p10, par 9 - meaning of "science" not explained correctly

Paragraph 9 misunderstands and therefore misconstrues the meaning of "science".

By definition, science is anything that can be subjected to scientific experiments and examinations. The Genesis creation account cannot be tested in this way, therefore it is not, by definition, scientific.

Informed people long ago stopped drawing comparative parallels between science and Genesis (or any religious belief for that matter).

Seeing as one is based on investigation and the other on faith, the two just cannot be correlated or compared.

p15, par 3 - misunderstanding the vocabulary of scientists causes recurring problems

The scientific meaning of the word "theory" (and why non-scientists misunderstand it so often, resulting in confusion):

"In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" – part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory.

Moreover, `fact' doesn't mean `absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favour). In science `fact' can only mean `confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent'. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory – natural selection – to explain the mechanism of evolution."

- Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981.

p15, par 4a - quote out of context and untidy research gives totally wrong impression

In paragraph 4, after selectively quoting Discover magazine, the Creation book leaves the reader with the impression that the entire Theory of Evolution is being questioned. Meanwhile, reading the words in context (see original below), clearly shows that the article was only about disagreements over the pace of evolution.

IN THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT:

"Charles Darwin's brilliant theory of evolution, published in 1859, had a stunning impact on scientific and religious thought and forever changed man's perception of himself. Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism. . . .

Most of the debate will centre on one key question: Does the three billion-year-old process of evolution creep at a steady pace, or is it marked by long periods of inactivity punctuated by short bursts of rapid change? Is Evolution a Tortoise or a hare? Darwin's widely accepted view – that evolution proceeds steadily, at a crawl – favours the tortoise. But two paleontologists, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, are putting their bets on the hare."

- James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?", Discover, October 1980, p 88

Even if the opening sentences of this scientific article are perhaps unclear and misleading to the non-scientist - a careful reading of the entire article would quickly reveal that the occurrence of evolution is not being questioned, but only whether the process is fast or slow.

The results of this sort of superficial research tend to be very unfair and misleading quotes - as in this case.

p15, par 4b - quote out of context and untidy research gives totally wrong impression AGAIN

In paragraph 4, after selectively quoting Discover magazine, the Creation book also selectively quotes the infamous Francis Hitching (please see sheet 7 for his credentials).

Please read the sentence you quoted, IN THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT:

IN THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT:

"Yet, for all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.

Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to mean the same thing. But they don’t. Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a fact, if we are to believe evidence gathered during the last two centuries from geology, paleontology (the study of fossils), molecular biology and many other scientific disciplines. Despite the many believers in Divine creation who dispute this (including about half the adult population of the United States, according to some opinion polls), the probability that evolution has occurred approaches certainty in scientific terms."

- Francis Hitching, "The Neck of the Giraffe", 1982, p 12

Is it honest to mislead the scientifically uninformed brothers, and the public, in this way?

We are here surely reminded of scriptures such as Proverbs 12:22 where we read: "False lips are something detestable to Jehovah".

p18, par 12 - quotation out of context conveys unintended meaning

In paragraph 12, Darwin is again quoted out of context, leading the reader to believe that Darwin acknowledged the evolution of the eye to be a problem. However, a careful reading of the original text will demonstrate that the point Darwin was making was that while intuition seemed to make the evolution of the eye improbable, reason told him that this was ‘not subversive to the theory’.

IN THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science.

Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

- The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, 1859, p 133.

Whether what Darwin or others have to say about the evolution of the eye is correct or not, is not the point here.

Once again, we see a scientist quoted out of context, with an unintended meaning emerging.

p20 (diagrams) - wrong impression conveyed by diagrams & accompanying quotation

At the top of the page the Creation book shows a picture of 3 transitional fossils crossed out, with David Raup's statements beneath them. The fact is, Raup did not say anything at all about the lungfish and Archaeopteryx (see his original commentary, in context, on sheet 11).

As for Eohippus, it is obvious from Raup’s article (see next sheet) that Raup did not discount it from the fossil record supporting evolution. He simply proposed changes to the way Darwinism had interpreted this record. It should therefore not be crossed out, which in fact gives totally the wrong impression to the layman.

p20, par 15 - a scientist is again misunderstood, inevitably resulting in another misquote

In paragraph 15, not only is David M Raup quoted out of context, but his statement is cushioned in a very misleadingly-worded paragraph. Please read Raup’s full statement, in context, on the next sheet.

Many people knowledgeable in science would say our quotes are dishonestly selective, and designed to show the reader only what we want the reader to see.

p23, par 24 - not only is Hitching used again, but even he is misquoted!

Firstly, what Hitching has to say in his conclusion would be sharply contested by almost all scientists alive today. We know that Hitching does not have an honest scientific record (see sheet 7 for proof of this).

Also, if one reads further in Hitching’s book, one sees that he proposes other explanations for evolution - explanations that would be much less acceptable to true Christians than even Darwinism (eg. aliens and supernatural influences).

p27, par 7 - when you say "millenniums", you mean each creative day was only 7000 years long

Today there is overwhelming evidence that the creative "days" must have been far longer than "millenniums" - they were undoubtedly millions of years long at least.

Why do we adamantly adhere to a viewpoint that flies in the face of fact?

Also, why in par 14 does the separation of the waters from the land have to ‘no doubt involve tremendous earth movements (catastrophism)’? Would not a slow, natural process taking millions of years also be in agreement with Genesis 1:9,10?

And it all seems so unnecessary, since modern scientific facts can very easily be reconciled with Genesis.

p36, par 34 - contrary to your claim, science does NOT agree with the 10 stages in par 34

Brothers, with regard to the primitive earth - in paragraph 10 on page 41 you say:"The fact is, any attempt to establish the nature of earth's primitive atmosphere can only be based on guesswork or assumption. No one knows for sure what it was like".

Please confirm all of this in a reference work like the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1988, vol 18, p 986.

Clearly then, science does NOT agree with the 10 stages as set out in paragraph 34.

p37, par 34 - ‘probability argument’ is very poor and only gives the impression of being sound

In the ‘probability argument’ in paragraph 34 we see what can only be described as an argument designed to impress the layman, but without any substance to it.

If there is proof that Genesis was inspired, this argument certainly isn’t it!

This poor ‘mathematical’ example is just not convincing to clear-thinking people, and we also need to remember that people today are very skeptical when it comes to books such as this - and can one blame them, considering how religions are continually trying to pull the wool over their eyes?

With content such as this, is it any wonder the Creation book has on the whole been rejected by informed people the world over?

Two popular misconceptions in the minds of most non-scientists are:

(a) that the fossil record is complete and therefore is the final authority on evolution, and

(b) that scientists need "transitional" species to prove evolution’s existence

(a) It is a well-known universal fact that fossilization is an extremely rare occurrence.

Conditions have to be unbelievably ideal for a creature to be fossilized properly. Further, since such fossils are scattered in sedimentary strata everywhere, only a tiny fraction of them are in the hands of paleontologists.

The fossil evidence is like photos taken every 20 minutes of a football match - what are our chances of actually seeing the goals?

The fossil record is by no means complete, it never will be, and arguing along the lines that ‘the fossil record should reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life into another’, indicates a poor knowledge of the subject.

(b) Biological evolution does not teach that certain species are "in transit" (ie. on their way to becoming something else), while others are not.

The fact is that ALL species are under constant environmental pressure to adapt, and are slowly doing so, even we humans (why do our wisdom teeth no longer fit comfortably in our jaws? Why is the appendix now almost redundant? Why can we do without our tonsils?).

If they are to survive, and depending on their niche in the natural world, some living things have to adapt more than others - eg cycads and crocodiles have not needed to change for eons, while other groups of animals have had to change. The fossil record might document the changes, or it might not - there are no guarantees as to what we will find.

Indeed, if warm-blooded reptiles did in fact gradually turn into birds, then the fossil of a true half-reptile half-bird creature could be discovered one day (in fact Archaeopteryx is almost the perfect candidate).

Yet, in the same instance, perhaps the change was not gradual - perhaps it was sudden, caused by a process we don’t yet fully understand (Divine intervention being one possibility), in which case no such intermediate fossil will ever be found.

One can of course argue that the "throwbacks" described in the extract on the previous sheet are not conclusive evidence of common ancestry. Granted.

Yet, as Stephen Jay Gould asked:

".... why should the fetus of a whale make teeth in its mother's womb only to re-absorb them later and live a life sifting krill on a whalebone filter, unless its ancestors had functional teeth and these teeth survive as a remnant during a stage when they do no harm?

- Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb, p. 29, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1980

Genetic throwbacks, on the other hand, are NEW structures that consistently originate from the correct place in the embryo, yet their development is accidentally not inhibited (as in the re-absorption of embryonic whale teeth), but is allowed to continue into birth.

By quoting a single sentence form Robert Jastrow’s book at the end of par 16, the impression is given that ‘the blank pages in the first billion years of earth’s history’ are an unfathomable mystery to scientists, enough to jeopardise their theories about evolution.

Interestingly though, Robert Jastrow ALSO says in his book:

"The record of the rocks contains very little, other than bacteria and one-celled plants, until, about a billion years ago, after some three billion years of invisible progress, a major breakthrough occurred. The first many-celled creatures appeared on earth."

- Robert Jastrow, Red Giants and White Dwarfs, p. 251, New York: Warner Books, Inc., 1979.

So, is Jastrow saying that the lack of early fossil evidence means there was no life up until the "Cambrian explosion"? Not at all - in fact he clearly states that together with the ‘bacteria and one-celled plants’ there was "invisible progress".

How though, can he be so sure that this progress was ‘invisible’?

Even the early Cambrian creatures barely left a trace of their existence:

"The first clues to the existence of relatively advanced forms of life consist of a few barely discernible tracks, presumably made in the primeval slime by soft, wriggling, wormlike animals. These are found in rocks about one billion years old. Somewhat later, well-defined worm burrows appear in the record. These meagre remains are the earliest traces of many-celled animal life on the planet."

- Robert Jastrow, Red Giants and White Dwarfs, p. 249, New York: Warner Books, Inc., 1979.

Even if we don’t agree with the ‘invisible progress’ Jastrow speaks of - is it fair for the Creation book to quote him in such a way that leaves the reader with the impression Jastrow has no explanation for these "blank pages in the earth’s history?"

Just looking at two of the quotes on pages 68 and 69 in detail, one can ask:

Why is the first quote on p68 from a book written in 1955? Since then, much evidence has been unearthed about the origin of early life. Dozens of more recent publications were available at the time the Creation book was compiled.

Using outdated texts like this throughout the book gives the impression that modern discoveries do not support the Creation book’s arguments.

With regard to the first quote On Reptiles Becoming Birds:

Also, in this very book, Stebbins describes how well all the preceding transitions mentioned in pages 68 and 69 are documented in the fossil record - why is such supportive proof never mentioned?

Once again, questions are raised with regard to the Creation book’s claim of being an up-to-date "thoroughly researched investigation".

Brothers, surely you know who this person "Coffin" in paragraph 38 is?

"...zoologist Coffin" is in fact a six-literal-day creationist. He is a Seventh-Day Adventist who even appeared in court when the (in)famous Arkansas law demanding equal time for what was called "creation science" was tried in 1982. He is a member of the Creation Research Society (CRS) of Ann Arbor, Michigan."  - Ashley Montagu, Science and Creationism, New York, 1984. pp. 292-293.

The quote is from Liberty, an Adventist magazine we would never quote on religious controversies. Why then do we publish such Creationist comments so confidently here?

In fact, it is a pity the Creation book does address the far-sighted question raised in the 1988 Awake! article What Does Genesis Really Say?:

"However, there are many who are uncomfortable with both of these theories. Parts of the scientific-creationist theory seem to contradict common sense and also go against the evidence we can see for ourselves throughout nature. Yet, the idea that life in all its wonderful complexity is merely the product of blind evolutionary forces seems hard for many to accept. Are these two views, then, the only alternatives?" -g88 12/8 24

According to the Creation book - yes, it is either one or the other.

It is indeed surprising that a reasonable compromise between these two viewpoints is never even given passing consideration. Surely the truth of the matter must lie somewhere inbetween?

The Genesis creation account simply explains the outcome of the creative process - it does not say anything about the actual process itself.

For hundreds of years now, scientists have been trying to understand the processes of life on earth.

In natural selection, for example, a "creative process" of sorts is clearly evident.

Again we see that Mr Hitching is the major source of the Creation book's 'scientific' arguments (please see sheet 7 for his credentials).

As we saw in p54, fossilization is rare, and the record is, by its very nature, incomplete.

To use the illustration again: if one took pictures of a football match every 20 minutes, would it be "curious" if all the goals were missing from one’s photographs?

Actually, if there existed fossil evidence clearly documenting even one such transition, that would be quite remarkable.

And contrary to the claims made by Hitching, such evidence apparently does exist.

In quoting zoologist Berrill, why does the Creation book use a text that was already 30 years old at the time of the Creation book's printing? Much about the origin of fish has been discovered and commented on since.

The impression this gives is that we are trying to hide evidence that has surfaced over the subsequent three decades.

Since Robert Jastrow made this statement, in 1979, the "general view" has changed.

And contrary to paragraph 11's claims, there is evidence of the warm-bloodedness of dinosaurs besides the fact that they are considered ancestors to birds. In fact, today ‘feathered’ dinosaurs have even been discovered.

As an example, we now know that many dinosaurs were very athletically built. Even the large ones are built more like fast-running mammals than slower cold-blooded reptiles as we know them.

As we have seen, his book Neck of the Giraffe has borrowed heavily from young earth creationists, and since these have worked hard to prove that the Archaeopteryx is nothing but a fraud, it is no surprise to note that Hitching subscribes to these ideas.

As a matter of interest, did you know that:

"...creationists have claimed that the Archaeopteryx fossils are forgeries, produced by pressing modern feathers and bones into a paste of plaster, which then set to look like a fossil. This assertion is clearly falsified by microscopic examination of the feathers and by the presence of hundreds of...soft-bodied fossils."

- The Book of Life, p 147, Stephen Jay Gould, London, 1993

It just so happens that these ‘hundreds of soft-bodied fossils’ do pre-date birds, which means Archaeopteryx did as well.

A close examination will show that Archaeopteryx does indeed have characteristics that are unique to birds, and other characteristics that are unique to reptiles.

It is a fact we cannot escape..

Archaeopteryx has, for example, feathers. These are unique to birds, and are the reason Archaeopteryx is classified as one. It could fly, but probably not very well (it has a small keel for flight muscle attachment).

What it does have that is typical of reptiles is teeth. It also has a nasal opening far forward. The skull and brain on Archaeopteryx are highly reptilian. Even more interesting, it has features not found in reptiles today, but which are shared only by birds and dinosaurs.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "BACKWARDS" OR "FORWARDS" IN BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION!

Obviously it was poor at that time, yet today scientists claim that it is no longer so.

Some would say an attempt is being made here to distract the reader with non-essentials.

Further, the final sentence in paragraph 5 implies that Darwin formulated his theory of evolution based on this poor, non-existent evidence of human ancestry.

The fact is, in the Origin of Species DARWIN NEVER MADE A SINGLE COMMENT ABOUT HUMAN EVOLUTION. Please note this extract:

"This caused problems for Darwin, who had mountains of fossil evidence from plants and animals to shore up his theory, but not one trace of a fossil human. That lack, plus his reluctance to toss humans on the hot fire that he knew his book would ignite, forced him to limit his speculations about mankind to one tepid sentence, and we repeat, "Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history."

- Maitland A. Edey and Donald C. Johanson, Blueprints, p. 326, New York: Penguin Books, 1989.

One of the fine things about science is that it is falsifiable, i.e., it can propose theories which – with negative evidence – can be rejected.

Indeed, science cannot progress and discoveries cannot be made unless first predictions are made, followed by attempts to disprove them. These early evolutionists put up a theory, and today we can examine the data and see to what extent they were correct.

All these nineteen century men were doing, was their job as scientists. It’s not fair to generalise in this way and portray them all as scheming agents of evil.

In paragraph 7, and in numerous other places, the Creation book harps on the fact that fossil evidence for human evolution is sparse. Basically the reader is led to believe that it is sparse because it does not in reality exist.

THIS IGNORES THE FACT THAT EVEN IF HUMAN EVOLUTION DID OCCUR, THIS SCARCITY OF FOSSILS IS TO BE EXPECTED.

Human beings tend to be buried in such a manner that they don't fossilize. Very, very rarely does a human drown in quicksand or a swamp, or get taken by a landslide or avalanche, so that the remains are kept intact.

Many would be quick to point out therefore, that the scarcity of human remains is not a conclusive argument against human evolution (IOW it could be a conclusive argument, but considering the alternative explanation, it cannot convincingly be used as such).

The quote at the end of paragraph 20 can be viewed as being not quite honest.

Firstly, it does not indicate that the quoted words are only part of a more complete sentence (see original below).

IN THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT:

"No one can be sure what any extinct hominid looked like with its skin and hair on. Sizes here are to scale, with afarensis about two feet shorter than the average human being."

-Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, Lucy – the Beginnings of Humankind, New York: Warner Books, Inc, 1981, p 286

Also, the entire statement above was part of an explanation of a specific hominid family tree illustrated in the book. It was NOT a statement about hominids in general.

Again the Creation book seems to be trying to create the impression that scientists are really just making up a wishful fantasy when they claim to have evidence for human evolution.

Even if one believes scientists are wrong, misrepresenting them in the eyes of the public is not fair.

The Creation book puts much effort in pretending that the appearance of these ape-like creatures, as depicted by artists, is very important.

Many will point out that how much facial hair an ape supposedly had does not influence its placement in the evolutionary tree.

Rather, details about age, braincase size and structure of bones are the basis for such conclusions.

Take for example the illustration on page 89. If a creature clearly had similar skeletal features as a chimpanzee, but obviously walked upright (eg. Australopithecus) - then naturally it should be depicted as a hairy chimpanzee-like creature standing on two legs! (and since its hands were now free, then naturally it should be depicted using them more so than a chimp does).

Is it fair to poke fun at artists and scientists who are simply making qualified guesses?

We don’t know what angels, the Nephilim or demons really look like - so why then do we depict them the way we do in our publications? Are we not also making qualified guesses, just like scientists do?

Scientists at least have skeletal remains to work with!

Typical of the Creation book’s style, a big thing is made about scientific mistakes, and it goes to great lengths to discredit and ridicule infamous examples like Piltdown man and Ramapithecus.

We discussed earlier how science is about proposing theories and then trying to disprove them. That is the only way science moves forward.

To discredit one piece of evidence does not remove the rest. The fact that dishonest or faulty arguments have been used to argue for evolution in the past, is no argument that evolution itself is a fraud.

People could just as easily ask about the Watchtower Society’s beliefs. Do the erroneous beliefs it held earlier this century discredit the Society all together? Obviously not.

What about the repeated mistakes and revisions of "new light" with regard to the resurrection of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah?

In answer to the question ‘Are these people to be resurrected?’, these are the answers given over the years:

YES - w1879 7/1 8

NO - w52 6/1 338

YES - w65 3/1 140

NO - w88 6/1 30-1

YES - it-2 (1988) 985

NO - pe 179 (1989)

Also, what about changes in doctrine (eg. 1914 generation) - this kind of thing is never even viewed as a mistake by us, no apology is ever made - we just say it’s "new light"!

Well, with unrelenting hard work and investigation, science also brings new facts to light, and old ideas/mistakes are then discarded.

Sincere seekers of truth should not let scientific "new light" upset them, but rather should open-mindedly analyse what it claims, and accept it cautiously, making changes in their viewpoint where necessary.

Firstly, no reference for the drawings is given. This immediately implies they were drawn by yourselves.

Secondly, the drawings are not accurate. They have been doctored to make Australopithecus look more like the chimpanzee than the human!

Please note:

In reality, the facts are as follows:

Brothers, is it fair to expect us the publishers to place this book in the field when aspects of it clearly seem to be contrived??

The comment under the skull drawings just doesn’t make sense, and again betrays a lack of understanding of the entire subject.

No-one is trying to say that Australopithecus was human, that’s ridiculous. Australopithecus was, in effect, a chimpanzee that walked upright. That means it had its hands free and permanently at its disposal. Considering how competent chimpanzees today are with their hands, one can imagine what Australopithecus was capable of. Later, suchlike creatures are found to have made simple tools, and even fire.

The sequence of development in brain capacity (see table below), with accompanying tool-making skills, leads most people aware of these facts to conclude that a gradual progression has taken place, eventually leading to man.

Whether one agrees with this conclusion or not, one cannot deny that this apparent progression does exist. The Creation book tries to make out that such evidence does not exist and that it is, in effect, a lie conjured up by scheming scientists.

Table from Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1988, vol 18, p 954:

SPECIES	AVE. BRAINCASE CAPACITY (CC)	NUMBER OF FOSSIL EXAMPLES	AGE IN YEARS
Small Australopithecus	440	6	4 million - 2 million
Robust Australopithecus	519	4	+ 1.8 million years
Homo habilis	640	4	2 million - 1.8 million
Homo erectus (from Java)	883	7	1.5 million - 300 000
Homo erectus (from China)	1043	5	as above
Homo sapiens	1450	7	-

No-one is being forced to become a godless atheist by all this evidence.

People are free to reconcile these facts however they choose.

What is wrong, is to deny that this evidence exists; and worse still, to imply that scientists are just making all of this up in an attempt turn people away from serving God.

Religious views have in the past on numerous occasions been proven wrong by scientific facts - why then should that possibility no longer be true today many would ask?

Wisely, the Creation book displays caution in paragraph 33 with regard to the statements made about Homo erectus. Nonetheless, to the informed person, the omissions are strikingly obvious.

Regardless of what one believes this creature to have been, the difference in brain size is statistically significant (see table on sheet 37), leaving strong support for the evolution viewpoint.

Also, modern and very reliable dating methods still place this creature in the distant past.

Here follows a thorough commentary on the statements made in par 33 regarding Homo erectus.

Please note just how unfair and unscholarly it is to devote only one short paragraph to Homo erectus, when in fact a multitude of facts exist about Homo erectus!

"A subject such as evolution versus creation can only be discussed by getting deeply into specific questions. The Life book does get into specifics occasionally, but only when it can cite details that support its position. Whenever the details get too hot to handle it resorts to vague generalities.

A specific instance of this is discussed in excruciating detail below, by analysing one paragraph from Life. Note particularly that Life selected a 1976 version Encyclopedia Britannica to support its position, because the 1983-84 versions did not say what Life's author wanted. Life was published in 1985.

The following is extracted from a general commentary on the Watchtower Society book Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution Or By Creation?.

Paragraph 33, page 95 of the Life book discusses the creature called Homo erectus. The paragraph is distinguished more by what it does not say than by what it does. For example:

"Its brain size and shape do fall into the lower range of modern man's."

While true, this statement leaves out a number of significant points. The cranial capacity of H. erectus skulls averaged about three quarters that of modern man. The shape of the skull was very different. The skull was so different that no one would mistake its skull for that of a modern human. The skull bones were much thicker, it had huge brow ridges, the face was much more massive, and the dome of the skull was much smaller. One has only to examine a series of photos of skulls to see this. See for example, National Geographic, [1] for a comparison of Australopithecine and Homo skulls. It does not take an expert to see a structural sequence from H. habilis to H. erectus to archaic H. sapiens and Neanderthal to the modern form of skull. See also Human Evolution: An Illustrated Introduction, [2] pages 47, 53, 56, 71, 75-77, and compare the gross differences in skull shape among the above fossils. See also the drawings of skulls in The Myths of Human Evolution, [3] on pages 70, 84, 107, 110, 138, 147-149, and 153. Also see any Encyclopedia Britannica version after 1980, under the subjects "Homo erectus" and "Evolution, Human." Life does not mention the gross differences in skull shape between H. erectus and modern man.

Next, paragraph 33 refers to Encyclopedia Britannica, which said that:

"the limb bones thus far discovered have been indistinguishable from those of H[omo] sapiens."

As shown above, this assessment has been superceded by newer information. By comparison with other species, the skeleton is very much like modern man's. But it was much more massive and had far more substantial muscle attachment points. Blueprints [4] commented that "these were extremely powerful people, if indeed they were people. They made the brutish Neanderthalers seem positively effete by comparison."

It is interesting to note that Life used the 1976 Encyclopedia Britannica for the above quotation, rather than the latest edition available before Life's 1985 publication date. The following parallel quotation from a similar article appearing in the 1984 edition shows why. Note that the 1981 through 1985 edition articles were identical. Under the subject "Homo Erectus" it said: [5]

"the limb bones thus far discovered have been similar to (although more robust than) those of H. sapiens."

Note that the quotation Life used said the limb bones were indistinguishable from, rather than similar to those of H. sapiens. I was not able to locate a 1976 Britannica,* but a 1974 edition said the same thing as quoted in Life. The article was virtually identical to the 1984 article, except for the above quotation. Very little had changed between 1974 and 1984 concerning H. erectus except the assessment of the limb bones, and Life selected a quotation from the edition that happened to be the most advantageous to its argument. Is this not yet another example of selective use of quotations and of arguing as a literary critic to support a preexisting point of view?

The 1992 Britannica said much the same as the 1984 edition. Under the subject "Homo erectus" it said: [6] "Most of the anatomical differences between H. erectus and H. sapiens concern the skulls and teeth. The limb bones of H. erectus that have been found so far have been similar to H. sapiens, leading to the inference that H. erectus was a creature of medium stature who walked upright."

What did Britannica mean when it said the limb bones were similar? The 1992 edition Macropaedia, Vol. 18, expanded upon this under the subject "Evolution, Human" on pages 827-828:

"The form of these [femur] bones resembles that of modern humans, and H. erectus must have walked upright efficiently. On the other hand, the construction of the bones is robust, a condition also seen in other skeletal members. This robusticity suggests that the life-style of Homo erectus was physically demanding.... The total pattern of the bodily structure of H. erectus, as preserved in the bones, is rather different from that of H. sapiens. Parts of the post-cranial skeleton are robust but otherwise generally comparable to those of modern humans. The brain is relatively small, though not so small as that of Australopithecus and H. habilis. In addition, in this hominid's thick skull bones and extraordinarily developed eyebrow ridges and occipital torus, some investigators say they see unique, specialized features, not characteristic either of its presumed ancestors or of apes and not pointing to H. sapiensas the direction of subsequent evolution...."

Britannica then discussed various theories of descent from early hominids through H. erectus to modern man, showing there is much evidence that is difficult to interpret, and there are several possibilities for reasonable explanations, including one that H. erectus was an evolutionary side branch that did not lead to modern man. It comments that much work needs to be done to sort out all the evidence. Finally it says:

"In the meantime, another hypothesis that meets most of the available evidence is that H. erectus was in the process of evolving from pre-Homo erectus--probably Australopithecus and Homo habilis--to post-Homoerectus; that is, to Homo sapiens. In most details, the bodily structure of H. erectus fulfills what might have been predicted for an intermediate between Australopithecus and H. sapiens."

The Myths of Human Evolution gave an alternative view: [7]

"In sum, during the period that lasted from about 1.6 million to 0.4 or 0.5 million B.P., non-robust hominids [referring to A. robustus] seem to be represented by a single species which is both geographically and locally variable, but which has an instantly recognizable gestalt. The major cranial characteristics of this species, Homo erectus, have already been enumerated, and post-cranially it is clear that Homo erectus was robust but an erect biped in the manner of ourselves. What many have found remarkable is that over this long span of time, well over a million years and perhaps as long as 1.2 million, Homo erectus shows virtually no change; local and geographical variations are at least as striking as differences between older and younger members of the lineage. Some scholars have suggested that brain size does show an increase over time, pointing to the fact that ER-3733 had a brain of under 900 cc., while the largest of the late Choukoutien population had a brain volume of over 1,200 cc. One should point out, however, that after the East Turkana specimens the oldest firmly dated Homo erectus is the Olduvai skullcap, dated at about 1.2 million years and which has a capacity of almost 1,100 cc., larger than all but two of the Choukoutien specimens, which are the best part of a million years younger. Indeed, a recent attempt to quantify variation in Homo erectus over time has failed to show significant trends that would convincingly suggest that the species was undergoing any gradual transformation."

Paragraph 33 next says of H. erectus: "However, it is unclear whether it was human or not."

This is only in the judgement of Life's author. He leaves it vague simply because the Watchtower Society does not want to commit itself on evidence that so clearly could cause difficulties for the Biblical viewpoint. The Society probably feels the chances of getting burned are too great. Paleontologists judge that it was not a modern human, but was a member of the human family. This is fairly well confirmed by the presence of cultural artifacts, such as tools and the remains of hearths found in association with H. erectus.** The point is whether H. erectus was a member of the human family, since it is obvious that it was not a modern human. That it was not quite human is suggested by the fact that no remains have been found in an obvious burial, in contrast with the later Neanderthals.

As the expression says, a picture is worth a thousand words. National Geographic contains a picture of a skeleton discovered in 1984, of a Homo erectus boy about twelve years old at the time of death 1.6 million years ago. [1] It is the most complete H. erectus skeleton ever unearthed. The skeleton is virtually human, but the skull is something else again. The accompanying article comments:

"This spectacular find dramatically confirms the antiquity of the human form. In its parts and proportion only the skull of the Lake Turkana boy would look odd to someone untrained in anatomy. The rest of his skeleton, essentially human, differs only subtly from that of a modern boy.

"And too, because it is a youth's skeleton and so complete, it offers us a unique glimpse of growth and development in early humans. At five feet four inches tall, the boy from Turkana was surprisingly large compared with modern boys his age; he could well have grown to six feet. Suitably clothed and with a cap to obscure his low forehead and beetle brow, he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today."

A later report on this find said: [8]

"In 1985 Richard Leakey and his colleagues reported the recovery of the remains of a remarkably complete skeleton of an approximately 12-year-old Homo erectus youth, which revealed some surprising anatomy. For instance, in the cervical and thoracic vertebrae, the hole through which the spinal cord runs is significantly smaller than in modern humans--presumably indicating a smaller demand for nerve signal traffic. In addition, the spines on all the vertebrae are longer and do not point as far back as in modern humans, the significance of which is puzzling.

"The thigh bone is unusual, in that the femoral neck is relatively long while the femoral head--which is part of the ball-and-socket joint with the pelvis--is large. This combination is something of a mix between modern human and australopithecine anatomy: modern humans have a short femoral neck attached to a large head, while in australopithecines the neck is long and the head is small.

Gentry’s comments were only mentioned in passing in the article. By stating that Popular Science "reported on" such ‘anomalies’, you are actually misrepresenting the magazine!

Many would be justified in saying that the Creation book is trying to discredit scientific dating methods (which today are very reliable and more trustworthy than ever before) with the words of one pseudo-scientist!

If one investigates Gentry’s primary argument (ie. mysterious ringlike "halos" in fossilised carbon) one will see that these appear to be a minor anomaly that science will no doubt find an explanation for one day. It has to be so, because the only alternative is to accept Gentry’s creationist ideas and interpretations of the Universe, in which case there would be thousands upon thousands of anomalies he wouldn’t be able to explain.

Again many would be justified in claiming that the Creation book has quoted Gentry just as a means of further supporting its viewpoint, and that if the book were honestly a "thoroughly researched examination", it would also report on the numerous other reliable modern dating methods that exist.

We can reason on this further: officially, the Creation book does not accept Gentry’s idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old, having earlier rejected this idea as being ‘unreasonable’ (p8, par 5). Why then, does the Creation book here use Gentry's conclusion that humans haven't been around for more than 6,000 years, considering that the book rejects his premise for this conclusion (ie. that everything on earth, including the earth itself, is only 6000 years old)? It just doesn’t weigh up.

Brothers, surely you can see that this is wrong. It can’t be right. You are withholding the truth about dating methods (and many other scientific and biological FACTS) from ± 6 million Jehovah’s Witnesses! The brothers trust you implicitly, your words are accepted unquestionably, they look to you for the truth about modern scientific discovery. It’s just not fair to treat them this way. It’s wrong to keep people in the dark like this.

Towards the end of paragraph 40 the Creation book says that ‘the only reliable record of human activity is writing’ (which dates back only a few thousand years).

What about the making of tools?

"Apes" can’t make hand-axes from stone, stabbing instruments from bone and other such implements. "Apes" certainly can’t make fire.

So how do we explain evidence of tools and fire-making that goes back far, far more than 6000 years?

Paragraph 9 again betrays a very poor understanding of natural science. A cleverly-constructed argument is used that no doubt fools the layman, but is totally unfounded in its application.

There is something in biological evolution that distinguishes it from a builder, a driver and a surgeon - it is called natural selection.

It is quite simple to understand:

All we need to do is reason - what happens to an individual in nature that is born with a negative mutation? It dies of course, almost always before reaching the age where it can reproduce and possibly pass on the negative mutation.

No matter how many such mutations are negative, the "tearing down" will be limited to one individual only. ie. THE ENTIRE SPECIES IS NOT AFFECTED BY NEGATIVE MUTATIONS.

On the other hand, if only one in a thousand of the mutations is positive, then this particular individual will most likely live to the point of reproducing, and hence pass on its beneficial mutation.

Such an individual will retain the favourable characteristic in its lineage, eventually producing a new population (very slightly altered), that due to this genetic advantage, could someday replace the original stock. ie. THE ENTIRE SPECIES IS FAVOURABLY AFFECTED BY POSITIVE MUTATIONS.

So, to explain this in terms of the illustration of the builder used in the Creation book:

If there was a process (or a corrector) that automatically disposed of all the 999 bad decisions made by this builder and only implemented the 1 correct decision, you would – after a long time – end up with a new house, perfectly fit to its purpose. The same applies to the driver and the surgeon.

To someone who understands natural selection, this reasonable answer to the arguments in chapter 8 is quite self-evident. Unfortunately, the unsuspecting layman is fooled by these arguments, and so concludes in his mind that scientists must all be raving lunatics.

Another worrying concern is that the Creation book does not even mention the other great evolutionary phenomenon in nature, "genetic drift". This does not rely on what you seem to think is a destructive process (mutation), and has simply to do with the statistical way the integrity of genetic material is passed on. Genetic drift has been demonstrated!

A good description of genetic drift is this reference: D.T. Suzuki, A.J.F. Griffiths, J.H. Miller and R.C. Lewontin, An Introduction to Genetic Analysis 4th ed., W.H. Freeman.1989. p.704

In the above-mentioned paragraphs the Creation book implies (yet cleverly never actually commits itself) that the Biblical word "kind" refers to creatures that can interbreed eg. dogs with dogs, pigs with pigs, humans with humans, etc.

Yet, on the next page...

...in paragraph 27 it says that the unusual finches on the Galápagos Islands were misinterpreted by Darwin as being examples of evolution in progress, when in fact they were simply exhibiting variety within a kind.

So, by the Creation book’s own implied definition, these finches are no longer of the same "kind".

Contrary to what the Creation book claims then, we can on Galápagos see a living example of how ‘evolution’ does bring forth new species or new "kinds"!

At this point, where the apparent ‘evolution’ of new "kinds" is denied, one can ask:

To quote the Creation book in paragraph 23, page 46: "Is it good scientific procedure to brush aside the avalanches of "inconvenient facts" so easily?"

Take just three examples:

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the species interbred (hybridized) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late Forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It also tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly (Rhagoletis pomonella) that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees as well. The flies feed and breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators originally set out to prove that speciation was not happening; yet the evidence convinced them otherwise.

Another example: in 1916, a single pair of wallabies escaped from a zoo in Oahu, Hawaai. They survived and bred in the wild, and now there is a whole population. They are smaller and more lightly coloured than the Aussie wallabies. They eat Hawaiian plants that are poisonous to the Aussie wallabies, because they evolved a new liver enzyme to detoxify them. They can no longer breed with the Australian wallabies, so they qualify as a new species.

-"Instant Evolution", Science Digest, July 1982 Saladin / Gish debate at Auburn University at Montgomery, 24 March 1984

Brothers, from time to time you seem to hint at the process of natural selection in our publications, yet never acknowledge that it actually works. How much more wonderful and vibrant our wildlife articles in the Awake! would be if they helped readers to understand the WORKINGS and MECHANISMS of our Creator’s fascinating and marvellously-designed Universe!

Such blatant dishonesty is totally uncalled for. Is it any wonder Lewontin has the following to say about anti-evolution campaigners such as ourselves:

"Modern expressions of creationism and especially so-called "scientific" creationism are making extensive use of the tactic of selective quotation in order to make it appear that numerous biologists doubt the reality of evolution. The creationists take advantage of the fact that evolutionary biology is a living science containing disagreements about certain details of the evolutionary process by taking quotations about such details out of context in an attempt to support the creationists' anti-evolutionary stand. Sometimes they simply take biologists' descriptions of creationism and then ascribe these views to the biologists themselves! [as the Creation book does in par 38. p96]. These patently dishonest practices of misquotation give us a right to question even the sincerity of creationists."

The line at the end of paragraph 6 again betrays a misunderstanding of the entire subject of biological evolution. Please see the comment "Evolution as Fact and Theory" on sheet 5.

After reading the scientific definitions of "fact" and "theory", as the scientific community understands them, would one say scientists today deliberate over whether ‘evolution’ takes place? No, like they don't discuss whether apples fall down - both phenomena have, and are being observed.

On the other hand, do they discuss how