Donate to Project Creation. You can make tax-deductible donations to our ministry online, using PayPal's secure network.
Now Accepting PayPal
We've recently added the ability for you to purchase creation resources online with PayPal.
PayPal lets any consumer with an e -mail address securely, conveniently, and cost-effectively make payments online. Their secure network is built on the existing financial infrastructure of bank accounts and credit cards.
You can also make tax-deductible donation to our ministry online!


Journey Thru Creation

Journey Thru Creation
DVD Available Now
at the Creation Store

Winner 2005
San Antonio Independent
Christian Film Festival

learn more »

To Learn More

To learn more about Creation resources & programs, write to:

P.O.Box 330279
Murfreesboro, TN 37133

Call Toll Free:
(800) 515-9590

Send us an E-mail

About Us

Project CREATION exists as an educational and resource ministry to help Christians educate and empower themselves to oppose the humanist/ evolutionist establishment and philosophy.

Sean Meek, Executive Director of Project CREATION, travels nationally speaking on such topics as: Creation is the Foundation, The Curse of Compromise, Including Creation in the Curriculum and God's Revelation in Science and the Bible. Mr. Meek is available to speak at church services, Sunday school classes and other groups on the Biblical and scientific aspects of creation.

Creation Store

In Six Days


Item # 0890513414

Price: $15.00

Table of Contents and Chapter One

Preface 5

Science and Origins

Jeremy L. Walter • Mechanical Engineering 9
Jerry R. Bergman • Biology 23
John K.G. Kramer • Biochemistry 44
Paul Giem • Medical Research 56
Henry Zuill • Biology 61
Jonathan D. Sarfati • Physical Chemistry 75
Ariel A. Roth • Biology 86
Keith H. Wanser • Physics 102
Timothy G. Standish • Biology 111
John R. Rankin • Mathematical Physics 118
BOB Hosken • Biochemistry 123
James S. allan • Genetics 127
George T. Javor • Biochemistry 134
Dwain L. Ford • Organic Chemistry 138
Angela Meyer • Horticulture Science 143
Stephen Grocott • Inorganic Chemistry 145
Andrew McIntosh • Mathematics 155
John P. Marcus • Biochemistry 172
Nancy M. DarrAll • Botany 182
John M. Cimbala • Mechanical Engineering 200
Edward A. Boudreaux • Theoretical Chemistry 204
E. Theo Agard • Medical Physics 212
Ker C. Thomson • Geophysics 215
John R. Baumgardner • Geophysics 223
Arthur Jones • Biology 241

Religion and Origins

George F. Howe • Botany 249
A.J. Monty White • Physical Chemistry 257
D.B. Gower • Biochemistry 265
Walter J. Veith • Zoology 268
Ben Clausen • Nuclear Physics 271
Edmond W. Holroyd • Meteorology 276
Robert H. Eckel • Medical Research 284
jack cuozzo • Orthodontics 288
Andrew Snelling • Geology 291
Stephen Taylor • Electrical Engineering 301
John Morris • Geological Engineering 309
Elaine Kennedy • Geology 314
Colin W. Mitchell • Geography 317
Stanley A. Mumma • Architectural Engineering 321
Evan Jamieson • Hydrometallurgy 324
Larry Vardiman • Meteorology 327
Geoff Downes • Forestry Research 329
Wayne Frair • Biology 335
sid cole • Physical Chemistry 340
Don B. DeYoung • Physics 342
George S. Hawke • Meteorology 344
Kurt P. Wise • Geology 351
j.h. John Peet • Chemistry 356
Werner Gitt • Information Science 363
Don Batten • Agricultural Science 371

Jeremy L. Walter

Mechanical Engineering

Dr. Walter is head of the Engineering Analysis and Design Department within the Energy Science and Power Systems Division at the Applied Research Laboratory (ARL) at Pennsylvania State University. He holds a B.S. in mechanical engineering with highest distinction, an M.S. in mechanical engineering, and a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, all from Pennsylvania State University. He was a 1975 recipient of a prestigious National Science Foundation Fellowship, funding graduate study at the institution of his choice. At ARL, Dr. Walter has been the leader for a number of undersea propulsion development projects for the U.S. Navy. His research involves multi-disciplinary development and testing of advanced air-independent engines and thermal power systems for various autonomous undersea vehicles.

They Can’t Be Wrong, Can They?

In 1961, President John Kennedy set a national goal for the United States to land a man on the moon before the decade was over, and in the summer of 1969 Neil Armstrong made his famous “giant leap for mankind” onto the lunar soil. In the midst of severe social unrest, science and technology seemed to provide an island of stability to a nation caught in internal tension, an unpopular war in Vietnam, and the deep freeze of the Cold War. “New and improved” became the harbinger of what was expected in technology, and harnessing the secrets of nature for man’s benefit was the engine to propel us into a hopeful future.

This milieu was the incubator for many careers in science and engineering, and so it was for that of the author. Public education introduced the sciences of the space program, but also proclaimed as fact the 42 billion-year age of the earth and that life had gradually evolved over millions of years from a single-cell organism, supposedly formed by chance in a primeval ocean. Students were compelled to accept the evolutionary model of earth history, as is the case for most people educated in this century. The ancient writings of Genesis were relegated as outdated and allegorical, and most Christian students reconciled an immature faith in God and the Bible with a casually contrived version of the “day-age” interpretation of the creation account. The days of Genesis were assumed to somehow represent the ages or stages of cosmic development that the scientists were now beginning to understand and describe more fully in our modern world.

For multitudes today, the story is the same. The implicit authority of the classroom combines with modern technological achievements to validate the “scientific” models of origins and the great antiquity of the universe. Genesis is viewed as myth, if not fairy tale, and our concept of truth is limited to the empirically derived and subjectively interpreted. But we need to ask the fundamental question mouthed by Pilate, “What is truth?” and determine the role that science plays in the overall development of truth.

The discussion in the following paragraphs takes a look at the nature of science, and how true science does not contradict God’s inscription on stone that “in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” (Exod. 20:11).

What Is Science?

Many intelligent people are thoroughly convinced that science has proven the earth to be billions of years old. How can they be wrong? The misconception builds on a neglect of the basic nature of “science” and a natural desire for moral autonomy. Actually, the age of the earth can be neither proved nor disproved by science. Scientific evidence can be compiled to support one model of earth history as compared to another, but such work amounts to a feasibility study, not proof.

Science is the human enterprise of seeking to describe accurately and quantitatively the nature and processes of our universe through observation, hypothesis, and experimental validation. Certain axiomatic principles must be accepted by faith for this method to be valid, the first of which is the expectation of order in the universe. A specific corollary of the order principle is the law of causality, or “cause and effect” relationships. This law states that one cause can have many effects, but no effect can be quantitatively greater or qualitatively superior to its cause.1 Observed effects are assumed to have causes because of this law, and are not treated as purely random or chance occurrences. The inquisitive mind will speculate on the cause of an observed effect and then seek to recreate and test the cause experimentally. That is the essence of the so-called scientific method.

Note, however, that an observation is always an action of the present, not of the past. Additionally, the observer must recognize that observations are to varying degrees indirect, through an instrument of some sort that may distort his perception. For instance, our eyes are optical instruments that receive incident light, optically focus that light on the retina, which in turn converts the image to a complex system of electrical impulses, transmitted to the brain by the optic nerve. If the transmission of the image from an object to our brain is distorted at any point along the way, our visual perception will be incorrect. Some optical illusions are actually misinterpreted in the brain because of preconceptions, without any optical or electrical distortion. All observations must be similarly analyzed and scrutinized to develop accurate perceptions. The farther removed in time or distance an indirect observation is, the greater the opportunity for distorted perception.

pplying the foregoing discussion to the age of the earth, we recognize that we have no human record of observed events from great antiquity, but rather interpretations of recent observations of present realities. Often the establishment of a great age is built on observations from a very great distance or developed through tedious indirect means. Evidence contradictory to the hypothesis is either suppressed or ignored because of preconceived assumptions. Even the light arriving from distant stars is a present reality, not a direct observation of the past. These observations are of effects for which various hypothetical causes have been proposed. Those causes are sometimes gradual processes that would require very long times to produce the present state.

By way of illustration, consider geologic formations in the Great Basin of the western United States. The vast horizontal layers of hydraulically deposited sedimentary rock are said to take long periods of time to accumulate, based on the assumption that the rate of deposition was always similar to that observed today in a typical river delta. This concept of uniformity may seem like a reasonable starting point when considered abstractly, but no steady-state river flow could possibly cover such a vast area; neither would it produce the violently buried and mangled bodies found fossilized in many rocks of the region. The present-day erosion conditions applied uniformly in the past could not account for the unusual formations of the Grand Canyon, mesas, badlands, and other canyons. By contrast, the catastrophic processes observed during and following the eruption of Mount St. Helens in the Cascades of Washington state produced a scale model of the Grand Canyon in a very brief period of time. Sediments were rapidly deposited and then suddenly eroded by pyroclastic steam, water, and mud flows in the area northwest of the summit. Now the canyon walls resemble others that are assumed to be of great age, even though they are known to be less than 20 years old.2

he point to be recognized is that science deals with observations of present states and processes, and can only discuss the prehistoric past. In the example of geologic formations of the Great Basin, the assumption of uniformity can be contrasted with a model of catastrophic tectonic, volcanic, and hydraulic activity that would accompany a global cataclysm such as the great flood of Genesis. The observed eruption of Mount St. Helens demonstrated that rapid processes can produce effects commonly believed to require long periods of time, and thus gives credence, if not preference, to the concept that the earth’s geology did not require long periods of time to develop. Many puzzling formations can only be explained through cataclysmic forces. Similarly, other methods of estimating the age of the earth or of the universe apply assumptions about processes and rates that extend into the distant past. Regardless of how apparently compelling such dating methods may appear to be, the fact remains that they are built on assumptions that must be critically questioned and evaluated.

All events of the past (even the recent past) are best reconstructed from the testimony of witnesses and the accumulation of corroborating evidence. That is the basis of the system of jurisprudence. Science can contribute by determining what is possible, but cannot infallibly reconstruct the past. There are definite implications about prodigious age, however, that can be gleaned from applying known principles from the laws of science. We will now consider some of the corroborating evidence for the Creator’s testimony.

Thermodynamics, Demons, and Evolution

The law of causality logically leads to the conclusion that human beings (an effect that has the qualities of life, intellect, emotion, and volition) should have a cause which is greater in quantity and qualitatively superior in life, intelligence, emotion, and will. In spite of such basic arguments, naturalistic evolution claims that the forces of nature and the passing of time are sufficient to produce the order and complexity of life without such a cause. Do the observed laws of nature support that claim? What is known about the general effects of the passing of time? The implications of the science of thermodynamics were instrumental in convincing this author that long periods of time are not only unnecessary, but also lethal to the theories of gradual and natural development of intelligent design.

Applying the laws of thermodynamics, especially as they relate to fluid flows and the conversion of energy into useful work in heat engines, is an important part of mechanical engineering. However, the laws of thermodynamics (usually numbered zero through three) have broader and more philosophical implications that are relevant to the study of origins and the development of order and complexity. The four classic laws can be logically derived from fewer general principles,3 but the discussion in this context will be limited to the classical first and second laws.

The first law is one of conservation, and implies that the substance of the universe (matter and energy) is a constant. The second law additionally constrains the possible states that a given system can attain by a defined process, precluding perpetual motion machines and the spontaneous creation of the “availability” of energy. All real processes are shown to be “irreversible” by the implications of the second law, resulting in a decrease in energy available to effect further processes. Alternatively stated, real processes result in a net increase in the “entropy” of the universe, a property defined in thermodynamics as movement toward a final stable equilibrium where all processes cease.

The implications of these two laws are profound. The first law states clearly that no matter or energy is currently being added to our universe, and the second law states that, given infinite time, the universe will come to final equilibrium, where no processes can occur. That final state has been described as a heat-death of the universe. Since that condition has not yet been reached, the universe must have a beginning. These conclusions are perfectly compatible with the biblical declaration that all things were created in six days, and then God ceased doing the labor of physical creation (first law) (Gen. 2:1–2).

Furthermore, the fall of Satan and man brought about “the curse” which is the cause for the earth and the heavens to “wear out like a garment” (Ps. 102:26) and now “the whole creation groans and suffers” (Rom. 8:22) (second law). The second law of thermodynamics essentially precludes the spontaneous development of the earth’s ecosystem or life itself. In engineering, we know that heat engines do not develop spontaneously, and without a heat engine, no efficient useful work is produced by the flow of heat. In addition, without both a source of work and a refrigeration machine, no heat will flow from a cold place to a warm place. Likewise, without the engine of reproduction (the genetic blueprint and the miracle of the womb), not even the material aspects of man could be built by raw power.

The problem is worse for the immaterial, since man’s conscious and spiritual aspects defy strict scientific definition, much less a natural process of development.

The required patterns and engines of reproduction cannot be accounted for by spontaneous generation, and the passing of long periods of time cannot constitute or facilitate an independent cause for the development of human bodies, aptitude, or ability. The rule of history is not one of continual creation, but one of extinction, as specific creatures become unable to survive the decay of the earth’s ecosystem and are eliminated from the planet forever.

In spite of the implications of the classical second law, many evolutionists believe the solution to the threat of the second law is to be found in statistical thermodynamics. Evolution is believed to take advantage of the statistical variation in molecular and genetic properties, and can selectively favor only those which promote the development of greater order. Enter the Maxwell demon. Although not a literal demon as found in the Bible, this troublesome imaginary character was conceived by James Clerk Maxwell in about 1891. In his classic mental experiment, the demon is theoretically able to defeat the second law by intelligently controlling the passage of individual molecules of gas through a partition that divides a sealed and insulated vessel. By strategically opening and closing a tiny door, he could measure and select only high-energy molecules for passage in one direction while simultaneously allowing low-energy molecules to pass in the opposite direction. The demon could then produce a final state where high-energy gas has been collected in one part of the vessel and low-energy gas is in the remainder, without having added any energy to the system. The potential for doing useful work has been intelligently created, or the net entropy decreased, solely by harnessing the statistical variation in the individual molecules.

The apparent contradiction to the second law was resolved in 1929 by Szilard in a paper in which he showed that the process of detecting the energy level and operating the door would consume at least as much energy as that gained by the passage of a molecule.4 The statistical distribution of energy among the molecules could not be used, even by a precocious demon, to create order and potential energy. The second law stands, and the Maxwell demon fails.

In naturalistic evolution, life is believed to have originated as high fluxes of energy passed through a chemical soup of fortuitous composition. The problem here is much more difficult than that faced by the Maxwell demon, because life requires structures of incredible complexity, not just high energy levels. The most basic processes of living things are accomplished by molecular engines as complex as man’s greatest inventions. Protein synthesis and DNA replication are marvelous examples of life’s inner workings, and a being much more capable than the Maxwell demon is required to assemble the necessary components and start the first cell functioning. The presumed high-energy fluxes do not provide structure or intelligence any more than the proverbial explosion in a print shop will produce a novel.

At this point, it is instructive to consider that Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick both recognized this difficulty and then contradicted it as he contemplated Life Itself.5 He stated that the complexities of life could not “have arisen by pure chance,” but required a replication mechanism to preserve beneficial mutations as they occurred. However, the origin of the replication mechanism is never identified as anything other than chance. The combination of replication and mutation effectively becomes the Crick demon that produces “the marvelous capacity of such a system to improve itself.” Aware of modern life’s nearly infinite complexity, Crick then concluded that the earth was not old enough at 42 billion years to have had life gradually evolve completely on this planet. Instead of turning to the great First Cause of the Bible, he preferred the “directed panspermia” concept, which placed the origin of life long, long ago and far, far away on some other planet in some other galaxy.

Interestingly, in this theory, intelligent life had successfully evolved there, even though such an outcome was considered too difficult to achieve on this planet. This foreign civilization then sent the seeds of life in the form of DNA replicators into the universe aboard sophisticated rocket ships looking for a good place to restart the evolutionary process. One such rocket apparently found earth, and here we are!

Notice the progression in Crick’s reasoning: it starts from the impossibly improbable and ends with a fantastic imaginary world far away and long ago. Sufficient time and distance implicitly legitimize what otherwise would be impossibility. Ironically, the passage of time is shown by the second law to be neither an ally nor an engine of creation, but rather an ogre of destruction and death. In tenacious commitment to atheism, naturalistic evolution fashions the marriage of the false modern gods of Mother Earth and Father Time as an inferior substitute for the great and awesome Creator of the Scriptures. We would all do well to carefully consider these basic implications of ascribing great age to the universe and realize that our faith commitments greatly influence the development of scientific concepts. The authors of one thermodynamics text give lucid testimony of their conclusion on this subject:

Quite obviously it is impossible to give conclusive answers to these questions on the basis of the second law of thermodynamics alone. However, the authors see the second law of thermodynamics as man’s description of the past and continuing work of a creator, who also holds the answer to the future destiny of man and the universe.6

Truth Adrift on the Post-Modern Sea

The discussion so far establishes from basic principles that science cannot prove the universe to be of great age, and that prodigious age would in fact be detrimental rather than beneficial to the development of complexity and order. The fact remains, however, that in published books and journals today, many detailed and sophisticated discussions of factual data exist for both sides of the age issue. Some seek to establish great age, whereas others show the earth, comets, and moon to be less than 10,000 years in age. The interpretation of these observed data hinges solidly on the concepts of truth held by the investigators, not the facts themselves. Faith commitments to either human reason or biblical revelation influence what hypotheses are considered and how data is accepted or rejected. This author sees the evidence for a young earth as overwhelmingly compelling, but many have such faith in particular arguments for great age that young-earth evidence is dismissed as erroneous.

Our world suffers from the false notion established during the modern era that reality and truth are limited to the empirical, and that man’s knowledge and reasoning are our supreme guide. The concept of a living, volitional, personal, and loving First Cause is willfully rejected, even though it is completely compatible with both science and the Bible. The need for a supernatural beginning of the universe is implied by the laws of thermodynamics, and clearly declared in the Scriptures. However, the Bible also states that it is “by faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible” (Heb. 11:3). Biblical faith cannot be a matter of formal proof, but neither is it a blind leap. Biblical faith is a confident and convinced trust in the testimony of the One who is both Creator and Redeemer. As His creatures, we need to exercise our faculties in humble submission to His revelation to see Him as our standard for truth.

The standard of truth that grew to dominance in the middle of the 20th century was built on a naturalistic objectivism that displaced theism. Academic institutions adopted the idea that open, objective debate in refereed publications would refine and build our understanding of truth, and the open debate does work well as long as concepts are observable and testable, and “referees” remain open-minded. However, if the mainstream academic community accepts an unproven concept as fact and excludes alternative thinking by decree, then the potential for error to be systematically preserved and promoted is institutionalized. In the opinion of the author, such unfortunate error has taken firm footing in the popular cosmogonies of geology, astronomy, and biology, as illustrated in our discussion about the nature of science and the laws of thermodynamics.

During the last decades of the 20th century, the modern world view of truth based on objective empiricism in science has slid into a sea of churning subjectivity. The atheism of the naturalistic world view disallowed the existence of a supreme, omniscient being, and quite logically led to the conclusion that no human can know absolute truth. The only remaining absolute is that there are no absolutes, and we are admonished to accept all views as valid concepts of truth. This new perspective is the so-called post-modern world view, and the progenitor of the popular pluralism and tolerance advocated today. Pilate’s cynical question “What is truth?” now echoes around the world, since people have no anchor to tell them what truth is.

However, if an Almighty Creator God exists, His creation has value and purpose based purely on His own counsel and will, and His creatures would be of special value and interest to Him. His omniscience guarantees perfect design and knowledge, and He could provide a standard for all that is true. As a loving and personal being, it is reasonable that He would desire our fellowship and choose to reveal His purposes to us. The Bible claims to be His special revelation, and teaches exactly those truths about God. Many have found the Scriptures to be the marvelous work of One who could predict the future, transform the heart, and who lovingly revealed His two great works of creation and redemption. The revelation given by the loving One who knows all things would logically be both truthful and clearly communicated.

It is here that the watershed is found. What do the Scriptures say? Taking the most obvious meaning of the language, the Scriptures teach in Genesis that our universe was created fully functioning in six 24-hour days. Taken by faith, these words represent the testimony of the Creator himself, who made all things perfectly according to His own choosing. The principles and observations of true science do not contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, but in fact offer support for the creation of all things in six days!


1 Henry M. Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), p. 36–37.

2 Steven A. Austin, “Mount St. Helens and Catastrophism,” Impact, Article No. 157, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, July 1986.

Steven A.  Austin, Mount St. Helens, Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe, documentary video, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, 1989.

3 George N. Hatsopoulos and Joseph H. Keenan, Principles of General Thermodynamics (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965), p. 368.

4 Ibid., p. xxxviii.

5 Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p. 52–55.

6 Gordon J. Van Wylen and Richard E Sonntag, Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, 2nd edition, SI Version (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1978), p. 243.


Keith H. Wanser

Dr. Wanser is professor of physics, California State University, Fullerton. He holds a B.A. in physics from California State University, an M.A. in physics from the University of California, Irvine, and a Ph.D. in condensed matter physics from the University of California, Irvine. Dr. Wanser, who specializes in novel and ultrasensitive optical fiber sensor devices, components, and techniques, has published over 30 refereed and 18 other technical papers and holds seven U.S. patents. In 1996 he was the recipient of the School of Natural Sciences and Mathematics Outstanding Research Award.

Being raised from early childhood in a church that believed in a literal six-day creation and having read the Bible often as a teenager, I believed in creation, although I did not understand the importance and centrality to the Christian faith of the first ten chapters of Genesis. When I attended a state university as an undergraduate and talked with the physics professors, I was ridiculed for believing that the earth was young, and given many reasons from science showing that the Bible was in error, especially the first chapters of Genesis. As a young college student majoring in physics, I did not know enough science to be able to refute what these professors were saying, and since they knew so much more than I, gradually I lost faith in the literal accuracy of Scripture, although I still believed in God. This led me to a period of a few years where I was a “theistic evolutionist,” morally adrift, and intensively reading a variety of scientific journals and books to try to find out the truth.

In 1976 I recommitted my life to Jesus Christ, and shortly thereafter began studying the scientific, historical, scriptural, and other evidence for a literal six-day creation and worldwide global flood, as described in Genesis. In the intervening 24 years since then, I have studied these bodies of evidence in some detail, and I am firmly convinced that there is far more scientific evidence supporting a recent, six-day creation and global flood than there is an old earth and evolution.

One of the major problems with the so-called theory of evolution is that the details depend on who is telling the story. Those details that become commonly accepted as “facts” are often changed in light of more recent discoveries. This has happened on numerous occasions, with little notice that the supposed prior facts were not facts at all. In other words, there is not one theory of evolution, but a body of opinions, speculations, and methods for interpretation of observational facts so that they fit into the philosophy of naturalism.

An example of a supposed fact demonstrating an ancient age of the earth is the rate of growth of stalactites and stalagmites in limestone caverns. As a young boy I toured Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico and remember the tour guide informing us matter-of-factly that the limestone caverns and formations were formed over many millions of years, which did not seem to agree with what I had been taught in Sunday school. A sign above the entrance until 1988 said the caverns were at least 260 million years old. In recent years, the age on the sign was reduced to 7–10 million years, then 2 million years, and now the sign is gone — perhaps as a result of observations that stalactite growth rates of several inches a month are common.1

Creationists have performed a significant body of research demonstrating the rapid development of calcium carbonate formations under conditions likely following the Noahic flood. In May 1998 I observed stalactites longer than six inches growing from the edge of the concrete boarding platform at the Arlington, Virginia, metro rail station, which was only completed in June 1991. Another example of a supposed fact was the slow rate of petrifaction of wood, requiring long periods of time to occur. Petrifaction of wood has been shown to occur rapidly in highly silicified waters, and would likely have been accelerated by the conditions of a worldwide flood. Indeed, a U.S. patent has been granted on a process to rapidly petrify wood so as to make it fire-and-wear resistant.2

Over the last 35 years, scientists who believe in a recent, six-day creation have made some very interesting discoveries and convincing arguments for a young earth and worldwide Noahic flood. In essentially all cases, their research has not been supported by government funding. This is in contrast to the many millions of dollars of government-funded research by scientists who hold evolutionary pre-suppositions, which has been used to support their beliefs. In spite of these handicaps, a remarkable body of evidence refuting evolutionary notions has been assembled by creationists.3 They demonstrate that several processes which formerly were thought to require long periods of time actually occur rapidly, and testify to a young earth and recent creation. Furthermore, creationists are beginning to make testable predictions based on their theories, as well as become more quantitative in their modelling.

The catastrophic plate tectonics model that has been developed4 has served to help explain several geologic features that are associated with the Flood, as well as geomagnetic reversals and the post-Flood ice age. Early creationist work on the rapid, free induction decay of the earth’s magnetic field was able to explain the observed decay of about 7 percent in the field over the last 130 years, with no adjustable parameters, and set an upper limit to the age of the field of about 10,000 years.5 This theory was later modified to include local and rapid geomagnetic reversals associated with catastrophic plate tectonics and Noah’s flood, and extended to include the size of planetary magnetic fields.6 Predictions based on this recent and biblical creation model were made about rapid geomagnetic reversals and planetary magnetic fields, which have been verified experimentally.7

The explanation of the planetary magnetic fields is in surprising agreement with the creationist theory and there is no evolutionary counterpart to it. Similarly, the predictions of rapid geomagnetic reversals have been verified by analysis of lava flows in Steen’s Mountain in Oregon, which indicate geomagnetic polarity reversals occurring in a matter of a few weeks, much to the bewilderment and surprise of evolutionary scientists.8

Major problems with evolutionary scenarios of origins occur at several stages. One very interesting problem occurs right at the beginning in theories of quantum cosmology, which predict that the big bang originated from a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum.9 Unfortunately, this speculation is nothing more than that, since in all experimentally observed processes involving elementary particles and nuclear reactions, something called Baryon number is conserved. The conservation of Baryon number insures that when particles are brought into existence from energy, they occur in equal numbers of matter/anti-matter pairs. Thus, in pair production, an electron and positron are produced; similarly, a proton and antiproton are produced. On the other hand, as far as we are able to observe, the universe appears to have an extreme dominance of matter over anti-matter, which contradicts the notion that a big bang produced the matter that we see in the universe around us.

Because of this problem, elementary particle physicists have proposed Grand Unified Theories or GUTs which hypothesize terms in the mathematical equations of the theory which violate Baryon number conservation, in order to produce a dominance of matter over anti-matter as a result of the big bang. Unfortunately, these theories predict that the proton is unstable and will decay, which has led to considerable experimental efforts to detect proton decay10. However, such searches have failed to find proton decay and have set lower limits on the proton lifetime of at least 10+31 years.11 The fact that there is no experimental evidence for violation of Baryon number conservation strongly calls into question any big-bang scenario for the origin of matter in the universe. There are several other problems with theories of quantum/big-bang cosmology, which have been discussed by Morris.12

An intriguing creationist theory has been proposed13 which involves a white hole cosmology, a bounded universe, an initial water mass, and Einstein’s theory of general relativity. This cosmology allows for a literal six-day creation in the frame of reference of the earth (which is taken to be somewhere in the vicinity of the center of the universe), while long periods of time could elapse in other portions of the universe, thus allowing sufficient time for starlight to have travelled distances of billions of light years to reach the earth. It also allows for an expanding universe and red shifts, such as are observed. Other predictions of this theory, such as the temperature of the cosmic background radiation, have yet to be worked out in detail; nevertheless, this theory offers a viable alternative to naturalistic big-bang cosmology and solves the longstanding problem of light travel time in recent creation cosmologies.

Another creationist alternative to big-bang cosmology has recently been proposed,14 which not only accounts for observed cosmological red shifts, but can also explain the 2.7 kelvin cosmic background radiation. Although these recent cosmological models are in their early stages, as compared to more than 50 years of refinement of the standard big-bang model, they do demonstrate that the observed experimental facts may be understood without requiring a big bang. In addition, they demonstrate the originality and productivity of creationist scientists, contradicting claims by some evolutionists that creation scientists do not develop any new science.

One of the biggest stumbling blocks to belief in six-day creation is associated with radioisotope dating methods and the exceedingly old ages of rocks and fossils inferred from such methods. Recent work by creationists has shown that the widely used potassium-argon dating method suffers from fatal flaws in its assumption of no initial argon trapped in volcanic rocks at the time of their solidification.15 There have been various creationist proposals for accelerated radioactive decay and experimental searches for evidence that this has occurred in the past.16 Possible scenarios of intense neutrino and/or gamma ray fluxes due to various supernova and stellar disturbances (possibly during Noah’s flood) may have contributed to the appearance of age when radioactive substances are examined by causing substantial radioactive decay in a very short time period, rather than over long periods of time at currently observable rates. Besides causing additional radioactive decay, such fluxes or increases in cosmic radiation could also have resulted in the rapid decrease in the human lifespan following the flood, as recorded in Genesis. It is believed that the decrease of the earth’s magnetic field associated with catastrophic plate tectonics during Noah’s flood also contributed to a dramatic increase in cosmic ray flux in the upper atmosphere and an attendant increase in the production of carbon 14.

An extremely large flux in gamma rays flooding the solar system was recently observed and is believed to be a relatively “common” occurrence.17 These extremely intense gamma ray emissions were attributed to a type of neutron star known as a magnetar. Magnetars are expected to dissipate their energy in about 10,000 years, an indication that they themselves are young.

In addition to proposals for accelerated nuclear decay, there has recently appeared experimental evidence that the decay of unstable quantum mechanical systems is non-exponential.18 On very general grounds, one may show that the decay of an unstable quantum mechanical system is non-exponential at short times. It is one of the largest extrapolations in science to assume that the decay of radioactive isotopes with half-lives of more than 10+9 years is exponential, when the exponential decay law for radioactive isotopes has only been experimentally verified for short-lived isotopes with half-lives less than 100 years. This is an extrapolation of at least 7 orders of magnitude in time! There are reasons to believe that the longer-lived radioisotopes should exhibit significant deviations from the exponential decay law. The rigorous quantum mechanical theory of the decay of long-lived radioisotopes is currently under investigation, in order to determine the size of the deviation from the exponential decay law at times short compared to the half-life. If significant deviations are found, this will completely alter the interpretation of radioisotope data and the inferred ancient chronologies, which are based on the assumption of the validity of the exponential decay law over unobservably large times.

Cited in this brief article is just a small sample of the interesting work that has been and is being done by scientists who believe in creation. The inquisitive reader is urged to study the books in the bibliography by Morris (see note 3). In addition, there are many internet web sites19 with numerous articles which give scientific, historical, and biblical evidences for a recent, six-day creation and the worldwide Noahic flood.


1 G.W. Wolfram, “Carlsbad ‘Signs Off,’ ” Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 31, June 1994, p. 34; E.L. Williams, “Cavern and Speleotherm Formation — Science and Philosophy,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 29, Sept. 1992, p. 83–84; E.L. Williams, “Rapid Development of Calcium Carbonate Formations,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 24, June 1987, p. 18–19.

2 E.L. Williams, “Rapid Petrifaction of Wood,” Creation Matters, vol. 1, Jan. 1996, p. 1; E.L. Williams, “Fossil Wood from Big Bend National Park, Brewster County Texas: Part II,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 30, Sept. 1993, p. 106–111; H. Hicks, “Sodium Silicate Composition,” U.S. Patent #4,612,050, Sept. 16, 1986.

3 Henry M. Morris, “A Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography,” Institute for Creation Research Impact article No. 269, November 1995;

4 S.A. Austin et al., “Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History,” proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, 1994, p. 609–621; C. Burr, “The Geophysics of God,” U.S. News and World Report, July 16, 1997;

5 Thomas G. Barnes, Origin and Destiny of the Earth’s Magnetic Field (El Cajon, CA: Creation Research Society, 1983), p. 132.

6 R. Humphreys, “The Earth’s Magnetic Field is Young,” Institute for Creation Research Impact article No. 242, August 1993;

7 D.R. Humphreys, “Physical Mechanism for Reversals of the Earth’s Magnetic Field During the Flood,” proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, 1990, vol. 2 (Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, USA), p. 129–142, and references therein.

8 R.S. Coe, M. Prevot, and P. Camps, “New Evidence for Extraordinarily Rapid Change of the Geomagnetic Field During a Reversal,” Nature, vol. 374, April 20, 1995, p. 687–692.

9 D. Atkatz, “Quantum Cosmology for Pedestrians,” American Journal of Physics, vol. 62, July 1994, p. 619–627.

10 Graham G. Ross, Grand Unified Theories (Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings, 1984), p. 212–216, 438–444.

11 R. Mathews, “Rock Solid,” New Scientist, May 22, 1999, p. 48–52.

12 Henry M. Morris and John D. Morris, “The Heavens Don’t Evolve Either,” The Modern Creation Trilogy, vol. 2, Science and Creation (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, Inc., 1996), p. 203–232.

D. Russell Humphreys, Starlight and Time (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994), p. 83–133.

14 R.V. Gentry, “A New Red Shift Interpretation,” Modern Physics Letters A, Vol. 12, No. 37, 1997, p. 2919–2925. Also see e-prints “The New Red Shift Interpretation Affirmed,” and “The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta,”

15 A. Snelling, “ ‘Excess Argon’: The ‘Achilles Heel’ of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon ‘Dating’ of Volcanic Rocks,” Institute for Creation Research Impact Article No. 307, January 1999 and references therein. Available online at

16 J.W. Bielecki, “Search for Accelerated Nuclear Decay with Spontaneous Fission of 238U,” proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, 1998, p. 79–88.

17 R. Cowen, “Crafts Finds New Evidence of Magnetars,” Science News, vol. 154, Sept. 12, 1998, p. 164. See also

18 S.R. Wilkinson et al., “Experimental Evidence for Non-exponential Decay in Quantum Tunneling,” Nature, 387, June 5, 1997, p. 575–577.

19 Three Internet web sites with information on creation/evolution are: Institute for Creation Research,;  Christian.Answers Net, http://www.ChristianAnswers.Net ; and Answers in Genesis,


Jack Cuozzo

Dr. Cuozzo is a research orthodontist and head of the orthodontic section, Mountainside Hospital, Montclair, New Jersey. He majored in biology at Georgetown University, and has a D.D.S. from the University of Pennsylvania and an M.S. in oral biology from Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois. Dr. Cuozzo took the first cephalometric (orthodontic) radiographs of the Neanderthal fossils in France and subsequently in many other countries. He has published a number of articles related to origins from a biblical perspective, and a book, Buried Alive.1 He was a member of the American Association of Orthodontists for more than 30 years.

While studying with Francis Schaeffer in the summer of 1977, I acquired the term “true truth.” Dr. Schaeffer coined this term because of the lack of respect the word truth commands in our day. He said it was not a tautology but a necessity. The absolutes, including those in the first chapters of Genesis, are not up for election. They are not running in any ballot, except in the imaginary constructs in men’s minds. I knew this well because I had quite a few of these mental images floating around in my own mind in 1975. It was in that year that the truth set me free from my sin and began to set me free from these mental images concerning the beginning of mankind.

I understood these facts incompletely in 1975, but nevertheless bent my knees, bowed my head, and gave Jesus my heart. It was then that the battle for my whole mind began. The evolutionary ideas from my past began pressing into my being. It seemed as if my entire scientific educational background rose up and challenged my literal acceptance of the Genesis account of creation and the Fall. This will surely happen to anyone who has swallowed large doses of modern science and reads the Bible the way it was written. Thus, the war for my whole mind began, and I don’t think I was the first or will be the last to travel this road. The peaceful biblical rendition of man’s origin stood in direct contrast to the millions of years of bloodshed and violence that would have characterized a world in the throes of evolution. My dilemma was real, and my faith was being threatened. Were there millions of years of bloodshed in the Garden of Eden before sin? The Bible makes this point very clear: the answer is no, because there were six mornings and six evenings, while everything was “very good.”

Nevertheless, I continued questioning my faith in a literal interpretation of Genesis. So, in 1979, after two years of study in paleoanthropology and the Bible, and with the help and encouragement of Wilton M. Krogman, Ph.D., I embarked on a study of fossil man in Europe. (Dr. Krogman was the forensic anthropologist who identified Hitler’s remains in Berlin at the close of WW II.) My first destination in 1979 was Paris, France, the home of many Neanderthal fossils. We were loaned a sophisticated x-ray machine and an apartment. Fortunately, the assistant director of the Musée de l’Homme allowed me to work with those precious Neanderthal remains. His parents were rescued by American soldiers after the invasion of Normandy. He said he owed Americans a favor and I was the recipient of that favor. Nineteen years and many museums later, I still express shock at what I found. There have been efforts by many paleoanthropologists to “adjust” the fossils to tell of the glory of evolution rather than the glory of God.

I found that the Neanderthals lived longer lives than we do today and that their children had later maturation times than modern children.2 It also seems very likely that they were people who inhabited Europe and the Near East much later than previously supposed and not 200 thousand to 30 thousand years ago. Through anatomical studies and a series of standardized radiographs similar to the ones utilized by orthodontists across the world, I have been able to calculate the Neanderthal life span in southwestern France to between 250 and 300 years. I was also able to uncover some misconstructions of the bones which prevented a good scientific interpretation of these remains.3 This information can be found in my book entitled Buried Alive.4 Most people know that the Bible speaks of the early men in our history who lived hundreds of years. With or without my research, that would be true. However, it is my hope that knowing the remains of such people actually exist will help our educated generation love God more with their minds and overcome the challenges to their faith. I have found that the Bible is accurate when it describes time, and historical or scientific facts. This is why I believe in a literal six-day creation.



1 Jack Cuozzo, Buried Alive (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, Inc., 1998).

2 Jack Cuozzo, “Earlier Orthondontic Intervention: A View from Prehistory,” Journal of New Jersey Dental Association, Vol 58, No. 4, Autumn 1987.

3 Jack Cuozzo, “Neanderthal Children’s Fossils: Reconstruction and Interpretation Distorted by Assumptions,” Creation Ex Nihilo, 8: (part 2) 1994, p. 166–178.

4 Cuozzo, Buried Alive.


Elaine Kennedy

Dr. Kennedy is a research scientist at the Geoscience Research Institute in the United States. She holds a B.S. in geology from Phillips University, a B.S. in teaching sciences from Phillips University, an M.S. in geology from Loma Linda University and a Ph.D. in geology from the University of Southern California. Dr. Kennedy’s current research involves a study of an unusual occurrence of dinosaur eggshell fragments in a storm surge deposit in Patagonia, Argentina.

As a geologist, I do not find much evidence for the existence of a fiat creation. I just have not found any geologic data that convinces me that God spoke and “it was.” So it probably seems strange to some that I believe God created this world in six literal days. After all, scientists base their conclusions on cold, hard facts; they trust their five senses to be the primary source of absolute truth. Unfortunately, the truth about earth history is not so easily discerned. Processes that deposited most of the rock layers cannot be duplicated in the laboratory because the events were too large and complex to be modelled. Geologists use modern analogues to explain a large number of ancient deposits, but many unique deposits cannot be explained by the processes occurring today. These enigmatic units raise many questions related to earth history, and multiple hypotheses have been proposed to resolve the issues, including some that are consistent with the biblical account of our world.

As a Christian, I find abundant evidence for the existence of a Creator and the greatest evidence is found in my personal relationship with Jesus Christ. This is my experience and it is from this platform of faith that I look at the geologic data. From this vantage point, I see evidence that is consistent with the worldwide Flood as it is described in Genesis. The reality of this event resolves for me many areas of conflict between the interpretations of the geologic community and the biblical account of creation. The key to this resolution is the differentiation between data and the current geological interpretations.

It took me several years to learn how to differentiate between data and interpretation. This is such an elementary idea that one would think identifying data would be easy; however, so much of the information we receive is merely the researchers’ interpretations without data or alternative views, and even scientists often use interpretations and conclusions to bolster arguments rather than going back to the data for support for ideas. For example, dates cited for the ages of various rocks and fossils are not data. Dates are not directly measured but consist of calculations based on assumptions describing very complex systems. The actual data used by the chronologists is the distribution of the radioactive isotopes in crystals or rocks. Factors that control these distributions are very complex and poorly understood. Those of us who believe in a short chronology and a six-day creation do not have an adequate explanation for radiometric dates; however, we do know that much research needs to be done and we know multiple interpretations of the distributions concerning the processes involved are possible. Despite this possibility, dates are often used to refute biblical chronologies as though no questions or arguments oppose these conclusions.

When interpreting scientific data, I use the same techniques and approaches as my colleagues, but my assumptions come from my biblical paradigm. I often recognize conflicts; indeed, the geologic literature reminds me daily that conflict exists, and many aspects of the geologic record are difficult to explain to the satisfaction of my colleagues or myself. This does not mean that they are correct and I am wrong, but rather that much research needs to be done. This attitude seems an impossible bias to some, but I find my faith leaves me open to alternatives, while I continually question the interpretations in my work because of my science.

Most of the data in the geologic record can be interpreted to support either a long (millions of years) or a short (a few thousand years) history for life on earth. Some data is better explained from the long-age perspective and other data fits better in a short period. Once I realized that the data alone does not mandate either belief system, I found spiritual resolution between the conflicting interpretations of science and the ideas presented in Scripture. I believe that our Creator revealed to us in the Bible an honest and accurate account of our origins and weekly I rejoice in the memorial of that six-day event. Spiritual peace concerning these issues is important for all Christians working in science, but it is not one that comes easily.

Although I have been a Christian since I was seven years of age, it was not until I was in the midst of my geologic education that I decided to include my geologic assumptions within a biblical world view. In effect, I realized that I consider God’s revelation more valid than human reason, because I experience His recreative power in my life daily. 

Kurt P. Wise

Dr. Wise is director of origins research at Bryan College, Dayton, Tennessee. He holds a B.A. with honors in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago and an M.A. and Ph.D. in geology from Harvard University. He studied under Professor Stephen Jay Gould. Dr. Wise has written a wide range of articles on origins issues. He is a member of the Geological Society of America.

Eighth grade found me extremely interested in all fields of science. For over a year, while others considered being firemen and astronauts, I was dreaming of getting a Ph.D. from Harvard University and teaching at a big university. I knew this to be an unattainable dream, for I knew it was a dream, but . . . well, it was still a dream. That year, the last in the series of nine years in our small country school, was terminated by the big science fair. The words struck fear in all, for not only was it important for our marks and necessary for our escape from the elementary sentence for crimes unknown, but it was also a sort of initiation to allow admittance into the big city high school the next year. The 1,200 students of the high school dwarfed the combined populations of three towns I lived closer to than that high school. Just the thought of such hoards of people scared us silly. In any case, the science fair was anticipated years in advance and I started work on mine nearly a year ahead of the fair itself.

I decided to do my science fair project on evolution. I poured myself into its study. I memorized the geologic column. My father and I constructed a set of wooden steps representing geologic time where the run of each step represented the relative length of each period. I bought models and collected fossils. I constructed clay representations of fossils I did not have and sketched out continental/ocean configurations for each period. I completed the colossal project before the day of the fair. Since that day was set aside for last minute corrections and setup, I had nothing to do. So, while the bustle of other students whirred about us, I admitted to my friend Carl (who had joined me in the project in lieu of his own) that I had a problem. When he asked what the problem was I told him that I could not reconcile what I had learned in the project with the claims of the Bible. When Carl asked for clarification, I took out a Bible and read Genesis 1 aloud to him.

At the end, and after I had explained that the millions of years of evolution did not seem to comport well with the six days of creation, Carl agreed that it did seem like a real problem. As I struggled with this, I hit upon what I thought was an ingenious (and original!) solution to the problem. I said to Carl, “What if the days were millions of years long?” After discussing this for some time, Carl seemed to be satisfied. I was not — at least not completely.

What nagged me was that even if the days were long periods of time, the order was still out of whack. After all, science said the sun came before the earth — or at least at the same time — and the Bible said that the earth came three days before the sun. Whereas science said that the sea creatures came before plants and the land creatures came before flying creatures, the Bible indicated that plants preceded sea creatures and flying creatures preceded land creatures. On the other hand, making the days millions of years long seemed to take away most of the conflict. I thus determined to shelve these problems in the back recesses of my mind.

It didn’t work. Over the next couple of years, the conflict of order nagged me. No matter how I tried, I could not keep the matter out of mind. Finally, one day in my sophomore year of high school, when I thought I could stand it no longer, I determined to resolve the issue. After lights were out, under my covers with flashlight in hand I took a newly purchased Bible and a pair of scissors and set to work. Beginning at Genesis 1:1, I determined to cut out every verse in the Bible which would have to be taken out to believe in evolution. Wanting this to be as fair as possible, and giving the benefit of the doubt to evolution, I determined to read all the verses on both sides of a page and cut out every other verse, being careful not to cut the margin of the page, but to poke the page in the midst of the verse and cut the verse out around that.

In this fashion, night after night, for weeks and months, I set about the task of systematically going through the entire Bible from cover to cover. Although the end of the matter seemed obvious pretty early on, I persevered. I continued for two reasons. First, I am obsessive compulsive. Second, I dreaded the impending end. As much as my life was wrapped up in nature at age eight and in science in eighth grade, it was even more wrapped up in science and nature at this point in my life. All that I loved to do was involved with some aspect of science. At the same time, evolution was part of that science and many times was taught as an indispensable part of science. That is exactly what I thought — that science couldn’t be without evolution. For me to reject evolution would be for me to reject all of science and to reject everything I loved and dreamed of doing.

The day came when I took the scissors to the very last verse — nearly the very last verse of the Bible. It was Revelation 22:19: “If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” It was with trembling hands that I cut out this verse, I can assure you! With the task complete, I was now forced to make the decision I had dreaded for so long.

With the cover of the Bible taken off, I attempted to physically lift the Bible from the bed between two fingers. Yet, try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. However, at that moment I thought back to seven or so years before when a Bible was pushed to a position in front of me and I had come to know Jesus Christ. I had in those years come to know Him. I had become familiar with His love and His concern for me. He had become a real friend to me. He was the reason I was even alive both physically and spiritually. I could not reject Him. Yet, I had come to know Him through His Word. I could not reject that either. It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.

Beginning only a couple of weeks later, however, God began to show me that the rejection of evolution does not necessarily involve the rejection of all of science. In fact, I have come to learn that science owes its very existence and rationale to the claims of Scripture. On the other hand, I have also learned that evolution is not the only claim of modern science which must be rejected if Scripture is assumed to be true. It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis (e.g., the order of creation, the distinctness of created kinds, the absence of pre-Fall carnivory, the lack of higher animal death before the Fall, the creation of Adam and Eve, the “very good” status of the creation at the end of the creation week, the great longevities of the patriarchs, the global nature of the Noahic flood, the dispersion of people away from the Tower of Babel). This in turn challenges the integrity of any concept built upon these chapters. Yet, it is my understanding that every doctrine of Christianity stands upon the foundation laid in the first few chapters of Genesis (e.g., God is truth, God is a God of mercy and love, Scripture is true, all natural and moral evil on the earth can be traced back to man’s fall, Christ’s return is global, heaven is a perfect place with no sin or death or corruption of any sort). Thus, an earth that is millions of years old seems to challenge all the doctrines I hold dear.

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of G


  Top of Page