard now reads:
SCHILDKNECHT 1968 AS UNDERSTOOD BY GISH 1977
two chemicals explosive? yes
inhibitor? yes
1978: The two chemicals are found not to explode.
In 1978, in an Evolution/Creationism class at San Diego State, Thwaites & Awbrey
tried mixing the two chemicals. The mixture turned brown, but did not explode.

In an article recounting this incident, Weber (1981a) interpreted the Schildekne

cht article as saying that "the hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone do not explod
e until the enzymes make them do so, and mentions nothing about any inhibitor."
Weber (1981a) invited the reader to try the experiment at home. He informs the
reader that hydroquinone is avaliable at the photo shop as developer and hydroge
n peroxide is available at the supermarket as hair coloring.
Regarding the inhibitor, Weber (1981a) wrote that "Dr. Gish totally misrepresent
s Dr. Schildknecht, who says absolutely nothing about an inhibitor."
The scoreboard now reads:
SCHILDKNECHT AS UNDERSTOOD BY WEBER 1981a
two chemicals explosive? no
inhibitor? no
Thwaites & Awbrey confronted Gish, who cited the article (Schildeknecht, Maschwi
tz & Maschwitz 1968), and admitted that somehow the German word for "unstable" h
ad been mistranslated as "explosive" (Weber 1981a).
1981: Kofahl and Weber debate the issue.
Kofahl (1981) admitted that the two chemicals do not explode. However, the two
chemicals are "unstable," meaning that they react. In the beetle s reservoir, o
n the other hand, the chemicals remain clear. This leaves an unsolved mystery w
hich is discussed in another earlier article (Schildknecht & Holoubek 1961).
In light of Kofahl s article, Weber (1981b) revised his stand. Weber now admitt
ed that there must be a third chemical which would prevent reaction with oxygen,
and thereby prevent the chemicals from changing color. Such a chemical, under
a new definition, could be called an inhibitor.
Now we have:
SCHILDKNECHT 1968 AS UNDERSTOOD BY WEBER 1981b
two chemicals explosive? no
inhibitor? yes
n. d. Gish softens his stance.
Following is a chronological list of Gish s definitions of Bomby s inhibitor:
The inhibitor somehow prevents the other two chemicals from blowing
up (Gish 1977 quoted in Weber 1981a).
He puts in an inhibitor to keep it from exploding or decomposing (1980
debate quoted in Weber 1981a).
The inhibitor somehow prevents the other two chemicals from reacting
together, and the mixture of these two chemicals remain as clear as water
(Gish 1977: 52).
The bombardier beetle adds a mysterious inhibitor which prevents the hyd
rogen peroxide from oxidizing the hydroquinone (Gish [1992] 1996: 82).
Apparently the bombardier beetle adds an inhibitor which prevents the ch
emicals from reacting (Gish 1993: 102).
So we see that Gish softened his stance some time between 1977 and 1993.
SCHILDKNECHT 1968 AS UNDERSTOOD BY GISH 1993
two chemicals explosive? no
inhibitor? maybe
This was not quick enough to please his critics (Weber 1981a; Arthur 1996, 1997)
, who point out that he was aware of his error in 1978.
Moreover, Thwaites & Awbrey (1991) contend that Gish did not revise his original
position far enough:
We demolished his bombardier beetle argument in a way that should have
humiliated a biochemist. After we had corrected him several times, he merely add
ed or decompose after his claim that the chemicals in the beetle s ancestor wo
uld explode. By his logic, that fixed everything.
Thwaites & Awbrey caught Gish in a clever play on words. Any false statement an
d true statement conjoined by the word "or" will result in a true statement. Fo
r example, either two plus two equals four or the moon is made out of Swiss chee
se. So Gish is technically in the right.
Let us pause in our investigation and talk about Bomby. How did this little her
o get to where he is today?
It seems that this fellow doesn t own the patent on either chemical. Weber (1981
a) quoted Eisner (1970) as writing that hydrogen peroxide and quinones are found
on all insects. Secretion of quinone creates the hard outer covering on insect
s, as well as creating an unpleasant odor and unpleasant taste. Beetles of the
carabid family, of which Bomby is a member, use these chemicals to poison and bu
rn their enemies (Weber 1981a, 1981b). Bomby s claim to fame is in ejecting the
se chemicals in a boiling temperature (Weber 1981a).
This analysis may not prove that God did not create Bomby as he is today, but it
does raise the question of when God endowed Bomby so bountifully. Was it at th
e insect class level, the carabid family level, or the species level?
If Kofahl (1981) interprets Weber (1981a) correctly, Bomby s remote ancestors we
re able to stave off their enemies by merely threatening to stink. Kofahl may s
ee this as a weak argument, but I m not sure. Isn t that how the skunk defends
itself? Or the ailanthus tree?
Kofahl then criticizes Weber for summoning too many unknown factors. According
to Kofahl, Weber is not specific about the origins of the inhibiting chemical, t
he enzymes, or the rifle barrels,
Kofahl (1981) also does not understand how the two chemicals came to be in optim
al balance. He asks if "evolution is always thinking ahead."
In this analysis, both parties seem to be forgetting about the concept of co-evo
lution. It may take a complex apparatus and a potent chemical to repel Bomby s
present enemies, but don t forget that his present enemies had to evolve too. W
hen Bomby s ancestors were less advanced, so were the ancestors of his enemies.
Therefore, Grampaw Bomby should have been able to defend himself with a less com
plex apparatus.
1990-1993: Gish is still not satisfied.
Weber s response seems to be good enough for Lippard (1993, 1994a) and Arthur (1
997), Gish (1990b; 1993: 204), however, continues to claim that his question ha
s gone unanswered,
Arthur (1996) sees a pattern. Whenever Evolutionists provide step-by-step accou
nts, Gish dismisses those accounts as " Just So stories . . . without any real
scientific merit." (Gish 1993: 216).
Throughout this fracas, there is one statement that we can all agree on: it is r
emarkable that Bomby does this job so effortlessly. While we endlessly rankle o
ver this question and that, our little mascot keeps right on repeating the same
practice generation after generation, never giving a hoot in hades what Kofahl,
Weber, or anyone else says.
For further information, you may wish to read a vitriolic Evolutionist account (
Plimer 1994: 70-71) and a Creationist rebuttal (Creation Ministries Internationa
l n. d.).
the Cambrian explosion
(Paleozoic Era: Cambrian Period)
 William Buckland knew about it, Charles Darwin characteristically agoniz
ed over it, and still we do not fully understand it. "It," of course, is th
e seemingly abrupt appearance of animals in the Cambrian "explosion."
Thus begins an article by Conway Morris (2000). He is referring to an event whi
ch paleontologists have designated as taking place 570-505 million years ago. A
t this time, an unprecedented profusion of multicellular organisms appeared.
If, as Conway Morris says, Evolutionists do not know what caused the event, what
does that prove? Not much, except that Evolutionists don t know everything. F
or some reason, though, Gish attaches more significance to this puzzle (Gish [19
72] 1976: 45-48; [1985] 1991: 54-61; 1993: 115; Zindler 1990; Parrish 1991; Trot
t 1994b).
Gish pretends that there were no fossil chains between unicellular and multicell
ular organisms. In the Bakken (1987) debate, Gish performed his "billions times
billions" refrain:
There should be billions times billions time billions of those fossils, a
nd yet we have never found one. How can you miss billions of years of evolutio
n? How can you have a blank record if evolution occurred? Why do we have these
explosive appearances of this great array of very complex creatures with no anc
estors? I think the question has been settled--evolution has not occurred!
In one of his books (Gish [1985] 1991: 54), he simulates an air of scholarship t
eaching us the word metazoans, which means "highly complex multi-cellular creatu
res with specialized organs"
Isn t that amazing? You ve been a metazoan all your life and you probably didn
t even know it!
Gish dubs the event as "the death knell of evolution." (McKee 2001) Before we c
limb up to the bell tower, let us do a little studying:
▶ He collected out-of-date quotes.
For a long time, Evolutionists agreed that there was a fossil gap and have there
fore made apologies. Gish eagerly compiled a collection of these apologies. On
e of his favorites (Gish [1972] 1976: 47; 1973a; [1985] 1991: 56; Parrish 1991)
is that of paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson (1949: 18), who called this all
eged gap the "major mystery of the history of life."
"Evolutionary geologist" Preston Cloud (1968, 1973) wrote similar words. Gish (
[1972] 1976: 46; [1985] 1991: 56; in Stassen 1994a, 1994b) plays this up too.
▶ He collected out-of-context quotes.
Gish ([1972] 1976: 46; 1973a; [1985] 1991: 56) quotes botanist Daniel Axelrod (1
958):
One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occur
rence of diversified, multicellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks
on all the continents and their absence in rocks of great age.
Gish (n. d. 3: 8) also quotes Dawkins ([1986] 1996: 229):
The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest on
es in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of
them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear.
It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history
. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationist
s.
It has delighted Gish, so Dawkins prophesy has proven to be true.
These quotes will be put back into context later in this chapter.
▶ He alluded to the Ediacaran fauna.
A plethora of pre-Cambrian metazoan fossil species was first found in the Ediaca
ra Hills of Australia in 1947. Later, similar discoveries were made in Newfound
land, England, Siberia and South Africa. In honor of the locality where the fir
st discovery was made, these species have come to be known as the Ediacaran faun
a (Strahler [1987] 1999: 402-403).
According to Gish, none of these fossils had any pre-Cambrian precursors. At th
e Bakken (1987) debate, he said:
Now, ladies and gentlemen, no one has found a single ancestor for one of
these creatures. The jellyfish, brachiopods, trilobites, sponges, sea u
rchins, sea cucumbers, whatever, all appear fully formed right at the st
art."
At the Parrish (1991) debate, he said:
Ladies and gentlemen, nowhere on the face of this earth have we found
fossil ancestors for trilobites, sea urchins, sea lilies, or sponges, jellyfish,
worms, plants, snails--not one of those things have been preceded by any
evolutionary ancestors.
At the McKee (2001) debate, he said:
They’ve never found a single ancestor for a single one of these things:
none for the trilobites, none for the clams, none for the snails, none for
brachiopods.
As we shall see, these specimens are believed by some to be ancestors of later t
axons, but believed by others (Gould 1984) to have undergone a mass extinction.
Gish ([1985] 1991: 56-57; 1995b: 37-38; in Saladin 1988; in Stassen 1994a, 1994
b) conveniently ignores the former-mentioned camp and recognizes the latter-ment
ioned camp.
▶ He used the topic to recruit the next generation of Creationists.
Gish (1974) published a comic book entitled Have You Been Brainwashed? which rea
d, "Not a single indisputable multicellular fossil has been found anywhere in th
e world in a rock supposedly older than Cambrian rocks."
Saladin (1988a) regards that as "inexcusable" on the grounds that "These pre-Cam
brian (Prephanerozoic) fossils had already been known for many years by that tim
e." Saladin (1988a) suggests Margulis (1981) for further reading.
According to Stassen (1994a, 1994b), the statement was finally eliminated from t
he comic book by 1994. Stassen comments, "We re making progress! Now if only th
ey would do some science instead of just responding to it."
Now let us hear from the opposition:
■ Cambrian taxons did indeed have pre-Cambrian predecessors.
We can excuse Gish for his claim regarding the sponges (Bakken 1987, Parrish 199
1). That was before King (2005) noted that the choanoflagellate was a protozoa
which resembled an individual sponge cell.
We can also excuse Gish for his claim regarding the trilobites (Bakken 1987, Par
rish 1991, McKee 2001). That was before the Parvancorina minchami (Lin 2003) an
d the Spriggina floundersi (McMenamin 2003), found among the Ediacaran fossils,
were suggested as likely candidates.
Likewise for his claim regarding the jellyfish (Bakken 1987, Parrish 1991). Tha
t was before J.-Y. Chen, Oliveri, Gao et al. (2002) found evidence of "a diverse
and already differentiated cnidarian fauna, long before the Cambrian evolutiona
ry event."
Likewise for his claim regarding the brachiopods (Bakken 1987, McKee 2001). It
was not until 2001 that Morton suggested the Halkieria evangelista as an interme
diary between worms and brachiopods.
As for his claim regarding the entire Plant Kingdom (Parrish 1991), we should gi
ve him a question mark. In was not until 1999 that fellow Creationist Carl R. F
roede, Jr. wrote a very thorough article on the subject. The bibliography in th
at article contains sources dating back to 1966, but we will still give Gish a q
uestion mark.
However, we cannot excuse Gish for his claim regarding the clams (McKee 2001) an
d the snails (Parrish 1991, McKee 2001). Fedonkin & Waggoner (1997) and Monaste
rsky (1997) had already seen the resemblance between the Kimberella and the Camb
rian molluscs.
We can deal with sea cucumbers (Bakken 1987), sea urchins (Bakken 1987, Parrish
2001), and sea lilies (Parrish 1991) collectively, These are all echinoderms, m
eaning that they have "prickly skin." Animals of this phylum do not fossilize v
ery easily, since they do not contain very much calcium carbonate. All the same
, Gehling (1987) suggested that the Arkarua, found among the Ediacaran fossils,
was a precursor for these creatures.
Gish s claim regarding worms (Parrish 1991) ignores a mass of evidence (Glaessne
r 1976, 1979; Crimes 1978, 1992; Jenkins 1978; Gehling 1991).
Morton (2001) reviews the research on pre-Cambrian and Cambrian evolution and su
mmarizes with the following diagram:
For further reading, Trott (1994b) suggests Strahler (1987) and Runnegar & Fedon
kin (1992). Zindler (1990) suggests Conway Morris (1989).
■ These pre-Cambrian predecessors included multicellular taxons.
According to Collins (1994), 11 of 32 metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian,
1 appears in pre-Cambrian times, 8 after the Cambrian Period, and 12 have no fo
ssil record.
Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 mya appears in the Doushan
tuo Formation in China (Chen, J.-Y.; Oliveri, Li et al. 2000, Chen, J.-Y., Bottj
er et al. 2004; cf. Stokstad 2004).
Cnidarians (anemones, corals, and jellyfish) and sponges were among the phyla wh
ich appeared before the Cambrian Period (Isaak [2005] 2007: 128). Molluscs have
been found in rock dated 555 mya (Martin et al. 2000) and worms dated more than
1200 mya (Rasmussen et al. 2002).
■ Let s put Axelrod back in context.
If we read the article by Axelrod (1958) even as far as the subtitle, we see tha
t “A new hypothesis that can in some measure be tested explains its origins in t
erms of coastal sites."
Further in the article, we see two suggestions made by the author: One is that t
he taxons might have evolved on a higher level which was not a sedimentary level
hospitable for fossilizing. The other is that the taxons might have evolved on
a level which was subsequently subjected to tectonic activity or a volcano erup
tion.
Axelrod suggested a careful exploration of the coastline, which he admits would
be difficult.
■ Let s put Dawkins back in context.
Dawkins (2009) has devised a formula which he calls the Quote Mining Index. To
work this formula, count the number of times an out-of-context quote appears in
the search engine on the Internet. Then divide by the number of times the quote
appears in its proper context.
In the case of Dawkins own quote cited above, we need the following two sentenc
es (Dawkins [1986] 1996: 229-230) to put the quote back into context:
Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does rep
resent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fa
ct that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about
600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had
only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize.
At the time of Dawkins tally, the quote appeared 1250 times without the above t
wo sentences and 63 with the above sentences. So Dawkins (2009) congratulates t
he Creationists for achieving a QMI score of 19.8.
Like Dawkins, Isaak ([2005] 2007: 130) calls attention to the shells and teeth w
hich made their first appearance at about this time.
Eldredge (1982: 130) likewise argues that "the intermediates had to have been so
ft-bodied, and thus extremely unlikely to become fossilized." Gish (1993: 119),
however, sees this as "simple impossible" on the grounds that "the anatomy, the
physiology, the very way of life of an invertebrate with hard parts is intimate
ly intertwined with and dependent on those hard parts."
Gould (1977a: 122) recognizes this problem. Although not agreeing that such a c
hange would be "simply impossible," Gould wrote that "a clam without a shell is
not a viable animal; you cannot clothe any simple soft-bodied organism to make o
ne." Gould concluded that a "truly rapid evolution" was necessary.
What caused the appearance of hard parts? Morton (2001) offers four possibiliti
es:
● The detox theory states that "organisms, in their attempts to rid them
selves of phosphorous, deposited it in external shells."
● The biochemical locomotor theory states that "skeletons allowed animal
s to move more rapidly and thus provided the selective pressure to favor
skeletal development."
● The predation theory states that "the rise of predation provided a
selective pressure in favor of defensive protection."
● The biogeographic theory attributes the changes to "geologic changes
that occurred during the last stage of the pre-Cambrian.
■ There are other explanations for the diversification.
Here are some plausible explanations for why diversification may have been relat
ively sudden:
● Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil anima
ls smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, 40 to
45 million years before the Cambrian (Chen, J.-Y., Bottjer et al. 2004). M
uch of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.
● The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Camb
rian Period (Hoffman 1998; Kerr 1998, 2000). A "snowball earth" before the Camb
rian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept population
s down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favo
rable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life
to evolve into.
● Hox genes, which control much of an animal s basic body plan, were
likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might
have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify (Carroll,
R. L. 1997).
● Atmospheric oxygen may have increased at the start of the Cambrian
Period (Canfield & Teske 1996; Logan et al. 1995; Thomas 1997; cf. Knoll
1996; Walter 1995).
● Planktonic grazers began producing fecal pellets that fell to the bott
om of the ocean rapidly, profoundly changing the ocean state, especially it
s oxygenation (Logan et al. 1995).
● Unusual amounts of phosphate were deposited in shallow seas at the
start of the Cambrian Period (Cook, P. J. & Shergold 1986; Lipps & Signor
1992).
Stanley (1973) suggested the cropping principle. He argued that seeding a pastu
re with grass would temporarily prevent the appearance of weeds, but this effect
will be reversed by sheep grazing and pulling up the grass by the roots. Apply
ing this principle to the Cambrian explosion, he argues that algae and bacteria
dominated the environment for the past billions of years, but this was changed b
y the introduction of new species which fed on this algae and bacteria.
Gould (1977a: 123) supports this hypothesis on the grounds that such events have
occurred in algal environments today. Strahler ([1987] 1999: 404) therefore co
ncludes that Stanley s contribution "is not an ad hoc hypothesis simply dreamed
up to explain away the Cambrian explosion. "
Gould (1977a: 126-133) offers another theory, which he calls the sigmoid fraud.
When a population is introduced, the population begins increasing geometrical
ly (1, 2, 4, 8, or 1, 3, 9, 27). These small numbers at first create a slight
increase, known as a lag phase. However, the population figures suddenly jump,
thereby creating what is known as a log phase. The population eventually reaches
its capacity, thereby resulting in a decreasing margin. This procedure, if plo
tted on a chart with time on the horizontal axis and population on the vertical
axis, results in an S-shape known as a sigmoid.
Gould suggests that a lag phase took place in pre-Cambrian times and a log phase
took place in Cambrian times.
■ If the Ediacaran fauna were really pre-Cambrian, then the Cambrian explosion w
as not the creation of all taxons.
Gish ([1985] 1991: 57) performs a Kitcher V by pretending that the Ediacaran fau
na bears no resemblance to Cambrian life. Rather, he would probably have us bel
ieve that the Ediacarans all got killed in a disaster before the Cambrian explos
ion,
If we believe Gish, then the pre-Cambrian taxons were created in pre-Cambrian ti
mes and the Cambrian taxons were created in Cambrian times.
Gish ([1972] 1976: 25) seldom alludes to the Book of Genesis, but here he says:
During the creation week God created all of these basic animal and plant
kinds, and since then no new kinds have come into being, for the Bible
speaks of a finished creation (Gen. 2:2). The variation that has occurred
since the end of the creative work of God has been limited to changes within k
inds.
Okay, so some of the basic kinds appeared in Cambrian times. Where are the othe
rs (Saladin 1988a)? What about the entire Plant Kingdom, which did not appear u
ntil long afterward (Brown, K. S. 1999)?
Zindler (1990) has this comment to make:
According to the biblical account, we should have all the fossils of eve
rything right at the beginning of the fossil record. We should have not
only trilobites but snails and puppy dog s tails, and everything from fish to
Gish . . . So actually the fossil record very beautifully wipes out the Bible.
As for the animals which appeared at that time, they were a far cry from what No
ah took on the Ark. According to Isaak ([2005] 2007: 128; cf. Budd & Jensen 20
00). almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as ma
mmals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fis
h that appeared in the Cambrian were unlike any fish alive today.
On the contrary, jawed fish appeared 170 million years later in the Silurian Per
iod, ferns and amphibians appear 20 million years later in the Devonian Period,
flowering plants appeared 90 million years later in the Cretaceous Period, mamma
ls appeared 170 million years later in the Jurassic Period, and hominoids appear
ed only 3 or 4 million years ago (Saladin 1988a).
For further study on this question, Saladin (1988b) refers the reader to Kaveski
& Margulis (1983).
■ The Cambrian explosion has not been the only explosion.
An explosion of the took place in the Plant Kingdom in the Devonian Period (Cowe
n 2002), but we never hear of a "Devonian explosion."
A. I. Miller (1997) speaks of a similar event in the Ordovician Period, but we n
ever hear of an "Ordovician explosion."
■ The Cambrian explosion wasn t really an explosion.
Gish ([1972] 1976: 24) defines creation as "the bringing into being of the basic
kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation describ
ed in the first two chapters of Genesis."
The Cambrian explosion was not a creation, then. According to Genesis 1:11-31,
it all happened in 6 days, whereas most estimates of this so-called explosion ha
ve fallen between 5 to 10 million years (Isaak [2005] 2007: 128-129). Even if w
e offer Gish the benefit of the doubt and go with the 5 million figure, that wil
l still be a far cry from 6 days.
■ The notion of the Cambrian explosion does not support Young Earth Creationism.
Mainstream science maintains that the Cambrian explosion took place 570-505 mill
ion years ago, whereas Gish maintains that the earth is only 10,000 years old (Z
indler 1990).
In order to maintain that the Cambrian explosion was the creation of life on ear
th, Gish asks us to believe that mainstream dating techniques are invalid. That
is a whole new topic.
■ The notion of the Cambrian explosion does not support Flood geology.
Is the geological column is valid as a record of prehistory? Or is it a series
of layers deposited by the Flood? If the first answer is yes, then the chronolo
gical hypothesis is true. If the second answer is yes, then the Deluvian hypoth
esis is true.
According to the Deluvian hypothesis, the so-called Cambrian and pre-Cambrian ta
xons are not the earliest taxons, but rather the first forms deposited by the Fl
ood. Gish ([1972] 1976: 40-41, [1985] 1991: 50-51, [1992] 1996: 70-75, 1995b: 5
6) supports this hypothesis. So why is he advancing an argument which stipulate
s the chronological hypothesis?
Perhaps he is not accepting that chronological hypothesis, but merely pointing o
ut alleged internal inconsistencies between that hypothesis and other Evolutiona
ry claims. He does this occasionally. At the Bakken (1987) debate, he began on
e of his arguments with the words "Let s just make all of those assumptions, mak
e the assumptions of the basic evolutionary model, and see what the evidence rea
lly is."
Or perhaps he regards Evolutionary theory as evil, and therefore any argument op
posing Evolutionary theory as good. Elsewhere, we see Gish basing one argument
on the premise that the australopithecines walked upright and another argument o
n the premise that they did not walk upright, and using whichever argument was m
ore convenient at the moment (Trott 1994b).
■ Gish is not clear on what his case is supposed to prove.
After all this research, I still don t understand what Gish s point is. He neve
r says that the Cambrian explosion was supposed to be the Creation. Is that his
point?
Only Gish can speak for Gish. Checking with other Creationists is only the seco
nd best route, but it is the only route we have left.
Hoyt (2001) says that "practically nothing" is found in lower layers, that "virt
ually every phyla known to man" is found in the Cambrian layer. If we assume t
hese premises to be true, and if we discard the premise that Flood geology is tr
ue, then we can infer that the Cambrian explosion was the Creation.
The Cambrian explosion can be interpreted as the Creation if you deny, as Creati
onWiki (2008) does, that the fossil records "show simplest life forms at the bot
tom, and a slow upward chain of complexity building upwards." (CreationWiki 200
8) Apparently, this source maintains that all of the taxons living today are fo
und in the Cambrian layer.
Paul Chien, chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisc
o (quoted in Telling the Truth Project [1995] 2002) relates the Explosion with t
he fifth day of Creation, when God created "all the creatures teeming in the oce
ans."
Chien argues that more phyla could be found in the Cambrian layer than can be fo
und in the world today. He sees this as disproving Evolution, if one defines Ev
olution as a trend toward greater diversity.
Chien also regards the Cambrian Period as the first occurrence of marine animal
life. He validates this statement by defining the word animal to exclude microo
rganisms. Like Gish, he argues that many of the Cambrian animals resemble their
descendents living today. Chien denies that any other life forms have appeared
since that time. The Cambrian Explosion might be a valid argument for Creationi
sm if you accept all of Chien s premises.
Although the above Websites use false or dubious premises, at least they draw co
nclusions which follow from those premises.
Meyer (2004) scored a historical first by becoming the first Intelligent Design
advocate to publish in a mainstream scientific journal. In this article, he arg
ued that the Cambrian life forms lacked transitional fossils, and that Evolution
could not account for the sudden outburst of complex genes and proteins. Gish
seems to agree with these premises, but we are still a long way from proving tha
t Creation took place at that time.
For more information on the Cambrian explosion, Saladin (1988a) recommends Cloud
& Glaessner (1982). Zindler (1990) recommends Gould (1989).
from invertebrate to fish
(Paleozoic Era: Cambrian to Silurian Periods)
The evolution of the fish class is especially important. Since the fish was the
first vertebrate, that crucial spot marks the transition from invertebrate to v
ertebrate. For those who are defending themselves against the notion of human e
volution, the entire question can hinge on this one topic.
That is why Gish hammers on this topic. Here is one of Gish s statements from t
he Zindler (1990) debate:
There s absolutely no doubt, we have not a shred, not a trace of an ance
stor for any of the fishes which are supposed to have been the first vertebra
te. Now that is powerful, positive evidence for creation.
Likewise, in his debate with Trott (1994b) and in his debate on Access Research
Network (1999) Gish orated on the "billions times billions of fossil invertebrat
es" "billions of fossil fishes" which have been found, whereas "billions" of tra
nsitional fossils should also be available (cf. Gish [1972] 1976: 48; 1994).
Gish (1993: 128) claims to have searched the Evolutionary literature in vain for
information on the origin of the Fish class. Gish ([1972] 1976: 48-51) quotes
Romer (1966: 15, 16, 24, 33, 52, 53) as saying that there are no ancestors for t
he fish.
Gish (1973a; [1972] 1976: 48; [1985] 1991: 65-66) also quotes Ommaney (1964) as
alleging a hundred-million-year gap between the Cambrian and Ordovician Periods.
As brilliantly as he speaks, Evolutionists still respond. Here is what they say
:
■ Invertebrates are less likely to leave fossils.
Zindler (1990) notes that "soft-bodied animals are rarely fossilized." Trott (1
994b) asks, "If fish only fossilize under specialized circumstances, does it su
rprise anyone (besides Gish) that the fossil record for aquatic invertebrates wi
th no hard parts is even more sparse and erratic?"
■ Gish ignored a wealth of information.

Strahler (1987: 405-406; [1987] 1999: 405-406) relates what McGowan (1984: 74-78
) has to say about a living species called the amphioxus. This animal is like t
he vertebrates, but it is not a vertebrate. In place of a spinal chord, this an
imal has an organ known as a notochord. This is exactly what appears in the emb
ryo of any vertebrate species.
Saladin (1988b; cf. Zindler 1990) comments that the amphioxus is also very much
like the larva of the lamprey eel. At one time, the lamprey eel larva was confu
sed for a closer relative of the amphioxus. Saladin does not suggest this, but
could the lamprey eel be descended from the amphioxus, and showing this through
ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny?
As far as we know, the fish prehistory is as follows:
Paleozoic Era: Cambrian Period
The cephalochordate, or amphioxus, possessed a flexible notochord rather than ba
ckbone (Zindler 1990).
Paleozoic Era: Cambrian Period
The first jawless fish appeared at this time (Zindler 1990).
Paleozoic Era: Ordovician Period
The bony fish, or vertebrates, appeared at this time (Zindler 1990; Saladin 1988
b). These animals, known as ostracoderms, were small animals with clumsy swimmi
ng ability (Saladin 1988b).
Paleozoic Era: Silurian Period
The first jawed vertebrate appeared at this time. Sharks, skates, rays, and chi
maeras seem to descend from this vertebrate (Zindler 1990).
■ Gish might be indulging in some deceptive word play.
Points are difficult to define in any gradual function. When an airplane goes u
p in the sky, at what point does it reach the sky? When a small child grows big
and tall, at what point does he become big and tall?
The same is true here. Should we draw the line somewhere in the above time line
? Or should we draw it much later, at the appearance of fish as we now know the
m? Saladin (1988b) comments on this problem.
Romer (1966: 15) refers to the earlier forms as "fishlike vertebrates" and carti
logenous fish forms as "orthodox fish types," (Romer 1966: 34) One wonders, the
n, where Gish gets the idea from Romer than fish popped up out of nowhere. Perh
aps Gish is defining fish broadly enough to include the "fishlike vertebrates,"
and then hoping that the listener will think he means only the fish which we kno
w now.
This is not to say that we have every transitional fossil that we need. Zindler
(1990) admits that the evolutionary history of the fish class is not perfectly
smooth, and might suggest multiple creations. If multiple creations took place,
then the Evolutionists are wrong, but so are the Creationists and the French na
turalist Georges Cuvier (1736-1832) was right.
Invertebrates
It seems that the less related a taxon is to humans, the less it interests Creat
ionists. In the eyes of the Creationists, we are God s chosen species. The mos
t important task, then, is to prove that we are not related to other primates.
Next in importance is proving that we are not related to other mammals. Next in
importance is proving that we are not related to other vertebrates. After that
, animals, and after that, living things in general. So invertebrates come way
down on the list of priorities.
Gish makes a few comments about the invertebrates, however. So let us consider
those comments:
▶ from worm to insect
(Paleozoic Period: Cambrian Era)
Gish ([1985] 1991: 61-65) claims that the Insect Class sprang out of nowhere. I
n order to make this claim, Gish has to ignore the onychophoran. This animal re
sembles lobopod worms in some respects and insects in other respects. It has a
thin cuticle, or outer layer, like worms, but breathes through a trachea, or tub
e, like insects. It also has clawed feet like insects. It has a wormlike excre
tory system and an insectlike circulatory system. Its head structure is partway
between the two.
According to McGowan (1984: 73-74), "If an evolutionist had to sit down at a dra
wing-board and invent a hypothetical link between worms and arthropods, he could
not do better than draw an onychophoran."
The most abundant onychophoran living today seems to be the Peripatus, but Conwa
y Morris & Whittington (1979) tell us of a similar animal called the Aysheaia, w
hich is found in the Burgess shale.
If we showed Gish an onychophoran, which way do you think he would shoehorn it--
into the insect class or the lobopod phylum?
▶ from wingless insect to winged insect
(Paleozoic Era: Pennsylvanian Period)
Regarding insects with emerging wings, Gish would have us believe that "There ar
e absolutely no intermediate forms, not even one, between a non-flying insects a
nd a flying insect." (Saladin 1988b)
Entymologists, however, notice that nymphs of winged insects possess flaps in pl
ace of wings. These flaps may have earlier been used for climbing, and indeed,
emerging butterflies use them for that purpose (Young & Kritsky 2002: 55). Sala
din (1988b) refers the interested reader to H. H. Ross (1955) and Kritsky (1987)
.
from fish to amphibian
(Paleozoic Era: Devonian Period)
The alleged evolution out of the fish class is also crucial. This area marks th
e alleged transition from fish to land animals, and we are indeed land animals.
If we are to prove that we are God s chosen species, we must prove that no such
event took place.
According to Colbert (1980: 69-71; cf. Strahler [1987] 1999: 316, 408-411), thou
gh, such an event did take place:
Amphibians evolved from a group of fish called t
he rossopterygian fishes. These were bony fishes, related to lun
gfishes. The pattern of their skull bones is
comparable to that found in early terrestrial vertebrates.
Likewise, the paired fins attached to the pectoral and pelvic
girdles show similarities to the limbs of
early amphibians.
Colbert again, on page 75:
In the postcranial skeleton Ichthyostega showed a strange mixture of fis
h and amphibian characters. The vertebrae had changed but little beyond t
he crossopterygian condition, whereas in the caudal region the fin rays of
the fish tail were retained. In contrast to the primitive vertebrae and the
persistent fish tail, there were strong pectoral and pelvic girdles, with which
were articulated completely developed limbs and feet, quite capable of carry
ing the animal on the ground.
The verdict, then, is first crossopterygian, then ichthyostega, then amphibian.
But this is not enough to convince Gish. Here is Gish s response:
▶ calling for more transitional fossils
Gish (1979: 78-79; cf. 1973a) also asked for a "slow gradual change of the pe
ctoral and pelvic fins of the crossopterygian fish into the feet and legs of the
amphibian, along with loss of other fins, and the accomplishment of other trans
formations required for adaptations to a terrestrial habitat."
Gish (1997) quoted R. L. Carroll (1988: 4) as saying, "We have no intermediate f
ossils between rhipidistian [crossopterygian] fish and early amphibians."
▶ setting the boundary between the crossopterygian and the ichthyostega
In the transition between fish and amphibians, he saw only piscine features in t
he crossopterygian and only the amphibian features in the ichthyostegid (Gish 19
79: 78-79).
▶ announcing that Evolutionists themselves cannot agree
Gish (1997) cited the crossopterygian (Colbert 1980: 69-71; Carroll, R. L. 1988)
, the lungfish (Rosen et al 1981), and the coelacanth (Gorr & Kleinschmidt 1993
) as candidates for the fish/amphibian transition.
Hear that? The Evolutionist are divided! A house divided against itself cannot
stand!
Gish (1972) published an illustration, citing Simpson (1953) as the source. T
he illustration depicted a supposed ancestral species and supposed descendent sp
ecies which, in Gish s opinion, bore no resemblance to each other.
▶ showing an illustration from an Evolutionist source
Gish (1972) published an illustration, citing Simpson (1953) as the source. The
illustration depicted a supposed ancestral species and supposed descendent spec
ies which, in Gish s opinion, bore no resemblance to each other.
■ Gish committed a play on words in his divide-and-conquer ploy.
If you are like most people, you never heard the words crossopterygian, lungfish
, and coelacanth until now. These names all sound different, so you probably as
sume that these are widely different taxons. That is exactly what Gish wants yo
u to think.
That s what I thought, too, until I looked up all three words and found that the
y were three subclasses of the Sarcopterygii, or lobe-finned class. Some disagr
eement!
■ Even other Creationists have not agreed with Gish s taxonomy.
The resemblance between the lobe-fins and the amphibians was obvious even among
Creationists living at the time of Darwin. One such Creationist was Richard Owe
n (1841), who studied these animals and debated whether to call them fish or amp
hibians. He decided to call them fish, but some of his readers insisted on call
ing them amphibians (McGowan 1984: 151).
Now which house is divided!
■ Gish is ignoring the traits which he does not want to see.
Kitcher (1982: 110) counters that "the skull and vertebral differences between c
rossopterygian fishes and ichthyostegids are slight." McGowan (1984: 155-156) n
otes the similarities in the vertebrae between the crossopterygian fish and the
earliest amphibians. Strahler ([1987] 1999: 409-411), also noting the similarit
ies, regards this as improbable as drawing similar bridge hands from two decks o
f cards.
Kitcher (1982: 110) accuses Gish of demanding a gradual transition regarding "on
e set of characters that he has chosen," whereas "Paleontologists think themselv
es lucky to be able to trace the continuous emergence of some characteristics."
If there were a gradual transition regarding pectoral and pelvic fins but no gr
adual transition regarding the skull and vertebrae, Gish would probably turn it
around.
Saladin (1988b) showed Gish the skeletal anatomy of the forelimbs of a ray-finne
d fish, a lobe-finned fish, and a primitive amphibian. Saladin asked Gish which
of the three looked the most different. Gish chose the ray-finned fish, just a
s an Evolutionist would.
■ Gish misrepresented Simpson.
Milne (1991) sent Arthur (1996) a message suggesting that Gish (1972) published
an illustration which misrepresented an illustration published by Simpson (1953)
.
Simpson s illustration was to represent descent of one class from another, but n
ot necessarily of the species shown in the illustration. This is clearly indica
ted in the caption. Gish copied the picture of the crossopterygian, copied the
picture of the late-developing Eryops, and misidentified it as the earlier-devel
oping Ichthyostega.
This resulted in the pairing of a remote ancestor and a remote descendent bearin
g little resemblance with each other, along with a caption implying that one spe
cies evolved directly into the other.
When Arthur (1996) accosted Gish for this misrepresentation, Gish (1997) claimed
that it was an honest mistake. However, he cited Ahlberg & Milner (1994) as a
source and claimed that his mistake did no unfair damage to the Evolutionist pos
ition.
■ Ongoing research is further strengthening the Evolutionist position.
The Devonian (Paleozoic Era) Tiktaalik roseae, or "fishapod," was first discover
ed in 2006. The initial report focussed on the transition from gills to legs.
By 2008, subsequent discoveries have shown that the species was developing a nec
k, thereby rendering the head more mobile. In the water, a fish can change dire
ction more easily than an animal standing on land (Science Daily 2008).
Gish, in his insatiable demand for transitional fossils, must be delighted at th
ose discoveries.
For more information on early amphibian Evolution, Kitcher (1982: 109) directs u
s to Romer (1966: 87-90).
Saint George and the Dinosaur
(Mesozoic Era: Jurassic and Cretaceous Periods)
So you think dragons were just-pretend animals which never really existed? Don
t be too sure. Gish (1977: 50-55; [1992] 1996: 40, 80-84) is here to enlighten
you.
You believe in dinosaurs, don t you? Then you should believe in dragons. It so
happens that "dragon" was nothing more than another name for "dinosaur," and th
e medieval people lived at the same time as dinosaurs.
It is interesting that Gish never expressed this belief in any of his books for
adults (Gish [1972] 1976; [1985] 1991; 1993; 1995), but only in his two children
s books (Gish 1977; [1992] 1996). Moreover, it seems that the subject was neve
r mentioned in his debates (Bakken 1987; Zindler 1990; Parrish 1991; Trott 1994b
) except when his opponents brought it up (Saladin 1988a). Perhaps Gish regard
ed children as innocent and trusting, and therefore felt more comfortable expres
sing such a bizarre belief in front of children.
You think his belief in dragons sounds absurd? Don t be hasty. Let s listen to
his arguments first:
▶ Dragon legends are found all over the world.
Like the Flood myth, dragon myths are found all over the world, so they must be
true (Gish 1977: 51; [1992] 1996: 80-81). Gish ([1992] 1996: 80-81) even tells
the story of Saint George and the Dragon to children, showing with an illustrati
on replacing the dragon with a Baryonyx.
▶ Dragons are mentioned in the Bible.
Gish (1977: 51) reads a description of the leviathan in the Book of Job (41: 18-
21):
By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of
the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out
; Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. H
is breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
Gish infers that the leviathan must have been a dinosaur.
▶ The parasaurolophus might have breathed fire.
The parasaurolophus had a hollow crest on the top of its head. Gish (1977: 50-5
5; [1992] 1996: 82-83) suggests that the crest was used for the storage of combu
stible liquids, thereby rendering the parasaurolophus as the fire-breathing drag
on of folklore.
Gish ([1997] 1988: 50-55; [1992] 1996: 82-83) tells his youthful readers about b
ombardier beetles, who spray enemies and predators with unsavory chemicals. If
beetles can do it, dinosaurs can do it.
▶ Mass burials of dinosaurs have been found.
For some reason, any mass burial of dinosaurs proves that the Deluge took place.
This is how he explains a discovery of iguanodons found in 1877 in a Belgian c
oal mine (Gish 1977: 45; [1992] 1996: 25) and a mass burial of allosaurs found i
n Utah in 1940 (Gish ([1992] 1996: 48).
If that is not enough to convince you, duckbill dinosaurs with skin preserved we
re "buried so quickly that their flesh did not have time to decay before they we
re completely buried in mud" (Gish [1992] 1996: 39).
▶ The dinosaurs could fit on the Ark.
Was God so merciless as to kill all the dinosaurs in the Flood? Not at all. Ra
ther, Noah took two of each as shipmates (Gish [1992] 1996: 76; cf. [1977] 1988:
57, 59, 61)! A total of how many dinosaurs, then, did Noah take? Did he take t
wo of each species? If he did, then he probably had to take not only two Tricer
atops, but two of each of the Triceratops forerunners which we met in the last c
hapter. So that makes two Psittacosauri, two Protoceratops, and two Monoclonii.

No, wait a minute: We must not forget about kinds. Maybe the entire group of di
nosaurs were all one kind. In which case, Noah and his crew had to take only on
e pair of dinosaurs on the Ark. In that case, the dinosaurs split into 330 spec
ies after the Flood, along with the 850 bats and 28,000 worms,
▶ The dinosaurs have gone extinct after the Flood.
Gish ([1992] 1996: 76; cf. [1977] 1988: 57, 59, 61) wrote: "We believe that all
of the dinosaurs may have died out after the Flood because of the many great cha
nges that took place on the earth as a result of that flood."
That means that Noah and Associates took dinosaurs onto their Ark, took an enorm
ous supply of food to feed those dinosaurs, and took the enormous responsibility
of caring for and cleaning up after those dinosaurs, only to have the whole lot
of them go defunct.
▶ Possible human footprints have been found alongside dinosaur footprints.
It would be unfair to cite this as one of Gish s arguments because Gish isn t su
re. However, he does suggest this argument as a possibility.
In Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards (1977: 15), he tells of suspected human foo
tprints found next to dinosaur footprints and then comments, "Are there human fo
otprints and dinosaur footprints together in the Paluxy River bottom? We don t
know. We will not be able to say absolutely sure one way or the other until mor
e work is done."
Now to hear from the Evolutionists:
■ There is little resemblance between beetles and dinosaurs.
In response to the notion of dinosaurs breathing fire, Saladin (1988a) comments,
 "Kinda shows dinosaurs weren t as cold-blooded as we thought. Now the caliber
of scientific intellect behind this just fills me with awe."
■ The parasaurolophus crest is already accounted for.
Phelps (1994) cites a hypothesis by Weishampel (1981) that the parasaurolophus c
rest functioned as an acoustic resonator and as a display structure. For some r
eason, Gish acknowledges this view in the earlier book (1977: 30), but not in th
e later book ([1992] 1996: 82-83).
■ The iguanodons were found on four different layers.
Phelps (1994) wishes to consider the observation of Norman (1987) that the iguan
odon fossils were found in at least four depositional layers, and hence showed n
o sign of a catastrophe.
■ The allosaurs showed signs that they were not drowned in the Flood.
Phelps (1994) wishes to consider findings by Molnar & Farlow (1990: 211-212) th
at the allosaur specimens were scattered, showed signs of decay, showed signs of
scavenging, and were found . This indicates that they were deposed in "a shall
ow, quiet, freshwater body," and therefore could not have drowned in the Flood.
■ The duckbill dinosaurs underwent considerable decay before burial.
Phelps (1994) wishes to consider this finding by Lull & Wright (1942: 110-117, p
lates 7, 8, and 9) and Bakker (1986: 146-159).
■ Sediment caused the appearance of a human footprint in Paluxy River.
According to paleontologist Glen Kuban (1986), the most thorough investigations
find that the dinosaur tracks were made by dinosaurs possessing metatarsal bones
, or bones extending from the heel to each toe. Erosion, sediment, and mud coul
d cause such footprints to resemble human footprints.
In the case of the Paluxy footprints, sediment happens to be the culprit. When
the sediment is cleaned out, a three-toed impression appears. Moreover, the imp
ression compares in color and texture to the soil in which the footprint is loca
ted, whereas the sediment does not.
In 1986, Kuban invited the Institute for Creation Research to the site and the g
roup accepted the invitation. As a result, ICR published an article admitting t
hat "none of the four trails at the Taylor Site can be today regarded as unquest
ionably human."
Gish s plea for "more work" appeared in the 1988 edition of his book, two years
after ICR s rendezvous with Kuban. One wonders, then, what sort of work he had
in mind.
■ Dinosaurs and hominids are found in different layers.
Paleontologist Roger Lewin (1990) announces that 2100 dinosaur fossils have been
found, presumably all in Mesozoic rock. Marvin Lubenow, in his book Bones of Co
ntention (1992), announces that 4000 hominid fossil have been found, presumably
all in early Cenozoic rock.
So that s:
0 Mesozoic cavemen
2100 Mesozoic dinosaurs
4000 Cenozoic cavemen
0 Cenozoic dinosaurs
Consider the following statistics:
The dinosaurs lived in Mesozoic times, for 160 million years.
Our first discernible ancestors, the australopithecines, lived in Cenozoic times
, 3 million years ago.
So if dinosaurs and cavemen lived at the same time, we should find:
3926 Mesozoic cavemen
2061 Mesozoic dinosaurs
74 Cenozoic cavemen
39 Cenozoic dinosaurs
If cavemen and dinosaurs lived at the same time, the chances against the first t
ally would be 220,000,000,000,000,000 to 1.
Why, then, do archaeologists only announce finds of Mesozoic dinosaurs and Cenoz
oic cavemen? Do you suppose that those archaeologists are hiding those Mesozoic
humanoid fossils and Cenozoic dinosaur fossils in a secret warehouse someplace,
just to push their pet dogma?
Or do you suppose that the Flintstones pet dinosaur was only a fictional charac
ter?
from reptile to bird
(Mesozoic Era: Jurassic Period)
Now and then, a kind soul tries to reconcile Creationism with Evolutionism, ther
eby resolving the fight. Instead of the six days which the Creationist might ba
rgain for, or the billions of years which the Evolutionist might bargain for, th
e peacekeeper might offer "figurative days."
The peacekeeper might suggest a compromise. Instead of putting an Intelligent D
esigner in control of the whole operation (as the Creationist might request) or
relegating God to Sunday School class (as the Evolutionist might request) the pe
acekeeper might say that God turned the machine on and let it run.
But doesn t the Bible say that God created all the current life forms? Yes, it
does. But let us define "create" to mean that God set Evolution in motion in suc
h a way as to destine all the current life forms.
With this license in hand, we should all be able to go to church on Sunday and g
o to science class on week days. There is one more complication, however: Genes
is tells us what order God created the phyla. In order for the two views to be
reconciled, it would have to be the same order that they are found in the Geolog
ic Column.
Such is not the case. According to the Bible, God created "every winged fowl af
ter his kind" on the fifth day (Genesis 1:21) and every "beast of the earth aft
er his kind“ on the sixth day (Genesis 1:25).
Evolutionary scientists, on the other hand, tell us that birds are descended fro
m reptiles. If this is true, then the "beast of the earth" antedated the "winge
d fowl."
Where did scientists get this idea? Let s have a history lesson and find out.
The first fossil considered to be a transition from reptile to bird was discove
red in Germany in 1861. This creature resembled the dinosaurs so closely that o
ne specimen was originally mistaken for a Compsognathus (Wellnhofer 1988). The
fossil was given the name Archaeopteryx, or "ancient wing."
In response to this find, Thomas Henry Huxley (1868) noticed a resemblance betwe
en birds and theropods, or carnivorous dinosaurs which walked on their hind legs
.
Scientists since then have agreed with Huxley. Romer (1966: 166-167) described
the skull as "birdlike, with an expanded braincase." However, Romer mentions re
ptilian characteristics such as "well-developed teeth" and three fingers which "
were very similar to those of the carnivorous dinosaurs."
In 1969, Ostrom published a widely recognized study of the Deinonychus, which wa
s a member of the theropod group. This study confirmed Huxley s observation. I
n 1970 and 1985, Ostrom published two more studies specifically on the Archaeopt
eryx.
Colbert (1980: 183) commented on the reptilian skeleton and the "typical bird fe
athers."
McGowan (1984: 111-112, 115) noted a resemblance between dinosaur skeletons and
bird skeletons in general. He calls attention to the three-toed foot, the metat
arsals, the shinbone, the tibia, the fibula, and the pelvis. The similarities a
re so strong, in fact, that some paleontologists have suggested grouping birds a
nd dinosaurs together.
Gish, however, is not impressed. Here is Gish s reaction:
▶ quoting Gould & Eldredge
Gish ([1985] 1991: 115; 1993: 136; 1995b: 42) quoted Gould & Eldredge (1977):
At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphologic
al designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the "o
fficial" position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Ba
uplane are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments: there is
certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Ar
chaeopteryx do not count).
Just so you don t get stumped on the terminology, Gish defines Bauplane as "basi
c morphological designs or basically different types of creatures" (Gish [1985]
1991: 115) or the German plural form of "basic building plan, or basic morpholog
ical design." (Gish 1993: 136)
Blackburn (1995) defines mosaic as a "combination of ancestral and derived featu
res." That is certainly what we have here.
From this quote, Gish (1981: ii, cf. [1985] 1991: 115; cf. 1993: 137) infers, "G
ould and Eldredge exclude Archaeopteryx as a transitional form, calling it a str
ange mosaic which doesn t count as a transitional form."
Gish brings up the platypus, since it is a well-known mammal/reptile schizoid, h
e calls it "a creature that could not possibly be the ancestor or descendant of
any other creature." (Gish [1985] 1991:114) According to Gish, "no evolutionis
t has the faintest idea where to place that creature in any evolutionary scheme.
" (Gish 1995b: 42)
▶ proposing linear evolution
Gish ([1985] 1991: 116; 1995b: 42) cites a finding of bird fossils dating from J
urassic times, in which the Archeopteryx also lived, which James Jensen (1981) c
alls the Palaeopteryx.
Gish (1993: 132-133; 1994; 1995b: 42-43; Saladin 1988b; Parrish 1991; Trott 1994
b) also cites a finding of a bird older than Archeopteryx, which Chatterjee (199
1) calls the Protoavis.
Gish ([1985] 1991: 116) responds that "Evolutionists have long maintained that c
ontemporaries could not have an ancestor-descendant relationship."
▶ concentrating on the bird features and ignoring the reptilian features
True to pattern, Gish commits a Kitcher V, forcing the specimen into one categor
y or the other. In this case, he concentrates on the bird features and ignores
the reptile features. He cites "the avian wing, perching feet, a skull totally
birdlike, a furcula, or wishbone, and other features of a bird" as avian charact
eristics (Gish 1994; cf. 1979: 90; [1992] 1996: 66-67; [1972] 1976: 60-64; 1985
[1991]: 103, 110-111; 132-133, 136, 298; cf. Lubenow 1983: 47-53; cf. Saladin 19
88b; cf. Parrish 1991).
As for the teeth, Gish (n. d. 1) cites L. D. Martin, Stewart, & Whetstone (1980)
for dissimilarities between the teeth of the Archaeopteryx and that of the ther
opods.
As for the ear region of the skull, Gish (n. d. 1) cites Walker (1985) as claimi
ng that Archie s ear region is similar to that of modern birds and that previous
studies were mistaken.
▶ mining another quote
Gish (1995a: 110) quotes Beddard (1898) as designating feathers as a uniquely av
ian feature: "A bird may be known by its feathers; to define a bird it is only n
ecessary to refer to its covering of feathers. No other animal has any structur
es comparable to a well developed feather."
Gish has the game fixed so that no one can find a fossil lying on the cusp betwe
en a bird and any other class. After all, any fossil does or does not have feat
hers, so there can be no grey area (McGowan 1984: 125-126).
▶ moving the goalposts
Gish was not satisfied because evolving feathers do not appear in the fossil rec
ord (Gish [1972] 1976: 62; [1985] 1991: 112; 1993: 298-299; Grocott [2002] 2008)
. He asked for a specimen with "part-way wings or part-way feathers." (Gish 197
3a; 1995a: 110)
▶ challenging Evolutionists to explain how dinosaurs ever got off the ground
Gish ([1985] 1991: 103) quotes E. C. Olsen (1965: 181) as writing:
True flight is first recorded among the reptiles by the pterosaurs in th
e Jurassic Period. Although the earliest of these were rather less specia
lized for flight than the later ones, there is absolutely no sign of intermedi
ate stages.
▶ trying the divide-and-conquer strategy
Gish (n. d. 1) cited Tarsitano & Hecht (1980) for disagreeing with Ostrom, who s
aw a resemblance between Archie and the theropods..
Gish (n. d. 3: 15-16) also quoted A. H. Brush (1996) and a more recent research
team from the University of North Carolina (Feduccia, Lingham-Soliar & Hinchliff
e 2005) who said that bird feathers and reptilian scales differ chemically to th
e extent that one cannot be derived from the other. The same team (Feduccia 199
3; Feduccia, Lingham-Soliar & Hinchliffe 2005) also sees too much difference in
theropod and Archaeopteryx claw structure.
The same team (Lingham-Soliar, Feduccia & Wang 2007) has examined a theropod spe
cimen known as the Sinosauropteryx, which supposedly had features which were on
the cusp between scales and feathers. The team concluded that the supposed feat
ures consisted merely of collagen, or a chemical common in skin and bone.
Gish (n. d. 3: 16) sees this disagreement as grounds that "a sharp controversy h
as raged between evolutionary paleontologists and evolutionary ornithologists."
Now for the other side:
■ Gish is asking for an impossible intermediate.
What would "part-way wings" or "part-way feathers" look like? Blackburn (1995)
asks if the Creationists want the Archaeopteryx to "lay partial eggs and hatch o
ut partial chicks."
Cracraft (1983) might say that Gish is working one of the Creationists familiar
tricks by "[defining] the concept of "transitional form" in a way that is disti
nctly different from the evolutionists use of the term."
■ Ancestors and descendants can live at the same time.
Gish ([1985] 1991: 116) wrote, "Evolutionists have long maintained that contempo
raries could not have an ancestor-descendant relationship." But who was he was r
eferring to? Certainly not Strahler ([1987] 1999: 423): "In a branching hierarc
hical system an intermediate and one of its descendants can coexist in the same
time plane, along with descendants of the common ancestor of both of them."
■ Jensen later recanted his claim.
Although Jensen (1981), the finder of the Palaeopteryx, initially claimed to hav
e found the world s oldest bird, he later expressed doubts (Jensen & Padian 1989
). The initial finding consisted of only a bone fragment. Although it was foun
d in Jurassic soil, it was found in later soil than that of the Archaeopteryx.
In his later writing, Jensen identified his find at that of an animal related to
the Archaeopteryx.
■ The Protoavis and the Archeopteryx were found in two different locations.
The Protoavis was found in Texas (Chatterjee 1991) and the Archeopteryx was foun
d in Germany. The Protoavis might not have had time to disseminate as far as Ge
rmany and would probably not drive the Archeopteryx out of business even if it h
ad disseminated that far.
■ The Protoavis fossil is too fragmentary.
Some observers (Beardsley 1986; Monastersky 1991) say that the Protoavis is too
fragmentary for a positive identification as a bird.
Yet Gish ridicules those who identified the Nebraska Man on the basis of one too
th. Tu quoque!
■ The platypus is not the mystery that Gish would have us believe that it is.
The platypus lays eggs, just like reptiles and unlike most other mammals. Howev
er, the platypus gives milk to its newborn, just like all other mammals and unli
ke reptiles.
As we shall see in a later chapter, the mammals branched off from the reptiles a
bout 300 million years ago, according to most Evolutionists. Does it take a gen
ius, then, to suggest that the ancestors of the platypus split off at this time,
but did not evolve as far as most of the other species which split off?
This is exactly what Colbert (1980: 256) suspected, and this is exactly what War
ren et al. (2008) confirmed in an genome analysis. (See Norris 2008 for a revie
w in layman terminology.)
■ Feathers on fossils are difficult to find.
According to McGowan (1984: 119), we only have the largest feathers intact on an
y of the existent fossils, and on two of those fossils, the feather impressions
are so faint that the fossils were originally classified as reptiles.
■ Gish was quoting Beddard (1898) out of context.
Gish conveniently cuts Beddard (1898) off before he says that birds have "a nea
rer kinship with the dinosaurs than with any other group of reptiles." On page
532, Beddard summarizes characteristics whereby the Archaeopteryx differs from o
ther avian species (Nedin [1995] 1997).
■ Gish was quoting Brush (1996) out of context.
Although Brush (1996) does indeed reject reptilian scales as the origin of feath
ers, he assuredly does not rule out reptilian origins for birds. Gish (n. d. 3:
15) conveniently omits the fact that Brush, in the same article, suggests scute
s as an alternative. This term refers to bony or horny plates, as on turtles an
d armadillos. Like scales, these were possessed by dinosaurs and could well hav
e served as origins for feathers. The birds could have inherited this trait eit
her from the dinosaurs or from a common ancestor.
■ Gish was quoting Tarsitano & Hecht (1980) out of context.
Contrary to what Gish would have us believe, Tarsitano & Hecht (1980) never sugg
ested that the Archaeopteryx was created out of thin air. Rather, they contended
that it was descended from a dinosaur predecessor known as the thecodont.
■ The paleontologists and ornithologists aren t going to kill each other.
Gish tells us that the UNC team does not believe that birds are descended from t
herapods. What Gish does not tell us is that they believe that birds are descen
ded from some other reptile.
In a press release (Williamson 2005), Feduccia said, "We all agree that birds an
d dinosaurs had some reptilian ancestors in common."
In the abstract from the journal article (Feduccia, Lingham-Soliar, & Hinchliffe
2005), one reads:
Although there is general agreement that birds are related to theropod
dinosaurs at some level, debate centers on whether birds are derived directly fr
om highly derived theropods, the current dogma, or from an earlier common ancest
or lacking suites of derived anatomical characters.
Neither of these quotes appear in the article by Gish (n. d. 3: 16).
In response to Gish s article, Feduccia (2009) commented, "The creationists misq
uote everyone, but with such devious motives what do they care?"
■ Gish was misquoting Walker (1985).
Gish (n. d. 1) quoted Walker (1985) as identifying the ear region of Archie s sk
ull as similar to that of a modern bird. Walker, in fact, wrote that "The otic
capsule details, as far as can be observed, correspond exactly to the expected,
primitive pattern."
■ If Gish wants a fossil with transitional feathers, he s found one.
The Sinosauropteryx, shows strong evidence of being a feathered dinosaur (Grocot
t [2002] 2008). According to Grocott ([2002] 2008; cf. McGowan 1984: 117, 125),
the Sinosauropteryx developed feathers not out of a desire to fly, but to keep
warm.
Gish mentioned the Sinosauropteryx in one of his writings (Gish n. d. 3: 16-17),
but seldom mentioned either in any other of his other writings, thereby pulling
a Cracraft III.
■ If Gish wants a fossil with transitional flying capability, he s found one.
From the earliest research (Feduccia & Tordoff 1979) until the latest research (
Senter 2006), it has been agreed that Archy was capable only of gliding. Augray
(2008) offers a technical discussion on the subject.
■ If Gish wants a fossil with transitional claws, he s found one.
Many scientists have puzzled over the difference between the claws on the therop
ods and those on birds living today. The theropods had digits 1, 2, and 3, or d
igits corresponding to the thumb, index, and middle fingers of our species. Bir
ds living today, however, have digits 2, 3, and 4, or digits corresponding to th
e index, middle, and ring fingers of our species. The concern expressed by Gish
s sources (Feduccia 1993; Feduccia, Lingham-Soliar & Hinchliffe 2005), then, ha
s indeed been a common concern.
Other scientists, whom Gish prefers not to quote, have expressed greater content
ment. According to Pennisi (2005), molecular studies have found a resemblance b
etween the digits of bird wings and those of theropod forelimbs.
Recent research has also shown that the hallux, or the toe on the foot of perchi
ng birds, was in an intermediate position in the Archaeopteryx. Augray (2008) ci
tes Middleton (2003) and Mayr, Pohl & Peters (2005) and Middleton (2003) as sour
ces.
Even more recently, an alleged missing link has been found. About 155 million y
ears ago, or 10 million years after the tyrannosaurus and 5 million years before
Archie, a theropod fell into a mud pool in western China and could not escape.
There the hapless fellow remained until 2009, when it was discovered by Xu, Cla
rk et al. The team named it Limusaurus inextricabilis, or "dinosaur which cann
ot get out of the mire."
This creature had a vestigial, or greatly reduced first digit and an emerging fo
urth digit. This indicated that it could be an intermediate between the early t
heropods and the birds. (Xu, Clark et al. 2009. See Discovery Communications 20
10 for an explanation in layman terminology.)
■ If Gish wants a transitional fossil between Archaeopteryx and the modern birds
, he s found one.
This is how Milner (1993) sees the Mononychus.
■ Regarding penguin evolution, Gish was working a suppressi veri.
Gish makes no mention of penguins, which, according to McGowan (1984: 119-121),
have feathers, scales, and all gradients in between. According to McGowan, thes
e feathers and the scales are chemically the same, which suggests that avian fea
thers are derived from reptilian scales.
You have heard the question posed by Creationists, "What good is half an eye?"
If one were to ask McGowan (1984: 125) "What good is half a feather?" he might h
ave a ready answer.
Augray (2008) cites other sources on feather evolution (Regal 1975; Chen P.-J.,
Dong, & Zheng 1998; Prum 1999; Schweitzer et al. 1999; Xu, Tang, & Wang 1999; Xu
, Zhou, & Prum 2001).
■ Gish is making a deceptive word play.
One can just as easily say that anything with scales is a full-fledged, bona fid
e reptile. If we pair this with the statement that anything with feathers is a
full-fledged, bona fide bird, then an organism cannot have both feathers and sca
les. That would make the penguin family impossible.
■ Gish was ready with his trusty shoehorn.
True to pattern, Gish only looked at those features which place a fossil in one
category and swept under the rug everything that he didn t want to see.
Saladin (1988a), on the other hand, showed his audience a tabulation of Archy s
reptilian and avian features (Awbrey & Thwaites 1981). 16 were reptilian, 3 wer
e avian, and 4 were intermediate. According to Saladin s calculations, this ren
ders Archy 70% reptile, 13% bird, and 17% intermediate.
Which tabulation is more accurate? I hope Archie isn t too modest, because we a
re going to examine him organ by organ:
● wings
In response to Gish s "avian wing," Trott (1994b) counters that the species poss
essed wing bones which were reptilian, not avian. According to Saladin (1988b;
cf. Miller, K. 1982a), "The forelimb of Archaeopteryx . . . is so unlike a bird
wing that until a specimen was found with feather impressions, Archaeopteryx was
misclassified as a reptile. Its wing is essentially a reptilian leg with feath
ers on it."
● claws on its wings
On this matter (Gish 1995a: 113-114; cf. 1973a; cf. [1992] 1996: 66; cf. Parrish
1991), I can t quite figure out what Gish is trying to say. He gives us three
bird species which are "very much alive and well today" (Gish 1995a: 113-114), b
ut which have claws on their wings.
The ostrich, which has three claws on each wing throughout its life span. The S
outh American hoatzin (Opisthocomus hoatzin), a South American bird is born with
claws which are later resorbed. The same is true of the African touraco (Toura
co corythaix).
Apparently, any species which is "alive and well today" cannot carry a vestigial
organ. Gish (1995a: 113-114) says that "no one for a moment would claim that a
ny of these is intermediate between reptile and bird." Yet McGowan (1984: 123-1
25) says exactly that.
It is also significant that the hoatzin and the touraco lose the claws by the ti
me they reach adulthood. According to Romanoff (1960), most birds have claws in
the embryonic stage but lose those claws by the time they hatch. This, then, i
s another case of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny.
In providing us with this information, Gish is only helping the case for reptile
/bird evolution. Thank you, Gish!
● skull
In response to the "skull totally birdlike," Trott (1994b) challenges Gish to "n
ame a single quality of the skull of Archaeopteryx that is found in modern birds
but never in dinosaurs."
Saladin (1988b) accuses Gish of selectively quoting. Gish joyfully hops on a pa
ssage in which Benton (1983) describes the braincase as "much broader and more b
ird-like than had been thought." Never mind that the same article describes the
bones hinging the jawbones as more reptilian than had been thought.
● wishbone
Trott (1994b) tells us that "there were Cretaceous dinosaurs that possessed wish
bones."
● tail
Trott (1994b, 1999a, 1999b) also calls attention to the long bony tail, which is
never found in the birds of today.
● nasal opening
Trott (1994b) also points out that Archie did not have a beak as do modern birds
, and that he had a nasal opening which was typical among dinosaurs. Saladin (1
988b) tells us that "Birds have their nostrils at the base of the bill; Archaeo
pteryx had its at the tip of the snout, like a reptile."
● teeth
Pietruszewski (1998) asks Gish an open question:
Why do you claim that it has bird teeth when modern birds lack teeth?
Would you be just as willing to claim that it has reptilian feathers? How
could it have bird teeth if God specially created birds not to have teet
h? Was this some kind of holy exception?
To an a similar argument posed by another opponent, Gish responded, "Some other
ancient birds had teeth, but some did not. Some amphibians have teeth, but some
do not. Some reptiles have teeth but some do not. Most mammals have teeth, bu
t some do not."
Then Gish then added, "And I ll wager that some of you have teeth, and some do n
ot!" (Lubenow 1983: 51; cf. Gish 1973a) Heh, heh!
Regarding "other ancient birds" which had teeth, some opponents might respond, "
Darn right they did! That s because they were descendents from reptiles too!"
(cf. Saladin 1988b; McGowan 1984: 121)
Through all this discussion, Gish could not be made to understand that different
species evolve for different niches. Rather, Gish sees evolution as a single l
adder which all species are climbing.
Gish sees Evolutionists as designating loss of teeth as a feature of evolution f
rom reptile to bird, so he infers that this is a feature anywhere else on the Ev
olutionary ladder. Gish ([1985] 1991: 114; 1973a) therefore asks if the platypu
s and the anteater are more advanced than humans.
As I understand Gish, he is reasoning as follows:
Taxons lacking teeth are farther advanced than taxons possessing
teeth--according to Evolutionists.
The platypus and the anteater are mammals lacking teeth whereas the
humans are mammals possessing teeth.
Therefore, the platypus and the anteater are farther advanced than
humans--according to the logic of Evolutionists.
But is any taxon really more advanced than any other taxon? Most Evolutionists
don t seem to think so, but Gish sees to think most Evolutionists think so.
It seems to be only in more recent years that Gish (n. d. 1) began citing L. D.
Martin, Stewart, & Whetstone (1980) for their dissimilarities between Archaeopte
ryx teeth and those of most theropod species. One of Gish s opponents (Augray 2
008), however, promptly rejoins with a study by Norell, Makovicky, & Clark (2000
), which find s Archie s teeth similar to those of the troödont.
● hip
Gish ([1992] 1996: 65) presents his readers with two classes of dinosaurs accord
ing to hip shape. One class was the saurischians, which means "lizard-hipped,"
and the other was the ornithischians, which means "bird-hipped," Gish points
out that the Archaeopteryx fits in the saurischian category, and presents this a
s proof that the Archaeopteryx was not an ancestor of the birds.
Nedin ([1999] 2002) compared the pelvis of the ornithischians, the saurischians,
and the Archaeopteryx. Contrary to the nomenclature, he found that the pelvis o
f the Archaeopteryx was intermediate between that of the saurishian and that of
the modern bird.
Nedin ([1999] 2002) furthermore argues that the ancestry of the Archaeopteryx sh
ows in the embryonic development of the modern bird. Of the three pelvic bones-
-the ilium, the pubis, and the ischium--the angle between the ilium and the pubi
s has decreased from Archie s time to modern times. The angle is 45 degrees wit
h Archie, 35 degrees with the kiwi, 30 degrees with the ostrich, and almost zero
with a chicken. The ilium and the pubis of a chicken embryo likewise begin at
45 degrees and decrease to near zero.
In a paper which seems to be written later, Gish (n. d. 1) cites a paper which a
rgues that Archie s hip bone placement was that of a bird (Walker 1980) and conv
eniently ignores later papers which argued for intermediacy in orientation (Elza
nowski 2002; Paul 2002: 55-56; Padian 2004).
Zindler (1990) again argues on the basis of quiescent genes. He cites Hampe (19
59, 1960), who remodelled his avine subjects legs Archaeopteryx style. For rea
ders wanting more examples and further discussion on quiescent genes, Zindler re
commends Raff & Kaufman (1983).
● ankle
L. D. Martin, Stewart, & Whetstone (1980) presented the ankle bones of the birds
and those of dinosaurs as dissimilar. So it is convenient for Gish (n. d. 1) t
o quote this study. However, later studies (Paul 2002: 202-203, 211-212; Zhou &
Zhang 2002) find this to be incorrect. So it is convenient for Gish to wave th
em aside.
● respiratory system
In Argentina, Sereno et al. (2008) found a sauropod dinosaur fossil with a respi
ratory system intact. They named the fossil Aerosteon riocoloradensis, which me
ans "air bones from the Rio Colorado." They found that the dinosaur possessed a
respiratory system similar to that of modern birds. Like modern birds, this di
nosaur did not have expanding lungs, but instead had bellows which pump air thro
ugh the lungs and through cavities in the bones. This system, known as pneumati
zation, bestowed sauropod dinosaurs with large bodies and long necks. It also e
nables birds to fly more efficiently than bats, which lack this feature.
In summary, then, we see that Archie possessed traits both reptilian and avine.
Saladin (1988a) commented, "If I were equally superficial, I could just as well
turn it around and say because it had that long jointed tail it was one hundred
percent reptile." In fact, that is more or less what J. A. Wagner (1861) tried
to do, naming this creature Griphosaurus problematicus--the puzzling reptile.
So how did Gish make his choice? Was it a mere flip of the coin? Maybe, but it
was more likely because his audience knows what feathers and wings are but don
t know all the dinosaur body parts.
■ Gish misused the Gould & Eldredge quote, but not as badly as other Creationist
writers.
Let us reread the above quote from Gould & Eldredge (1977), first with only the
second sentence:
Smooth intermediates between Bauplane are almost impossible to construct
, even in thought experiments: there is certainly no evidence for them in
the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).
and now with the first sentence added:
At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphologic
al designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the "o
fficial" position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Ba
uplane are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments: there is
certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Ar
chaeopteryx do not count).
If we consider only the second sentence, it will appear that the writers are rej
ecting Archie as evidence for evolution. This makes a dandy quote nugget. Inde
ed, if you do a Google search, you will get a long list of Creationist Websites
which quote this passage with the first sentence omitted.
To Gish s credit, he includes the first sentence also. Now we see that Gould &
Eldredge are only rejecting Archie as evidence for gradualism, or smooth and ste
ady evolution. The two writers, on the other hand, propose punctuationism, or e
volution in spurts. Since Gould & Eldredge were the founders of the latter scho
ol, this passage could hardly be taken as an apology (Kitcher 1982: 184).
Again, we must say one thing in favor of Gish: He was not as dishonest some time
s as he was other times. In both Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record and
Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics (1993), Gish not only recognized the di
stinction between gradualism and punctuationism, but even discussed the differen
ces (Gish [1985] 1991: 247-250); 1993: 229-249).
That does not mean that Gish is being altogether honest, however. Here is a quo
te which Gish probably doesn t want you to see (Gould 1980: 181-182; quoted in W
ilkins [2003] 2005):
The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the ope
ration of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil rec
ord. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.
Wikipedia (2010d) quotes Darwin as writing, "Species of different genera and cla
sses have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree."
Let us take a look at the word mosaic. What does that mean? Barber & Harshman
([2004] 2006) define the word as "a mixture of both primitive and advanced featu
res." Barber & Harshman consider the Archaeopteryx a good example, since its wi
ng was little more than a feathered dinosaur forelimb.
Barber & Harshman then comment, "Mosaic forms are exactly what we should expect
from evolutionary transitions, since there s no reason to expect every part of t
he body to evolve at the same rate or at the same time."
Why does Gish keep begging for transitional forms when the Evolutionists keep pr
esenting just exactly that? Maybe because mosaics are the only transitional for
ms there are, and mosaics don t count.
Isn t that clever? If you want a sure-fire case, just ask the opposition for an
exhibit which you know doesn t exist!
■ Gould also regards Archaeopteryx as a transitional taxon.
For proof of this, Barber & Harshman ([2004] 2006) direct the reader to a writin
g by Gould (1977c).
■ The gradualists and punctuationists aren t going to kill each other.
According to Hunt ([1994] 1997), there is common agreement that some branches ha
s evolved gradually and some have evolved suddenly. Some studies have favored o
ne mode, some have favored the other, The only disagreement is over which mode
is more common.
Shermer ([1997] 2002: 145) writes:
Creationists have misunderstood, either naively or intentionally, the he
althy scientific debate among evolutionists about the causal agents of organic
change. They apparently take this normal exchange of ideas and the
self- correcting nature of science as evidence that the field is coming part at
the seams and about to implode. Of the many things evolutionists argue and deba
te within the field, one thing they are certain of and all agree upon is that ev
olution has occurred.
■ Cases of quick evolution have been observed.
Saladin (1988b) alludes to cases of "single point mutation" which have created p
opulations of dwarf sheep. Saladin cites Stanley (1979: 162-163) as presenting
the rhinoceros genus Teleoceras, which allegedly appeared by similar means.
Tort (2001: 107) tells of a single mutation which created a plant species named
Oenothera lamarckiana. The event convinced Dutch botanist Hugo DeVries (1848-19
35) that evolution is not all smooth, slow, and steady.
■ Complete fossil sequences have shown signs of punctuated equilibrii.
Eldredge (1972) himself has a near perfect record of the evolution of a Devonian
trilobite species, which indeed shows both punctuation and equilibria.
T. M. Cronin (1985) found punctuation and equilibria in the history of the Atlan
tic and Caribbean ostracodes, or microscopic hard-shelled animals. Between 3 an
d 4 million years ago, the North American and South American continents joined a
t the isthmus. This affected the temperature of the ocean, which in turn create
d new species--and also created a project for Theodore Roosevelt!
from reptile to mammal
(Paleozoic Era: Permian Period to Mesozoic Era: Triassic Period)
For our status as mammals, we are indebted to the therapsids, also called synaps
ids, of the Permian Period (Paleozoic Era) and the Triassic Period (Mesozoic Era
).
In studying this branch of the tree, the Creationists would be hard pressed to c
laim gaps in the fossil record. In fact, the fossil succession is in such smal
l increments that scientists have debated where to draw the line between reptile
s and mammals (Kitcher 1982: 109).
Here is how Gish responds:
▶ by asking for an impossible transition
Unlike the reptiles, with legs branching outward, the therapsid limbs tends to b
e directed straight downward.
Also, there were major differences in the jaw structure and in the inner ear.
In the reptile, the two are connected, whereas in the mammal, they are not. Ac
cording to Gish ([1972] 1976: 58; 1973a; 1979: 85; cf. [1985] 1991: 100-101), an
animal making the transition would have to lose one before gaining the other:
There are no transitional forms showing, for instance, three or two jaw
bones, or two ear bones. No one has explained yet, for that matter, how
the transitional form would have managed to chew while his jaw was being
unhinged and rearticulated, or how he would hear while dragging two of his
jaw bones up into his ear.
Strahler ([1987] 1999: 413) expresses his "sympathy for Gish s poor deaf half- c
aste--shunned by both the reptile and mammal congregations--and forced to subsis
t on a liquid diet."
▶ by forcing the therapsid into the reptile class
Once again, it is time for Gish to close one eye and open the other. This time,
Gish (1979: 85) ignores the mammalian features of the therapsid and concentrate
s on the reptilian features (Kitcher 1982: 111-112). He does this by selectivel
y quoting from Crompton & Parker (1978).
In one shot, then, Gish makes a Kitcher V and a Kitcher VI (Kitcher 1982: 116).
▶ by insisting on stepwise linear evolution
This passage (Gish [1972] 1976: 59; 1979: 87-88) is a little puzzling. See what
you can make out of it:
 According to evolutionists, mammals assumed supremacy over the reptiles
at a relatively late time in reptilian history. If this is true, a reasonable a
ssumption would be that the reptilian branch from which they arose developed lat
e in the history of reptiles. Just the opposite is true, however, if the synaps
ids gave rise to mammals. The subclass Synapsida is dated among the earliest of
known reptile groups, not the latest, and are supposed to have passed their pea
k even long before the appearance of dinosaurs.
Kitcher (1982: 113) bypasses Gish s "reasonable assumption" and claims that our
half-and-half ancestors diversified when the dinosaurs suffered their decline.
McGowan (1984: 135) understands Gish as arguing that an ancient group can not gi
ve rise to a newer group. McGowan makes and analogy that Greek parents living i
n Canada can give birth to a Canadian child, even though Greece has an ancient h
istory and Canada does not.
I don t understand Gish s argument quite as McGowan understands it. If I unders
tand correctly, Gish perceives of the highest taxon evolving from the second hig
hest, the second highest taxon evolving from the third highest, and so forth. T
his interpretation is in line with what Strahler ([1987] 1999: 444) calls Gish s
"bamboo-stalk model of evolution."
Here are some other Evolutionist responses to Gish s arguments:
■ The transitional species possessed both jaw structures and ear structures.
Kitcher (1982: 111) found several sources (Crompton & Parker 1978; Kurten 1971:
25-26; Crompton & Jenkins 1979; Colbert 1980: 136-137) which show that the thera
psids never lacked a chewing structure. Rather, they possessed both structures
at the same time. If an organism carries two organs for the same purpose, that
organism is carrying excess baggage. It is in the evolutionary interest, then,
for the organism to dispose of one of those organs. While one structure grew, t
he other reduced.
■ The mammal ear structure evolved from the reptile ear structures.
Kitcher (1982: 111) also documents that the mammalian hearing system evolved fro
m the reptilian hearing system (Crompton & Parker 1978: 195-198; Crompton & Jenk
ins 1979: 66). Gish ignores this explanation.
Gish is asking for an impossible transition, thereby committing a Kitcher III (K
itcher 1982: 116), and ignoring information from Evolutionists, thereby committi
ng a Kitcher IIII (Kitcher 1982: 116).
■ Evolution is not linear.
As Gish seems to understand Evolution, a parent species evolving into a descende
nt species is like a third grader being promoted to the fourth grade, The flaw
in the analogy is that school promotions do not branch, whereas Evolution does.

Hunt ([1994] 1997) presents terms for two types of evolution. One is anagenesis
or phyletic evolution, in which an entire older species changes. The Tertiary
four-tusked elephants evolving into the current-day two-tusked elephants is an e
xample.
The other is cladogenesis, in which a population splits off and evolves, while t
he remaining population either remains static or evolves differently. In this c
ase, the reptiles first branched into therapsids and dinosaurs, and the therapsi
ds evolved into mammals. Is that so hard to understand?
■ Evolution is not hierarchical.
Different species thrive in different settings. Different species have to devel
op different skills. We may feel superior to other animals because we can read,
write, and calculate and they can t, but there are countless skills in which o
ther species have us beat. Some species can live underwater and we can t. Some
species can fly and we can t. They probably think we are an inferior species.
A larger species may seem superior to a smaller species. Yet a smaller species
has the advantage of lesser needs. A smaller species also has the advantage of
fitting into smaller hiding places.
That is why we seldom, if ever, hear an Evolutionist speak of one species being
better or higher than another. Shermer ([1997] 2002: 141) says the exact opposi
te: "There is no ladder of evolutionary progress with humans at the top, only a
richly branching bush with humans as one tiny twig among millions."
Where, then, does Gish get the idea that Evolutionists consider some species hi
gher than others? Most likely not from the writings of the Evolutionists. More
likely, Gish has been repeatedly told of God s commandment to Adam to dominate t
he earth. After hearing human chauvinism taught in Biblical Creationist circles
, he might assume that Evolutionists are also human chauvinists.
Now are you convinced that Gish s misunderstanding of Evolution is absurd? Just
in case you re not, let us start from the beginning and let evolution take plac
e as Gish understands it:
First, we see the pre-Cambrian microbes. In early times, these microbes change
to fish.
You may say, "You mean some of them change to fish!"
No, I mean they all do. Gish doesn t allow taxons to branch, and we will do as
Gish says.
Now we shall fast forward to Devonian time, and it is time for the fish to chang
e into amphibians.
You may say, "Some of the fish change into amphibians! Some of the fish climb o
ut of the water and some stay in the water!" You might even add an analogy: "Ju
st like some of the Europeans emigrated to the New World and some stayed home!"

We re not talking about the Europeans right now, we re talking about Evolution a
s interpreted by Gish. Taxons don t branch, and all taxons move up the ladder.
Amphibians are higher than fish, so they will all change into amphibians and le
ave the ocean basin completely empty.
Next is the Pennsylvanian Period, when the insects have their heyday. But insec
ts never figured in human evolution, so we re not interested.
So we shall skip to the Mesozoic Era. It is promotion time again, so all the am
phibians will now change into reptiles.
You may say, "All of the amphibians couldn t change into reptiles! We have amph
ibians living today!"
Don t argue with me. Gish doesn t understand branches in the Tree of Life, and
anything Gish doesn t understand doesn t exist.
Among these reptiles are the mighty dinosaurs and the lowly therapsids. But Evo
lution is from lower to higher, so we will throw away the therapsids.
You may say, "But scientists say we evolved from the therapsids!"
No, Gish says we didn t, so we didn t.
That leaves only one option, then, and that is to descend from the dinosaurs.
Now I hear you saying, "But we don t have much in common with the dinosaurs! We
have more in common with the therapsids!"
Don t argue with me, argue with Gish. Or better yet, don t argue with Gish.
None of this is making any sense, so we shall now move onto Cenozoic times, wher
e we meet our hominid forefathers. We fire the pistol and we see all the austra
lopithecine ancestors change into Homo habilis, We fire it again and they all c
hange into Homo erectus. We fire it a third time and they all change into Homo
sapiens.
So here we are, the only species on earth. There are no mosquitos or houseflie
s to bother us. Exploring unknown territory is perfectly safe because there ar
e no wild animals to endanger us. There are no antibiotic laboratories because
this is no need for them. All the microbes went extinct long ago.
Despite these advantages, this is a very grim picture. We have no dogs and cats
to keep as pets. There are no trees for firewood or lumber. There are no flo
wers in the garden and no insects to pollinate them. There are no plants to mak
e into clothes.
Worst of all, we have nothing for food. There is no source for beef or pork, an
d we can t even go vegetarian. That leaves us with only one way to stay alive,
and that is cannibalism.
How do we decide who eats who? There are at least two choices: we can declare S
ocial Darwinism: the stronger nations will slaughter the weaker nations. Or we
can declare eugenics: we will slaughter the students with the lowest exam score
s.
So which do you prefer, Gishian Evolution or Evolutionary Evolution?
Let there be Triceratopses
(Mesozoic Era: Cretaceous Period)
Gish (1977: 21) imparts these words to the faithful Creationists of tomorrow:
Nowhere do we find in-between forms with spikes starting out as little
spikes which gradually got bigger and bigger and finally ending up as a
Triceratops dinosaur. The first time you see a dinosaur with armor plate on
its head and with three spikes, he is a full-fledged Triceratops, with a huge
armor plate and with three big spikes. This is strong evidence for creation!
Edwords (1982), begging to differ with Gish, summarizes the progression as follo
ws (cf. Dodson & Currie 1990: 610-612):
psittacosaurus, 118 mya, Early Cretaceous ▶
protoceratops, 100 mya, Late Cretaceous ▶
monoclonius, 90 mya ▶
triceratops, 75-63 mya
The Psittacosaurus had no horns, but is delegated here because of the features w
hich it passed to its successors. It had a "sharp downturned upper jaw which re
sembles the beak of a parrot," hence its name, which means "parrot lizard." The
"bony frill at the back of the skull" also made its first appearance at this st
age (Edwoards 1982).
The Protoceratops, as we shall see shortly, had no true horns, but features whic
h resembled horns.
The Monoclonius had a large horn on its nose and smaller horns over the eyes (Ed
words 1982).
Finally, we have the Triceratops, the three-horned dinosaur which Gish would hav
e us believe came from the cabbage patch.
What does Gish do with all this data? He uses a selection of defense mechanisms
:
▶ sweep it under the rug
In a debate at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, Edwords (1982) confr
onted Gish with the evolutionary sequence of the triceratops.
Gish did not reply, but he repeated his claim the following month in a debate wi
th Kenneth Miller in Tampa, Florida. Less than two weeks after that, Gish repea
ted his claim in a debate with Michael Alan Park (Edwords 1982; Arthur 1996).
On one occasion, Gish claimed to know of no paleontologist who suggested that th
e Monoclonius was ancestral to the Triceratops (Trott 1994b).
▶ work a suppressio veri
In the Trott (1994b) debate, Gish answered that the Monoclonius had only horn, b
ut conveniently neglected the nascent horns above the eyes which grew into full-
sized horns at the time of the Triceratops.
▶ do some word play
Gish tries to fool his listeners with the word "evolutionary precursor" (Gish 19
94;
Trott 1994b):
Trott claims that Monoclonuis [sic] and Protoceratops were evolutionary
precursors of Triceratops, a three-horned dinosaur. Well, which is it Trott,
Monoclonuis [sic] or Protoceratops? They both cannot be the ancestor.
Gish would have us believe that both of these species were supposed to be immedi
ate precursors of the Triceratops. As we see from the chart, however, the Proto
ceratops was an ancestor of the Monoclonius, which in turn was an ancestor of th
e Triceratops. By Gish s logic, a person s parent and grandparent cannot both b
e that person s ancestors.
▶ take a quote out of context
In the debate with Trott (1994b), Gish claimed that the Protoceratops had no hor
ns. He quoted Romer (1966: 163) as saying that "Protoceratops belies its name,
for horns are not present."
Trott (1994b) puts the quote back into context:
 Protoceratops belies its name, for horns are not present; the nasal regi
on, however, is elevated as a potential horn-cone area, and rugosities are p
resent in some individuals in the areas in which the paired horns later
developed.
This gives our ancient specimen a precursor of horns, thereby qualifying him as
a precursor of Monoclonius and Triceratops.
▶ move the goalposts
According to Gish, the Protoceratops, Monoclonius, and Triceratops cannot be an
evolutionary sequence because they are all found in the Late Cretaceous stratum.
To satisfy Gish, the sequence would have to begin as early as the Jurassic or
Late Triassic stratum (Edwords 1982; cf. Gish 1977).
In the debate with Trott (1994b), Gish alluded to page 610 of Dodson & Currie (1
990) and asked, "How could the protoceratopsids be ancestral to Triceratops when
they were contemporaneous with Triceratops?" Trott points out that the very n
ext two pages show a table which lists Protoceratops in the late Santonian (85.8
-83.5 mya) or early Campanian (83.5-70.6 mya) Stage, the Monoclonius in the lat
e Campanian (83.5-70.6) Stage, and the Triceratops as late Maastrichthian (70.6-
65.5 mya) Stage. Trott calls this "selective reading."
In a 1982 debate, Kenneth Miller pointed out that the animal had millions of ye
ars to evolve (Arthur 1997). Arthur (1997) sent Gish a letter explaining that t
he Later Cretaceous Period spanned millions of years.
from ungulate to whale
(Cenozoic Era: Tertiary Period)
How did some hairy four-legged mammal get into the water, stick around
for eons of time, and just gradually and slowly evolve into a whale which is
wonderfully and marvelously designed for life in the water?

This was in response to the claim that whales evolved from land mammals (Gish qu
oted in Edwords 1983). (What? First Evolutionists say that Evolution moved sea
to land with the amphibians, and now they say that Evolution moved from land to
sea with the whales? Funny that Gish doesn t comment on this inconsistency!)
Gish s question is an important question. The Genesis account (Genesis 1:20-25)
tells of God creating whales on the fifth day and the "beasts of the earth" on
the sixth day. According to Long (2001), this difference renders even Theistic
Evolution untenable for the Bible believer.
As with any topic, it is interesting to see what tricks Gish will pull. So let
s go:
▶ outdated quotes
In Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record, Gish ([1985] 1991: 80) quoted Colb
ert (1955: 303) as writing:
These animals must have had an ancient origin, for no intermediate forms are app
arent in the fossil record between the whales and the ancestral Cretaceous place
ntals. Like the bats, the whales (using the term in a general and inclusive sen
se) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modificat
ions of the basic mammalian structure for a highly specialized mode of life. I
ndeed, the whales are even more isolated with relation to other mammals than the
bats; they stand quite alone.
Colbert made this statement in 1955 and Gish quoted him in 1991.
Gish (n. d. 2; [1985] 1991: 79) quoted Romer (1966: 339) as writing, "We are ign
orant of their terrestrial forebears and cannot be sure of their place of origin
."
Romer wrote this in 1966 and Gish quoted him after the Internet was invented.
▶ appeal to ridicule
Here you see a caricature of whale evolution as misunderstood by Gish, drawn by
Jody Zanot Miller for the Fall 1983 issue of Creation/Evolution. The underlying
premise seems to be that whales descending from land animals seems ridiculous,
so it can t be true.
Some logicians present this fallacy as a subtype of argument from personal incre
dulity: "I can t imagine it, so it can t be true." If you want to practice your
Latin, you can call it an argumentum ad ridiculum.
In the debate with Kenneth Miller, Gish (in Edwords 1983) scoffed at the notion
that "some hairy four-legged mammals evolved into a whale." He also scoffed at
the notion that "cattle, pigs, and buffalo" evolved into a dolphin. He then sho
wed cartoon pictures on the slide projector.
And if that is not enough, he threw in some word play:
And I suppose if we had a failure in the thing that was just hanging und
erneath, we d call it an udder failure. Fortunately everything succeeded,
and we finally ended up with a whale.
"Udder failure," get it? Ha ha ha!
▶ challenging the notion of a vestigial organ
In the debate with Fezer (1993b), Gish spoke about the pelvic bone of the whale.
Evolutionists contend that the bone was inherited from the whale s land-dwelli
ng ancestors. According to Gish, "it is not vestigial, it is functional," becau
se the bone us used for reproductive purposes. Gish correctly quoted Gingerich
et al. (1990) as making this admission.
Now let s hear the other side:
■ Appeal to ridicule is not a valid form of argument.
You say the world is round? Why, that s impossible! If the world were round, e
veryone on the bottom half would fall off!
You say the world revolves around the Sun? No way! Can t you see the Sun risin
g in the East and setting in the West?
■ Science history did not stop in 1966.
The first discovery of Pakicetus, a whale ancestor, was discovered in 1971 (Ging
erich, Wells et al 1983).
Colbert himself recognized when his writing was outdated. Colbert published a r
evision of his textbook in 1980--5 years before Gish published Evolution: Challe
nge of the Fossil Record, and 11 years before he published the fifth printing of
that book. That gave Gish plenty of time to notice what Colbert (1980: 326) wr
ote in the same place in the later edition: "These mammals probably arose in ear
ly Cenozoic time from primitive carnivore-like ungulates known as mesonychids."
Two pages later, Colbert showed a chart tracing the suggested derivation of the
whale.
Since the Rodhocetus was not discovered until 1993 (Gingerich, Raza et al. 1994)
and the Ambulocetes was not discovered until 1994 (Thewissen, Hussain & Arif 19
94; (Thewissen, Madar, & Hussain 1996), we can excuse Gish for not considering t
hese discoveries in a book published in 1991.
There has been even more recent fossil research on whale evolution. Hans Thewis
sen of Northeastern Ohio Universities Colleges of Medicine and Pharmacy has anno
unced the discovery of a whale precursor dating from the Tertiary Period (Cenozo
ic Era) in the Kashmir region of India. He called his discovery the Indohyus.
This species could also be the ancestor of the mousedeer, a small animal resembl
ing a deer, which jumps in the water when threatened by a land animal (Science D
aily 2007; Thewissen, Cooper, et al 2007).
As a side note: Have you noticed that in most of his books, Gish always cites hi
s sources with superscripts and endnotes instead of parenthetical bibliographic
notes? That is probably to discourage the reader from seeing the dates on those
sources.
■ These later discoveries have been arranged in a fossil succession.
As we see from the chart, the first animal on the chart is not a cow, but anothe
r hoofed mammal.
The Ambulocetus had paddle-like hind feet (Novacek 1994), which enabled it to li
ve both on land and in water (Thewissen, Madar & Hussain 1996). The Rodhocetus
had a shorter neck, smaller hind legs (Padian n. d.) and a shorter femur, or bon
e extending from the hip to the knee (Novacek 1994).
The Basilosaurus was larger (Padian n. d.). At first, it was considered a repti
le, but further investigation revealed it to be a mammal.
Gish continued to call it a reptile (Anonymous 1990; Schadewald 1990; Fezer 1993
a, 1993b), but he never supported his claim. Gish also denied that its vestigia
l limbs were vestigial (Fezer 1993b).
In the debate with Kenneth Miller (in Edwords 1983), Gish s opponent presented t
he audience with the Basilosaurus, which he called by the alternative name Zeugl
odon. At first, this animal had its nose in the front, but as time went on, his
nose gradually migrated to the top, where it is now, and evolved into a blowhol
e, which it is now. Miller demonstrated this by showing a series of pictures of
the Zeuglodon-to-whale succession.
Miller suffixed his message with the comment, "You don t need to make a joke. Yo
u can deal with the facts."
■ Whales carry vestigial organs which one would expect a former land mammal to c
arry.
Conrad (1982), Fezer (1993b), and Sutera (2001) give the examples of useless leg
bones. Sutera (2001) gives the example of respiratory organs. According to Su
tera (2001), some species carry ear flaps which only impede locomotion in the wa
ter.
■ A descendent species can find an alternate use for a vestigial organ.
As previously mentioned, a whale also carries a mammalian pelvic bone. Gish wou
ld have us believe that this is not a vestigial organ, since the whale uses the
bone for reproductive purposes (Fezer 1993b). This is fully acknowledged in an
article by Gingerich et al. (1990), which was selectively quoted by Gish.
This is only one of many cases of homology, in which a species finds an alternat
e use for a vestigial organ (Wikipedia 2008). As Fezer (1993b) sees it, Creatio
nists are unwilling to admit the existence of homologous organs on the grounds t
hat "God creates nothing in vain."
■ Whale embryos develop as one would expect an embryo of a former land mammal to
develop.
Whale embryo development is a veritable cinerama of organs appearing and disappe
aring. Body hair (Fezer 1993b; Sutera 2001; Wikipedia [2007] 2010), legs (Conra
d 1982; Fezer 1993b; Sutera 2001; Wikipedia [2007] 2010), teeth (Saladin 1988a,
Fezer 1993b; Parrish 1991), and olfactory lobes of the brain (Sutera 2001) all a
ppear, only to be resorbed later. The nostrils begin in the usual place for mam
mals and migrate to where they are found as one or two blowholes (Sutera 2001).
What if we had one faction of scientists showing us a fossil succession from one
direction, another faction showing us vestigial organs from another direction,
and another faction showing us embryological evidence from a third direction? I
would say that we couldn t believe all these scientists any more than we can be
lieve all the candidates at election time.
Such is not the case, however. The scientists worked independently of each othe
r in three different areas and arrived at the same answer. That s not a very li
kely coincidence.
other mammals
Since we belong to the Mammal Class, that is the class which is most important i
n the E/C debate. So let us look at some other mammals:
the bat
(Cenozoic Era: Tertiary Period)
A prize item in Gish s slide collection is a bat reported by Jepsen (1966). In
the Saladin (1988b) debate, he really went to town:
He declared that was the oldest fossil bat that had ever been discovered. Dr. Sa
ladin has tried to pretend that this was not [one or two words inaudible]. Acc
ording to Dr. Jepsen, it was, and certainly it was more recent than anything Rom
er published, and Jepsen is an expert in this area. He said this was the old
est fossil at that has ever been discovered. Nothing related to a bat has ever b
een found that was older than that. We see the actual fossil bones and by the wa
y from the structure of the skull we could tell that that bat had the incredibly
complex sonar system found in many modern bats. You see the reconstruction of w
hat the bat must have looked like. All right now according to Dr. Jepsen there s
the world s oldest known bat and it is 100 percent bat. Ladies and gentlemen t
here s absolutely not doubt about it. Bats have never found a single ancestor
for bat or a trace of a transitional form. They appear fully formed, and esse
ntially no change, in assumed 50 million years since they appeared on this
earth.
Abracadabra! According to Jepsen according to Gish, the bat appeared out of thi
n air 50 million years ago! (cf. n. d. 2; Gish [1972] 1976: 67-69; 1973a; [1985]
1991: 108-110; Parrish 1991)
Unfortunately for Gish, however, his opponent knew how to read. Not only that,
but he made good use of that skill by reading the article before the debate. Ac
cording to Jepsen according to Saladin, this is the oldest fossil which can be c
lassified in the bat Order Chiroptera. However, it has such a steady line of pr
edecessors that drawing the boundaries has been difficult. Jepsen also had diff
iculty in classifying his find as an Old World bat, or megabat, or a New World b
at, or microbat, and wondered if it could be a progenitor of both.
Saladin (1988a, 1988d, 1988j) also happened to know that Romer devoted an entire
chapter to matters chiropteral. He came to the lecture prepared with a brief e
xcerpt from that chapter (Romer 1966: 212), which told of the bats earlier ance
stors, known as insectivores. Bats and insectivores began to split about 10-15
million years earlier.
the giraffe
(Cenozoic Era: Tertiary Period)
How did the giraffe, with its long neck, evolve? Let us consider the possibilit
y that the neck shot up from a normal-sized neck in a single generation. No, wa
it a moment: this couldn t have been possible without the organism s heart and s
keleton changing accordingly. So the giraffe s heart and skeleton instantly cha
nged, too, and in the same individual and in a single generation.
Improbable as all this seems, this is how Gish (quoted in Pigliucci 2000: 168) d
escribes it. Pigliucci (2000: 168), however, dismisses Gish s scenario as "a ca
ricature." What more likely took place was what Futuyma (1998) calls mosaic evo
lution. In other words, a slight change took place in one area, followed by a c
orresponding slight change in another area. Multiply these slight changes, and
you get the animal which we know now (cf. Gould 1996).
I would like to add that co-evolution also likely took place. This term refers
to evolution of a taxon which is concurrent with the evolution of that taxon s p
rey or predators.
Cats were not always as fast as they are now. They had to become fast in order
to catch mice. Conversely, mice were not always as fast as they are now. They
had to become fast in order to evade cats.
Similarly, woodpeckers had to develop hard heads and hard beaks in order to peck
trees. In turn, trees had to develop hard wood in order to resist woodpeckers.
Back to the subject: trees were not always as high as they are now, which means
that giraffe s necks did not always need to be as long as they are now. As tree
s grew taller, giraffes grew taller and vice-versa.
the horse
(Cenozoic Era: Tertiary Period)
What s in Gish s bag of tricks this time?
▶ arguing in terms of scalar evolution
In North America, the earliest horse was the three-toed Eohippus of the early Te
rtiary period. Next was the Merychippus of the middle Tertiary period, with thr
ee toes with two of them reduced. Finally was the late Tertiary Equus which we
know now, with only one toe.
So one toe is the ideal for horses, wouldn t you say? That is certainly the way
it seems, except that meanwhile, in South America, things were going differentl
y. There, the ungulates, or hoofed mammals, included the early Tertiary Diadiap
horus, with three toes with two of them reduced, the middle Tertiary Thoatherium
, with one toe, and the late Tertiary Macrauchenia, with three full-sized toes.
 Apparently, then, South American ungulates turned three-toed, then one-toed, an
d then three-toed again! (Gish [1985] 1991: 83-86; 1993: 131; cf. n. d. 2; 1980
: iv-v) So which is the Evolutionary ideal, one toe or three toes?
▶ quote mining
Gish (1979: 103) quoted David Raup (1979), then curator of the Chicago Museum, a
s saying:
Some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such
as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded
or modified as the result of more detailed information--what appeared to be a ni
ce simple progression when relatively few data were available, now appears to be
much more complex and much less gradualistic.
In the Bakken (1987; cf. Gish n. d. 3: 7) debate, Gish quoted Raup (1979) as say
ing:
Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the
fossil record has been greatly expanded...ironically we have even fewer
examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin s time. By this
I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil
record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to
be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.
Here is how Evolutionists respond:
■ Raup is saying that scientific opinion has changed with new evidence.
Britain (2001) calls attention to the words "discarded or modified" in the quote
. He comments, "For example the classic horse series Raup mentions is one of th
ose that has been modified, but it is far from discarded."
Schafersman (1998) replies:
We actually know many more evolutionary transitions from the fossil reco
rd today than we did in Darwin s time. True, some of the classic cases--suc
h as the evolution of the horse--have had to be revised from the nineteent
h century, but this is irrelevant: we revise the details every generation
as we learn more from our research in the fossil record. We still believe toda
y that horses evolved, just as we did in the nineteenth century, but the d
etails of the pattern are different today. Dave Raup believes in evolution,
as do all scientists.
Kitcher (1982: 115) replies:
Torn out of context, Raup s remark may make it appear that paleontologis
ts have given up the idea that the organisms in the horse sequence are rela
ted to one another. However, that is not the issue. No paleontologist
doubts that there is a process of "descent with modification" that embraces
all the animals preserved in the horse sequence. What is at issue is how
they are related.
In other words, science continually discovers new data and continually revises i
tself accordingly--which everyone but Gish realizes anyway.
On pages 78-79 of Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, Gish (1993) answers
Kitcher s charge with a quote from the article, but which contains many ellipses
. Interested readers are welcome to look up the omitted passages to see if they
are counterproductive to the quote mining expedition.
■ Raup never doubted that life has changed, but only asks what has caused that c
hange.
In the interpretation by Britain (2001), Raup never doubted that species have ch
anged. In fact, he writes a scenario in which a person living today is transpor
ted to a "Cretaceous landscape" where some of the life forms will be familiar an
d some will not.
What Raup was asking, rather, is how species have changed. He made this questio
n very clear at the very beginning of the article, where he stated, "We must dis
tinguish between the fact of evolution--defined as change in organisms over time
--and the explanation of this change."
Nor has Raup ever doubted that natural selection works. In fact, he acknowledge
s "a mountain of experimental and observational evidence" that it works. What h
e asked is how large is the role played by natural selection, whether it is "90
percent . . . or 9 percent, or .9 percent."
■ Raup suggested luck as another element of species survival.
Britain (2001) explains that Raup was not doubting the factor of natural selecti
on, but rather citing luck as another factor. Raup later made this clear in the
very title of his 1991 book: Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck?
Raup concluded the article with these words:
If the ideas turn out to be valid, it will mean that Darwin was correct in what
he said but that he was explaining only a part of the total evolutionary picture
. The part he missed was the simple element of chance!
So we see that Raup s message was stated clearly at the beginning of the article
, at the end of the article, and all points in between. It is hard to imagine a
ny Creationist misinterpreting the article any other way except deliberately.
For anyone who is still not convinced, Britain (2001) suggests a couple of artic
les in which Raup (1983a, 1983b) met the Creationists head on.
■ Different ungulate feet are good for different kinds of environment.
In North America, the Merychippus browsed in the deep woodlands. A population
of Merychippus emigrated to hard ground where they were obligated to run from pr
edators, This rendered the single hoof beneficial, so this population evolved i
nto the single-hoofed Pliohippus (Wikipedia 2010b).
■ There were two ungulate branches in South America.
Strahler ([1987] 1999: 446) sets the record straight on the South American ungul
ates. There was a horse-like branch which included the Diadiaphorus and the Tho
atherium. There was a tapir-like branch which included the Macrauchenia. The
two lineages were related only through descent from the early Tertiary Condylart
h.
■ Embryological evidence favors the Evolutionary position.
Either modern horses are descended from three-toed ancestors or horse embryos ar
e lying to us, because that s what horse embryos are telling us (Ewart 1894 quot
ed in McGowan 1984: 147). And that s what at least one premature colt, born wit
h three toes, told us (Struthers 1893 quoted in McGowan 1984: 147).
■ Gish got the North American horse sequence wrong anyway.
The modern horse is believed to descend not from the Merichippus, but from anoth
er ungulate species called the Dinohippus (Wikipedia 2010b).
from ape to human
(Cenozoic Era: Tertiary and Quaternary Periods)
Why are we debating this question? For some of us, it is nothing more than an i
ntellectual exercise.
Who built Stonehenge? How did Houdini escape from a strait jacket? Why didn t
Schubert finish his Eighth Symphony? It may do very little material good for us
to solve these mysteries, but sometimes we like to explore a mystery because--w
ell, it s there!
For some of us, though, the question is more significant than that. Kenneth Mil
ler (1982a) wrote:
The big emotional issue among creationists is human evolution. It might
be safe to say that all their previous arguments exist only to support the
notion that humans are in no way linked to the other animals.
That could be why Cremo & Thompson (1998) devote their entire 914 pages to refut
ing human evolution while totally disregarding the question of evolution of any
other species.
Gish does not devote all of his attention to human evolution, but he seldom ment
ions the Plant Kingdom. Among the thousands of species in the Animal Kingdom, h
e devotes most of his energy to vertebrates. In other words, the more closely t
he Evolutionists say a species is related to us, the more resolute Gish is in co
nvincing us that the species is not related to us.
Now that we are discussing primates, we are really cutting close. We are in the
Animal Kingdom, the Chordate Phylum, the Mammal Class, and the Primate Order.
The Creationists can appeal to the rules of baraminology and lump as many specie
s together as they want to, they can leave all the plants and water-dwelling spe
cies to fend for themselves in the Flood, but here there is no escape clause. G
od created our species exactly as we see it today, and Genesis 1:27 says so.
However, the Evolutionists either haven t read Genesis 1:27 or don t pay attenti
on to it. They are trying to say that there is a succession going back millions
of years ago. According to them, we deviated from the rest of the kingdom with
the Australopithecus afarensis (4-2 m. y. a.). That was ancestral to the Homo
habilis (2 m. y. a.), which in turn was ancestral to the Homo erectus (650,000-2
50,000 y. a.), which in turn was ancestral to the Homo sapiens (250,000 y. a.-pr
esent). We shall hear their story from the beginning, but we shall also stop e
very once in a while and hear what Gish has to say in response:
▶ prosimians--60 m. y. a.
In early Cenozoic times, there were small primates known as insectivores. Some
of these animals resembled the tree shrews of today. There were several species
in this group, and there is some confusion regarding which animals to claim as
our ancestors.
Here, as always, Creationists get malicious pleasure from hearing Evolutionists
say "I don t know." With a little ingenious word play, Gish ([1985] 1991: 132;
1995a: 216) tries to convince us that there was a gap which could be filled only
by his god of the gaps.
Firstly, Gish ([1985] 1991: 130) quotes Simons (1969) as saying, "In spite of re
cent finds, the time and place of origin of order Primates remains shrouded in m
ystery."
Gish cuts the quote off right there. This presents the reader with an image of
a pair of primates appearing in a cloud of smoke. But is that what Simons is rea
lly saying? gen2rev (2003) reads further on the page and sees that Simons also
says:
Present evidence indicates that the primates belong among the oldest documented
divisions of placental mammals. Purgatorius species from the late Cretaceous
and early Tertiary of Montana may represent the earliest occurrence of me
mbers of this order, but until better specimens than isolated individual teeth a
re found, the character, adaptations, and even definite identification of them
as the earliest primates will remain uncertain.
Simons goes on to name various genera and families of early primates. While Gis
h pretends that Simons says that early Cenozoic times were devoid of primates,
Simons really says that early Cenozoic times abounded with primates.
Gish ([1985] 1991: 130) also quotes Kelso (1974: 142):
The transition from insectivore to primate is not documented by fossils.
The basis of knowledge about the transition is by inference from living
forms.
Gish has his faithful readers brainwashed into thinking that fossils are the onl
y evidence for Evolution. It follows, then, that anything which is "not documen
ted by fossils" is not documented at all.
Unfortunately for Gish, however, some of his readers know how to use the library
. One of his readers found the subsequent passage (Kelso 1974: 142), which Gish
tried to hide from us:
The important features of the emergence and evolution of the early pre-primate i
nsectivores can be summarized briefly as follows:
1) They are possibly the oldest placental mammalian order.
2) They evolved and diversified rapidly during the latter part of the Me
sozoic, and, by early Cenozoic times, had given rise to three more mammalian ord
ers, the rodents, the multituberculates, and the primates.
3) The subsequent evolution of the insectivores is characterized by a de
cline in their diversity and habitat range.
4) While the fossil record of insectivore evolution is reasonably good i
n some lines, the transition from insectivore to primate is not documented
by fossils. The basis of knowledge about the transition is by inference from
living forms.
5) There is sufficient reason to suspect, however, that the major factor
which served to distinguish the primates as a separate order was an arbo
real adaptation. The adjustment made by the early primates to living in
the trees is by far the most important event in the evolution of the primates, a
nd there is a reasonable amount of direct fossil evidence bearing on the e
arly stages of the evolution of the prosimians, which were the first primates
to show the effects of this adaptation.
The reader (gen2rev 2003) then points out that Kelso was "commenting on the orig
in of primates, and not their subsequent evolution into modern forms." However,
for anyone wishing to know Kelso s position on the latter topic, gen2rev offers
the following quote (Kelso 1974: 148):
Plesiadapis does, however, represent one of the lines that lay along the
transitional pathway from insectivore to primate, or, in other words, it represe
nts a morphological transition of the early effects of an arboreal adaptati
on on the primates.
Finally, Gish ([1985] 1991: 132) quotes Martin (1982) as saying, "The tree shre
w is not on the roster of human ancestors." It is Martin s opinion that tree sh
rews differ from primates enough to warrant classification in a separate order.
This article, like the other two, discusses a multiplicity of species living at
that time. Gish, however, tricks us into thinking that the only alternative to
the tree shrew was God.
Besides, gen2rev (2003) has read the entire article and cannot find the quoted s
tatement anywhere.
▶ Australopithecines--3-4 m. y. a.
In the next chapter, we shall learn more about Lucy, a skeleton found in 1973 in
Ethiopia. This skeleton has now been classified in the Australopithecus genus.

Here again, we have a transitional fossil, possessing traits from the parent spe
cies and traits from the descendent species. It is time for Gish to choose whic
h set of traits to regard and which set of traits to ignore. He acts right on c
ue. He quotes paleontologists Johansen & Edey (1981) as saying that Lucy had "th
e jaws, teeth, face, and brain of an ape," (Saladin 1988b) and hopes that nobody
reads the entire book.
Saladin, however, has read the entire book. He interprets the book as stressing
that "the jaws and teeth of Australopithecus afarensis were not simian." Salad
in suggests that Gish might be paraphrasing page 258:
She was so odd that there was no question about her not being a human.
She simply wasn t. She was too little. Her brain was too small. Her jaw
was in the wrong shape. With those seemingly primitive traits staring me
in the face, I interpreted other things in her dentition as primitive also, as
pointing away from the human condition and back in the direction of apes.
and ignoring page 259:
It was only after we had started looking at the fossils carefully that w
e began to have second thoughts.
The authors discuss human and ape teeth (262-267) and conclude that the fossil t
eeth "stood somewhere between apes and humans and appeared to be neither one nor
the other."
This is not to say that all scientists regard Lucy as a human ancestor. Strahle
r ([1987] 1999: 479) has found several sources which state that Lucy and the hum
an species are cousins descended from a common ancestor.

▶ Homo habilis--2 m. y. a.
When some hominid fossils which were discovered near Lake Rudolf in Kenya, Richa
rd Leakey (1973) was undecided regarding their place on the timeline. After com
paring the traits of the fossils with those of the Australopithecus, the Homo ha
bilis, and several other species, Leaky was still undecided. He ended the articl
e by saying, "For the present, I propose that the specimens should be attributed
to Homo sp. indet. rather than remain in total suspense."
That left Gish (1973a: 136) with the responsibility of making up Leakey s mind f
or him: According to Leakey according to Gish, one of those specimens, commonly
referred to as ER 1470, was "almost indistinguishable from those of many individ
uals living today." Cole (1981) caught this deception.
Gish ([1985] 1991: 173) quotes J. E. Cronin et al. (1981) as noting the "relativ
ely robustly constructed face" of the ER 1470, which would tend to place it with
the A. africanus.“ Foley (1997c) caught the previous sentence, which mentions
its "large cranial vault," which would tend to place it with the Homo genus. Th
rough this half-truth, Gish pretends that the placement of the specimen in the H
omo genus was arbitrary.
▶ Neanderthals--250,000-30,000 y. a.
The Neanderthals lived in Europe and parts of Asia. Nobody knows the fate of the
Neanderthals. Some suggest they went extinct on their own. Some suggest that
they were driven to extinction by the Cro-Magnons, who later migrated to Europe
and lived there 45,000-10,000 y. a. Some suggest that they became the ancestors
of you and me.
Gish, who knows everything, has decided on the third alternative.
It is also debated whether the Neanderthal was a separate species (Homo neandert
halensis) or a subspecies of Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) (Harva
ti 2003).
Gish, who knows everything, has rejected both alternatives and opted for the Kit
cher V offense instead. In order to maintain that our species has never evolved
, he focuses on the similarities between the Neanderthal and our species and ign
ores the differences.
He even announces that mainstream scientists have upgraded the Neanderthals to H
omo sapiens status (Gish 1993: 134, 1995b: 47). I don t know who is in this upg
rading team he is referring to. Apparently not Trott (1999a, 1999b), who commen
ts on the Neanderthal s "longer and lower skull, a larger face and larger teeth
, no chin or a slight chin, and a massive brow ridge in front of a differently s
haped brain, as well as a distinctive skeletal structure."
Gish would apparently stop at nothing to disown his simian cousins. Keep readin
g.
the Lucy-gate scandal
In the last chapter, we briefly met Lucy, a fossil skeleton which is believed to
be that of a human forerunner. Before we decide whether or not Lucy was the mo
ther of us all, let us go over the story from the beginning:
1970: Zuckerman writes a book arguing that humans could not be descended f
rom a simian species.
British anthropologist Solly Zuckerman (1970: 64), pictured on the left, wrot
e a book arguing the unlikelihood that the human species "evolved from
some ape-like creature in a very short space of time--speaking in geologic
al terms--without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the
 transformation."
Gish ([1985] 1991: 150; 1993: 350; 1995: 46; in Trott 1994b) drums for this book
, claiming that it is the product of a 15-year study of australopithecine fossil
s. In the debate with Trott (1994b), Gish cited Zuckerman as concluding "that t
hese creatures did not walk upright and were not intermediate between ape and ma
n." In the debate with Parrish (1991), Gish cited Zuckerman as writing: "If we
exclude the possibility of creation, then obviously man must have evolved from a
n ape-like creature, but if he did there s absolutely no evidence for it in the
fossil record."
1973: A significant archeological find in Ethiopia takes place.
In 1973 in Ethiopia, American anthropologist Donald Johansen, pictured on t
he left, discovered a leg bone which he identified as that of a 3- to 4-milli
on year old hominid. This set a record for the oldest erect hominid fos
sil find.
Subsequent nearby discoveries included enough bone fragments to reconstruct 4
0% of a skeleton. It was found that the skeleton was that of a female.
The team named the skeleton Lucy, after the Beatle song "Lucy in the Sky w
ith Diamonds."
Subsequent finds, in 1974 and 1975, located similar skeletons in the Afar Depres
sion. This newly discovered species was given the name Australopithecus aferens
is.
1982: Gish concocts a clever word play.
A logician may tell you that A and B is the same as B and A. In a historical na
rrative, however, this is not true. In such a case, the reader or listener assu
mes that the events happen in the order in which they are told.
Gish takes advantage of this assumption by telling about Lucy first and Zuckerm
an s book second. That way, the audience thinks that Zuckerman s book took Joha
nsen s fossils into account.
In 1982, Gish debated Chris McGowan, a zoologist from the University of Toronto.
In this debate, Gish told the audience about Lucy, then about Zuckerman.
A member of the audience happened to be Jay Ingram, a renowned science writer an
d journalist. In the question-and-answer session, Ingram asked Gish why he led t
he audience to believe that Zuckerman studied Lucy. Ingram also asked the membe
rs of the audience to raise their hands if they assumed from Gish s story that Z
uckerman studied Lucy. Most of the people in the audience raised their hands.
Gish retorted that he was not responsible for any misinterpretation on the part
of his listeners (Arthur 1996).
1984: Oxnard writes a book arguing that humans could not be descended from certa
in australopithecine species.
In 1984, anatomy professor Charles Oxnard published his book The Order of Man.
In Gish s interpretation (Trott 1994b), the book shows that "the australopitheci
nes did not walk upright in a human manner, were not intermediate between ape an
d man, and definitely were not human ancestors."
1988-1996: Gish continues to practice his word play.
In Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record (Gish [1985] 1991), we meet Zuc
kerman on page 148 and Johansen on page 151.
This is as it should be. But this seems to be a momentary oversight on Gish s p
art. In the Gish s opening statement in the Saladin (1988b) debate, he first int
roduces us to Lucy, then introduces us to Zuckerman three sentences later.
Gish does not tell us that Zuckerman studied the Lucy skeleton, but he leads us
to that assumption by presenting Lucy first and Zuckerman immediately afterward.
In Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics (Gish 1993), we meet Lucy on page
133 and Zuckerman on page 134. In Teaching Creation Science in Public Schools (
Gish 1995b) we meet Lucy on page 45 and Zuckerman on page 46.
In the transcript of the Parrish (1991) debate, we meet Lucy and Zuckerman on pa
ge 33 of the transcript, and in that order. In fact, Gish tells an outright lie
on that page: "For 15 years . . . he studied fossils of Lucy and fossils of 1-2
million years younger than Lucy."
Arthur (1996) confronted Gish with these words. Gish replied that he had an aud
iotape of the debate, and that these words did not appear on the audiotape.
1988: Gish adds Oxnard to his pantheon.
In his 1988 debate with Saladin (1988d), in his 1993 publication on page 350 and
382, and again in his 1995 book on page 47, Gish claimed that Oxnard also studi
ed the Lucy skeleton and rejected it as a human ancestor. In his response to Tr
ott (1994b), he made this claim, citing page 332 of Oxnard s 1984 publication.
That s the end of the story. Now for the critical commentary:
■ Zuckerman s writings are outdated.
Trott (1994b) wrote, "Zuckerman did not have much of the important evidence that
we have today." Trott sees the Johansen fossils, which were discovered only a
few years later, as "downright revolutionary." Trott (1999a, 1999b) also wrote,
"The field of physical anthropology underwent a revolution in the 1970‘s due to
new discoveries and Gish s claim is patently ridiculous."
Kenneth Miller (1982a) wrote:
Since then, several pelvic fossils and one nearly complete Australopithecus skel
eton have been found. There is now not the slightest doubt that this animal walk
ed upright, much as we do. But Dr. Gish quoted from a decade-old source and the
refore ignored the latest findings.
Pigliucci (2000: 183) likewise comments:
Naturally, Gish conveniently neglected to mention that Zuckerman s concl
usions were based on very early fossil findings, and that they are now complete
ly rejected by the paleontological community.
■ Zuckerman s views were not those of mainstream science.
In the Saladin (1988b) debate, Gish presented Zuckerman as "an evolutionist." I
n the Parrish (1991) debate, Gish presented a squeaky clean image for Zuckerman:

a very famous British scientist, head of anatomy department at Universit

y of Birmingham. He s not a creationist but he has done his homework. He
has studied the fossils of these creatures with a scientific theme as re
ally never done before.
We get a different impression from Foley (1997a):
Solly Zuckerman attempted to prove with biometrical studies (based on measuremen
ts) that the australopithecines were apes. Zuckerman lost this debate in the 195
0 s, and his position was abandoned by everyone else. Creationists like to quote
his opinions as if they were still a scientifically acceptable viewpoint.
and from Saladin (1988b):
Zuckerman was an eminent primatologist and behaviorist, but cannot be
regarded as a superior authority on hominid paleanthropology. He strayed
from his training and expertise in his biometrical salvos against the australopi
thecines. Statisticians demonstrated that his calculations were mathemat
ically wrong, and anatomists pointed out that Zuckerman glossed over imp
ortant morphological similarities between australopithecines and humans.

Foley (1997a) and Saladin (1988b) both refer the reader to Johansen & Edey (1981
) for further information. Gish (1997), in turn, invites us to read the writing
s of Zuckerman (1966; 1970: 75-94).
■ Zuckerman never even saw Lucy.
As Ingram so kindly pointed out to Gish and his audience, Zuckerman did not pers
onally study the Lucy skeleton (Trott 1994b), but rather one-half of a pelvis bo
ne (Saladin 1988h; Arthur 1996).
Yet Gish makes light of the Nebraska Man incident, in which too much was inferre
d from the tooth of a wild boar. Let us be consistent.
■ Zuckerman s samples were on another branch.
According to Trott (1994b), Lucy s species branched in at least two directions.
One branch developed into modern humans, the other went extinct. The branch st
udied by Zuckerman is the branch which went extinct. Consequently, Zuckerman s
analysis does not affect the question of human evolution.
■ Oxnard never saw Lucy either.
Trott (1994b) quotes Oxnard (1984: 331) as citing Johansen & White (1979), then
commenting that their claims "that these new australopithecines are ancestral to
both humans and later australopithecines may turn out to be correct. But the Af
ar fossils are new and have not yet been studied by independent laboratories to
allow it to be corroborated. It is just as possible that the claim will turn out
to be wrong."
Aside from a brief discussion of other studies of Johansen s fossils, this is Ox
nard s only mention of the subject. Trott sees this as a far cry from "the most
sophisticated methods of anatomical research," as described by Gish (1993: 350)
.
■ Oxnard s samples were on the other branch too.
If Gish s point is that humans are not descended from the Australopithecus Afric
anus or the Australopithecus robustus, his message is not news to most science s
tudents. According to Saladin (1988h), this point is agreed upon not only by Ox
nard and Johansen, but by every general biology and zoology textbook he has inve
stigated.
■ One branch could evolve in a differently from the other branch.
In addition to pretending that Zuckerman studied Lucy, Gish ([1985] 1991: 156; S
aladin 1988b) tried another tactic: he informed us that Zuckerman studied austra
lopithecine fossils two million years younger than Lucy and found that they did
not walk upright. If australopithecines did not walk upright two million years
after Lucy, goes his logic, Lucy could not have either.
The term evolutionary orthogenesis refers to the assumption that evolution moves
in a unilinear fashion towards a perfect goal. If this assumption were true, t
hen we could infer that "all hominid fossils lie on a single, straight-line evol
utionary course leading to modern Homo sapiens sapiens." (Saladin 1988b).
This assumption seems to be made in Evolutionary theory according to Gish, but i
t is certainly not made in Evolutionary theory according to Evolutionists.
We can test evolutionary orthogenesis with a quick glance at the human species t
oday. Why don t we all have abnormally large hearts to adapt us to high altitud
es, as do the Quechua people of Peru and Bolivia? Why don t we all have an adip
ose layer to protect us from Arctic climate, as do the Eskimos? Why don t we al
l have dark skin to protect us from the tropical sun, as do the people of Africa
?
■ One branch could evolve at a different rate from another branch.
According to Saladin (1988b), "evolution is a branching tree, and some branches
show faster rates of change than others." In this case, maybe Lucy s branch rea
ched bipedalism sooner than did Zuckerman s branch.
■ Oxnard is not implying that the australopithecine was unrelated to any other s
pecies.
Strahler ([1987] 1999: 488) takes issue with Gish for focussing on the differenc
es and overlooking the similarities between humans, apes, and australopithecines
. Strahler sees Oxnard s conclusions as a far cry from the conclusion that huma
ns, apes, and australopithecines were evolved separately.
■ Gish is inconsistent.
Trott (1994b) wrote:
Oxnard concluded that australopithecines walked upright, but that they d
id not walk upright in a human manner. So which is it, Dr. Gish? Did at le
ast some australopithecines walk upright, as Oxnard concluded, or did they n
ot walk upright, as Zuckerman concluded? They can t both be right!
As we have seen before, Gish accepts almost any anti-Evolution argument, even if
that means accepting two arguments which contradict each other. Gish apparentl
y figures that Evolutionary belief is evil, therefore any argument against Evolu
tionary belief is good.
■ There is evidence from pseudogenes.
In an earlier chapter, Zindler (1990) introduced us to pseudogenes. These are g
enes which we inherit from our ancestors which were useful at one time but are u
seless now. In other words, they are microscopic vestigial organs.
Zindler told Gish that we share many pseudogenes with the chimps, so we must be
related to them. Gish dismissed the whole thing as "nonsense." That must be he
art-breaking for diligent researchers such as Goodman, Koop, et al. (1989) and K
awaguchi et al. (1992).
The Black-gate scandal
First the facts, then Gish s interpretation:
1891: Homo erectus is discovered and given the nickname Java Man.
1927: Black discovers skeletons which he claims as hominid fossils.
In Choukoutein, southwest of Beijing. Dr. Davidson Black unearthed sk
eletons which he called Sinanthropus pekinensis. but which hav
e come to be called Peking Man (Black 1927, 1931).
Black s report described two caves. The more recent Sinanthropus
skeletons were found in the upper cave, while Homo erectus skeletons were f
ound with artifacts in the lower cave. These artifacts included numerous stone
tools, evidence of fire, and broken animal bones.
Black, and later Franz Weidenreich, a German investigator, left descriptions, ca
sts, and illustrations, including at least one X-ray,
1941-1945: The fossils get captured in World War II.
Accounts vary, but we know that the fossils disappeared in World War II, leaving
only the exhibits created by Black and Weidenreich (Shapiro 1974; Van Oosterzee
1999).
1952: Boule & Vallois classify Black s discovery as Homo erectus.
Black regarded his discovery as that of a new species. However, Boule & Vallois
(1957: 118), claimed that the fossils in the upper cave were those of Homo erect
us, just as were those of the lower cave (Brace 1986).
According to Brace (1982), Boule based his opinion on photographs and on informa
tion which was furnished to him.
Let s hear what Gish has to say:
▶ that Black s disagreement with Boule impeaches him as a witness.
Gish ([1972] 1976: 96, 1979: 136) lambasts Black for making an unwarranted claim
: "He felt compelled to color the facts to fit his scheme. What confidence can
we have, therefore, in any of the descriptions or models of Sinanthropus from th
e hand of Dr. Black?"
▶ that Weidenreich forged the casts.
Gish (1973b: 97) also assassinates the character of the German investigator Weid
enreich. According to Gish, Weidenreich forged the casts. Why Gish suspects th
is, he does not say.
▶ that the alleged site does not exist.
Gish does not wish to believe that the Homo erectus, whom he regards as apes, co
uld have made the artifacts described in the report. In order to shield himself
from such a thought, he contends that the artifacts were created by the inhabit
ants of the upper cave, whom he regards as human.
In fact, Gish ([1972] 1973: 90; [1985] 1991: 185) expresses "serious doubt that
a cave existed at either level."
Gish s objections have been refuted as follows:
■ The description of the caves is accurate.
Groves (2000) cites two references by Weidenreich (1939, 1943) describing the ca
ves. Furthermore, Brace (1986) claims to have visited the site.
■ There is statigraphic difference between the caves.
This argument is advanced by Harrold (1990). Therefore, the artifacts in the up
per cave could not have been created by the inhabitants of the lower cave. (But
of course, Harrold does not understand that the geological layers were laid by
the Flood!)

■ It is impossible for Weidenreich to forge the casts.

Brace (1986) asks, "How could the internal structure of a fossil have been faked
?" Brace cites publications left by Black (1931; Black et al. 1934) and Weidenr
eich (1936, 1937, 1941, 1943) which remove all doubt regarding the authenticity
of the casts.
■ Black s description and Black s claim to discover a new species are two differ
ent matters.
According to Brace (1986):
The temptation to give dramatic fossil discoveries new and different nam
es is an occupational hazard to which many a fossil finder has succumbed .
. . But it does not mean that there is necessarily any doubt concerning the
nature or even the significance of the material being discussed. It is often
just a matter of what we decide to call it.
Did Black really discover a new species? We will probably never know. Even if
the specimens are recovered, there will be another round of the age-old fight ov
er where to draw the line for a new species.
The O Connell-gate scandal
This story starts from the same point at that of the Black-gate scandal. If you
are skipping around in this book, read the previous chapter first.
1927: Black makes a discovery which he claims as a thitherto undiscovered specie
s.
Several hominoid fossils, now known alternatively as Peking Man or Sinanthropus
pekinensis. were unearthed in Choukoutein, southwest of Beijing (Black 1927, 193
1).
1932: Chardin & Pei writes an article, alleging that the Sinanthropus was capabl
e of workmanship.
According to Chardin & Pei (1932), the paleontologists who found the Sinanthropu
s specimens in China also found "traces of fire and quartz fragments with seemin
g evidences of human breakage and workmanship." This led Chardin & Pei to the v
iew that the Sinanthropus had a sophisticated art of shaping rocks.
1937: Boule writes an article referring to the Chardin & Pei article.
According to the interpretations by Zindler (1990) and Foley (2003), Boule (1937
) expressed the opinion that the Homo sapiens, which had come into existence at
the time, hunted the Sinanthropus, which was still in existence. From a descri
ption of the Choukoutein site, Boule argues that the tools were not made by the
Sinanthropus, but by Sinanthropus predator.
1942: Boule dies while collaborating on a book with Vallois.
On July 4, 1942, Marcellin Boule passed away in Montsalvy, in the southern part
of France.
1957: Vallois finishes the book alone, including material corresponding to the a
rticle by Boule.
In 1957, Dryden Press published Vallois book, entitled Fossil Men. The book co
ntained material from the 1937 Boule article, which challenges the Creationist p
osition. For example, on page 145 is a translation of a passage from page 21 of
the Boule article:
It is evident, by the volume of their brains and by what we know of the
structure of their skulls, Sinanthropus and his brother Pithecanthropus fall
between the great anthropoid apes and men properly so called in the series
of higher primates.
In this book, Boule & Vallois (1957: 118) also claimed that Black s Sinanthropus
fossils were those of Homo erectus, the same species as those of the lower cave
(Brace 1986). At any rate, whether the Sinanthropus and the Homo erectus were
one link or two, the story of Adam and Eve is being rejected.
1969: O Connell writes a book in which he erroneously translates a passage from
Boule.
In his Creationist book Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis, Patrick O
Connell (1969) included a quote from the Boule (1937), describing the Sinanthrop
us discovery. He translated the passage as follows:
To this fantastic hypothesis that the owners of the monkey-like skulls w
ere the authors of the large-scale industry, I take the liberty of preferrin
g an opinion more in conformity with the conclusions from my studies, which i
s that the hunter (who battered the skulls) was a real man and that the cu
t stones, etc., were his handiwork.
whereas Zindler (1985, 1990) would translate the passage as follows:
To this hypothesis, as fantastic as it is ingenious, I may be permitted to prefe
r one which seems to me to be just as satisfactory, being simpler and more in co
nformity with the totality of what we know: the hunter was a true man, whose sto
ne industry has been found and who made Sinanthropus his victim!
Arthur (1995) saw the words "monkey-like skulls" as a mistranslation which was b
iased to promote his own view. Strahler ([1987] 1999: 490) comments, "O Connell
s conclusions are welcomed by the creationists because they effectively dispose
of H. erectus and leave only a large gap between apes and a created human kind.
"
1973-1979: Gish cites the Boule quote without acknowledging O Connell.
Gish quoted O Connell s translations at least three times (1973: 99; 1978a: 123,
129; 1979: 134). He did not cite O Connell as the translator, but rather assum
ed that the passage was as Vallois intended. According to Brace (1986), Gish in
sisted on this misquotation in order to "justify his conclusion that the Sinanth
ropus specimens were monkey-like creatures who could not have been human ances
tors because they were being hunted, and eaten by true Men. "
On page 99 of the 1973 edition, Gish commented on Homo sapiens and Sinanthropus
appearing on the scene at the same time:
If this is so, then Sinanthropus could not have been the evolutionary an
cestor of man but must have been a large monkey-like or ape-like creature. He,
too, then, must be laid to rest as a "missing link."
Remember, a cardinal rule of Evolution as misinterpreted by Gish is that "a pare
nt species must die as soon as it spawns a daughter species." (Arthur 1997)
Although Gish did not cite O Connell as the translator of the Boule passage, he
did cite O Connell as a source and agreed with his conclusion that the excavati
on was an Evolutionist hoax. Gish (1973b: 102), following O Connell (1969: 136)
, concludes that the Sinanthropus skulls were really those of "macaques (large m
onkeys) or large baboons killed and eaten by workers at an ancient quarry.“
According to Zindler (1990), "even a high school biology student" can distinguis
h between the skull of a baboon and any of the casts made of the Homo erectus sp
ecimens."
Harrold (1990), Zindler (1990), and Groves (2000) were amazed at the blind faith
which Gish (1973b: 99) paid to his single source:
We will now consider the evaluation of Sinanthropus by a creationist, th
e Roman Catholic priest, Rev. Patrick O Connell. To pit the evaluation of
a priest against those of eminent evolutionary paleontologists seems akin
to pitting David against Goliath. But perhaps in this case, also,
David has found a weak spot in the Goliath.
O Connell was in China during all of the time the excavations at Choukou
tien were being carried out, including the Japanese occupation and for seve
ral years after their departure. Although he did not make an on-site investigat
ion, O Connell had the advantage of seeing the accounts published in Chi
na in both Chinese and foreign languages. He became convinced that the publi
c had not been given all the facts and that no "missing link" had been found at
Choukoutien.
So there you have it! A foreigner who was living in China at the time and keepi
ng up on the news!
1979: Gish accuses Vallois of misrepresenting Boule.
Gish (1979: 136) wrote:
The account of Boule and Vallois in this section varies so decidedly fro
m earlier descriptions of Sinanthropus, published elsewhere by Boule, that
it is probable that this section was written by Vallois after the death of Bou
le.
Brace (1986) compared Boule (1937) with Boule & Vallois (1957) and found no sign
ificant difference. Apparently, then, the difference which Gish sees is not bet
ween Boule (1937) and Boule & Vallois (1957) but between O Connell (1969) and Bo
ule & Vallois (1957).
1979: Gish fictionalizes Boule.
Since the Boule in Gish s imagination was so reassuring of Gish s preconceptions
, Gish decided to elevate the imaginary Boule to the status of a primary researc
her. In Gish s fictionalized account, "Boule had visited Peking and Choukoutien
and had examined the originals" (Gish 1979: 133).
According to Brace (1986), Boule "relied entirely upon the photographs and infor
mation furnished to him initially by Black and later by Weidenreich," and that h
e made no pretense to the contrary.
1985: Gish gets caught.
Zindler (1985) published an article exposing Gish s misquote. Zindler read the
Boule article in the original French and could find no passage which could be tr
anslated O Connell s way.
Ritchie (1991) later wrote an article arguing that Gish s misquote was not an ho
nest mistake but a deliberate misrepresentation. Ritchie called attention to th
e book by Boule & Vallois (1957), in which the authors concluded that Homo erect
us was not an ape, but a transitional form between humans and apes. Gish must h
ave read that book, because he listed that book as a reference.
1985: Gish retreats somewhat.
In 1985, Gish published a new edition of his book, this time changing the title
to Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record. This time, the quotation was
deleted.
Gish (1997) later regretted referring to Boule as a primary source rather than O
Connell as a secondary source, but insisted that O Connell s translation was "a
free translation and did in no way change the meaning and intention of Boule s
text." He claimed that O Connell s looseness in translation, and therefore Gish
s own quotation, did not change the meaning of the article. His rationalizatio
n is difficult to follow, and readers are welcome to look up the original source
(Gish 1997). Whatever his line of reasoning, Arthur (1997) was not convinced.
The latest word from Gish seems to be a correspondence to the talkorigins site i
n 2000 (quoted in Foley 2003):
In reply to your inquiry, I am enclosing a photocopy of the portion of m
y book Evolution: The fossils STILL Say No! that discusses Homo Erectus.
as far as Boule and Vallois is concerned this is all I have to say on that
subject.
So now you have met three dastardly villains--Black, Weidenreich, and Vallois--a
ll of them guilty of the heinous crime of threatening Gish s pet dogma! For mo
re details on this story, see Plimer (1994: 64-68), Groves (2000), Foley (2003).
For a Creationist rebuttal to Plimer s account, see Creation Ministries
International (n. d.).
other frames of reference: embryology
Linguist Joseph Greenberg (1960) made a vast collection of words in the vocabula
ries of most of the Native American languages. He found that the languages fit
into three families. One of these was the self-descriptive Eskimo-Aleut family.
The second was the Na-Dene family, consisting roughly of all other Canadian Na
tive American languages. The third was the Amerind, or Macro-Indian family, whi
ch encompassed the rest of the American supercontinent.
Christy Turner (1983) compared the teeth of members of different Native American
tribes and concluded with the same three families.
The two teamed up and joined with other researchers (Greenberg, Turner, & Zegura
1986. Greenberg, Turner, Zegura et al. 1986) to gather DNA evidence. Again, th
e evidence pointed to the same three families.
All of these researchers concluded, then, that the Native Americans migrated to
the New World in three groups.
Are you prone to concur with these researchers? So am I.
On the other hand, suppose a group of cult members approached you on the street,
claiming that their own cult leader was the true Messiah.
Would you be prone to believe any of them? Neither would I.
So what s the difference? In the first case, the grouping of the Native America
n tribes was approached from three different directions. In fact, when the diff
erent researchers began their work, they did not even know of each other, much l
ess depend on each other. In other words, they have studied the problem from th
ree different frames of reference.
As for the cult members, they have all been through the same indoctrination prog
ram and are approaching you with the same slogans and the same buzz words. In o
ther words, they have learned from only one frame of reference.
Which case is more like the case for Evolution? The second case, according to G
ish. Gish (1973a) wants you to think that the fossil evidence is the only frame
of reference upon which Evolutionary theory is based. Here is one quote (Gish
1973a). Gish ([1972] 1976: 16; 1973a) even quotes "the well-known British evolu
tionist" W. E. Le Gros Clark (1955) to back up the statement:
That evolution actually did occur can only be scientifically established by the
discovery of the fossilized remains of representative samples of those intermedi
ate types which have been postulated on the basis of the indirect evidence. In
other words, the really crucial evidence for evolution must be provided by the p
aleontologist whose business it is to study the evidence of the fossil record.
The fact is, however, that the claim for Evolution is supported by many frames o
f reference, just as is the claim that the Native Americans arrived in America i
n three emigrations.
So let us consider those other frames of reference. First, let us discuss embry
ology. At one time, it was believed by some Evolutionists that a larva or embr
yo undergoes all of the stages which were undergone by its ancestors. This beli
ef became known as the recapitulation theory or the biogenetic law. The words "
ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" became the rallying cry.
This hypothesis is now regarded as an oversimplification, but not discarded alto
gether. Here are some claims which are still being made:

■ that early embryonic stages are similar to the same embryonic stage of relat
ed species, but not to the adult stages of these species
This was the position taken by Darwin and is taken by most Evolutionary scientis
ts today (Wikipedia [2007] 2010).
■ that an evolutionary trend could be discovered in embryonic development
Nedin ([1999] 2002) argues that the descent from the Archaeopteryx shows in the
embryonic development of the modern bird. The angle between the ilium and the p
ubis, two of the pelvic bones, has decreased from Archie s time to modern times.
The angle is 45 degrees with Archie and almost zero with a chicken. In a chic
ken embryo, that angle likewise begins at 45 degrees and decreases to near zero.

■ that structures could appear in chronological order in the embryo

Elsewhere, we mentioned the flexible notochord which the earliest animals posses
sed in place of a backbone (Trott 1999a, 1999b). All vertebrate embryos develop
a notochord which evolves into a backbone.
Whereas the backbone is the first bone to develop in the embryo of any vertebrat
e (Wikipedia [2007] 2010), the cerebrum, which is the most distinctive part of t
he human brain, is the last to develop in a human embryo (Wikipedia [2007] 2010)
.
■ that an organ possessed by an ancestral species could appear and disappear in
the development of an embryo
Examples include an air-breathing organ in fish (Wikipedia [2007] 2010), teeth i
n whales (Saladin 1988a, Parrish 1991), legs in whales (Wikipedia [2007] 2010),
hair on whales (Wikipedia [2007] 2010), legs on snakes (Parrish 1991), extra to
es on horses (Ewart 1894 quoted in McGowan 1984: 147). extra pairs of aortic arc
hes in verbetrates (Parrish 1991), and tails on humans (Wikipedia [2007] 2010),
Saladin (1988a) and Parrish (1991) also discuss an extra pair of tusks which wer
e possessed by elephants during the Oligocene Epoch (Cenozoic Era: Tertiary Peri
od).
Darwin himself noticed the similarity between the larva of barnacles and that of
crabs. He noticed eyes in embryonic moles, pelvic rudiments in embryonic snake
s, and teeth in embryonic baleen whales (Gilbert 2000).
■ that an organ possessed by an ancestral species could appear and fail to disa
ppear, thereby resulting in a birth defect
Examples include horses being born with extra toes (Saladin 1988a; Struthers 189
3 quoted in McGowan 1984: 147), whales being born with hind legs as long as four
feet long (Saladin 1988a), and humans being born with tails (Parrish 1991).
■ that recapitulation could take place after birth
Birth is not necessarily the deadline for ontology to recapitulate phylogeny. Z
indler (1990) regards the development from tadpole to frog as a recapitulation o
f evolution from fish to amphibian.
Come to think of it, maybe the reason that children grow larger is because our a
ncestors grew larger. What would happen if a species evolved smaller instead of
larger? According to at least one source (Terra Nature 2003), this could be wh
y the kiwi lays eggs which are so large in relation to its adult size.
■ that recapitulation could be effected in the laboratory
Zindler (1990) mentions quiescent genes, or genes which are inherited from a rem
ote ancestor, which lie latent, but can be brought to the fore in the laboratory
. By detecting such genes, Kollar & Fisher (1980) have endowed avine subjects w
ith teeth.
What has been Gish s response? He seems to prefer to ignore the topic, but here
is what little I can find:
▶ change the subject back to fossils
In the Saladin (1988d) debate, the opponent asked about the extra pair of tusks
which appear and disappear in elephant embryos, so Gish changed the subject back
to fossils.
▶ create a straw man
In a telecasted debate (Access Research Network 1999), Gish accused evolutionist
s of pretending that human embryos have "gill slits." (cf. Gish n. d. 3: 26) Mye
rs ([2003] 2004) explains that the term is only a metaphorical name, like "table
leg" or "airplane wing.")
▶ appeal to authority
Gish [1972] 1976: 7; [1985] 1991: 18) quotes R. Danson (1979), who wrote a lette
r to the editor of New Scientist, asking, "Can there be any other area of scienc
e, for instance, in which a concept as intellectually barren as embryonic recapi
tulation could be used as evidence for a theory?"
Here, Gish does not bother to define "embryonic recapitulation." All we know is
, you d better not believe in it or Danson will make fun of you.
I have not been able to identify the author of this quote. If you can find any
information on R. Danson, please write back.
▶ ad hominem attack
Unlike many other Creationist crusaders, Gish seldom mentioned the drawing by Er
nst Haeckel, a contemporary of Darwin. If you peruse Creationist tracts and Web
sites, you have doubtless seen Haeckel s 1874 chart, comparing the embryonic dev
elopment of six animal species. Haeckel allegedly exaggerated the similarity be
tween the species in their earliest stages in order to advance the recapitulatio
n theory. This is the theory, stated in those three big words, which maintains
that a developing embryo quickly replays the ancestral stages of its species.
Other Creationist writers are quick to bring up this subject. They probably wan
t their readers to think that all Evolutionists are sly, dastardly villains who
will stop at nothing to advance their cause.
Besides an ad hominem attack, this argument can serve as as a Fallacy of Denying
the Antecedent:
If Haeckel s drawings are accurate, then ontogeny recapitulates phylogen
y.
Haeckel s drawings are not accurate.
Therefore, ontogeny does not recapitulate phyologeny.
Jonathan Wells (2000: 81-109), in his book Icons of Evolution, devotes an entire
chapter to claiming that Haeckel s drawings were reproduced and presented as fa
ct in most of the biology textbooks then in use.
As far as I know, Gish (n. d. 3: 27) has mentioned Haeckel s drawings and echoed
Wells claims only one time.
Evolutionists have admitted dishonesty on Haeckel s part (Isaak [2005] 2007: 82-
83). Myers ([2003] 2004) has studied the textbooks listed and found that many o
f them contained the necessary corrections. You are welcome to read both sides
and make up your own mind.
But for now, I would like to check some other frames of reference.
other frames of reference: physical imperfections
Wouldn t it be nice if our bodies changed quickly enough to keep up with the tim
es? Women wouldn t have to menstruate. Adolescents wouldn t have to suppress t
heir urges. Office workers wouldn t have to suffer from lack of exercise.
Because of the disparity between our past needs and our present needs, scientist
s have had to coin a couple of terms:
■ vestigial organs
Wiedersheim (1895) compiled a list of 86 organs in humans which, in his opinion,
were of use to our ancestors, are of no use to us, but which we now carry as ex
cess baggage. He called these vestigial organs.
We are not the only species with this affliction. Some well-known vestigial or
gans include leg bones in whales, wings on flightless birds, and eyes on fish li
ving in caves.
Zindler (1990) sees the topic of vestigial organs as distasteful to Creationists
on the grounds that "their god would have created useless organs."
■ homology
Before we continue, let me read you a children s book entitled Our Beaks Are Goo
d Beaks (Cheon 2008, translation mine).
On the first two pages, pigeons eat seeds on the ground, while saying:
Our beaks are good beaks, poke poke poke poke,
Our beaks are poking beaks, poke poke poke poke.
On the next two pages, woodpeckers peck trees, while saying:
Our beaks are good beaks, peck peck peck peck,
Our beaks are pecking beaks, peck peck peck peck.
On the next two pages, crossbills hover over pine cones on a tree, cutting off t
he pine cones with their beaks:
Our beaks are good beaks, snip snip snip snip,
Our beaks are like scissors, snip snip snip snip.
Next, spoonbills wade in the water, catching fish:
Our beaks are good beaks, open wide, open wide,
Our beaks are wide beaks, open wide, open wide.
Next is a buzzard, sitting on a tree branch, while another buzzard chases a rode
nt who is scurrying on another tree branch:
Our beaks are good beaks, snap snap snap snap,
Our beaks are like hooks, snap snap snap snap.
Next, sabrebills wade in the water and catch their prey:
Our beaks are good beaks, pluck pluck pluck pluck,
Our beaks are plucking beaks, pluck pluck pluck pluck.
Finally, we see an adult pelican carrying a scrumptious seafood dinner, which it
 offers to two baby pelicans:
Our beaks are good beaks, scurry scurry scurry scurry.
Our beaks are quick beaks, scurry scurry scurry scurry.
Yum-yum, delicious! Help yourselves, kids!
You have just seen beaks in seven different shapes, serving seven different func
tions.
This may remind you of the finches observed by Darwin on the Galapagos Islands.
In their variety of habitats, the finches have developed different sizes and sh
apes of beaks for different purposes. The small tree finch inhabits humid everg
reen forest, where it uses its short, curved beak to grasp insects. The vampire
finch lives on Wolf Island, where it uses its sharp beak to mount the backs of o
ther birds and feast on their blood. The woodpecker finch inhabits places where
cactus spines and tree twigs are available. These become tools to dislodge ins
ects from trees, and are relatively easy to hold in its long, thin beak. (Anima
l Corner 2010; Campbell n. d.; Ellis [1999] 2010; Johnson, G. [1998] 2008; Metzn
er 2002)
These are all examples of homology. This term refers to a situation in which:
1. A species changes its lifestyle.
2. The species continues to inherit an organ which was either of use onl
y in its old lifestyle.
3. The species finds an alternate use for that organ.
(cf. Pagel 2002: 1131-1133 quoted in Cartwright & Theobald 2003) Penguins no lo
nger use their wings to fly, but now use them for underwater swimming (Wikipedia
2008). Whales no long use their pelvic bones to support the abdomen but for re
productive purposes (Gingerich et al. 1990). To put it figuratively, life hand
s us a lemon and we make lemonade.
Evolutionary theorists have been aware of homology from the very beginning. Dar
win wrote in Origin of Species ([1859] 1979: 428): "An organ rendered, during ch
anged habits of life, useless or injurious for one purpose, might easily be modi
fied and used for another purpose."
So what has Gish s response been? Not much. Remember, Gish usually avoids any
topic except fossils. But here are a few responses which he has made:
▶ responding exactly as Zindler predicted
In one of his books, Gish (1993: 226-227) quoted Gould (1980) and Kitcher (1982)
as saying that the panda s thumb was originally used for another purpose, it is
now less than ideal, but adequate, for stripping bamboo stalks.
Gish responded that "It is presumptuous for evolutionists to demand that God mod
ify the true thumb of the giant panda . . . and it is arrogant of them to claim
that they could have done a better job."
▶ making quotes
Gish (n. d. 3: 27) quotes Evolutionary zoologist Steven R. Scadding (1982) as sa
ying that "Vestigial organs provide no evidence for evolutionary theory."
Gish finds amusement in the title of a pamphlet by de Beer (1971), Homology: An
Unsolved Problem (Saladin 1988d). Here is a quote nugget which Gish found in th
e pamphlet (Thwaites 1980, Gish n. d. 3: 31; [1985] 1991: 253-254; 1988d; 1995b:
25):
 It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheri
tance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology
was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. T
he attempt to find "homologous" genes, except in closely related species, has be
en given up as hopeless.
▶ arguing that some vestigial organs are not useless
Gish (n. d. 3: 27) cites a list of supposed human vestigial organs compiled by W
iedersheim (1895). According to Gish, uses have been found for most of these or
gans. This includes the appendix, which at one time might have served the purpo
se of digesting tree bark (Hunter [1998] 2009). Creationists are usually quick t
o tell us that the organ now plays a role in the immune system (Bergman 2000).
Now for the other side of the story:
■ Cartwright & Theobald (2003) put Scadding (1982) back into context.
Cartwright & Theobald (2003) counter that Scadding was defining the term vestigi
al organs as "functionless structures," and arguing on the premise that "it is n
ot possible to unambiguously identify useless structures." Scadding, then, was
not defining the term as it was later defined.
■ Thwaites (1980) puts De Beer (1971) back into context.
Gish, along with his fellow warriors, would have us believe that de Beer rejecte
d the notion of homology as obsolete. The fact is that de Beer said no such thi
ng. On the contrary, De Beer (1971: 7) wrote that the evolution of the inner ea
r of mammals from the jaw of reptiles is "one of the most demonstrative examples
of how comparative anatomy can determine the homology of structures inherited f
rom common ancestors in [evolution]."
There can even be a chain of homologies. Pectoral fins on fish changed to forel
imbs on newts and lizards, which in turn changed to human arms (De Beer 1971: 8)
.
What, then, does De Beer mean by calling homology a "hopeless" "unsolved problem
"? Thwaites (1980) interprets the booklet as dealing with suppressor mutations,
or "mutations which restore the normal appearance of a mutant organism." Thwait
es comments, "Apparently Dr. Gish has never heard of suppressor genes."
Maybe, maybe not. We never know for sure when Gish is misleading and when he is
misled.
■ De Beer s writing is outdated.
If the search to find homologous genes "has been given up as hopeless," it has b
een reinstated since the pamphlet was published. According to Isaak (2005), DNA
technology has made it possible to examine genes directly. Isaak suggests refe
rring to S. B. Carroll (2005) for further information.
■ If God had perfect blueprints, he could have used them more often.
Gish (n. d. 3: 31) regarded all of life as the work of a "master engineer" who c
reated "similar structures for similar purposes." Gish gave the example of walk
ing on four legs. Having four legs is a good idea, so God created four legs for
mammals and reptiles.
Fine. Except that there are other instances in which God could have repeated a
good idea but didn t. Pigliucci (2000: 180) gives the example of the eye of the
squid, which is more efficient than the human eye. Does God love squids more t
han he loves us?
Saladin (1988d) has studied Romer s Vertebrate Paleontology (1966) and found th
at the wings of pterosaurs, birds, and bats differ not only in structure, but in
efficiency. Why didn t God bestow the ideal wing design on all three taxons?
You have probably heard Kirk Cameron s argument that the banana fits perfectly i
nto human hands. Therefore, goes the argument, God must have considered bananas
when designing human hands and vice-versa. Couldn t God have been so careful w
hen designing bamboo stalks and panda paws?
■ The concept of homology could apply to Gish s argument about the appendix.
I don t doubt that the appendix plays a role in the immune system (Bergman 2000)
, so let us concede this point with Dr. Gish (n. d. 3: 27). That still leaves t
he argument that the concept of homology can apply here.
Other Creationists like to tally up alleged vestigial organs and argue that they
are not useless. If you enter the words "vestigial organs Creationism" in a Go
ogle search, you will find oodlums of examples. Gish, however, prefers to remai
n mum on the subject because he would rather talk about fossils.
■ Gish s stand is self-contradictory.
If the Evolutionary model is false, then how did the Animal Kingdom get to be re
galed with many, many organs serving many, many purposes? Did God endow every o
rganism with every organ that they have today, fully aware of its future needs?
Let us lay down our weapons for a moment and try to understand what Gish is tryi
ng to tell us. Remember that Gish is outlawing homology. With this in mind, ap
parently the answer is yes, each organ which God created was to serve the purpos
e which it is serving today.
Wait a minute, now. What about the Galapagos finches? Remember that different
finches on different islands have different beaks for different purposes. So Go
d must have created all the varieties, each with its own custom-made beak.
You may remember from an earlier chapter that God created different "kinds" from
which separate species have branched. This will all be logically consistent if
we say that God created a pair of finches for every size and shape of beak. Th
en maybe we can agree with Gish.
But Gish won t let us do that. Gish ([1972] 1976: 18, 20, [1985] 1991: 30) spe
cifically designates the finches as a single kind, with the possible exception o
f the warbler finches.
All right, then, let us go along with Gish by saying that most of the Galapagos
finches were created the same. Then we can t explain how they arrived at their
present state because homology doesn t exist! How can we agree with Gish if he
can t agree with himself?
It seems that this topic has become more popular in the C/E arena than it was du
ring the Gish debate circuit. At the time I am writing this, the Creationists a
t www.evolutionfairytale.com are challenging the Evolutionists to find a vestig
ial organ and prove that the species has not found an alternative use for that o
rgan.
But it is usually very difficult to prove a negative. How do you know there are
 no witches, warlocks, werewolves, or vampires?
other frames of reference: biogeography
I once asked a group of Evolutionists why there were polar bears at one end of t
he world but not the other. If they could live in the Arctic, couldn t they als
o live in the Antarctic? The group replied that the Arctic zone had the raw mat
erial for polar bears and the Antarctic zone didn t.
It is believed by scientists that polar bears are descended from brown bears who
m glaciers isolated from their brethren about 200,000 years ago (Polar Bears Int
ernational 2010). This happened at one end of the globe but not the other.
And that is why God seemingly gave one home to the polar bears but not the other
! This consideration is an example of biogeography, which Quammen (2004) define
s as "the study of the geographical distribution of living creatures—that is, wh
ich species inhabit which parts of the planet and why."
You will probably not find this word anywhere in Gish s writings. Biogeography
poses many questions which Creationists don t answer, probably can t answer, and
probably don t want you to ask. For example:
■ Why don t same or similar species exist in same or similar geographical featur
es?
You have just seen one example: the Arctic Zone had brown bears to make white b
ears out of, but the Antarctic Zone didn t.
This is only one of many cases in which a species is found in one habitat but no
t in a similar habitat in another part of the world (Holley 2009). Darwin began
to ponder this question on the Beagle voyage. He noticed that South America ha
d small rodents called agoutis and viscachas in terrestrial habitats but not har
es and rabbits. He also noticed that there were coypus and capybaras in the we
tlands but not beavers and muskrats (Quammen 2004).
You may say, "God is infinite in wisdom. Maybe he sees differences between simi
lar geographical features which we can t see." But there have been cases in whi
ch a species has thrived after being introduced by humans from one area to the o
ther (Wikipedia 2010a). An example is the cactus family, which has been introdu
ced in the Australian desert (Coyne 2009: 91-99; Holley 2009).
■ Why do isolated places tend to have species found nowhere else?
In many parts of the world, we find endemic species, or species which are not fo
und anywhere else in the world. The echidna and platypus are an example. They
are the only living monotremes, or egg-laying mammals, are found only in Austral
ia (Wikipedia 2010a).
We find such species on continents, but more often on continental islands, or is
lands which have broken off from the mainland. Such islands include Japan, New Z
ealand, the British Isles, and Madagascar.
We find endemic species still more often on oceanic islands, or islands which ar
e nowhere near a continent. Such islands include Hawaii and St. Helena (Holley
2009; Wikipedia 2010a). Those species tend to be similar to those of the neares
t continent or island (Coyne 2009: 99–110).
Plant seeds or smaller species could be transported by migratory birds, by the c
urrent, or by the wind (Holley 2009; Wikipedia 2010a). The closest relative of
the Silversword, found in Hawaii, is the tarweed, found on the west coast of Nor
th America. The tarweed disseminates through adhesive seeds which can be carrie
d by migratory birds (Wikipedia 2010a). It is likely, then, that migratory bird
s carried tarweed seeds from North America to Hawaii, where the tarweeds evolved
into Silversword.
On the other hand, land vertebrate species native to oceanic islands are relativ
ely rare (Holley 2009; Wikipedia 2010a). The iguanas and giant tortoises found
on the Galapagos Islands were an exception (Wikipedia 2010a).
■ Why are closely related animals found together?
On the Galapagos chain, Darwin found not only the 13 finch species (Wikipedia 20
10a, Quammen 2004) but 3 mockingbird species (Quammen 2004). Madagascar is host
to 75 lemur species (Coyne 2009: 99-110) while 11 moa species have lived in Ne
w Zealand and gone extinct (Pallen 2009: 87).
Wood weevils abound in many different species on St. Helena (Wikipedia 2010a).
The Juan Fernandez Archipelago (Wikipedia 2010a) is home to a variety of sunflow
ers. There are 800 fruit fly species (Wikipedia 2010a), 30 Silversword species
(Wikipedia 2010a) and many honey creeper species (Wikipedia 2010a) in Hawaii.
You may say, "Closely related species are found together because similar climate
and topography is found together." Not always. Keep in mind that the Galapag
os finches found different climate conditions and food sources on different isla
nds. The Silversword species in Hawaii include species which have adapted from
mountaintop to sea level and from desert to rain forest (Wikipedia 2010a).
It is apparent, then, that a single species colonized the area and later diversi
fied. Such an event is called an adaptive radiation (Wikipedia 2010a).
On those rare occasions in which similar species have been found in distant simi
lar habitats, a simple explanation has usually been found. You may ask, "What a
bout alligators in South America and crocodiles in Africa?" The ancestor of bot
h species has left fossils in both Africa and South America, dating from 115 mya
, during the Cretaceous Period of the Mesozoic Era. The two continents split at
about 100 mya (American Crocodile 2009).
You may ask, "What about llamas, Bactrian camels, and dromedaries?" Camels firs
t evolved in North America about 8 mya, in the Tertiary Period of the Cenozoic E
ra. At a time when the connection between North and South America was wider tha
n it is now, a group of them migrated southward and became llamas. Another grou
p migrated across the Bering Strait. The group left in North America then went
extinct along with most other large mammals, probably due to a comet (Cal King 2
010).
You may ask, "What about African elephants and Indian elephants?" In this case,
the fossil record supplies the answer. The two species are the only survivors
of a family of 26 species. In fact, the Indian elephant is more closely related
to the extinct mammoth than to the African elephant (EcoTravel Africa [2000] 20
05).
Suppose that we found cactus plants in every desert, polar bears in both the Arc
tic and Antarctic, and tree moss in every swamp. Then we could conclude that Go
d put them there (Cline 2010).
We don t, though, so we can t. So Gish asks you to think about something else.
other frames of reference: the nature of children
Are children born good or evil? We don t get a clear answer from the Bible, bec
ause the Bible can be interpreted either way. Here are some verses which could
indicate that children are born good:
 God created man in His own image. Genesis 1:27
Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he sha
ll not enter therein. Mark 10:15
Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall i
n no wise enter therein. Luke 18:17
Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise.
Matthew 21: 16
and here are some verses which could indicate that children are born evil:
The imagination of man s heart is evil from his youth. Genesis 8:21
What is man, that he should be pure, or he who is born of a woman, that
he should be righteous? Job 15:14
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Psalms 51:5
The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they
be born, speaking lies. Psalm 58:3
Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child. Proverbs 22:15
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1 Corinthians 15:22
Both of these positions are fraught with implications when it comes to raising a
nd teaching children.
You may remember a wave of the former position in the Seventies. All over the c
ountry, parents were banding together and organizing what they called "free scho
ols" or "alternative schools," in which the students were granted maximum freedo
m. They hired teachers--excuse me, "facilitators"--to help the students learn w
hatever subject they were interested in at the moment. The students were restra
ined just enough that they never ran out in the street.
I was working as a free-lance music teacher at the time. At first, I thought th
at the alternative school movement was right on target. But then I got a few st
udents who attended such schools. I had problems with those students which I di
d not have with public school students. When the child attempted a task and fai
led on the first try, I had to coax the child to try again. It was then that I
realized that persistence is a valuable trait which was not taught in a free sch
ool.
However, the traditional approach, which assumes that children are born evil, is
not so wonderful either. I won t tell you stories from my own childhood becaus
e I know they won t shock you.
Not surprisingly, Gish takes the latter position. Gish (1993: 30) has quoted Bo
zarth (1978):
Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate e
nd over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reaso
n Jesus earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and th
e original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of
God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolu
tion means, then Christianity is nothing.
As we have seen, Gish (1977: 37; [1992] 1996: 68) believes that God created all
the animals as vegetarian, but the Fall of Man turned some species carnivorous.
We can safely conclude, then, that Gish regards children as innately evil.
What do our everyday observations tell us about the nature of children? Before
reading further, I would like for you to take a sheet of paper and answer these
four questions:
1. What is good for children and attractive to children?
2. What is good for children but unattractive to children?
3. What is harmful to children but attractive to children?
4. What is harmful to children and unattractive to children?
After you make those lists, you may read further:
What about the position that children are innately good? This cannot be right,
however, because if it were, there would be no items listed for numbers 2 and 3.
What about the position that children are innately evil? This cannot be right e
ither, because if it were, there would be no items listed for numbers 1 and 4.
I almost forgot John Locke s position, which is that children are born neither g
ood nor evil, but as blank slates. This cannot be right, either, because if it
were, there would be no items listed at all.
Most likely, you were able to list items for all four questions. So let us look
at those items.
For number 1, "What is good for children and attractive to children?" you probab
ly listed friends and family, outdoor exercise, or the milk bottle.
For number 2, "What is good for children but unattractive to children?" you prob
ably listed school, sour medicine, or penicillin shots.
For number 3, "What is harmful to children but attractive to children?" you prob
ably listed excessive TV and video, junk food, or illegal drugs.
For number 4, "What is harmful to children and unattractive to children?" you pr
obably listed wild animals, sharp objects, or high places.
Let us compare the items for questions 1 and 4, in which children are attracted
in the right direction: friends and family, outdoor exercise, milk, wild animals
, sharp objects, and high places. Do you see the pattern? Children are agreeab
le when it comes to items which have been around us for millions of years.
Now let s compare the items for questions 2 and 3, in which children are attract
ed in the wrong direction: school, sour medicine, penicillin shots, excessive TV
and video, junk food, and illegal drugs. Do you see the pattern? Children are
disagreeable when it comes modern inventions and modern institutions.
This tells us that children are born neither good nor evil nor as blank slates,
but are born for survival in the wilderness.
Perhaps MacLean (1990) has the best neurological explanation for this. Accordin
g to MacLean, each human being possesses not one, but three brains. He refers t
o his model as the triune brain.
In MacLean s lingo, the brain stem and cerebellum are the reptilian brain. This
portion of the brain controls survival behavior. This portion of the brain clos
ely resembles the entire brain of reptiles.
The amygdala, the hypothalamus, and the hippocampus comprise the paleomammalian
brain, or the limbic system. This portion of the brain controls the emotions.
The reptilian brain plus the paleomammalian brain closely resembles the entire b
rain of all other mammals.
The cerebral cortex, or the neo-cortex, is called the neomammalian brain. This
portion of the brain controls higher-order thinking, reasoning, and speech. The
human neomammalian brain is the largest, with that of the dolphin ranking secon
d.
These three portions of the brain are arranged roughly in three layers. The rep
tilian and paleomammalian brains are sometimes called the inner brain while the
neomammalian brain is sometimes called the outer brain.
To illustrate how the inner and outer brains conflict, let s go back and discuss
some of those items which we listed in response to the four questions:
■ Why do children hate school?
"Because children are lazy and don t want to learn!" This answer is simple, but
not very accurate. Children willingly attend activities such as athletic pract
ice, music rehearsals, and scout meetings, and those are educational activities
also.
"But those activities are fun. There is a time to have fun and a time to get se
rious." This sounds like a valid truism, but let s consider why these other act
ivities are fun and school isn t. The main difference is that the other activit
ies are gregarious and school isn t. Instead, children at school are expected t
o sit at their desks, do their own work, and "no talking."
The answer is not to prod children harder, but to reform the schools. With a li
ttle bit of creativity, teachers and administrators could make social activities
out of reading and math.
■ Why do children like junk food?
The recipe for junk food is quite simple: merely put in an overdose of sugar, sa
lt, fat, or any combination of the three. All other ingredients are merely flav
oring.
In prehistoric times, these deadly three items were not available in such abunda
nce in most parts of the earth. If they were, one of two things would have happ
ened: we would either develop an aversion to the deadly three, or we would contr
ive a way to derive nutrition therefrom.
For an illustration of this, think of the grass which grows in the meadow. That
has been available to both humans and cows from prehistoric times. Grass is ri
ch in cellulose. We developed an aversion thereto, while cows contrived a way t
o derive nutrition therefrom.
You have never had trouble restraining children from eating grass, have you?
■ Why do young people take illegal drugs?
Same principle as the above. LSD sugar cubes did not grow on bushes in prehisto
ric times. If they did, we would either develop an aversion to LSD or contrive
a way to derive nutrition therefrom.
■ Why do young people like electronic stimulation?
Mander (1978) analyzed television viewing as a modern-day adaptation of sitting
around the cave fire in prehistoric times. At the time of Mander s analysis, th
ere were no videotapes, video games, or DVD s, but Mander s analysis could be co
nsidered valid for all these inventions.
So why is electronic overdose harmful whereas camp fires are not? The differenc
e is that electronic stimulation is brought by producers intent on controlling t
he viewer s thoughts. Therefore, electronic stimulation can dull the viewer s s
enses and the viewer s creativity whereas a cave fire cannot.
Some readers might say, "But it s just kids who have these conflicts! Mature ad
ults have everything under control!" Not so. The triune brain plagues everyone
, regardless of age. In the next chapter, we shall look at some problems which
affect adults.
other frames of reference: the nature of adults
No matter where you live, no matter what your socioeconomic standing is, no matt
er how old you are, the chances are that the Evolution-Technology Gap is affecti
ng you. In your relationship with your mate, in your workplace--everywhere you
go you run into problems which were created by the gap between Evolution and Tec
hnology.
First, let us talk about how the E-T Gap affects relations between men and women
:
■ Why don t men like to ask for directions?
Someone quipped that a man lost on the road would never stop and ask for directi
ons until someone files a Missing Person Report. This joke has an element of tr
uth.
Why do men consider it such a disgrace? Likely because a good hunter knows his
territory. Men still think they are hunters and want to be good hunters.
■ Why don t men like to show their emotions?
You have probably heard mental health professionals exhorting adult males to exp
ress their emotions more openly. Their usual line goes something like, "Look ho
w easy it is for women to bare their souls! Why can t men do it? Society is th
e culprit! Our parents, our teachers, our peers--those who shaped us are villai
ns, every one of them! But we are the rebels! We will break the shackles of ty
ranny!"
It s not that easy. When we think of those parents and teachers who say that "m
en don t cry," it is tempting to absolve Nature and prosecute Nurture. That is,
until we ask another question: what makes parents and teachers say that men don
t cry.
If it is Nature, it is for a very good reason. Men who conceal their emotion ma
ke better hunters and warriors, and we all think men are still hunters and warri
ors.
■ Why don t male and female heterosexuality click?
Why do men patronize prostitutes they don t even know? Why do men drool over ch
eesecake pictures of women they don t even know? Most liberated women will tell
you, "Because men are animals! They have only one thing on their mind, and tha
t s sex!"
Why do women read drugstore novels? Why do women watch soap operas? We can just
as legitimately say, "Because women are animals! They have only one thing on t
heir mind, and that s relationships!
It would be nice if men and women had the same thing on their mind. Then it wou
ld be easier for us to get along with each other. We don t, though, because Evo
lution didn t work that way. It is in the evolutionary interest of a man to bec
ome quickly attracted to women because that way, he can impregnate more women.
It is in the evolutionary interest of a woman to become slowly attracted to men
because that way, she doesn t end up with an irresponsible vagabond who will lea
ve her stranded with a cave full of children.
They didn t have alimony, child support, and skip traces a million years ago, so
our inner brains don t know about them.
Here is how the E-T Gap affects relations between adults and adults in general:
■ Why is it so difficult for people who disagree with each other to be diplomati
c?
If you belong to a religious group which opposes the opinions of another religio
us group, the sensible thing to do would be to go out on a mission. Waging a wa
r isn t the right answer, but it s the answer which we sometimes resort to.
If you prefer one socioeconomic plan over another, then by all means write about
it, discuss it, or hold a panel discussion. Waging a war isn t the right answ
er, but it s the answer which we all too often resort to.
Evolutionists and Creationists may not confront each other physically now, but w
ho knows, someday they might. People can fight over virtually any question. In
Nineteenth Century Germany, Brahms and Wagner disagreed over how music should b
e composed. Although this was a respectful disagreement on the part of the two
composers themselves, their fans organized into the Brahmsites and the Wagnerite
s and held fights on the street.
What causes us to react so irrationally? Don t we know that it is important for
us to be tactful and diplomatic when sharing our opinions? Don t we know that
we only fuel the flames by threatening prospective converts? Yes, our outer bra
in knows that, but our inner brain doesn t.
Rather, our inner brain tells us that any adversary is out to get us. Our inner
brain developed at a time when this was true. There were no Protestants or Cat
holics, no Communists or Capitalists, and no Evolutionists or Creationists. The
re were only enemies and predators.
Now we will see how the Gap affects relations between adults and children:
■ Why do adults play fight with children?
The children in South Korea make a pun on my first name by calling me a tomato.
I pretend to be offended and chase and tickle them.
This is nothing unusual. All over the Mammal Class, adults and juveniles play f
ight. When we see other mammals engaged in such antics, it is obvious that the
adult is grooming the juvenile for any real attack by an enemy or predator.
Of course, all the physical fitness in the world will be of no use if North Kore
a drops an atom bomb on South Korea. But the children s inner brains don t know
about atom bombs, and neither does mine.
■ Why are teachers so hostile toward students?
One adult handling a roomful of children is something new. In the prehistoric f
amily, there was no such thing.
What is the closest equivalent, then? The children in the classroom are beings
different from the teacher. In prehistoric times, there were two such situation
s: an adult could be surrounded by invaders or predators. So that is how the t
eacher s inner brain identifies the children. That is why we hear teachers call
ing children "wild animals."
A disciplinary technique known as positive reinforcement is often advanced in th
e university classroom. This technique asks for the teacher to disregard unacce
ptable behavior and praise acceptable behavior. The misbehaving students, wishin
g for a share of the recognition, begin to behave acceptably. The acceptably beh
aving students, wishing for further recognition, continue to behave acceptably.

This is easy to understand. Students in the university classroom answer correct

ly when asked test questions on the subject. Furthermore, it is effective in th
e classroom. When practiced correctly, it reduces classroom misbehavior and it
reduces the time that the teacher spends shouting at the students.
It is not practiced often enough, however. All too many teachers, after earning
their degrees and their certification, fall back into the same bad habits as th
e teachers of the generation before.
Why is this? Because teachers are in outer brain mode in the university classro
om, but they switch to inner brain mode in the elementary classroom. Positive r
einforcement would not work on invaders or predators, and that is what the stude
nts appear to be.
A good solution might be to simulate the extended family in the classroom as wel
l as in the home. Team teachers could serve as other adults and student leaders
and assistants could serve as older siblings.
■ What causes sexual abuse?
In a study by Bernard (1975), pedophile subjects tended to be the youngest in th
e family. This meant that they grew up lacking children younger than themselves
to nurture, and therefore were unable to develop healthy attitudes toward young
er children.
In an extended family, the youngest child of any couple would soon have younger
cousins, nieces, and nephews to nurture.
In the same study (Bernard 1975), only 4% of the abusers had children of their o
wn.
In an extended family, all adults would live with children, whether their own or
someone else s.
These findings indicate that sexual abuse might have been a rarity in the extend
ed family which predominated in prehistoric times. In other words, it could be
an invention of the nuclear family.
Sexual abuse could be only one of many ills with which the nuclear family has pl
agued our society. In the nuclear family, children in father-absent homes crave
the attention of men. In an extended family, other adult males could serve tha
t role. In the nuclear family, couples wishing for a child of one gender but gi
ving birth to a child of the other gender try to raise that child as a sissy or
tomboy. In an extended family, other children could serve the desired role.
In short, our civilization calls for the nuclear family while our inner brains c
all for the extended family. What can we do, then? Re-creating the extended fa
mily would be impossible. A more practical solution would be to establish more
an better programs which help to simulate the extended family, such as Big Broth
er Big Sister and Foster Grandparents.
■ What causes prejudice?
In modern times, it is necessary to live with people of different backgrounds.
People of all backgrounds live close to each other. Nations depend on each othe
r for resources.
Not so in prehistoric times. Inhabited areas were few and far between.
In modern times, we have ways of understanding each other. We have anthropology
textbooks, sociology textbooks, and language cassette tapes.
Not so in prehistoric times. If a person different from you approached you and
said "¡Buenos días, señor!" you would have no idea what that meant. The safest
assumption is that it meant "I m going to club you to death."
Even today, that is the message which we get whenever we hear a strange language
, see a strange face, or witness strange behavior.
Now for a miscellaneous category:
■ What causes non-verbal signs of anger?
Why do you grit your teeth when you are angry? That may hurt your teeth, but it
doesn t hurt your enemy. Likely, because you caught your prey with your teeth
during your marine days.
Why do you bang your fist on the table when you are angry? That may damage the
table, but your enemy doesn t feel a thing. Likely, you caught your prey with y
our forepaws during your quadrupedal days.
Why do you stamp your foot when you are angry? The worst that could do is mar t
he floor. Likely, you caught your prey with your hind paws during your earlier
bipedal days.
Why do you speak louder when you are angry? In particular, why are you tempted
to speak louder even when you are trying to hold in your temper? Likely, becaus
e you are regressing to a time when you growled at enemies and predators.
■ Why are we scared of images in monster movies?
Our outer brains may say "It s just a movie," but our inner brains don t know ab
out celluloid images.
■ Why are we proud of accomplishments which are not our own?
At the city limits sign of Sneedville, Tennessee, there is a sign which says, "W
elcome to Sneedville, home of Hank Williams." As you may or may not know, Hank
Williams is a country-western singer.
You may say, "Why should everyone else in the town be proud? That s someone els
e s accomplishment, not theirs." But you may have similar feelings. Think for
a moment: is your hometown also the hometown of a famous person? or the site of
a famous event? or a world capital, such as the Watermelon Capital of the Worl
d? And if so, doesn t that make you feel a little proud?
If so, this is probably because your inner brain is still living in the tribal d
ays, when villages attacked villages.
Remember what we said about vestigial organs? Sometimes our inner brain becomes
a vestigial organ.
other frames of reference: biochemistry
Gish agrees that foxes and wolves look somewhat alike, so they could both be mem
bers of the dog kind (Gish [1972] 1976: 18). Sweet corn and popcorn look somewh
at alike, so they are both members of the corn kind (Gish [1972] 1976: 20).
But sometimes, Evolutionists come up with the wildest ideas! How do they relate
dinosaurs with birds? And how do they relate hoofed mammals with whales? Din
osaurs don t look like birds and hoofed mammals don t look like whales!
But most people don t know very much about chemistry. It probably never occurre
d to most people to look at dinosaurs, birds, hoofed mammals, and whales under a
microscope.
This is the way Gish wants it. For good measure, Gish (n. d. 3: 28) has this to
say:
Since our external morphology is at least to some extent shaped by our internal
chemistry, we would expect that creatures that more closely resemble one another
would have biochemistries that are more similar than those in creatures that do
not closely resemble each other. Thus, the predictions concerning molecular ho
mology based on creation and evolution would be substantially the same.
But are those predictions really "substantially the same"? Let s take a close s
crutiny at dinosaurs, birds, hoofed mammals, and whales and see what we can find
:
■ dinosaurs and birds
Again we meet Thomas Henry Huxley (1868), who was the first to notice a resembl
ance between birds and theropods, or carnivorous dinosaurs which walked on their
hind legs.
In 1969, Ostrom published a widely recognized study of the Deinonychus, which wa
s a member of this group. This study confirmed Huxley s observation.
To listen to the Creationists, you might think that Huxley merely wrote names on
taxons on pieces of paper, put them in a hat, drew any two of those pieces of p
aper out of a hat, and announced that those two taxons were related. Ostrom and
all the later scientists, wishing to get in on the fun, shouted, "Me too! Me t
oo!"
Either Huxley and his followers had grounds for their claim, either they happene
d to make a lucky guess, or they had a crystal ball which could read as far ahea
d as 2007. That was when Asara et al. discovered a Tyrannosaurus rex fossil wit
h its soft tissue still intact. When Asara and his co-workers analyzed the prot
ein, or the compounds which are essential to the different parts of the body, th
e expected kinship was confirmed.
■ hoofed mammals and whales
William Henry Flower (1883) was the first to suggest that whales were descended
from ungulates, or hoofed mammals. Flower based his claim on the vestigial orga
ns found in whales.
Fast forward a full century. Here we see Goodman, Czelusniak, & Beeber (1985) e
xamining the myoglobin (muscle protein), alpha crystallin (eye protein), and cyt
ochrome c (protein responsible for cell respiration) of 46 mammal species. We se
e that this study confirmed that whales were more closely related to the ungulat
es than to any other mammals.
Shortly thereafter, Miyamoto & Goodman (1986) examined the ribonuclease (a chem
icals which helps transmit genetic information) and several types of hemoglobin
(red blood cell protein) of 72 mammal species. Again, the whales were found to
be related to the ungulates.
Shimamura et al. (1997) did a study on transposons. A transposon is a segment
of a DNA molecule, or a long molecule which transmits genetic information. A t
ransposon differs from other such segments in that it can copy itself and insert
the copy somewhere else. As a result of this study, William Henry Flower again
won the day.
For further review of the literature, see Sutera (2001).
Here we tested and confirmed two of the wildest and most far-fetched Evolutionis
t ideas. If dinosaur molecules and bird molecules looked as different as dinosa
urs and birds, we could say that Huxley was off his trolley. But they don t, so
we can t. If ungulate molecules and whale molecules looked as different as ung
ulates and whales, we could say that Flower had a geranium in his cranium. But
they don t, so we can t.
And for this, Gish (1993: 35) maintains that Evolution is not falsifiable!
Now let us discuss how related and unrelated taxons compare chemically. But let
s take a break and daydream right now. Suppose you and your friends were promo
ting a charity concert, a political rally, or some other exciting event. The pr
int shop printed hundreds of fliers printed which were identical, except that th
ey were on different colors of paper, and stacked those fliers in a box. You an
d your friends gathered on a street corner. Each of you grabbed a handful of fl
iers out of the box and passed them out to the passersby.
First, a family passes by. You grab the flier off the top of your handful, taki
ng no notice of the color of that flier, and give it to the member nearest you.
Your friends do likewise. You and your friends make certain that each member o
f the family receives a flier. Wouldn t it be an unlikely coincidence if all fa
mily members receive the same color flier?
Now another party passes by--maybe a business firm, a church group, or another f
amily. Again you and your friends make sure that each individual gets a flier,
but you don t care which color. Again, they all happen to get fliers of the sam
e color.
And so on. If you calculate the chances against just a few rounds of this patte
rn, you will see that it runs into multiple digits.
Now let s change the setting for another fantasy. Let s pretend that you and yo
ur friends are angels in Heaven helping God. Instead of passing out fliers to p
assersby, you are regaling animal species with chemicals.
We expect taxons which Evolutionists say are related to receive similar chemical
s and taxons which Evolutionists say are less related to receive less related ta
xons. Do they? Let s find out:

■ functional redundancy of cytochrome c

Theobald ([1999] 2004) speaks about different cytochrome c, which as you may rem
ember, is the protein responsible for cell respiration. Cytochrome c is essenti
al to animal life. However, there are billions of variations of this protein.
Again the improbable occurs: related taxons get similar or identical brands of t
he protein. Chimpanzees and humans get the exact same brand, for instance (Lurq
uin & Stone 2006: 79).
You may say, "But don t different taxons need different brands?" It may seem th
at way, but that s not what researchers have found. Yeast cytochrome c differs
from human cytochrome c by 40%. Yet scientists have taken yeast samples, substi
tuted one for the other, and found that the yeast samples continued to do just f
ine. They tried again with cytochrome c from tuna fish, pigeons, horses, fruit
flies, and rats, and the yeast samples continued to do just fine (Theobald [1999
] 2004).
You may say, "Are you sure that God doesn t take the size of the organism into a
ccount?" That s another nice hypothesis, but researchers found that this was no
t true either. Bats are closer in size to hummingbirds than to humans, but bats
and humans are both mammals and hummingbirds aren t. Which brand of cytochrome
c is closer to the bat brand? The human brand!
You may say, "Are you sure God doesn t take the habitat of the taxon into accoun
t?" Again, that s worth a try, but again, the answer is no. Porpoises are clos
er in habitat to sharks than to humans, but porpoises and humans are both mammal
s and sharks aren t. Which brand of cytochrome c is closer to the porpoise bra
nd? The human brand!
■ endogenous retroviruses
Is this too many syllables for you? If it is, then let s break it down. endo-
means "within," -genous means "creating," and retro- means "backward." A virus
is "a microorganism smaller than a bacteria, which cannot grow or reproduce apa
rt from a living cell." Theobald ([1999] 2004) defines the whole thing as "mole
cular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection."
Theobald has found e. r. s to be distributed according to the taxonomic system.
He lists two studies which have found an e. r. shared by all the small cat spec
ies, including the jungle cat, the European wildcat, the african wildcat, the bl
ackfooted cat, and the domestic cat. He also lists six studies which have found
seven e. r. s shared between humans and chimps.
■ the molecular clock
The molecular clock, also called the gene clock or the evolutionary clock, is a
method of estimating the date that two taxons diverge by measuring their chemic
al differences. The researcher might count the differences between the amino ac
id sequences, or sequences of compounds which serves as components of proteins.
Or the researcher might count the DNA sequences. Although Zuckerkandl & Paulin
g (1962) did not assign a name to this technique, they are accredited as its fou
nders (Wikipedia 2010c).
Through this method, Wang, Kumar, and Hedges (1999) found that at least six anim
al phyla diverged in pre-Cambrian times. Chordates (animals with a nerve cord)
and arthropods (insects, spiders, crabs, and lobsters) diverged about 993 mya. N
ematodes (roundworms) diverged from the ancestors of chordates and arthropods ab
out 1177 mya. Plants, animals, and fungi diverged about 1576 mya. Porifera (sp
onges), Cnidaria (anemones, corals, and jellyfish), and Ctenophora (comb jellies
) diverged 1500-1200 mya.
Practitioners of the molecular clock have admitted its need for further refineme
nt. Generation time, population size, and other confounding variables have ente
red in (Wikipedia 2010c). The instrument has not always converged with other br
anches of science. For instance, molecular clock watchers and fossil record kee
pers have disagreed on when the ungulates and whales diverged (Theodor 2004).
The molecular clock serves as the basis of an interactive Website which calls it
self Date-a-Clade: http://www.fossilrecord.net/dateaclade/index.html
Now for Gish s response:
▶ stacking the cards
In a recent manuscript, Gish (n. d. 3: 28-29) lists a few biochemical studies in
which related taxons yielded dissimilar results or unrelated taxons yielded sim
ilar or identical results.
For example, the sperm whale has insulin which is identical to that of the dog o
r pig but dissimilar to that of the sei whale (Eck & Dayhoff 1966). Never mind
the fact that the first three taxons named are carnivorous whereas the last taxo
n named is vegetarian.
▶ appeal to authority
Gish (n. d. 2: 29-30) quotes Denton (1985: 306) as belittling the biochemical ev
idence. For a critique of Denton s views, see Landau (1989).
▶ hand-waving
Gish gives passing mention of the molecular clock in one of his books. At one p
oint (Gish 1993: 278), he ridicules the concept for its alleged circularity.
At another point (1993: 290), he ridicules it on the grounds that some proteins
diverge faster than others. I believe that the proponents of the molecular cloc
k are aware of this problem.
Under ideal circumstances, Gish would not even bring up the subject. In this ca
se, though, he had to, because he was reviewing the work of an Evolutionist writ
er (Jukes 1983), who discussed the subject.
▶ red herring
In response to the cytochrome c studies, Gish (n. d. 3: 28) responds:
Let us suppose . . . that plants, animals, and humans were each created with dif
ferent types of amino acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc. What would we e
at? We could eat neither plants nor animals, since we could not utilize the ami
no acids, sugars, and other substances found in these organisms. The only thing
we could eat would be each other!
He does not explain the chemical correlation between taxons which are purported
to be related by Evolutionists.
Believe it or not, this is all I can find on what biochemist Duane Gish has to s
ay in reply to Evolutionist biochemists.
Suppose you were a professionally qualified biochemist. Suppose that you held C
reationist convictions and wished to use your scientific knowledge to educate th
e public on the truth of Creationism. Would you spend your entire career writin
g self-replicating books filled with ad hom s and straw men, but carrying very l
ittle content about biochemistry? I wouldn t either. Would you base your whole
case on the fossil record, which would be out of your field anyway? I wouldn t
either.
Instead, I would write a book on Creationist biochemistry. It would be many tim
es the size of this chapter and would contain many times as much information. I
might entitle it something like Evolution: The Chemistry Lab Microscope Says NO
!
I would review all the biochemical studies on the subject and explain where thei
r authors, with their Evolutionist bias, went wrong. I would explain why an all
-wise and all-powerful god would litter his creation with junk DNA. I would exp
lain why all the theropod/bird, ungulate/whale, and chimpanzee/human comparisons
went wrong. I would explain how the biochemical evidence does not really conve
rge with the evidence from the other branches of science, but merely seems to.
Last but not least, I would alert the reader to the voluminous Creationist evide
nce which has been discovered in the biochemistry lab.
Isn t that what you would do?
other frames of reference:
age of the earth and age of the universe
In this chapter, we will not debate whether or not life evolved, but how long ag
o our Universe and our planet were created. It would not be necessary to use th
is material against an Old Earth Creationist, but it is necessary here, since Gi
sh is a Young Earth Creationist.
■ varves
A varve is a pair of layers of sediment on the floor of a freshwater lake or riv
er. One layer is thick, coarse-grained, light-colored layer, and deposited in th
e summer. At that time, streams flow freely and lakes receive water from those
streams. The other layer is thin, fine-grained, dark-colored, and deposited in
the winter. At that time, the water freezes, thereby restricting the flow of wa
ter (Schadewald 1982; Geology Dictionary 2006).
For the aesthetically-minded, this might create a pleasant striped pattern. For
the scientifically-minded, this can serve as a measure of the age of a body of
water, just as the rings on a tree stump can serve as a measure of the age of t
he tree.
The earth has to be at least as old as its oldest body of water. If there is a
body of water older than 10,000 years old, then the earth itself must be older t
han 10,000 years old. Bakken (1987) and Zindler (1990) claim such a find in Gre
en River, which flows through Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The shale in this ri
ver is 6,000,000 varves thick, which indicates that the earth is at least 6,000
,000 years old. Bakken recommends P. E. Olsen (1986) for further reading.
Schadewald (1982) quotes the figure at 20,000,000. I don t know, so let s give
Young Earth Creationists the benefit of the doubt and go with the 6,000,000 figu
re. That still doesn t help much.
How do the YEC s explain all this? Here some possibile answers:
● "a complex of shallow turbidity currents"
This is the answer given by Whitcomb & Morris (1964: 427). A turbidity current
is a flow of muddy water which results from underwater landslides in the ocean (
Schadewald 1982). For every varve, there would have to be two turbidity current
s.
The Flood lasted about 300 days, and Schadewald (1982) figures that there were 4
0,000,000 such currents. He arrives at a rate of 3 layers every 2 seconds.
But maybe Schadewald (1982) is wrong about the number of varves and Bakken (1987
) and Zindler (1990) are right. So let us assume that there were only 12,000,00
0 turbidity currents. That brings us down to 1 layer every 2 seconds, which doe
sn t help much.
Keep in mind, also, that every other layer is light and every other layer is dar
k. The chances against this are 2 to the power of 6,000,000.
● Some of the fossilized fishes project through several layers of sediment, Th
erefore, the layers cannot be semiannual.
That is how Gish replied to Fred Edwords. Yet paleontologist R. Lance Grande te
lls us that almost every fish fossil is covered by a single layer. Individual b
ones, individual fins, and exceptionally large fish are occasional exceptions wh
ich may cut through several layers (Schadewald 1982).

■ cosmic distances
Although Gish never brought up the subject, his opponents have. Saladin (1988a)
and McGowan (1984: 89) have mentioned a galaxy which is 12 million lightyears a
way. How can we see it if the Universe is not at least 12 million years old?
We should probably not hold Gish responsible for this question, because he admit
ted that he did not have such expertise on the subject (Indoctrinhate 2009n).
Nevertheless, it is an interesting question. Here is a collection of Creationis
t explanations compiled by :
▶ Fall of Man hypothesis
The first explanation maintains that the speed of light was at first infinite, b
ut became finite when Eve bit the apple (Harris 1978).
Schadewald (1981) calls this the Fall of Man hypothesis. As far as I know, Gish
has never endorsed this explanation.
▶ Gosse hypothesis
Philip Henry Gosse (1857) proposed that God created the World with evidence of p
ast events already intact. His hypothesis has been called the Gosse hypothesis,
and also the Omphalos hypothesis, after the title of the book in which he advan
ced this idea. At least one Creationist (Freske 1980) suggested that God create
d the stars with the light already in transit. Because of the similarity, Schad
ewald (1981) calls this the Gosse hypothesis.
Gish suggested the Gosse hypothesis on at least one occasion. On a radio interv
iew with Zindler (1990; Lindsay 1999), a telephone caller, who introduced himsel
f as Art, asked how "we can see light from stars that are more than ten thousand
light years away from us."
Gish answered that "that light did not necessarily start from the star."
Art asked, "How? How can light not start from a star?"
Gish said, "Because, if God created the earth, and He created the stars, and if
He, as he said in the scri... in the Bible, that he created stars to be for sig
ns and seasons on the earth, obviously he d have to make them visible immediatel
y."
The Gosse hypothesis has created considerable amusement for religious skeptics.
Skeptics suggest that we could set the Creation date not only in the distant pa
st, but at any point in the past. For that matter, God could have created you,
me, and everything around us last Thursday. This corollary is called last Thurs
dayism.
Although this hypothesis cannot be proved, it cannot be disproved either. If yo
u endorsed this hypothesis, another person may show documentation to prove those
past events, but you will only have to say that God created those documents las
t Thursday. If two or more people share similar memories of past events, you wi
ll only have to say that God created all of them last Thursday with memories of
those events already intact.
▶ small Universe hypothesis
This hypothesis, also compiled by Schadewald (1981), does not stipulate that we
see stars ten 10,000 lightyears away, because the Universe is not 10,000 lightye
ars across. This is be a long and complicated story, so read closely:
1898: A cult leader proposes a bizarre model of the Universe.
Cyrus Reed Teed (1898). a self-proclaimed reincarnation of Elijah, professed tha
t the World is round, but that we are living on the inside of a hollow shell of
that World, not the outside. Teed attracted 4000 followers (Gardner 1957: 22-27
). (With enough charisma and enough luck, it is possible to get people to belie
ve almost anything!)
1953: Moon & Spencer make a small Universe calculation.
Moon & Spencer (1953) wrote an article, arguing that the Universe is only 15.7 l
ightyears in diameter.
1979: Schadewald plays along with the cult leader s claims.
In 1979, Schadewald (1981) (who seems to enjoy wacky paranormal claims), perform
ed some mathematical calculations based upon reincarnated Elijah s teachings.
1980: Gish suggests Moon & Spencer s calculations as a possibility.
In a debate with Gish, John W. Patterson of Iowa State University brought up the
topic of cosmic distances. Gish suggested that the Universe might be only 15.7
lightyears across, as Moon & Spencer claim (Schadewald 1981).
1980: Schadewald finds Moon & Spencer s calculations to be based on the cult lea
der s claims.
After hearing of Moon & Spencer s article in the Patterson debate, Schadewald (1
981) looked it up. He discovered that Moon & Spencer s calculations were based
on the same figures which he himself had arrived at earlier.
We cannot discount Moon & Spencer s article, because they ran the calculations f
or the same reason that Schadewald did--just for bunkum. Nevertheless, we can d
iscount Gish for taking those calculations seriously.
▶ Setterfield hypothesis
This is a fourth proposal, which may have been published too late to make Schade
wald s list. Creationist writer Barry Setterfield (1981) claimed that the speed
of light has decreased since Creation. Unlike Harris (1978), Setterfield did n
ot claim that the speed of light was infinite, but he cited a figure which is mu
ch faster than the speed of light today.
In his 1988 debate, Plimer (Indoctinhate 2009i) told the audience of this claim.
Plimer reminded the audience that the speed of light is a factor in the E-equa
ls-M-c-squared formula. Plimer figured Setterfield s figure into this formula a
nd found that Adam and Eve could not have given birth to their children without
triggering an explosion.
When Gish next took the stand (Indoctrinhate 2009j), he denied ever having endo
rsed Setterfield s claim. We can discount Plimer s charge, then, as a guilt-by-
association fallacy.
So that leaves the Gosse hypothesis and the small Universe hypothesis as the onl
y hypotheses suggested by Gish.
Why does Gish surreptitiously narrow the subject down to fossils only, when he p
retends to be covering the entire field of Creationism and Evolutionism? It see
ms that there are several reasons:
■ It aids in shifting the burden of proof.
So Gish says there are gaps in the fossil record! How do you know there aren t?
In order to disprove Gish, you will have to draw a Tree of Life, covering mill
ions of years and millions of species, and filling in every single link. It is
staggering to think of how much time and space that would require.
■ If it ain t broke, don t fix it.
An honest scholar, genuinely wishing to educate both himself and the public will
cover all the available facts. That means covering all the known arguments fro
m the opposition and addressing those arguments.
Not so with a person who is pushing something. A lawyer representing a client,
an advertiser selling a product, a religious zealot seeking converts, or a polit
ician soliciting votes will only address the counter-arguments which the listene
r is most likely to know about. If the remaining arguments lie buried, so much
the better for the pusher.
This is the route taken by the Creationists, according to Blackburn (1995):
Paleontology offers one of many bodies of evidence for the evolution of
life. However, unlike technical information from molecular genetics, cladistic
s, and embryology, the significance of fossils is clear to a public that is acqu
ainted with dinosaurs and other extinct forms through books, movies, and museums
. Consequently, the fossil record is a major focus of the creationist attack on
science.
Just look around you and you will see that Blackburn is right. We have all seen
 pictures of perspiring archaeologists, diligently wielding pickaxes and shovels
. Yet most people cannot even pronounce "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," muc
h less explain what it means.
Evolutionists (Saladin 1988a; Parrish 1991) say that Oligocene elephants had two
pairs of tusks, that modern elephant embryos grow and lose an extra pair of tus
ks, and that we can therefore infer that modern elephants are descended from Oli
gocene elephants.
What is wrong here? Didn t the elephants in Oligocene times really possess two
pairs of tusks? Don t elephant embryos really grow and lose an extra pair of tu
sks? Or doesn t the conclusion really follow from the premises?
Never mind. Most people don t know about the elephant embryos, and "what you do
n t know won t hurt you."
Evolutionists say that the appendix is for digesting tree bark. Since we never
eat tree bark, we must be descended from creatures who did. Again, where is the
error, in the factual claims or in the conclusion?
Nor to worry! Most people don t know this, and "ignorance is bliss."
So, while Darwin (1860) claimed that the embryological evidence was "by far the
strongest single class of facts" supporting Evolution, Gish (1973a) goes right o
n saying that "the fossil record offers the only source of scientific evidence"
regarding the question.
■ It saves himself some work.
If Gish s readers and listeners learned about another frame of reference, he wou
ld to amass another collection of out-of-context quotes, outdated quotes, and lo
gical fallacies. Think what an overwhelming task that would be!
■ It aids in quote mining.
Gish ([1985] 1991: 245; 1993: 113, 376; 1995b: 35; Indoctrinhate 2009d) quotes O
xford zoologist Mark Ridley (1981) as saying:
In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist,
uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to specia
l creation.
If Gish can con you into thinking only inside the box, you may think that Ridley
is surrendering the whole case. Then you will be speechless when Gish (Indoctr
inhate 2009d) asks, "What better proof of Evolution could you have than the foss
il record if Evolution is true?"
For the benefit of such con victims, Elsberry (1998) and Scharle (2003) call at
tention to the next sentence written by Ridley (1981), which says:
This does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven.
Elsberry (1998) and Scharle (2003) also proceed to the following paragraph:
So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have tradition
ally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence
", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from
the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hier
archical structure of taxonomy.
Elsberry (1998) quotes from elsewhere in the article:
Palaeontologists disagree about the speed and pattern of evolution. But
they do not---as much recent publicity has implied---doubt that evolution is
a fact.
Saladin (1998c) supplies the following quote:
This is a terrible mistake, and it springs, I believe, from the false id
ea that the fossil record provides an important part of the evidence tha
t evolution took place. In fact, evolution is proven by a totally separate
set of arguments, and the present debate within paleontology does not impinge at
all on the evidence that supports evolution.
Saladin (1988c) and Scharle (2003) supply the following quote:
Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn t Darwin; it is the creationists
and the media.
Saladin (1988c) and Scharle (2003) also supply the following quote:
These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defe
nces of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the abs
ence of a coherent alternative. Darwin s theory is also uniquely able to account
for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs),
in nature.
Now for another nugget. Here, the victim is George Gaylord Simpson (1974) and t
he offender again is Gish (n. d. 2; n. d. 3: 7; [1985] 1991: 241; 1995b: 34):
Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of seeing
evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, t
he most notorious of which is the presence of gaps in the fossil recor
d. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology doe
s not provide them.
Saladin (1988c) comments:
This paper, often cited by Gish, is a discussion of the controversy betw
een phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium, and concludes that a dec
ision between these models will have to be made on some grounds other th
an the fossil record because the fossil record does not clearly support one over
the other. It does not, as Gish usually implies, state that there is any fos
sil evidence for creation.
■ It is a clever ploy to use on opponents.
Gish usually succeeded in tricking not only his audience, but his opponents into
thinking inside the box. In most of his debates, his opponents discussed arche
ology all evening, thereby preserving the secrecy of what was outside the box.
Zindler (1990), however, brought up the subject of vestigial organs. It is unfo
rtunate that Gish s opponents did not recognize his pattern earlier in his caree
r. If another Creationist takes Gish s place, let us alert ourselves to this tr
ap.
■ He does not want us to see that Evolutionary theory is internally consistent.
Kenneth Miller (1982a) argues:
 If humans appeared to be most closely related to chimpanzees by one crit
erion, but to butterbeans by another, to chickens by a third criterion, and to b
ullfrogs by a fourth, there would be no consistent pattern, and evolutio
n would thereby be disproved. But all techniques for determining relation
ships have consistently given results that fit with the evolutionary predicti
on. . . After a century and a quarter of strenuous questioning and testing
in many fields, the theory of evolution stands stronger than ever . .
. Evolution unites genetics, physiology, paleontology, embryology, biogeography,
systematics, and geology into a coherent whole.
Gish doesn t tell you about embryology and biochemistry for the same reason that
Mormon missionaries don t tell you about linguistic and DNA research on Native
Americans.
■ The other frames of reference have been neglected even by Evolutionists.
Gish might have neglected these other topics because he himself did not know abo
ut them. The Evolutionist literature focuses on fossils, just as the Creationis
t literature does. Most Evolutionist books make no mention of Evolutionary psyc
hology.
But what is his excuse for neglecting biochemistry? Remember, Gish has a Doctor
ate in biochemistry. Surely he knows about most of the Evolutionary arguments o
n the subject. If he were honest, he would share those arguments along with his
own counter-arguments.
Let s not let this happen again. The next time a Creationist propagandist takes
the podium, let us bring up these subjects ourselves. Then let us see what he o
r she has to say in Evolution: Biochemistry Says NO! or Evolution: The Vestigial
Organs Still Say NO! or Evolution: The Challenge of Embryology.
Well?
So what s your verdict?
■ Is Duane Gish smart?
Although many of the leading Creationist spokesmen boast degrees which are in fa
ct from diploma mills (Vickers [1998] 2002), this is not true of Duane Gish. Gi
sh earned a Doctorate in biochemistry from UC Berkeley in 1953. His dissertatio
n is listed as:
I. The Application of Para-nitrobenzyl Chloroformate to Peptide Synthesi
s.
II. Para-nitrobenzyloxycarbonyl Derivatives of Amino Acids
III. A Method of Synthesis of Arginyl Peptides
If you can even read that, you are better scientifically educated than most.
Dr. Gish has held a Lily postdoctoral fellowship at Cornell University medical c
ollege, where he collaborated with a Nobel prize winner in chemistry, and was a
member of the virus laboratory at the University of California at Berkeley, wher
e he collaborated with Wendell Stanley, Nobel prize winner in medicine. Before
joining the Institute for Creation Research in 1971, Dr. Gish was a staff membe
r at Upjohn Company, a pharmaceutical firm in Michigan. Dr. Gish is listed in A
merican Men of Science and Who s Who in the West. He is a member of the America
n Chemical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and
is a fellow of the American Institute of Chemists.
Those who heard Gish speak in public may be prone to underrate Gish s intellectu
al attributes. Gish probably regarded his listeners as less scientifically educ
ated than his readers. Probably for this reason, Gish used less scientific jarg
on, imparted fewer facts, was more verbose and repetitious, and appealed more to
the emotions of the listeners. However, his books are more concise and informa
tive.
This point is even conceded by Gish s opponents. In the debate with Saladin (19
88d), a graduate physics student asked Gish why he was quoting popular magazines
and newspapers instead of professional journals. In his notes on the debate, S
aladin (1988d) admits that he, too, cited very little professional literature.
He cites two reasons for this:
(1) we are talking to a predominantly lay audience and the points we nee
d to make can be made more effectively by reference to lay and secondary
sources.
(2) the primary research literature is such a "fine-grained" approach to
the subject that relatively little of it would serve efficiently to convey t
he "big picture" of evolution within the time constraints of a public de
bate.
■ Is Duane Gish a scientist?
Does Gish s background render him a scientist? Schadewald (1982) doesn t seem t
o think so:
Studying science doesn t make one a scientist any more than studying eth
ics makes one honest. The studies must be applied. Forming and testing hypothes
es is the foundation of science, and those who refuse to test their hypothes
es cannot be called scientists--no matter what their credentials. Most per
sons who call themselves creationists have no scientific training and they
cannot be expected to know and apply the scientific method. But the prof
essional creationists who flog the public with their doctorates (earned, honorar
y, or bogus) have no excuse. Because they fail to submit their hypotheses
to the most elementary tests, they fully deserve the appellation of pseudoscien
tist.
■ Is Duane Gish unbiased?
No one, no matter what his level of education or area of expertise, is immune fr
om biased opinion. Like many other people in 1969, I was shocked when Arthur R.
Jensen, educational psychology professor at UT Berkeley, made his announcement
that the Black people were inferior in terms of genetic intelligence.
I asked a psychologist, "Do you think Jensen s qualifications are bogus?"
The psychologist said, "No."
I asked, "Do you think he s speaking out of his field?"
The psychologist said, "No."
I asked, "Then how could he say such a thing?"
The psychologist said, "You can believe whatever you want to believe."
The scientifically degreed Creationists might wish us to believe that the Evolut
ionists are the biased party, and not them. In the Parrish (1991) debate, Gish
told the story of the Piltdown hoax, and then commented, "It s what they wanted
to find, they expected to find, and therefore, they did find."
Perhaps Gish was right. At least one Evolutionist (Blanton 1997) admits that th
e Evolutionists were too hasty in accepting the Piltdown hoax.
Gish wishes us to believe that their Evolutionist beliefs are based not on what
they have learned in the university, but with their preexisting beliefs. Gish (
[1972] 1976: 10) writes: "Most scientists are unbelievers, and unbelieving, mate
rialistic men are forced to accept a materialistic, naturalistic explanation for
the origin of all living things."
This would be an interesting topic to explore further. Is there a correlation b
etween secularist beliefs and interest in science? It would be worthwhile to an
swer this question through a survey of high school students and college freshmen
intending to major in science. But even if we did find such a correlation, tha
t would leave a hen-and-egg question: we would not know whether secularist belie
fs or interest in science came first.
■ Is Gish free-thinking?
George McCready Price (1870-1963) is considered the first scientific Creationist
. He wrote several books arguing in favor of Young Earth Creationism. He was s
keptical about scientific dating procedures and regarded the dating of rocks and
fossils as a circular process. He was the first to suggest that most of the fos
sils were laid by the flood, and is therefore now known as "the father of flood
geology." (Wikipedia 2009) In other words, most of his main points agreed with
most of Gish s main points.
Yet Gish never mentions Price s name. Perhaps Price s ideas already disseminate
d before Gish came along. In which case, Gish could have been influenced by Pri
ce s ideas without realizing it. Or perhaps Gish read Price s works, but keeps
secret that he is so heavily indebted to one source.
■ Does Gish believe in what he is doing?
In the Plimer debate of 1988, the opponent accused Creationist spokesmen of bein
g in the business for the money. In reply, Gish spoke of the financial benefits
which were foregone when he left Upjohn Pharmaceutical Company (Indoctrinhate 2
009m). He could have retired two years before the time of the debate. He had n
o regrets, though, because "the Lord has the best retirement system in the world
."
■ Does Duane Gish believe what he says?
What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of t
he good and for the Christian church . . . a lie out of necessity, a useful
lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept
them.
Although Martin Luther is the author of these words, at least two of Gish s crit
ics (Arthur 1996; Pigliucci 2000: 185) suggested they could have well been penne
d by him.
Does Gish really believe everything he says? His opponents have answered yes, n
o, and maybe.
Schadewald (1991) says yes:
I used to be convinced that Gish was a conscious liar, because so many o
f the things he says are demonstrably false, and he is neither stupid nor
uneducated. In the last few years, I have changed my mind. I now think that Gis
h is so severely deluded that he can no longer distinguish what he wants to
 believe from reality, at least on a conscious level.
Thwaites & Awbrey (1991) also say yes:
We...were convinced at first that he must be a deliberate liar, but now
we have concluded that he is not . . . Gish says only what supports his bel
ief. In his mind, that cannot possibly be a lie . . . We also think that some
times he says what he wishes were true. If he wishes he hadn t said something,
then he didn t say it.
Milne (1991) also says yes:
[Gish] says things that are false, now, but I suspect that he no longer
even realizes it, or cares . . . He may have known, at one time, that there w
as something shaky or even devious about his claims, but he s made them so
long now, that they have taken on a truth of their own for him.
Wild (1998) says no:
The only question in my mind before the event, not having previously see
n him in person, was whether he actually believes the ridiculous things he
says or whether he cynically manipulates his audience, knowing it is sta
cked with supporters who know little of science, almost nothing of thermodynamic
s, and who couldn t care less about learning any of these matters. I came
away convinced of the latter. Gish is not stupid, but cynically manipulative. S
o much the worse.
Arthur (1996) also says no:
Gish is an active anti-evolutionist who knows very well what the basic
tenets of evolutionary theory are. He has a responsibility to at least present t
he other side fairly, but instead, he has distorted and effectively conceale
d the cornerstone of the theory of evolution from his young, trusting readers [o
f Gish 1990a].
Pigliucci (2000: 185) says maybe:
The skeptical community has been debating for some time now the question
of Gish s personal beliefs. Is he honest about his understanding of sci
ence and evolution, in which case he is extremely naive about it; or is he ly
ing straight through his teeth and following Luther s suggestion that even l
ies are commendable if they further the "true faith"? Even after having met
Gish three times in formal debates and having talked to him off stage (t
hough not much, since he doesn t like to mix socially with his opponents),
it is hard for me to say.
Here is a forum thread which discussed this question:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=38089
This is a question which only Gish knows for sure.
That is about all we can say on the question of does he, now let s discuss the q
uestion of how. Gish must have read most of the best-known Evolutionist literat
ure or he would not have such a vast collection of out-of-context quotes. Surel
y he must comprehend some of it. It must not be easy, then, for him to maintain
his Creationist stance.
So let s discuss the question of why. For some of us, the question of Creationi
sm and Evolution may be nothing more than intellectual amusement, but not for Gi
sh (1972: 19-20):
 The acceptance of the theory of evolution has promoted apostasy because
it has caused a radical change in the view of Scripture. If the theory of
evolution is accepted, then it must be conceded that the Bible contains
myths and legends . . . This logical chain of events in the interpretation of
Scripture culminates in the abandonment of the blood atonement of Christ.
There remains no Christian gospel.
In reply to the question, "Is it possible to be a Christian and an evolutionist?
" Gish (1989a) replies:
Yes, one can be a Christian and an evolutionist, but such a position is
both scientifically and biblically untenable. The Lord Jesus took a literal v
iew of Genesis. The theory of evolution is dishonouring to God as Creator, and
its teaching leads to a disastrous secularizing of society.
It it possible that when Gish was studying science in the university, he suffere
d a feeling of cognitive dissonance, or anxiety from receiving conflicting mess
ages, from which he never recovered. That led him to a lifelong battle against
this threat, hoping that if he could convince others, he could convince himself
.
As one would expect, Gish claims to be honest. But is he secure in that claim?
On at least one occasion, his honesty was called into question and he lost his
composure. At the Saladin (1988g) debate, Fred Parrish, biologist from Georgia
State University, happened to be in the audience. At question-and-answer time,
Parrish said, "What I want to know is, as a Christian gentleman, with all the et
hics and morals that that implies, how you can continue to make statements that
you know are so demonstrably, scientifically, untrue."
Gish responded:
I make statements, as far as I am able to discern, that are honest and o
f truth. I am a Christian, I make no bones about it. Before I come to a de
bate like this, one of my prayers is that God will enable me to speak truthful
ly, and that s what I do. And these false charges that have been made aga
inst me have not been more than that. I ve published this material in books
and one can examine those books. Every statement I make is fully document
ed and fully referenced, so anybody can check the original references, whether I
have quoted the statements correctly. You, sir, have absolutely no evidence t
o back up what you have just said. You ve just made an empty charge, that is to
tally false, and that s all I have to say about it.
Ouch!
■ Is Duane Gish right?
Did God create all the plants and animals in six days, as Gish would have us bel
ieve?
Or were we all shaped from natural selection, as Darwin would have us believe?
Or did God allow us to evolve like all other animals, but gave us an extra shot
of intelligence, as Alfred Russel Wallace would have us believe?
Or do we inherit acquired characteristics, as Lamarck would have us believe?
Or did evolution take place in intermittent stressful events, as Gould & Eldredg
e would have us believe?
Or did we evolve in a Human Kingdom which is separate from the Animal Kingdom, a
s the Baha i Faith would have us believe?
Or did different species descend from different ancestors, as Schwabe & Warr wou
ld have us believe?
Or did God create life in installments, as Cuvier would have us believe?
Or did we evolve, but in a way which was completely different from the way descr
ibed by mainstream science, as L. Ron Hubbard would have us believe?
Or are we all immigrant ET s, as Hoyle & Wickramisinghe would have us believe?
Or did God start the whole thing at some unknown point in time, planting false e
vidence of earlier times, as Philip Henry Gosse would have us believe?
Or were we always here, as the proponents of Jainism would have us believe?
I can t decide that for you. You have to decide that for yourself.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
A & S Perspectives. 2000. A bug s life: The study of metamorphosis. (Winter)
http://www.artsci.washington.edu/news/Winter00/metamorphosis.htm
Access Research Network. 1999. Aired August 16, 1999. Kansas deletes Evolutio
n from state science test. (August 16)
http://www.arn.org/docs/kansas/talkback81699.htm
Ager, D. V. 1976. The nature of the fossil record. Proceedings of the Geolog
ists’ Association, 87, 2: 131–160.
_____. [1993] 1995. The new catastrophism: The importance of the rare event in g
eological history. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ahlberg, P. E. and Milner, A. R, 1994. The origin and early diversification of t
etrapods, Nature 368 (April 7): 507-514.
Albert, J. 1978. New insights into thermodynamics. Journal of the American Sc
ientific Affiliation 60 (September): 143.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1978/JASA9-78Albert.html
American Crocodile. 2009. Crocodilians and Continental Drift.
http://www.american-crocodile.com/evolution/crocodilians-and-continental-drift.h
tml
Anderson, M. L. 2003. Comparing Darwin s method with that of scientific Creati
onists. Creation/Evolution 9, 1: 15-22.
http://ncse.com/cej/9/1/comparing-darwins-method-with-that-scientific-creationis
ts
Andrews, R. C. 1927. Auf der Faehite der Urmenschen. Abenteuer und Entdeckungen
dreier Expeditionen in die Mongolische Wueste, Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus.
Animal Corner. 2010. Land birds: Galapagos finches/Darwin s finches.
http://www.animalcorner.co.uk/galapagos/finches.html
Anonymous. 1990. Gish reclassifies Basilosaurus as a mososaur? NCSE Reports 10
, 5 (September-October): 11.
Anonymous. 2003. Over a thousand attend evolution debate.
http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_print.php?248
Archer, M. & Clayton, G. 1984. Vertebrate zoogeography and evolution in Austra
lasia. Victoria Park, Western Australia: Hesperian Press.
Arthur, J. 1996. Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience?
(an expose of creationist Dr. Duane Gish). Skeptic 4, 4: 88-93.
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html
_____. 1997. Arthur replies to Gish. Skeptic 5, 2: 41-42.
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish-response.html#arthur
Asara, J. M.; Schweitzer, M. H.; Freimark, L. M.; Phillips, M.; & Cantley, L. C.
2007. Protein sequences from mastodon and tyrannosaurus rex revealed by mass
spectrometry. Science 316, 5822 (April): 280-285.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5822/280
Asimov, I. 1970. In the game of energy and thermodynamics you can t even break
even, Journal of Smithsonian Institute (June): 41-10.
_____. 1981. The threat of Creationism. New York Times Magazine (June 14).
_____ & Gish, D. T. 1981. The Genesis war: A debate. Science Digest 89, 9: 82-87
.
Augray. 2008. Evidence that Archaeopteryx is transitional from dinosaurs to bi
rds
(A reply to an article by Duane Gish of ICR).
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2008_01.html
Austin, S. A. 1992. Excessively old "ages" for Grand Canyon lava flows. Impac
t 224 (February).
____. 1996. Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new Dacite lava
dome at Mount St. Helens volcano. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10, 3: 3
35-343. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i3/argon.asp
Awbrey, F. & Thwaites, W. 1981. Evolution vs. Creation. Aztec Lecture Notes,
San Diego State University.
Aye, S. 2007. Repetition, repetition, repetition.
http://curiousshopper.blogspot.com/2007/03/repetition-repetition-repetition.html
Axelrod, D. I. 1958. Early Cambrian marine fauna: A new hypothesis that can in
some measure be tested explains its origin in terms of coastal sites. Science 12
8, 3314 (July 4): 7-9.
Bakken, G. S. 1987. March 17, 1987, Debate: Duane T. Gish vs. George S. Bakke
n, Department of Life Sciences, Indiana State University, Indiana State Universi
ty, Terre Haute, IN. Unpublished manuscript.
Barber, J. A. & Harshman, J. [2004] 2006. Quote #3.3. In The Quote Mine Proje
ct: Or, Lies, damned lies and quote mines.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html
Barnes, T. G. 1971. Decay of the earth s magnetic field and the geochronological
implications. Creation Research Science Quarterly 8, 1: 24–29.
Beardsley, T. 1986. Fossil bird shakes evolutionary hypothesis. Nature 322: 677.
Beck, C. B., ed. 1976. Origin and early evolution of angiosperms. New York: C
olumbia University Press.
Beddard, F. E. 1898. Structure and function of birds. London: Longmans, Green &
Co.
Bekoff, M. 2008. Mother gorilla s grief shows emotion is not only human.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/2609440/Mother-gorillas
-grief-shows-emotion-is-not-only-human.html
_____ & Pierce, J. 2009. Wild justice: The moral lives of animals. Chicago: U
niversity of Chicago Press. Reported in Gray, R. 2009. Animals can tell right
from wrong.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wr
ong.html
Benton, M. J. 1983. No consensus on Archaeopteryx. Nature 305: 99-100.
Bergman, J. 2000. Do any vestigial organs exist in humans? Technical Journal
14, 2 (August):95–98. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp
Bernard, F. 1975. An enquiry among a group of pedophiles. Journal of Sex Rese
arch 11: 242-255.
Birch, L. C. & Ehrlich, P. R. 1967. Evolutionary history and population biolog
y. Nature 214 (22 April): 349-352.
Black, D. 1927. On a Lower Molar Hominid Tooth from the Chou Kou Tien Deposit. P
alaeontologia Sinica, Series D. 7: l-28.
_____. 1931. On an adolescent skull of Sinanthropus pekinensis in comparison wit
h an adult skull of the same species and with other hominid skulls, recent and f
ossil. Palaeontologia Sinica, Series D. 7: l-111.
_____., Teilhard de Chardin, P., Young, C. C., & Pei, W. C. 1934. Fossil man in
China: The Choukoutien cave deposits with a synopsis of our present knowledge. M
emoirs of the Geological Survey of China, Series A. 11: 1-166.
Blackburn, D. G. 1995. Paleontology meets the Creationist challenge. Creation/Ev
olution 15, 1 (Summer): 26-38.
Blanton, J. 1997. Have you been brainwashed? North Texas Skeptics: The Skepti
c. 11, 10 (October).
http://www.ntskeptics.org/1997/1997october/october1997.htm
Boule, M. 1937. Le Sinanthrope. L Anthropologie. 47: 1-22.
_____ & Vallois, H-V. (Bullock, M., transl.) 1957. Fossil men. New York: Dry
den Press.
Bozarth, G. R. 1978. The meaning of Evolution. American Atheist (February): 3
0.
Boxhorn, J. [1993] 2004. Observed instances of speciation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Brace, C. L. 1982. [debate at University of Michigan, March 17]. Unpublished p
aper. Quoted in Fezer 1993b.
_____. 1986. Creationists and the Pithecanthropines. Creation/Evolution 6, 3 (W
inter): 16-23.
http://ncse.com/cej/6/3/creationists-pithecanthropines
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/brace.html

_____. 1992. [private correspondence]. Cited in Fezer 1993b.

_____. 1996. [private correspondence]. Cited in Foley 1997b.
Brawley, J. 1992. Evolution s tiny violences: The Po-halo mystery. http://www.ta
lkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/violences.html
Britain, T. 2001. Feedback for June 2001. [response to Evan].
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jun01.html#Raup
Britt, R. R. 2009. Scientists force evolution in the lab: Hormones play a role
in bringing out caterpillars’ genetic traits. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1114
7751/
Brown, K. S. 1999. Deep Green rewrites evolutionary history of plants. Science
285: 990-991.
Brown, W, 1995. In the beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood
. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation.
Brush, A. H. 1996. On the origin of feathers. Journal of Evolutionary Biology
9: 131-142.
Brush, S. 1982. Finding the age of the Earth by physics or by faith? Journal of
Geologic Education 30: 34-58.
Budd, G. E. & Jensen, S. 2000. A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of t
he bilaterian phyla. Biological Reviews 75: 253-295.
Burdick, C. L. 1969. The Lewis overthrust. Creation Research Science Quarterl
y 6, 2: 96-106.
_____. 1974. Additional notes concerning the Lewis thrust-fault. Creation Res
earch Science Quarterly 11: 56-60.
_____. 1975. Geological formation near Loch Assynt compared with the Glarus fo
rmation. Creation Research Science Quarterly 12: 155-156.
_____. 1977. Heart Mountain revisited. Creation Research Science Quarterly 12
: 207-210.
_____ & Slusher, H. S. 1969. The Empire Mountains--A thrust fault? Creation R
esearch Science Quarterly 6, 1: 49-54.
Burke, B. 1974. Infanticide. Science 185: 653.
Cal King. 2010. [response to inquiry].
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgOGKXozpWCqgxdhetyQqNzsy6IX;_ylv=3
?qid=20100430233654AAQLFAV
Callahan, T. 2002. Secret origins of the Bible. Altadena, CA: Millennium Pres
s.
Campbell, P. A. n. d. Amazing Darwin s finches.
http://www.travel-travel-travel.com/out/archives/16/DARWINS_FINCHES.htm
Canfield, D. E. & Teske, A, 1996. Late Proterozoic rise in atmospheric oxygen c
oncentration inferred from phylogenetic and sulphur-isotope studies. Nature 382
(11 July): 127-132.
Carroll, R. L. 1988. Vertebrate paleontology and evolution. New York: W H. Fre
eman.
_____. 1997. Patterns and processes of vertebrate evolution. New York: Cambrid
ge University Press.
Carroll, S. B. 2005. Endless forms most beautiful. New York: W. W. Norton.
Cartwright, R. A. & Theobald, D. L. 2003. Citing Scadding (1981) and misunderst
anding vestigiality: Another example of poor Creationist scholarship.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/scadding.html
Caton, H. 2006. Good stuff.
http://www.amazon.com/Darwinism-Refutation-Myth-Soren-Lovtrup/dp/0709941536
Chardin, P. T. de & Pei, W. C. 1932. The lithic industry of the Sinanthropus d
eposits in Choukoutien. Bulletin of the Geological Society of China 11, 4 (): 3
15-364.
Chatterjee, S. 1991. Cranial anatomy and relationships of a new Triassic bir
d from Texas. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 332: 2
77-342.
_____ & Templin, R. J. 2002. The flight of Archaeopteryx. Naturwissenschaften
90: 26-31.
Chen, B. 2007. Are “double-eyelids” inherited genetically? (February 2)
http://eyemd.wordpress.com/category/race/evolution/
Chen, J.-Y.; Bottjer, D. J.; Oliveri, P.; Dornbos, S. Q.; Gao, F.; Ruffins, S.;
Chi, H.; Li, C.-W.; & Davidson, E. H. 2004. Small bilaterian fossils from 40 to
55 million years before the Cambrian. Science 305 (9 July): 218-222.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1099213
_____; Oliveri, P.; Gao, F.; Dornbos, S. Q.; Li, C-W; Bottjer, D. J.; & Davidso
n, E. H. 2002. pre-Cambrian animal life: Probable developmental and adult cnid
arian forms from southwest China. Developmental Biology 248, 1 (1 August): 182-
196.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WDG-46C6G8P-H&_user=1
0&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVers
ion=0&_userid=10&md5=8c0546e7b9df667136bfb788c10b4aaa
_____; _____; Li, C,. W.; Zhou, G.-Q.; Gao, F.; Hagadorn, J. W.; Peterson, K. J
.; & Davidson, E. H. 2000. pre-Cambrian animal diversity: Putative phosphatize
d embryos from the Doushantuo Formation of China. Proceedings of the National A
cademy of Science USA 97, 9 (25 April): 4457-4462.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4457
_____, Dong Z.-M., & Zheng S.-N. 1998. An exceptionally well-preserved theropod
dinosaur from the Yixian Formation of China. Nature 391:147-152.
Cheon J-H. 2008. [Our beaks are good beaks.] Paju, Gyeonggi, South Korea: Bori
Publishing Co.
Clark, J. A. 1989. Discovery of the earliest-known tetrapod stapes. Nature (Lond
on) 1342: 424-427.
Claesson, S. 1977. Presentation speech.
http://www.nobel.se/chemistry/laureates/1977/presentation-speech.html
Clementson, S. P. 1970. A critical examination of radioactive dating of rocks.
Creation Research Society Quarterly 7 (December): 137-141.
Cline, A. 2010. Biogeography & Evolution - How biogeography supports Evolution.
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/BiogeographyEvolution.htm
Cloud, P. E. 1965. Significance of the Gunflint (pre-Cambrian) Microflora. Scien
ce 148, 3666 (2 April): 27-35.
_____. 1968. Atmospheric and hydrospheric evolution on the primitive earth: B
oth secular accretion and biological and geochemical processes have affected ear
th s volatile envelope. Science 160, 3829 (May 17): 729-736.
_____. 1973. Pseudofossils: A plea for caution. Geology 1: 123-127.
_____ & Glaessner, M. F. 1982. The Ediacaran period and system: Metazoa
inherit the earth. Science 217, 4562 (27 August): 783-792.
Coffin, H. S. 1983. Erect floating stumps in Spirit Lake, Washington. Geology
11, 289-299.
Colbert, E. H. 1955. Evolution of the vertebrates, 1st ed. New York: John Wil
ey & Sons.
_____. 1980. Evolution of the vertebrates, 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Son
s.
Cole, H. P. & Scott, E. C. 1982. Creation-science and scientific research. Phi
Delta Kappan (April): 557-558.
Cole, J. R. 1981. Misquoted scientists respond. Creation/Evolution 2, 4 (Fall
): 34-44. http://ncse.com/cej/2/4/misquoted-scientists-respond
Collins, A. G. 1994. Metazoa: Fossil record.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/metazoafr.html
Conrad, E. C. 1982. True vestigial structures in whales and dolphins. Creatio
n/Evolution 10 (Fall): 8-13.
http://ncse.com/cej/3/4/true-vestigial-structures-whales-dolphins
_____. 1986. Creationists and Neanderthal. Creation/Evolution 6, 3 (Winter): 2
4-33. http://ncse.com/cej/6/3/creationists-neandertal
Conway Morris, S. 1989. Burgess shale faunas and the Cambrian explosion. Scienc
e 246 (20 October): 339-346.
_____. 2000. The Cambrian "explosion": Slow-fuse or megatonnage? Proceedings o
f the National Academy of Science USA 97, 9 (25 April): 4426-4429.
_____ & Whittington, H. B. 1979. The animals of the Burgess Shale. Scientific
American 241, 1: 122-123.
Cook, M. A. 1957, Where is the earth s radiogenic helium? Nature 179: 213.
_____. 1966. Prehistory and earth models. London: Max Parrish & Co.
_____. 1970. Creation Research Science Quarterly 7: 53.
Cook, P. J. & Shergold, J. H. (eds.), 1986. Phosphate deposits of the world, Vo
lume 1. Proterozoic and Cambrian Phosphorites. New York: Cambridge University P
ress.
Corner, E. J. H. 1961. Evolution. In MacLeod, A. M. & Cobley, L. S., ed., Co
ntemporary botanical thought, Chicago: Quadrangle Books: 95-114.
Cowen, R. 2002. History of life. Boston, MA: Blackwell Science.
Coyne, J. A. 2009. Why Evolution is true. New York: Viking. Quoted in Wikipedia
2010a.
Cracraft, J. 1983. Systematics, comparative biology, and the case against crea
tionism. In Godfrey 1983: 163-192.
Craig, W. L. 1995. The Craig-Pigliucci debate: Does God exist? Dr. Pigliucci s
second rebuttal.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-pigliucci6.html
Creation Ministries International. n. d. Our point-by-point rebuttal of Plimer
’s book. http://creation.com/plimer-book-our-point-by-point-rebuttal
Creation Science Foundation. 1991. A response to Deception: An exposé of Barry P
rice s book The Creation Science Controversy. Third edition. Sunnybank, Australi
a: Creation Science Foundation, Ltd.
Creation-Life Publishers. 1978. Up with creation! ICR acts/facts/impacts. San
Diego, CA: Creation-Life Publishers.
CreationWiki. 2008. Cambrian explosion.
http://creationwiki.org/Cambrian_explosion
Cremo, M. A. & Thompson, R. L. 1998. Forbidden archeology: The full unabridged
edition. Badger, CA: Torchlight Publishing.
Crick, F. 1981. Life itself: Its origin and nature. New York: Simon and Schus
ter.
Crimes, T. P, 1978. The record of trace fossils across the Proterozoic-Cambrian
boundary. In Lipps & Signor, ed.: 177-202.
_____. 1992. Changes in the trace fossil biota across the Proterozoic-Phanerozo
ic boundary. Journal of the Geological Society 149: 637-46.
Crompton, A. W. & Jenkins, F. A. 1979. Origin of mammals. In Lillegraven, J.
A.; Kielan-Jaworowska, Z.; & Clemens, W. A., ed. Mesozoic mammals. Berkeley: U
niversity of California Press.
_____ & Parker, P. 1978. Evolution of the mammalian masticatory apparatus. A
merican Scientist 66: 192.
Cronin, J. E.; Boaz, N. T.; Stringer, C. B.; & Rak, Y. 1981. Tempo and mode in
hominid evolution. Nature 292: 113-122.
Cronin, T. M. 1985. Speciation and stasis in marine ostracoda: Climatic modula
tion of evolution. Science 227: 60-63.
Cuffey, R. J. 1972. Paleontological evidence and organic evolution. Journal of
the American Scientific Affiliation 24, 4 (December): 160-176. In Montagu, A.
1984. Science and Creationism. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 255-281.
Daeschler, E. B.; Shubin, N. H.; & Jenkins, F. A. Jr. 2006. A Devonian tetrapod
-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan. Nature 440: 757–763.
Dalrymple, G. B. 1984. How old is the Earth?: A reply to Scientific Creation
ism. In Awbrey, F. and William Thwaites, W., ed. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual
Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Sc
ience. vol. 1, pt. 3.
_____. [1984] 2006. How old is the Earth: A response to “Scientific” Creation
ism. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/creationist_age_earth.html
_____. 1986. Radiometric dating, geologic time, and the age of the earth: A rep
ly to "scientific" Creationism, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-110.
Daniels, J. 2005. Excellent overview, but not anti-evolution.
http://www.amazon.com/Darwinism-Refutation-Myth-Soren-Lovtrup/dp/0709941536
Danson, R. 1971. [letter to the editor]. New Scientist 49: 35
Darwin, C. R. 1859. On the origin of species and the descent of man. First edi
tion. New York: Avenel Books.
_____. (Leakey, R. E., ed.). [1859] 1979. The Illustrated Origin of Species.
London: Faber and Faber.
_____. 1860. [letter to Asa Gray (September 10)]. In Darwin, F., ed. 1896. T
he life and letters of Charles Darwin, vol. 2. New York: D. Appleton and Compan
y: 131. Quoted in Access Research Network. n. d. What about the evidence from
embryology?
http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20about%20the%20evidence%20from%20embryology.htm
Dawkins, R. [1986] 1996. The blind watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution re
veals a universe without design. New York: W. W. Norton.
_____. 2009. The greatest show on earth: The evidence for Evolution. London:
Free Press.
de Beer, Gavin. 1971. Homology: An unsolved problem. Oxford Biology Readers, He
ad, J. J. & Lowenstein, O. E., eds., New York: Oxford University Press. Reprinte
d (abridged) in Ridley, M. 1997. Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press: 2
11-221.
de Waal, F. 1997. Good natured: The origins of right and wrong in humans and o
ther animals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
_____. 2006. Primates and philosophers: How morality evolved. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
_____. 2009. The age of empathy: Nature s lessons for a kinder society. New Y
ork: Harmony Books.
DeWitt, D. A. 2002. The dark side of evolution.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0510eugenics.asp
Dembski, W. A. 2002. No free lunch. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Denton, M. 1985. Evolution: A theory in crisis. Bethesda: Adler & Adler.
Dietz, R. S. 1983. Gish s law. Geotimes 28, 8: 11-12.
Discovery Communications. 2010. Dinosaur Digit Bolsters Dino-Bird Link
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/06/17/bird-dino-fossil.html
Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Genetics and the races of man. In Campbell, B., ed. Sex
ual selection and the descent of man. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.
_____. 1975. On methods of evolutionary biology and anthropology. American Sci
entist 45: 381.
_____; Ayala, F. J.; Stebbins, G. L.; & Valentine, J. W. 1977. Evolution. San
Francisco: Freeman.
Dodson, P. & Currie, P. J. 1990. Neoceratopsia. In Weishampel, D. B., Dodson,
P. & Osmolska, H., 1990. The Dinosauria. Berkeley: University of California P
ress: 593-618.
Domning, D. P. 2001. The earliest known fully quadrupedal sirenian. Nature 41
3: 625-627.
Dorf, E. 1964. The petrified forests of Yellowstone Park. Scientific American
210 (April): 106.
Dubois, E. 1890a. Palaeontologische onderzoekingen op Java. Verslag van het M
ijnwezen in Nederlansch-Indie. 2 Kwartaal: 18-20; 3 Kwartaal: 12-15.
_____. 1890b. Vergadering der directie, gehouden op March 14, 1889. Natuurkun
diq Tijdschrift van Nederlandsch Indie Deel XLIX. Achste Serie 10: 209-211.
_____. 1892. Palaeontologische onderzoekingen op Java. Jaarboek van het Mijnw
ezen in Nederlandsch-Indie over her jaar 1890-1891. Mededeelingen: 60-61.
_____. 1922. The Proto-Australian fossil man of Wadjak, Java. Proceedings, Kon
inklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen to Amsterdam 23: 1013-1051.
Eck, R. V. & Dayhoff, M. O. 1966. Atlas of protein sequence and structure. Si
lver Springs, MD: National Biomedical Research Foundation.
EcoTravel Africa. [2000] 2005. Introduction to elephant Evolution.
http://www.ecotravel.co.za/Guides/Wildlife/Vertebrates/Mammals/Big_5/Elephant/El
ephant_Evolution.htm
Edwords, F. 1982. The dilemma of the horned dinosaurs. Creation/Evolution 3, 3
(Summer): 1-11.
http://ncse.com/cej/3/3/dilemma-horned-dinosaurs
_____. 1983. Those amazing animals: the whales and dolphins. Creation/Evoluti
on 3, 4 (Fall): 1-7.
http://ncse.com/cej/3/4/those-amazing-animals-whales-dolphins
_____. 2002. Creation-Evolution debates: Who s winning them now? Creation/Evo
lution 3, 2 (Spring): 30-42. http://ncse.com/book/export/html/3025
Eisner, T. 1970. Chemical defense against predation in arthropods. In Sondheim
er, E. & Simeone, J. B., ed. Chemical ecology. New York: Academic Press: 157-2
15.
Eldredge, N. 1972. Systematics and evolution of Phacops rana (Green, 1832) and P
hacops iowensis Delo, 1935 (Trilobita) from the Middle Devonian of North America
. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 147: 45-114.
_____. 1982. The monkey business: A scientist looks at Creationism. New York:
Washington Square Press.
Ellis, C. [1999] 2010. What do small tree finches eat?
http://www.ehow.com/about_5436254_do-small-tree-finches-eat.html
Elsberry, W. R. 1998. SciCre misquotes: The archive.
http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/sc_misq.html
Elzanowski, A. 2002. Archaeopterygidae (Upper Jurassic of Germany). In Chiapp
e, L. & and Witmer, L., ed. Mesozoic birds: Above the heads of dinosaurs. Berkel
ey, CA: University of California Press: 129-159.
Engel, A. E. J et al. 1968. Alga-like forms in the Onverwacht series, South Af
rica: Oldest recognized life-like forms on earth. Science 161: 1005-1008.
Ewart, J. C. 1894. The development of the skeleton of the limbs of the horse,
with observations on polydactyly. Journal of Anatomy and Physiology 28: 342-369
.
Farnsworth, J. 2001. The age of the earth.
http://thefarnsworths.com/science/ageofearth.htm
Feder, J. L. & Bush, G. L. 1989. A field test of differential host-plant usage
between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera: Tephri
tidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution (Decem
ber): 43: 1813-1819.
Fedonkin, M. A. & Waggoner, B. M. 1997. The Late pre-Cambrian fossil Kimberell
a is a mollusc-like bilaterian organism. Nature 388: 868-871.
Feduccia, A. 1993. Evidence from claw geometry indicating arboreal habits of Ar
chaeopteryx. Science 259: 790-793.
_____. 2009. [private correspondence to the author, November 4].
_____: Lingham-Soliar, T.: & Hinchliffe, J. R. 2005. Do feathered dinosaurs exis
t? Testing the hypothesis on neontological and paleontological evidence, Journal
of Morphology 266, 2 (October 10): 125-166.
Fezer, K. D. 1993a. Creationism: Please don t call it science. Creation/Evolu
tion 13, 1 (Summer): 45-49. http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1162
_____. 1993b. Creation s incredible witness: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D. Creation/Evol
ution 13, 2: 5-21.
Fitch, D. n. d. Lecture notes: Darwin s evidence for evolution: Biogeographic d
istributions.
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/html/geographic_distribution
.html
Flank, L. 1995. Archaeopteryx and the Creationists.
http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/archie.htm
Flower, W. H. 1883. On the arrangement of the orders and families of existing
Mammalia. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1 (August): 178-86.
Fogelman, Y.; Rakover, Y.; & Luboshitsky, R. 1995. High prevalence of vitamin
D deficiency among Ethiopian women immigrants to Israel: Exacerbation during pre
gnancy and lactation. Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 31: 221-224.
Foley, J. 1997a. Creationist arguments: Australopithecines
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html
_____. 1997b. Did Dubois hide Wadjak Man?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wadjak.html
_____. 1997c. Duane Gish quote about ER 1470.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cronin.html
_____. 1998. Creationist arguments: Duane Gish and Wadjak Man.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/gishwadjak.html
_____. 2003. Creationist arguments: The monkey quote.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/monkeyquote.html#ritchie
Forerunner. 2007. Abortion and Evolution.
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0717_Abortion__Evolution.html
Fox. 2009. [untitled message on the thread "Let s Bash Theists": 109].
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?p=2185819#2185819
Fox, S. W. 1984. Creationism and evolutionary protobiogenesis. In Montagu, A., e
d.
Science and Creationism. New York: Oxford: 194-239.
Freske S. 1980. Evidence supporting a great age for the Universe. Creation/Ev
olution 1, 2 (Fall): 36-37.
http://ncse.com/cej/1/2/evidence-supporting-great-age-universe
_____. 1981. Creationist misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and misuse of th
e second law of thermodynamics. Creation/Evolution 4, 2 (Spring): 8-16.
http://ncse.com/cej/2/2/creationist-misunderstanding-misrepresentation-misuse-se
cond
Friedlander, E. R. 1986. An examination of Duane T. Gish, Ph. D. s use of scie
ntific references in Evolution: The fossils say NO! 1979 Edition. San Diego: Cre
ation-Life Publishers. Unpublished manuscript.
Fritz, W. J. 1983. Comment and reply on "Erect floating stumps in Spirit Lake,
Washington." Geology 11: 733-734.
Froede, C. R., Jr. 1999. pre-Cambrian plant fossils and the Hakatai Shale contr
oversy. Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal 36, 3 (December): 106-113.
Future of Conservatism. 2009. Abortion: Guilt-Free Maternal Infanticide.
http://thefutureofconservatism.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/abortion-relatively-guil
t-free-infanticide/
Futuyma, D. J. 1982. Science on trial: The case for Evolution. New York: Pant
heon Books.
_____. 1998. Evolutionary biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
Gardner, M. 1957. Fads and fallacies in the name of science. New York: Dover
.
Gehling, J. G. 1987. Earliest known echinoderm—a new Ediacaran fossil from the P
ound Subgroup of South Australia. Alcheringa 11: 337-345.
_____. 1991. The case for Ediacaran fossil roots to the metazoan tree. Memoir
of the Geological Society of India 20: 181-223.
Geisler, N. L. 1982. The creator in the courtroom: "Scopes II." Milford, MI:
Mott Media.
gen2rev. 2003. Re: Quote Mine Project: Part II: Quote 7 (25 November).
http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/talk.origins/msg29083.html
Gentry, R. V. 1986. Creation s tiny mystery. Knoxville, TN: Earth Science Associ
ates.
Geology Dictionary. 2006. Definition of term varve.
http://www.alcwin.org/Dictionary_Of_Geology_Description-460-V.htm
Gibson, L. J. 1989. Debunking Darwin. Origins 16, 1: 34-39.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/16034.htm
Gilbert, S. F. 2000. Developmental biology, sixth edition.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=dbio&part=A69
Gingerich, P. D.; Holly Smith, B.; & Simons, E. L. 1990. Hind limbs of Eocene
Basilosaurus: Evidence of feet in whales. Science 249:154-157.
_____; Raza, S. M.; Arif, A.; Anwar, M.; & Zhou, X. 1994. New whale from the Eoc
ene of Pakistan and the origin of cetacean swimming. Nature 368: 844-847. http:/
/www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/368844a0
_____.; Wells, N. A.; Russell, D. E.; & Ibrahim Shah, S. M. 1983. Origin of wh
ales in epicontinental remnant seas: New evidence from the early Eocene of Pakis
tan. Science 220: 403-406.
Gish, D. T. n. d. 1. As a transitional form Archaeopteryx won t fly.
http://www.icr.org/article/transitional-form-archaeopteryx-wont-fly/
_____. n. d. 2. The origin of mammals. http://www.icr.org/article/169/
_____. n. d. 3. The scientific evidence for Creation.
http://www.csfpittsburgh.org/ScientificEvidenceForCreation-DuaneGish.pdf
_____. 1972. Evidence against Evolution. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers
.
_____. [1972] 1976. Evolution: The fossils say NO! 2nd edition. San Diego, CA
: Creation-Life Publishers.
_____. 1973a. Creation, evolution, and the historical evidence. American Biol
ogy Teacher (March): 132-40.
_____. 1973b. Evolution? The Fossils Say NO! San Diego, CA: Creation-Life Pu
blishers.
_____. 1974. Have you been brainwashed? Seattle: Life Messengers.
_____. 1975. A decade of Creationist research. Creation Research Society Quar
terly Journal 12, 1 (June): 34-46.
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/12/12_1a1.html
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/12/12_1a2.html
_____. (Ross, M., ill.) 1977. Dinosaurs: Those terrible lizards. El Cajon, CA
: Master Book Publishers.
_____. 1978a. Evolution: The fossils say NO! San Diego, CA: Creation-Life Publi
shers
_____. 1978b. Impact Series, No. 58. Acts & Facts (April). San Diego: Institute
for Creation Research.
_____. 1979. Evolution: The fossils say NO! 3rd edition. San Diego, CA: Crea
tion-Life Publishers.
_____. 1980. The origin of mammals. ICR Impact Series 87: i-viii.
_____. 1981. Acts, Facts and Impacts (December).
_____. 1983. Creating a missing link: A tale about a whale. ICR Impact Series
123: i-iv.
_____. [1985] 1991. Evolution: The challenge of the fossil record. El Cajon,
CA: Creation-Life Publishers.
_____. 1989a. Is it possible to be a Christian and an evolutionist? Creation
11, 4 (September): 21–23. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/chris
tian.asp
_____. 1989b. More Creationist research: Part Ia: Geological research, Creati
on Research Society Quarterly 25, 4 (March): 161.
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/25/25_4a1.html

_____. 1989c. More Creationist research: Part Ib: Geological research, Creati
on Research Society Quarterly 25, 4 (March): 161.
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/25/25_4a1.html
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/25/25_4a2.html
_____. 1989d. More Creationist research: Part II: Biological research. Creat
ion Research Society Quarterly 26, 1 (June): 5.
http://www.creationresearch.org/cgi-bin/MasterPFP.cgi?doc=http://www.creationres
earch.org/crsq/articles/26/26_1a.html
_____. 1990a. The amazing story of Creation from science and the Bible. El Cajon
, CA: Institute for Creation Research.
_____. 1990b. [private correspondence]. Cited in Arthur 1996.
_____. 1991. [private correspondence]. Cited in Lippard 1991.
_____. (Snellenberger, E. & Snellenberger, B., ill.) [1992] 1996. Dinosaurs by
design. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
_____. 1993. Creation scientists answer their critics. El Cajon, CA: Institu
te for Creation Research.
_____. 1994. Duane Gish and Creationism: Duane Gish s response to Richard Trot
t. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers/gish-response.html
_____. 1995a. Evolution: The fossils still say NO! El Cajon, CA: Institute fo
r Creation Research,
_____. 1995b. Teaching creation science in public schools. El Cajon, CA: Inst
itute for Creation Research.
_____. c1996. The Gish - Max Amarillo Debate.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=404
_____. 1997. Gish responds to critique. Skeptic 5, 2: 37-41.
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish-response.html
_____ & Asimov, I. 1981. The Genesis War. Science Digest 89, 9 (October): 82-
87.
Glaessner, M. F. 1976. Early Phanerozoic annelid worms and their geological an
d biological significance. Journal of the Geological Society, London 132: 259-27
5.
_____. 1979. An echiurid worm from the Late pre-Cambrian, Lethaia 12: 121-124.
Godfrey, L. R., ed. 1983. Scientists confront Creationism. New York: W. W. Nor
ton.
Goldberg, E. D. 1965. Minor elements in sea water. In Riley, J. P. & Skirrow, G.
1965. Chemical oceanography. New York: Academic Press.
Goldschmidt, R. 1940. The material basis of evolution. New Haven, CN: Yale Uni
versity Press.
_____. 1952. Evolution as viewed by one geneticist. American Scientist 40: 84
-98.
Goodman, M,; Czelusniak, J.; & Beeber J. 1985. Phylogeny of primates and other e
utherian orders: a cladistic analysis using amino acid and nucleotide sequence d
ata. Cladistics 1, 2: 171-85.
Goodman, M.; Koop, B. F. et al. 1989. Molecular phylogeny of the family of ape
s and humans. Genome 31: 316-335.
Gorr, T. & Kleinschmidt, T. 1993. Evolutionary relationships of the coelacanth
American Scientist 81, 2: 72-82.
Gosse, P. H. 1857. Omphalos. London: J. Van Voorst.
Gould, S. J. 1977a. Ever since Darwin: Reflections in natural history. New Yo
rk: W. W. Norton & Co.
_____. 1977b. The return of hopeful monsters. Natural History 86 (June): 22-3
0. Reprinted in Gould, S. J. 1980: 186-193.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_hopeful-monsters.html
_____. 1977c. The telltale wishbone. Natural History 86, 9 (November): 26-36.
Reprinted in Gould 1980: 267-277.
_____. 1980. The panda s thumb: More reflections in natural history. New York
: W. W. Norton.
_____. 1981. Evolution as fact and theory. Discover 2, 5 (May): 34-37.
Reprinted in Gould, S. J. Hen s teeth and horse s toes. 1994. New York: W. W.
Norton: 253-262.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
_____. 1984. The Ediacaran experiment. Natural History 93, 2 (February): 14-23
.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_ediacaran_experiment_s.html
_____. 1989. Wonderful life: The Burgess Shale and the nature of history. New
York: W. W. Norton.
_____. 1996. The tallest tale. Natural History 105, 5 (May): 18-23, 54, 56-57
.
http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes/182/Giraffe/Tallest%20Tale.pdf
_____ & Eldredge, N. 1972. Punctuated equilibria: An alternative to phyletic gra
dualism. In Schopf, T. J. M., ed., Models in paleobiology, San Francisco: Freema
n, Cooper & Co: 82-115.
_____ & _____. 1977. Punctuated equilibria: The tempo and mode of Evolution re
considered. Paleobiology 3: 115-151.
Green, D. E. & Goldberger, R. F. 1967. Molecular insights into the living proc
ess.
New York: Academic Press.
Green, M. 2008. Evolutionary science and creationism: A skeptical response to
Duane Gish’s “Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics.”
http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/02/evolutionary-science-and-creationism-a-skept
ical-response-to-duane-gishs-creation-scientists-answer-their-critics/
Greenberg, J. H. 1960. The general classification of Central and South American
languages. In Wallace, A. ed. Men and culture: Selected papers of the Fifth In
ternational Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
_____; Turner, C. II; & Zegura, S. 1986. Settlement of the Americas. Current Ant
hropology 27: 477-497.
_____.; _____; _____; Campbell, L.; Fox, J. A.; Laughlin, W. S.; Szathmary, E. J
. E.; Weiss, K. M.; & Woolford, E. 1986. The settlement of the Americas: a co
mparison of linguistic, dental and genetic evidence. Current Anthropology 27, 5
(December): 477-497.
Grocott, P. [2002] 2008. Creation versus Evolution. ABC TV Science.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s692487.htm
Groves, C. 1993. Post-modernism in pseudoscience: a creationist s deconstructio
n of Gish. Skeptic (Spring).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lubenow_cg.html
_____. 2000. Review: Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/oconnell_cg.html
Grzimek, B. 1975. Grzimek s Animal Life Encyclopedia. New York: Van Nostrand Rei
nhold.
Hall, M. & Hall, S. 1974. The truth: God or evolution? Nutley, NJ: Craig Pr
ess.
Hamilton, W. D. 1963. The evolution of altruistic behavior. American Naturali
st 97: 354-356.
Hampe, A. 1959. Contribution a l etude du developpement et de la regulation de
s deficiences et de excedents dans la patte de l embryon de poulet, Arch. D Anat
. Microscop. Morphol. Exp. Suppl. 48: 347-478.
_____. 1960. Le competition entre les elements osseux du zeugopode de poulet,"
J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol. 8: 241-245.
Hanson, R. W., ed. 1986. Science and Creation: Geological, theological, and ed
ucational perspectives. New York: Macmillan.
Harding, R. M.; Healy, E.; Ray, A. J.; Ellis, N. S.; Flanagan, N.: Todd, C.; Dix
on, C.; Sajantila, A.; Jackson, I. J.; Birch-Machin, M. A.; & Rees, J. L. 2000
. Evidence for variable selective pressures at MC1R. American Journal of Human G
enetics 66: 1351–1361.
Harkness, L. S. & Cromer, B. A. 2005. Vitamin D deficiency in adolescent fema
les. Journal of Adolescent Health 37, 1 (July): 75
Harris, D. M. 1978. A solution to seeing stars. Creation Research Society Quar
terly 15 (September): 112-115.
Harrold, F. B. 1990. Past imperfect: Scientific Creationism and prehistoric ar
cheology. Creation/Evolution 10, 2 (Summer): 1-11.
http://ncse.com/cej/10/1/past-imperfect-scientific-creationism-prehistoric-arche
ology
Harvati K. 2003. The Neanderthal taxonomic position: Models of intra- and inter-
specific craniofacial variation. Journal of Human Evolution 44, 1: 107–32.
Hecht, M. K.: Ostrom, J. H.; Viohl, G. & Wellnhofer, P., ed. The beginnings of b
irds: Proceedings of the International Archaeopteryx Conference Eichstätt 1984:
Eichstätt: Freunde des Jura-Museums Eichstätt.
Henderson, J. B.; Dunnigan, M. G.; McIntosh, W. B.; Abdul-Motall, A. a.; Gettinb
y, G.; & Glekin, B. M. 1987. The importance of limited exposure to ultra-viole
t radiation and dietary factors in the aetiology of Asian rickets: a risk factor
model. Quarterly Journal of Medicine 63: 413-425.
Henke, K. R. n. d. a. How can Woodmorappe sell us a bill of goods if he doesn t
know the costs?
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/woodmorappe_bill_of_goods_henke.htm
_____. n. d. b. Young-Earth Creationist dating of a Mt. St. Helens dacite: The
failure of Austin and Swenson to recognize obviously ancient minerals.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm
Ho-Stuart. 2003. [response to inquiry].
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jan03.html
Hodgkin, P.; Kay, G. H.; Hine, P. M.; Lumb, G. A.; & Stanbury, S. W. 1973. Vit
amin-D deficiency in Asians at home and in Britain. The Lancet 1973: 167-172.
Holley, D. 2009. Biogeography as evidence of Evolution: Understanding the disc
ontinuity of species distribution.
http://evolution.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_evidence_for_evolution
Holmes, B. 2008. Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shi
ft-in-the-lab.html
Howells, W. 1946. Mankind so far. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
_____. 1959. Mankind in the making: The story of human evolution. Garden City
, NY: Doubleday.
Hoyle, F. [1983] 1984. The intelligent universe: A new view of creation and evol
ution. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
_____ & Wickramisinghe, C. 1981. Evolution from space. London: J. M. Dent & S
ons.
_____ & _____ & Watkins, R. S. 1985. Archaeopteryx. British Journal of Photogr
aphy 132: 693-694.
Hoyt, W. 2001. Cambrian explosion disproves evolution.
http://www.learnthebible.org/cambrian-explosion-disproves-evolution.html
Hughes, N. F. 1976. Palaeobiology of angiosperm origins: Problems of Mesozoic se
ed-plant evolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Humber, P. G. 2009. Evolution and the American abortion mentality.
http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-american-abortion-mentality/
Hunt, K. [1994] 1997. Transitional vertebrate fossils FAQ: Part 1A.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/taq-transitional/part1a.html
Hunter, A. [1998] 2009. How your appendix works.
http://health.howstuffworks.com/appendix.htm/printable
Hurd, G. 2004. Down in the quote mines.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/03/down-in-the-quo.html
Hutcheson, P. 1986. Evolution and testability. Creation/Evolution 6, 2 (Summer)
: 1-8.
http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/evolution-testability
Hutcheson, P. 2006. The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, damned lies and quote mi
nes. Assorted quotes, Part 2.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4-2.html
Huxley, J. 1955. Evolution and genetics. In Newman, J. R., ed. What is scien
ce? New York: Simon & Schuster.
Huxley, T. H. 1868. On the animals which are most nearly intermediate between b
irds and reptiles. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 2: 66–75.
Indoctrinhate. 2009a. Dr Ian Plimer vs Dr Duane Gish - 1988 Sydney, Australia De
bate [Part 1 of 16].
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT7nGNguZg8&feature=related
_____. 2009b. Dr Ian Plimer vs Dr Duane Gish - 1988 Sydney, Australia Debate [Pa
rt 02 of 16]. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1xzivFCAMc&NR=1
_____. 2009c. Dr Ian Plimer vs Dr Duane Gish - 1988 Sydney, Australia Debate [Pa
rt 03 of 16]. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar2hfqHCN4w&NR=1
_____. 2009d. Dr Ian Plimer vs Dr Duane Gish - 1988 Sydney, Australia Debate [Pa
rt 04 of 16]. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFPMRguig2s&NR=1
_____. 2009e. Dr Ian Plimer vs Dr Duane Gish - 1988 Sydney, Australia Debate [Pa
rt 05 of 16]. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfwKO8MW2js&NR=1
_____. 2009f. Dr Ian Plimer vs Dr Duane Gish - 1988 Sydney, Australia Debate [Pa
rt 06 of 16]. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F-W1Xjurag&NR=1
_____. 2009g. Dr Ian Plimer vs Dr Duane Gish - 1988 Sydney, Australia Debate [Pa
rt 07 of 16]. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3D6z6kJ0dg&NR=1
_____. 2009h. Dr Ian Plimer vs Dr Duane Gish - 1988 Sydney, Australia Debate [Pa
rt 08 of 16]. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IgLXgP_bzw&NR=1
_____. 2009i. Dr Ian Plimer vs Dr Duane Gish - 1988 Sydney, Australia Debate [Pa
rt 09 of 16]. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIyJ3pFzb34&NR=1
_____. 2009j. Dr Ian Plimer vs Dr Duane Gish - 1988 Sydney, Australia Debate [Pa
rt 10 of 16]. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6JLGLHXhcA&NR=1
_____. 2009k. Dr Ian Plimer vs Dr Duane Gish - 1988 Sydney, Australia Debate [Pa
rt 11 of 16]. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UrrGosdcT8&NR=1
_____. 2009l. Dr Ian Plimer vs Dr Duane Gish - 1988 Sydney, Australia Debate [Pa
rt 12 of 16]. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL0PUnh2bio&NR=1
_____. 2009m. Dr Ian Plimer vs Dr Duane Gish - 1988 Sydney, Australia Debate [Pa
rt 13 of 16]. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaWLQim2Y6s&NR=1
_____. 2009n. Dr Ian Plimer vs Dr Duane Gish - 1988 Sydney, Australia Debate [Pa
rt 14 of 16]. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpVlqt2cfHM&NR=1
Institute for Creation Research. 1985. 1985-1987 Graduate School Catalog. San
tee, CA.
Irvine, C. 2009. Chimpanzees grief caught on camera in Cameroon.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/6444909/Chimpanzees-grief-caught-on-ca
mera-in-Cameroon.html
Isaak, M. 2001. Claim CB100. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB100.html
_____. [2001] 2003. Claim CF201. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF201.ht
ml
_____. 2004a. Claim CA005.2. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_2.ht
ml
_____. 2004b. Claim CC332. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC332.html
_____. 2004c. Claim CH010. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH010.html
_____. 2005a. Claim CB811. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB811.html
_____. 2005b. Claim CA005.1. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_1.htm
l
_____. [2005] 2007. The Counter-Creationism Handbook. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
_____. 2007. Claim CA005. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005.html
Iyengar, B. 1998. The hair follicle is a specialized UV receptor in human skin
? Bio Signals Recep 7, 3: 188-194.
Jablonski, N. G. 2006. Skin: a natural history. Berkley, CA: University of Cal
ifornia Press.
_____ & Chaplin, G. 2000. The evolution of human skin coloration, Journal of Hu
man Evolution 39: 57–106.
http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/chem/faculty/leontis/chem447/PDF_files/Jablonski
_skin_color_2000.pdf
Jackson, W. 2005. The “link” between Evolution and abortion.
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/958-the-link-between-evolution-and-abor
tion
Jenkins, R. J. F. 1978. Functional and ecological aspects of Ediacaran assemblag
es.
In Lipps & Signor, ed.: 131-176.
Jensen, J. A. 1981. Another look at Archaeopteryx as the world s oldest bird.
Journal of the Utah Academy of Sciences: Encyclia 58: 109-128.
_____ & Padian, K. 1989. Small pterosaurs and dinosaurs from the Uncompahgre fa
una (Brushy Basin member, Morrison Formation: ? Tithonian), Late Jurassic, weste
rn Colorado. Journal of Paleontology 63, 3: 364-373.
Jepsen, G. L. 1966. Early Eocene bat from Wyoming. Science 154, 3754 (9 Decem
ber): 1333-1339.
Jet Black. 2010. [entry in forum thread entitled Why Do Evolutists Persist? (
April 29)]. http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3296&st=
40
Ji Q. & Ji S. 1996. On discovery of the earliest bird fossil in China and the
origin of birds." Chinese Geology 10, 233: 30-33.
Johansen, D. C. & Edey, M. A. 1981. Lucy: The beginnings of humankind. New Yor
k: Warner Books.
_____ and White, T. D. 1979. A systematic assessment of early African hominids.
Science 203: 321–330.
Johnson, G. [1998] 2008. Did Darwin get it wrong? Searching for the ancestor o
f Darwin s finches. http://txtwriter.com/Onscience/Articles/finches.html
Jones, A. Z. 2008. Entropy. http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/entropy.ht
m
Jukes, T. H. 1983. Molecular evidence for evolution. In Godfrey, ed.: pp 117-3
8.
Kaveski, S. and Margulis, L. 1983. The sudden explosion of animal fossils ab
out 600 million years ago: why? American Biology Teacher 45, 2 (February): 76-8
2.
Kawaguchi, H.; O hUigin, C. et al. 1992. Evolutionary origin of mutations in t
he primate cytochrome P450c21 gene. American Journal of Human Genetics 50: 766-7
80.
Keith, Sir A. 1925. 2nd edition. The antiquity of man, 2 vols. London: Willi
ams and Northgate.
Kelso, A. J. 1974. Physical anthropology: An introduction, 2nd Edition. Philad
elphia: J. B. Lippincott Company.
Keosian, J. 1964. The origin of life. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corp.
_____. 1978. The crisis in the problem of the origin of life. In Noda, H., ed.,
Origin of life: Proceedings of the Second ISSOL Meeting, the Fifth ICOL Meeting
, Tokyo: Japan Scientific Societies Press: 569-574.
Kermack, D. M.; Kermack, K. A.; & Mussett, F. 1968. The Welsh pantothere Kuehneo
therium praecursoris. Journal of the Linnean Society (Zoology), 47: 407-423.
Kermack, K. A.; Mussett, E.; & Rigney, H. W. 1973. The lower jaw of Morganucodon
. Journal of the Linnean Society (Zoology) 53: 87-175.
Kerr, R. A. 1998. Did an ancient deep freeze nearly doom life? Science 281 (28
August): 1259-1261.
_____. 2000. An appealing snowball earth that s still hard to swallow. Scienc
e 287 (10 March): 1734-1736.
Kettlewell, H. B. D. 1961. The phenomenon of industrial melanism in Lepidopter
a. Annual Review of Entomology 6: 245-262.
King, N. 2005. Choanoflagellates. Current Biology 15, 4 (22 February): R113-4
.
Kitcher, P. 1982. Abusing science: The case against Creationism. Cambridge, M
A: MIT Press.
Kitts, D. B. 1974. Paleontology and evolutionary theory. Evolution 28: 458-472.

Knoll, A. H. 1996. Breathing room for early animals. Nature 382: 111-112.
Kofahl, R. E. 1981. The bombardier beetle shoots back. Creation/Evolution 2,
3 (Summer): 12-14.
http://ncse.com/cej/2/3/bombardier-beetle-shoots-back
_____. 1982. Corner on plants. Creation/Evolution 3, 3 (Summer): 40-41.
http://ncse.com/cej/3/3/letters-to-editor
Kollar, E. J. & Fisher, C. 1980. Tooth induction in chick epithelium: Expressio
n of quiescent genes for enamel synthesis, Science 207: 993-995.
Korthof, G. [1999] 2007. "A memorable misunderstanding:" Fred Hoyle s Boeing-s
tory in the Evolution/Creation literature.
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46a.htm
Kritzsky, J. 1987. Fossil insects: pests of creation. Creation/Evolution 7, 1 (
Spring): 13-19.
http://ncse.com/cej/7/1/fossil-insects-pests-creation
Kropotkin, P. 1902. Mutual aid: A factor of Evolution.
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html
Kuban, G, 1986. Color distinctions and other curious features of dinosaur track
s near Glen Rose, Texas, In Gillette, D. D. and Lockley, M. G. Lockley, eds., Di
nosaur tracks and traces, 1989, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, Cambr
idge: 427-440.
Kurten, B. 1971. The age of mammals. London: Weidenfeld.
Lack, D. 1956. The natural regulation of animal numbers. Oxford: Oxford Univer
sity Press.
Ladd, H. S. & Schlanger, S. O. 1960. Bikini and nearby atolls, Marshall lslan
d Drilling Operation on Eniwetok Atoll. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Pa
per 260Y.
Lammerts, W. E. 1966. Overthrust faults of Glacier National Park. Creation Re
search Science Quarterly 3, 1: 61-62.
_____. 1972. The Glarus overthrust. Creation Research Science Quarterly 8, 4:
251-255.
_____ & Howe, G. F. 1974. Plant succession studies in relation to micro-evoluti
on, Creation Research Science Quarterly 10, 4: 208-228.
Landau, M. 1989. Protein sequences and Denton s error. Creation/Evolution Jou
rnal 9, 2 (Winter): 1–7. http://ncse.com/cej/9/2/protein-sequences-dentons-erro
r
Lazell, J. D., Jr. 1980. Kalihi rock wallaby of Hawaii. Tigerpaper, UN-FAO Ban
gkok 7, 2: 31-32.
_____. 1981. Strange rock wallabies of Oahu. Explorers Journal 52, 2: 66-67.
_____; Sutterfield, T.; & Giezentanner, W. 1984. The population of rock wallab
ies (genus Petrogale) on Oahu, Hawaii. Biological Conservation 30: 99-108.
Le Gros Clark, W. E. 1955. Discovery (January).
Leach, E. R. 1981. Men, bishops and apes, Nature Vol. 293 (September 3): 20.
Leakey R. E. 1973. Evidence for an advanced Plio-Pleistocene Hominid from East
Rudolf, Kenya. Nature 242 (April 13): 447-50.
http://www.nature.com/nature/ancestor/pdf/242447.pdf
Lewin, R. 1985. Evidence for Scientific Creationism? Science 228 (17 May): 83
7.
_____. 1987. Bones of contention : controversies in the search for human origi
ns.
New York : Simon & Schuster.
_____. 1990. Science: Dinosaur count reveals surprisingly few species. New Sc
ientist Print Edition (1 December).
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12817452.700-science-dinosaur-count-reveal
s-surprisingly-few-species.html
Lewis, G. E. 1934. Preliminary notice of new man-like apes from India. American
Journal of Science Series 5 vol. 27: 161-181.
Lewontin, R. 1983. Introduction. In Godfrey, L. R., ed.
Lienhard, J. H. [1988] 2004. Darwin and racism.
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi617.htm
Lin, J. P. 2003. An Ediacaran-like arthropod from the Kaili biota (Middle Cambri
an, Guizhou Province, China) - A missing link for assessing the early evolution
of arthropods. [unpublished proceedings of the 2003 Geological Society of Americ
a conference]. http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003AM/finalprogram/abstract_59267.htm
Lindsay, D. 1999. The apparent age argument.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/apparent_age.html
Lingham-Soliar, T.; Feduccia, A.; & Wang X. 2007. A new Chinese specimen indic
ates that protofeathers in the Early Cretaceous theropod dinosaur Sinosauropte
ryx are degraded collagen fibres. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biologica
l Sciences 274 (1620): 1823-1829.
Lippard, J. 1991. How not to argue with a Creationist. Creation/Evolution 11,
2 (Winter): 9-21. http://www.discord.org/~lippard/hnta.html
http://ncse.com/webfm_send/1159
_____. 1993. Gish answers his critics.
http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/criticsg.htm
_____. 1994a. Review of Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics.
Perspectives in Science and Christian Faith 46, 3 (September): 193-195.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/gishreview.html
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/articles/gish_creation.html
_____. 1994b. Sun goes down in flames: The Jammal ark hoax. Skeptic 2, 3: 22-
23. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax/jammal.html
http://www.discord.org/~lippard/skeptic/02.3.lippard-ark-hoax.html
Lipps, J. H. & Signor, P. W., ed. 1978. Origin and early evolution of the meta
zoa. New York: Plenum Press.
_____ & _____, ed. 1992. Origin and early evolution of the metazoa. New York:
Plenum Press.
Lipson, S. & Pilbeam, D. 1982. Ramapithecus and hominoid evolution. Journal of
Human Evolution 11, 6 (September): 545-548.
Living Word Bible Church. [1995] 2009. The result of believing evolution.
http://www.lwbc.co.uk/Genesis/results%20of%20believing%20evolution.htm
Logan, G. A.; Hayes, J. M.; Hieshima, G. B.; & Summons, R. E. 1995. Terminal Pr
oterozoic reorganization of biogeochemical cycles. Nature 376: 53-56.
Long, J. T. 2009. Whale evolution. http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/whale.ht
m
Loomis, W. F. 1967. Skin-pigment regulation of vitamin-D biosynthesis in man:
Variation in solar ultraviolet at different latitudes may have caused racial dif
ferentiation in man. Science 157, 3788 (August 4): 501-506.
Lovtrup. S. 1987. Darwinism: The refutation of a myth. New York: Croom Helm.
Lubenow, M. L. 1983. From Fish to Gish. San Diego: CLP Publishers.
_____. 1992. Bones of contention: A Creationist assessment of human fossils,
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
Lurquin, P. F. & Stone, L. 2006. Genes, culture, and human evolution: A synthesi
s. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
http://books.google.com/books?id=zdeWdF_NQhEC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=chimpanzee+rhe
sus+cytochrome+c&source=web&ots=wbEgDLqBGU&sig=cyVtTiTyAjuMSEIfDzgWjaJCz-M&hl=en
&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Lyttleton, R. A. 1956. The modern Universe. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Macbeth, N. 1979. Darwin retried: An appeal to reason. Boston: Harvard Common
Press.
MacCurdy, G. G. 1924. Human origins. 2 vols. New York: D. Appleton & Co.
MacFadden, B. J. 1994. Fossil horses: Systematics, paleobiology, and evolution
of the family Equidae. New York: Cambridge University Press.
MacLean, P. D. 1990. The triune brain in evolution: role in paleocerebral functi
ons. New York: Plenum Press.
Mander, J. 1978. Four arguments for the elimination of television. New York:
William Morrow.
Margulis, L. 1981. Symbiosis in cell evolution. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Marsh, F. L. 1941. Fundamental biology. Lincoln, NE: self-published.
Marsh, O. C. 1876. Notice of new tertiary mammals. American Journal of Science
and Arts 12: 401-404.
Martin, L. D.; Stewart, J. D.; & Whetstone, K. N. 1980. The origin of birds: S
tructure of the tarsus and teeth. The Auk 97: 86-93.
Martin, M. W. et al., 2000. Age of Neoproterozoic bilatarian body and trace fos
sils, White Sea, Russia: Implications for metazoan evolution. Science 288 (5 Ma
y): 841-845.
Martin, R. D. 1982. Et tu, Tree Shrew? Natural History 91, 8: 26-33.
Marty, M. E. 1983. Burdened schoolmasters. Christian Century 100 (September 28):
863.
Matson, D. E. [1994] 2002. How good are those young-Earth arguments?
A close look at Dr. Hovind s list of young-Earth arguments and other claims.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html
Mayr, G.; Pohl, B.; & Peters, D. S. 2005. A well-preserved Archaeopteryx specime
n with theropod features. Science 310: 1483-1486.
McGowan, C. 1984. In the beginning: A scientist shows why the Creationists are w
rong. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
McKee, J. K. 2001. Jeffrey K. McKee & Duane T. Gish: WOSU Open Line (Februa
ry 13). http://home.insight.rr.com/jkmckee/debate2.html
McMenamin, M. A. S. 2003. Spriggina is a trilobitoid ecdysozoan. Geological So
ciety of America Abstracts 35: 105.
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003AM/finalprogram/abstract_62056.htm
Metzner, J. 2002. Finch: Beaks big and small.
http://www.pulseplanet.com/dailyprogram/dailies.php?POP=2726
Meyer, S. C. 2004. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomi
c categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117, 2 (August
4): 213-239.
Middleton, K. M. 2003. Morphology, evolution, and function of the avian hallux
. Ph. D. dissertation, Brown University, Providence, RI.
Miller, A. I. 1997. Dissecting global diversity patterns: Examples from the Ord
ovician radiation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 85-104.
Miller, K. 1982a. Answers to the standard Creationist arguments. Creation/Evol
ution 3, 1 (Winter): 1-13.
http://ncse.com/cej/3/1/answers-to-standard-creationist-arguments
_____. 1982b. [response to Kofahl]. Creation/Evolution 3, 3 (Summer): 41-43.
http://ncse.com/cej/3/3/letters-to-editor
Miller, S. L. & Urey, H. C. 1959. Organic compound synthesis on the primitive e
arth. Science 130 (3370) (July): 245.
Milne, D. H. 1981. How to debate with Creationists--and "win." American Biology
Teacher 43, 5: 235-245.
_____. 1991. [private correspondence]. Cited in Arthur 1996.
Milner, A. C. 1993. Ground rules for early birds. Nature 362 (April 15): 589.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v362/n6421/abs/362589a0.html
Miyamoto, M. M. & Goodman, M. 1986. Biomolecular systematics of eutherian mamma
ls: phylogenetic patterns and classification. Systematic Zoology 35, 2: 230-40.
Moeller, D. 2004. Just-so-stories for the punctuated evolutionist: A review of
Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Steven J. Gould.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_1_48-51.pdf
Monastersky, R. 1991. The lonely bird. Science News 140: 104-105.
_____. 1997. Ancient animal sheds false identity--Kimberella. Science News 15
2 (August 30): 32.
Monroe, J. S. 2003. Basic created kinds and the fossil record of perissodactyl
s.
Creation/Evolution 5, 2 (Summer): 4-30.
http://ncse.com/cej/5/2/basic-created-kinds-fossil-record-perissodactyls
Moon, P. & Spencer, D. E. 1953. Binary stars and the velocity of light. Journ
al of the Optical Society of America 43, 8 (August): 635-641,
Moore, J. P. 1974. A demonstration of marked species stability in Enterobacter
iaceae. Creation Research Science Quarterly 10, 4: 187-190.
Morowitz, H. J. 1979. Energy flow in biology. Woodbridge, CT: Ox Bow Press.
Morris, H. M. 1972. The remarkable birth of planet Earth. Minneapolis, MN: Beth
any House Publishers.
_____. 1974a. Scientific Creationism: General edition. San Diego, CA: Creatio
n-Life Publishers.
_____. 1974b. The troubled waters of Evolution. San Diego, CA: Creation-Life
Publishers.
_____. 1976. Impact Series, No. 40. Acts & Facts (October). San Diego: Institut
e for Creation Research.
_____. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books,
Morton, G. R. 2001. Transitional forms and the evolution of phyla. Perspectiv
es on Science and Christian Faith 53.1 (March): 42-51.
http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Morton.html
Myers, P. Z. [2003] 2004. Wells and Haeckel s embryos: A review of Chapter 5 o
f Icons of Evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html
_____. 2006. Tiktaalik makes another gap.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/tiktaalik_makes_another_gap.php
Nedin, C. [1995] 1997. The Archaeopteryx FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/archaeopteryx.pdf
_____. [1996] 2002. Archaeopteryx: Answering the challenge of the fossil recor
d.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html
_____. [1999] 2002. All about Archaeopteryx.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#pelvis
Nelkin, D. 1982. The Creation controversy: Science or scripture in the schools.
New York: W. W. Norton.
Nicolis, G. & Prigogine, I. 1977. Self-organization in non-equilibrium systems:
From dissipative structures to order through fluctuations. New York: John Wile
y and Sons.
Norell, M. A.; Makovicky, P. J.; & Clark, J. M. 2000. A new troodontid theropo
d from Ukhaa Tolgod, Mongolia. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 20, 1: 7-11.
Norris, S. 2008. Platypus genome reveals secrets of mammal evolution.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080507-platypus.html
Novacek, M. J. 1994. Whales leave the beach. Nature 368 (28 April): 807.
Nowak, R. 1994. Mining treasures from junk DNA. Science 263, 5147 (4 Februa
ry): 608-610.
Numbers, R. L. 1992. The Creationists: The evolution of Scientific Creationism
. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
O Connell, P. 1969. Science of today and the problems of Genesis (Book 1) The si
x days of Creation, Second ed. Hawthorne, California: Christian Book Club of Ame
rica
O Daniel, D. 2008. [private correspondence, July 30]. (July 30).
O Neil, D. [2000] 2009. Social structure.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/behavior/behave_2.htm
Olsen, E. C. 1965. The evolution of life. New York: New American Library.
Olsen, P E. 1986. A 40-million-year lake record of early Mesozoic orbital climat
ic forcing. Science 234: 842-848.
Ommaney, F. D. 1964. The fishes. New York: Time-Life, Inc.
Oppenheimer, P., trans. [1991] 2001. Till Eulenspiegel: His adventures. New
York: Routledge.
Osborn, H. F. 1924. Psittacosaurus and Protiguanodon: Two Lower Cretaceous iguan
odonts from Mongolia. American Museum Novitates 127: 1-16.
Ostrom, J. H. 1969. Osteology of Deinonychus antirrhopus, an unusual theropod fr
om the Lower Cretaceous of Montana. Peabody Museum of Natural History Bulletin 3
0: 1–165.
_____. 1970. Archaeopteryx: Notice of a "new" specimen. Science 170: 537-538.
_____. 1985. The meaning of Archaeopteryx. In Hecht et al.: 161-176.
Owen, R. 1841. Description of the Lepidosiren annectens. Transactions of the
Linnean Society of London 18: 327-361.
_____. 1863. On the Archaeopteryx of Von Meyer, with a description of the fossil
remains of a long-tailed species from the lithographic stone of Solnhofen. Phil
osophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 153: 33–47.
Oxnard, C. E. 1974. University of Chicago Magazine (Winter): 11-12.
_____. 1975. The place of the australopithecines in human evolution: Grounds f
or doubt? Nature 258: 386-395.
_____. 1979. Human fossils: New view of old bones American Biology Teacher 41
, 5 (May): 264-276.
_____. 1984. The order of man. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
_____ & Lisowski, F. P. 1980. Functional articulation of some hominoid foot bon
es: Implications for the Olduvai (Hominid 8) foot. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 52, 1: 107–117.
Padian, K. n. d. The tale of the whale.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/2010_the_tale_of_the_whale_
12_30_1899.asp
_____. 2004. Basal Avialae. In Weishampel, D.; Dodson, P. & Osm¢lska, H., ed. T
he dinosauria, Second edition. Berkeley: University of California Press: 210-231
.
Pagel, M., ed. 2002. Encyclopedia of evolution. New York: Oxford University P
ress.
Pallen, M. 2009. Rough Guide to Evolution. London: Rough Guides. Quoted in Wiki
pedia 2010a.
Parrish, F. 1991. [debate at Georgia Institute of Technology, May 6]. Unpublis
hed paper.
Paul, G. 2002. Dinosaurs of the air: The evolution and loss of flight in dinos
aurs and birds. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
Pennisi, E. 2005. Bird wings really are like dinosaurs hands. Science 307, 5
707 (January 14): 194.
Perutz M. F. & Lehmann, H. 1968. Molecular pathology of human haemoglobin. Natur
e 219 (August 31): 902–909.
Peterson, E. H. 1982. Creation, why and how? Creation Research Society Quarte
rly. 18 (March): 223-226, 243.
Pettersson, H. 1960. Cosmic spherules and meteoric dust. Scientific American 2
02, 2: 123-132.
Phelps, D. J. 1994. Saint George and the baryonyx. Skeptical Inquirer 18, 2 (
Winter): 187-191. http://www.skepticfiles.org/evo2/gishdino.htm
Pieret, F. [2003a] 2004a. The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, damned lies and qu
ote mines: Quote #74. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html
_____. [2003b] 2004b. The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, damned lies and quote m
ines: "Miscellaneous." Quote #86.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html
Pietruszewski, B. 1998. Some questions for Duane Gish.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/brian_pietruszewski/gish.html
Pigliucci, M. 2000. Tales of the rational: Skeptical essays about nature and s
cience. Atlanta: Freethought Press.
Plimer, I. 1986. Creation science--The work of the Devil. Australian Geologist
61 (December 20): 3-7.
---- 1987a. Creation debate. Newcastle Herald (March 16).
---- 1987b. Challenge to Creation scientists . Newcastle Herald (April 22).
---- 1989. Communication with Fanatical Fundamentalists. Media Information Austr
alia 51 (February): 10-12.
_____. 1991a. [private correspondence]. Cited in Lippard 1991.
_____. 1991b. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. University of New South
Wales: Alumni Papers. (March/April/May): 4-5.
_____. 1994. Telling lies for God: Reason vs Creationism. North Sydney, NSW:
Random House Australia.
Polar Bears International. 2010. Evolution.
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears/bear-essentials-polar-style/a
daptation/evolution
Popper, K. R. 1957. The poverty of historicism. Boston: The Beacon Press.
_____. 1963. Science: Problems, aims, responsibilities. Federation Proceedings
22: 961-972.
_____. 1972. Objective knowledge: An Evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Pr
ess.
_____. 1976a. Unended quest: An intellectual autobiography. Glasgow: Fontana/C
ollins.
_____. 1976b. Unended quest. An intellectual autobiography. LaSalle, IL: Open C
ourt Press.
_____. 1978. Natural selection and the emergence of mind. Dialectica 32: 339-
355.
_____. 1980. [letter to the editor]. New Scientist 87, 1215 (21 August): 611.
http://www.geocities.com/lagopaiva/popper80.htm
Price, B. 1990. The Creation Science Controversy. Sydney, NSW: Millenium Books.
Price, R. G. 2006. The mis-portrayal of Darwin as a racist.
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm
Prigogine, I. 1978. Time, structure, and fluctuations. Science 201: 777-785.
http://www.nobel.se/chemistry/laureates/1977/prigogine-lecture.pdf
_____; Nicolis, G.; & Babloyantz, A. 1972a. Thermodynamics of Evolution. Physics
Today 25, 11 (November): 23-28,
_____; _____; & _____. 1972b. Thermodynamics of Evolution. Physics Today 25, 12
(December): 38-44,
Procaccia, I. & Ross, J. 1977. The 1977 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Science
198: 716-717.
Prum, R. 1999. Development and evolutionary origin of feathers. Journal of Exper
imental Zoology (Molecular and Developmental Evolution) 285: 291-306.
Raboch, J. & Raboch, J. 1986. Number of siblings and birth order of sexually d
ysfunctional males and sexual delinquents. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 1
2: 73-76.
Prothero, D. R. 2005. The fossils say yes: the discovery of transitional forms
has filled in some of the most talked-about gaps in the fossil record. Natural
History (November).
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_9_114/ai_n15855375/pg_4?tag=artBo
dy;col1
Quammen, D. 2004. Was Darwin wrong?
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html
Raff, R. A. & Kaufman, T. C. 1983. Embryos, genes, and evolution: The developm
ental-genetic basis of evolutionary change. New York: Macmillan.
Rasmussen, B.; Bengtson, S.; Fletcher, I. R.; & McNaughton, N. J. 2002. Discoi
dal impressions and trace-like fossils more than 1200 million years old. Scienc
e 296 (10 May): 1112-1115.
Raup, D. M. 1979. Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology. Field Museum of
Natural History Bulletin 50, 1 (January): 22-29.
_____. 1983a. The geological and paleontological arguments of Creationism. In
Godfrey, ed.: 147-162.
_____. 1983b. Geology and Creationism. Field Museum of Natural History Bulle
tin 54, 3 (March): 16-25.
_____. 1991. Extinction: bad genes or bad luck? New York: W. W. Norton and Co.
_____ & Stanley, S. 1978. Principles of paleontology. San Francisco: Freeman.
Regal, P. J. 1975. The Evolutionary Origin of Feathers. Quarterly Review of Biol
ogy 50, 1: 35-66.
Ridley, M. 1981. Who doubts evolution? New Scientist 90, 1259 (June 25): 830-8
32.
_____. 1985. The problems of Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ritchie, A. 1991. The Creation Science controversy-a response to deception, Aus
tralian Biologist 4, 1: 16-21.
Romanoff, A. L. 1960. The avian embryo. Structural and functional development. N
ew York: Macmillan.
Romer, A. S. 1966. Vertebrate paleontology. Chicago: University of Chicago Pr
ess.
Rosa, L.; Rosa, E.; Sarner, L.; Barrett, S. 1998. A close look at Therapeutic
Touch. Journal of the American Medical Association 279, 13 (April 1): 1005-1010
.
Rosen, D. E.; Forey, P.L.; Gardiner, B.G.; & Patterson, C. 1981, Lungfishes, tet
rapods, paleontology and plesiomorphy. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natur
al History 167, 4: 159-276.
Ross, H. 1992. Gish/Ross Focus on the Family Interview (August 12-13).
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199511-12/0700.html
http://www.skepticfiles.org/origins/gish-ros.htm
Ross, H. H. 1955. The evolution of the insect orders. Entomological News 66: 1
97-208.
Runnegar, B. N. & Fedonkin, M. A. 1992. Proterozoic metazoan body fossils.
In Schopf, W. & Klein, C., ed. The proterozoic biosphere. New York: Cambridge
University Press: 369-388.
Ruse, M. 2000. Can a Darwinian be a Christian? The relationship between scienc
e and religion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
_____. 2003. Is Evolution a secular religion? Science 299, 5612 (7 March): 15
23-1524. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5612/1523
_____. 2008. [private correspondence, July 19].
Rushton, J. P. 2000. Race, evolution, and behavior: A life history perspective
. 2nd special abridged edition. Port Huron, MI: Charles Darwin Research Instit
ute.
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf
Sagan, C. & Druyan, A. 1990, The question of abortion, Parade (April 22).
http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
Saladin, K. S. 1986. Educational approaches to creationist politics in Georgia.
In Hanson: 104-127.
_____. 1988a. Saladin-Gish debate, May 10, 1988 at Auburn University, Auburn,
AL: Opening statement for the affirmative.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/saladin1.html
_____. 1988b. Opening statement for the negative.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/gish1.html
_____. 1988c. Opening statement for the affirmative.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/saladin2.html
_____. 1988d. First rebuttal for the negative.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/gish2.html
_____. 1988e. Second rebuttal for the affirmative.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/saladin3.html
_____. 1988f. Second rebuttal for the negative.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/gish3.html
_____. 1988g. Question-answer period.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/question.html
_____. 1988h. Closing statement for the affirmative.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/saladin4.html
_____. 1988i. Closing statement for the negative.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/gish4.html
_____. 1988j. Saladin s assessment of the debate. Creation/Evolution Newslette
r 8, 6 (November/December): 11, 14.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/saladin_assess.
html
_____. 1988k. Saladin-Gish Debate: May 10, 1988, at Auburn University, Auburn,
AL. Unpublished paper.
Sarfati, J. D. n. d. Refutation of Boyce Rensberger s anti-creationist Washing
ton
Post article: ‘How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution’, Jan.
8, 1997. http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3852
_____. 2001. Shrill and unscholarly, even by anti-creationist standards.
http://www.amazon.com/Telling-Lies-God-Reason-Creationism/product-reviews/009182
852X/ref=cm_cr_pr_link_next_2?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&pageNumber=2&sortBy=bySub
missionDateDescending
Säve-Söderbergh, G. 1932. Preliminary notes on Devonian stegocephalians from Eas
t Greenland. Meddelelser øm Grönland 94: 1-211.
Scadding, S. R. 1981. Do "vestigial organs" provide evidence for evolution? E
volutionary Theory 5: 173-176.
Schadewald, R. J. 1981. Moon and Spencer and the small Universe. Creation/Ev
olution 2, 2 (Spring): 20-22.
http://ncse.com/cej/2/2/moon-spencer-small-universe
_____. 1982. Six "flood" arguments Creationists can t answer. Creation/Evolut
ion 3, 3 (Summer): 1-11.
http://ncse.com/cej/3/3/six-flood-arguments-creationists-cant-answer
_____. 1986. Scientific Creationism and error. Creation/Evolution 6, 1 (Winte
r): 1-9.
http://ncse.com/cej/6/1/scientific-creationism-error
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html
_____. 1990. Gish reclassifies Basilosaurus as a mosasaur?" NCSE Reports 10, 5:
11.
_____. 1991. [private correspondence]. Cited in Arthur 1996.
Schildknecht, H. & Holoubek, K. 1961. Die Bombardierkafer and ihre Explosionsc
hemie. Angewandte Chemie 73, 1 (January 7): 1-7.
_____; Maschwitz, E.; & Maschwitz, U. 1968. Die Explosionschemie der Bombardier
kafer (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung 23: 1213-1218.
Schafersman, S. 1998. The challenge of the fossil record: A reply to Creationi
st students. http://www.freeinquiry.com/challenge.html
Scharle, T. S. 2003. The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mi
nes: "Large Gaps": Quote #49.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html
Schilpp, P. A., ed. 1974. The philosophy of Karl Popper. Vol. 1. LaSalle, IL
: Open Court Press.
Schweitzer, M. H.; Watt, J. A.; Avci, R.; Knapp, L.; Chiappe, L.; Norell, M.; &
Marshall, M. 1999. Beta-keratin specific immunological reactivity in feather-li
ke structures of the Cretaceous alvarezsaurid, Shuvuuia deserti. Journal of Expe
rimental Zoology. 285:146-157.
Science Daily. 2007. Whales descended from tiny deer-like ancestors.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071220220241.htm
_____. 2008. Details of evolutionary transition from fish to land animals revea
led. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081015144123.htm
Scott, E. C. 1994. Debates and the Globetrotters.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating/globetrotters.html
_____. 2004. Confronting Creationism. Reports of the National Center for Scie
nce Education 24, 6 (November/December): 23.
http://ncse.com/rncse/24/6/confronting-creationism
_____ & Cole, H. P. 1985. The elusive scientific basis of Creation Science.
Quarterly Review of Biology 60 (March): 21-30.
Senter, P. 2006. Scapular orientation in theropods and basal birds, and the or
igin of flapping flight. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 51, 2: 305-313.
Sereno, P. C.; Martinez, R. N.; Wilson, J. A.; Varricchio, D. J.; Alcober, O. A.
et al. 2008. Evidence for avian intrathoracic air sacs in a new predatory dinos
aur from Argentina. Reviewed in n. a. 2008. Aerosteon riocoloradensis: Meat-ea
ting dinosaur had bird-like breathing.
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/aerosteon_riocoloradensis_meat_e
ating_dinosaur_had_bird_like_breathing
Setterfield, B. 1981. The velocity of light and the age of the Universe: Part
1. Ex Nihilo 4, 1.
Shapiro, H. L. 1974. Peking Man: The discovery, disappearance and mystery of a
priceless scientific treasure. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Shelton, J. S. 1976. Geology illustrated. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Shermer, M. [1997] 2002. Why people believe weird things: Pseudoscience, supers
tition, and other confusions of our time. New York: Henry Holt & Co.
_____. 2002. 25 Creationists arguments & 25 Evolutionists answers.
http://rock.geosociety.org/docs/criticalissues/ev_shermer.htm
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/25_answers.htm
Shimamura, M.; Yasue, H.; Ohshima, K.; Abe, H.; Kato, H. et al. 1997. Molecular
evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even-toed ungulates.
Nature 388: 666–670.
Simons, E. L. 1962. The earliest relatives of man. Scientific American 211 (J
uly): 50.
_____. 1969. The origin and radiation of the Primates. Annual of the New York
Academy of Science 167: 319-331.
Simpson, G. G. 1949. The meaning of evolution. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
_____. 1953. Life of the past: An introduction to paleontology. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
_____. 1964. The Non-prevalence of humanoids. Science (21 February) 143: 76
9-775.
_____. 1967. The meaning of Evolution. 2nd revised edition. New Haven, CT: Yal
e University Press.
Sites, L. n. d. ICR lunacy. http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/lunacy2.htm
Skehan, J. W. 1986a. The age of the earth, of life, and of mankind: Geology a
nd biblical theology versus creationism. In Hanson: 10-32.
_____. 1986b. Modern science and the Book of Genesis. Washington: National Sci
ence Teachers Association.
Slijper, E. J. 1942. Biologic-anatomical investigations on the bipedal gait an
d upright posture in mammals, with special reference to a little goat, born with
out forelegs. Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenscha
ppen 45: 288–295, 407–415.
Slusher, H. S. 1966. Supposed overthrust in Franklin Mountains, El Paso, Texas
. Creation Research Science Quarterly 3, 1: 59-60.
_____. 1981. Critique of radiometric dating methods. San Diego, CA: Creation-
Life Publishers.
_____. & Gamwell, T. P. 1978. The age of the earth. Institute for Creation Res
earch, Technical Monograph 7.
_____ & Robertson, S. J. 1982. The age of the solar system. El Cajon, CA: Ins
titute for Creation Research.
Smith, E. N. 1973. Crowding and asexual reproduction of the planarian Dugesia d
orotocephala, Creation Research Science Quarterly 10, 1: 3-10.
_____. 1985. Experimental results of crowding on the rate of asexual reproduct
ion of the planarian Dugesia dorotocephala, Creation Research Science Quarterly
22: 16-20.
_____ & Haghberg, S. C. 1984. Survival of freshwater and saltwater organisms i
n a heterogeneous Flood model experiment. Creation Research Science Quarterly 2
1: 33-37.
Snelling, A. A. 1988. Creation science: A response to Professor Plimer. Australi
an Geologist 68 (September 20):16-21.
_____. 1991. Where are all the human fossils? Creation 14, 1 (December): 28–33.
_____. 2000. Polonium radiohaloes: Still "a very tiny mystery". Impact 326 (Augu
st): i-iv.
Sonleitner, F. J. 1986. What did Karl Popper really say about evolution? Creati
on/Evolution 6, 2 (Summer): 9-14.
http://ncse.com/cej/6/2
Stanley, S. M. 1973. An ecological theory for the sudden origin of multicellul
ar life in the Late pre-Cambrian. Proceedings of the National Academy of Scienc
e 70: 1486-1489.
_____. 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and process. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman
.
Stassen, C. [1994] 2003. A criticism of the ICR s Grand Canyon dating project.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html
_____. 1994a. A Creationist exposed.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html
_____. 1994b. The ICR s dishonesty exposed.
http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/cre1.htm
_____. [1996] 2005. The age of the earth.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
Steiger, R. H. & Jager, E. 1977. Subcommission on geochronology: Convention on t
he use of decay constants in geo- and cosmochronology. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
36: 359-362.
Stokstad, E., 2004. Controversial fossil could shed light on early animals blu
eprint. Science 304 (4 June): 1425.
Strahler, A. N. 1987. Science and earth history: The Evolution/Creation contro
versy. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
_____. [1987] 1999. Science and earth history: The Evolution/Creation controver
sy. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Stricherz, V. 2006. Gene needed for butterfly transformation also key for inse
cts like grasshoppers. (April 26)
http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=23970
Struthers. J. 1893. On the development of the bones of the foot of the horse,
and of digital bones generally and on a case of polydactyly in the horse. Journ
al of Anatomy and Physiology 28: 51-62.
Sutera, R. 2001. The origin of whales and the power of independent evidence.
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
Teed, C. R. 1898. The cellular cosmogony. Chicago: The Guiding Star Publishin
g Co.
Telling the Truth Project [1995] 2002. Explosion of life: A scientist reveals d
etails of the Cambrian explosion.
http://www.origins.org/articles/chien_explosionoflife.html
Terra Nature. 2003. New Zealand ecology: Flightless birds.
http://www.terranature.org/kiwi1.htm
Theobald, D. [1999] 2004. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution; Protein functional
redundancy.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#protein_redundancy
Theodor, J. M. 2004. Molecular clock divergence estimates and the fossil recor
d of Cetertiodactytla. Journal of Paleontology 78, 1 (January): 39-44.
http://jpaleontol.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/78/1/39
Theunissen, B. 1988. Eugene Dubois and the ape-man from Java. Dordrecht: The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers Group.
Thewissen, J. G. M.; Cooper, L. N.; Clementz, M. T.; Bajpai, S.; & Tiwari, B. N.
2007. Whales originated from aquatic artiodactyls in the Eocene epoch of Indi
a. Nature 450 (20 December): 1190-1194.
_____.; Madar, S. I.; & Hussain, S. T. 1996. Ambulocetus natans, an Eocene cetac
ean (Mammalia) from Pakistan. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 191 (June 2
8): 1-86.
_____, _____ and M. Arif. 1994. Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locom
otion in archaeocete whales. Science 263: 210-212.
Thomas, A. L. R. 1997. The breath of life -- did increased oxygen levels trigge
r the Cambrian Explosion? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12: 44-45.
Thompson, T. n. d. Is the Earth young?
http://www.tim-thompson.com/young-earth.html
Thwaites. W. M. 1980. Another favorite creationist argument: "the genes for ho
mologous structures are not homologous." Creation/Evolution 1, 2 (Fall): 43-45.
http://ncse.com/cej/1/2/another-favorite-creationist-argument
_____, 1985. New proteins without God s help. Creation/Evolution 5, 2 (Summer):1
-3.
http://ncse.com/cej/5/2/new-proteins-without-gods-help
_____. 1986. A two-model creation versus evolution course. In Hanson: 92-103.
_____ & Awbrey, F. 1981. Biological evolution and the second law.
Creation/Evolution 2, 2 (Spring): 5-7.
_____, & _____. 1991. [private correspondence]. Cited in Arthur 1991.
Tinkle, W. J. 1971. Pleiotropy: Extra cotyledons in the tomato. Creation Rese
arch Science Quarterly 8, 3: 183-185.
Tort, P. (Bahn, P. G., transl.) 2001. Darwin and the science of Evolution. Ne
w York: Harry N. Abrams.

Trott, R. 1994a. Debating the ICR s Duane Gish.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating/gish.html
_____. 1994b. Duane Gish and Creationism: Richard Trott rebuts Gish s respons
e. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers/spin-doctor.html
_____. 1999a. Duane Gish and Creationism: Richard Trott critiques Duane Gish s
presentation at Rutgers University. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutge
rs.html
_____. 1999b. Lying for Jesus: Duane Gish, InterVarsity, and Creationism at R
utgers. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers/gish-draft.txt
Truman, J. W. & Riddiford, L. M. 1999. The origins of insect metamorphosis. N
ature 401: 447-452.
Turner, C. G. H. 1983. Dental evidence for the peopling of the Americas. In Shu
tler, R., Jr., ed. Early man in the New World. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publicati
ons: 147-157.
Van Oosterzee, P. 1999. Dragon bones: The story of Peking Man. St. Leonards, New
South Wales: Allen & Unwin,
Vaughan, T. A. 1978. Mammalogy. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Wagner, J. A. 1861. Ueber ein neues Augenblick mit Voelfedern versehenes Repti
l aus dem Solenhofener lithographischen Schiefer. Sitzungsberichte bayerische
Akademie Wissenschaften 2: 146-154.
Waisgerber, W. G.; Howe, G. F.; & and Williams, E. L.. 1987. Mississippian and C
ambrian strata interbedding: 200 million year hiatus in question. Creation Resea
rch Science Quarterly 23: 160-167.
Wakefield, J. R. 1998. The geology of Gentry s "tiny mystery". Journal of Geolo
gical Education 36 (May): 161-175.
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm
Walker, A. D. 1980. The pelvis of Archaeopteryx. Geological Magazine 117: 595
-600.
_____. 1985. The braincase of Archaeopteryx. In Hecht et al.: 123-134.
Walter, M. 1995. Faecal pellets in world events. Nature 376 (6 July): 16-17.
Wang, D. Y-C.; Kumar, S.; & Hedges, S. B. 1999. Divergence time estimates for
the early history of animal phyla and the origin of plants, animals and fungi.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 266: 1
63-171.
Warren, W. C. et al. 2008. Genome analysis of the platypus reveals unique sign
atures of evolution. Nature 455 (September 11): 256.
Weber, C. G. 1980. The fatal flaws of flood geology. Creation/Evolution 1, 1
(Summer): 24-37.
http://ncse.com/cej/1/1/fatal-flaws-flood-geology
_____. 1981a. The bombadier (sic) beetle myth exploded. Creation/Evolution 2,
1 (Winter): 1-5.
http://ncse.com/cej/2/1/bombardier-beetle-myth-exploded
_____. 1981b. Response to Dr. Kofahl. Creation/Evolution 2, 3 (Summer): 15-17
.
http://ncse.com/cej/2/3/response-to-dr-kofahl
Weidenreich, F. 1936. The mandibles of Sinanthropus Pekinensis: A comparative st
udy. Palaeontologia Sinica, Series D: 1-132.
_____. 1937. The dentition of Sinanthropus Pekinensis. Palaeontologia Sinica, N
ew Series D, No. 1, Whole Series No. 10: 1-180.
_____. 1939. On the earliest representatives of modern mankind recovered on th
e soil of East Asia. Peking Natural History Bulletin 13: 161-174.
--- 1941. The extremity bones of Sinanthropus Pekinensis. Palaeontologia Sinica
, New Series D, No. 5, Whole Series No. 116: 1-150.
_____. 1943. The skull of Sinanthropus Pekinensis: A comparative study on a prim
itive hominid skull. Palaeontologia Sinica, Series D, Whole Series No. 127: 1-48
4.
Weinberg, S. L. 1986. Creation/Evolution Newsletter 6, 5: 22. Quoted in Stra
hler [1987] 1999: 397.
Wellnhofer, P. 1988/. Ein neuer Exemplar von Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx 6:
1-30.
Wells, J. 2000. Icons of evolution: Science or myth? Washington, DC: Regnery
Publishing.
Whitcomb, J. C. & Morris, H. M. 1964. The Genesis flood. Philadelphia: Presby
terian and Reformed Publishing Co.
Wiedersheim, R. (Bernard, H. & Bernard, M., transl.) 1895. The structure of Man
: An index to his past history. London: Macmillan and Co.
Wikipedia. [2007] 2010. Recapitulation theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory
_____. 2008. Vestigiality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial
_____. 2009. George McCready Price.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McCready_Price
_____. 2010a. Evidence of common descent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
_____, 2010b. Evolution of the horse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
_____. 2010c. Molecular clock.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock
_____. 2010d. Punctuated equilibrium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
Wilkins, J. S. 2000. Evolutionists against eugenics.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/nov00.html
_____. [2003] 2005. Quote #14. In The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, damned li
es and quote mines: Sudden appearance and stasis.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-2.html
_____. [2004] 2006. Quote #4.17. In The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, damned l
ies and quote mines: Assorted quotes.
.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html
Williams, P. 2009. Don t be an isodope, learn about an isotope. http://www.ge
og.ucsb.edu/~williams/Isotopes.htm
Williams, S. A. & Goodman, M, 1989. A statistical test that supports a human/ch
impanzee clade based on non-coding DNA sequence data. Molecular Biology and Evol
ution 6, 4: 325-330.
Williamson, D. 2005. Latest study: scientists say no evidence exists that ther
apod dinosaurs evolved into birds.
http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/oct05/feducci100705.htm
Wolf, J. & Mellett, J. S. 1985. The role of "Nebraska man" in the creation-evo
lution debate. Creation/Evolution 5, 2 (Summer): 31-43.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html
http://ncse.com/cej/5/2/role-nebraska-man-creation-evolution-debate
Wong, M. 2001. Young-earth creationism: pseudoscience.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/YoungEarth/Hartman-5.shtml
Wood, T. 1996. Dr. Duane Gish: Crusader. Creation Matters 1, 1 (January/Febru
ary).
http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/96/cm9601.html#anchorgish
Wynn-Edwards, V. C. 1962. Animal dispersion in relation to social behavior.
Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.
Wyss, A. R.; Novacek, M. J.; & McKenna, M. C. 1987. Amino acid sequence versus
morphological data and the interordinal relationships of mammals, Molecular Bi
ology and Evolution 4, 2: 99-116.
Xu X.; Clark, J. M.; Mo, J.; Choiniere, J.; Forster, C. A.; Erickson, G. M.; Hon
e, D. W. E.; Sullivan, C.; Eberth, D. A.; Nesbitt, S.; Zhao, Q.; Hernandez, R.;
Jia C.-K.; Han, F.-L.; & Guo, Y. 2009. A Jurassic ceratosaur from China helps
clarify avian digit homologies. Nature 459: 940-944.
_____; Tang Z.-L., & Wang X.-L. 1999. A therizinosauroid dinosaur with integumen
tary structures from China. Nature 399: 350-354.
_____; Zhou Z.-H.; & Prum, R. O. 2001. Branched integumental structures in _Sin
ornithosaurus_ and the origin of feathers. Nature 410: 200-204.
_____; _____; Wang X.; Kuang X.; Zhang F.; & Du X. 2003. Four-winged dinosaur
s from China. Nature 421: 335-40.
Yahya, H. 2003. Darwin s racism. http://www.mediamonitors.net/harunyahya44.htm
l
Yockey, H. P. 1977. A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis b
y information theory. Journal of Theoretical Biology 67: 377–398.
Young, F. N., Jr. & Kritsky, G. 2002. [b]A survey of entomology.[/b] Blooming
ton, IN: IUniverse. 55.
Zhou Z.-H. & Zhang F.-C. 2002. A long-tailed, seed-eating bird from the Early
Cretaceous of China. Nature 418: 405-409.
Zindler, F. 1985. Maculate deception: the science of creationism. American A
theist (March): 23-6. http://www.atheists.org/evolution/maculateDeception.html
_____. 1988. The kiwi question. American Atheist (May).
http://www.atheists.org/bone.pit/kiwi.html
_____. 1990. Is Creationism science? A debate between Duane Gish and Frank Zi
ndler. Aired during the evening of January 11, 1990 on "Night Talk."
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/frank_zindler/gish-zindler/gish-zindler.h
tml
Zuckerkandl, E. & Pauling, L. B. 1962. Molecular disease, evolution, and genet
ic heterogeneity. In Kasha, M. & Pullman, B., ed. Horizons in biochemistry. Ne
w York: Academic Press: 189–225.
Zuckerman, S. 1966. Myth and method in anatomy. Journal of the Royal College
of Surgeons of Edinburgh 11, 2: 87-114.
_____. 1970. Beyond the ivory tower. New York: Taplinger.