The Old Smoke Screen
by Dave Nutting

When I was going to school, I was given the old smoke screen that evolution was science whereas creation was merely religion. Since I didn’t have a church telling me otherwise, I easily bought the idea. The same thing happened to Mary Jo even though she grew up in a family that attended church regularly and was even taught the creation account. When that old smoke screen is stated often enough, it is easy to accept it. Many, like us, did.

Today, the old smoke screen is getting thicker. Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe wrote, “One plus one equals two, not seven. The world is billions of years old, not thousands. And school boards facing a science curriculum still must choose between science and religion, evolution and creationism.” This type of comment is seen in newspaper articles (especially editorials and editorial cartoons) all the time. Most are aware of the Kansas fervor that ensued when the state board “had the audacity” to question “science” and the place of evolution in the curriculum. In Arizona, Representative Karen Johnson was almost crucified for taking a stand against evolutionary indoctrination. E.J. Montini’s column in the Arizona Republic called her a “Crackpotus Fanatisaurus, a small but vigorous subgroup of the genus and species Numbskullus Politisaurus.” An editorial cartoon actually portrayed her as a primitive ape-like creature sitting on a Bible. They wanted to stress the point that anyone who denies the “fact” of evolution is one of those less evolved religious fundamentalists.

The fact is, both Creation and Evolution are philosophies of our origin. Since neither can be based on direct observation, neither can be science. We can however, study scientific data and determine which philosophy fits the facts the best.

Fortunately, the creationist movement is taking hold and many people are beginning to see through the smoke! They are recognizing that evolution is philosophy, not science. Not only are Bible believing Christians waking up and realizing they have been duped into accepting the old evolutionary smoke screen, but even secular scientists are regularly challenging evolutionary assumptions. Many more scientists than ever before are not only seeing the fallacies of evolution, but are willing to risk newspaper ridicule by publicly challenging evolutionary dogma!

The more this is happening, the more evolutionary smoke is being dumped on the public. We need your help not only to enable us to help students and adults cut through the thick smoke, but by your personal involvement. Whenever you encounter that kind of smoky propaganda that evolution is science whereas creation is religion, challenge it! You might even like to use the article by Andrea Korow in this issue of Think & Believe citing many scientists who recognize that creation is not only a valid scientific option, but for them the preferred option. Please get involved!

Creation on Wheels
Creation Field Sudy Tip by Dave & Mary Jo Nutting


We recently turned a van into a mobile creation classroom as we led students from Jackson Hole Bible College on an awesome 12 day combined field/study/seminar trip. The jam-packed itinerary included stops at Grand Canyon, Zion, Sea World, San Diego Zoo, Anza Borrego Desert, Lake Powell, Wupatki Ruins, and more. A special highlight was the visit to the Institute for Creation Research where we all thoroughly enjoyed the exceptional creation museum and the fascinating presentations on current research projects. The students also ministered with us at several creation seminars, underscoring the importance of the issue via dramatic skits which they had written.

Evidence of Creation and the Flood were abundantly driven home throughout the trip. How can anyone watch a majestic killer whale torpedo out of the water and believe that it evolved from a cow or a pig? How can you pet a dolphin (or a shark) and look at it “up close and personal” and then attribute its marvelous specializations to random, chance processes? How can you view the widespread evidence of massive sediment deposition and catastrophic erosion, and not grasp the reality of the Biblical Flood? Trips like this provide much more than awe-inspiring beauty. We all went home with a much deeper appreciation of God’s creative design, His awesome power in judgment of sin, and His amazing mercy in bringing beauty out of destruction.

To be part of a similar trip, contact AOI. For information on Creation-based Jackson Hole Bible College, see www.JHBC.edu

Guess Who Believes In Creation?
by Andrea Korow

Teacher: “If you are going into science, then you’ll just have to forget all that Creation nonsense. No bona-fide scientist really believes in God. Evolution is a fact!”

Student: “What about Kepler, or Newton, or Pasteur? Weren’t they creationists?” Teacher: Everyone you mentioned is dead. No one alive today believes in Creation.

Sound familiar? This teacher doesn’t know that many respected, well-educated scientists believe in Biblical Creation. Three excellent books list many active and deceased scientists who have professed Christ, supported Creation and have had real achievement in quite a wide variety of scientific fields. They held a wide variety of beliefs, albeit some rather unorthodox.

Founders of science include creationists: DaVinci, Kepler, Bacon, Pascal, Boyle, Galileo, Hooke, Harvey, Brahe, Copernicus, Newton, Linnaeus, Faraday, Dalton, Samuel Morse, Mendel, Pasteur, Thompson, and Lord Kelvin. Little is ever said in public schools about their creationist or Biblical views. Perhaps this is just another part of the smoke screen and censorship.

More recent scientist include, William Mitchell Ramsey, John Strutt Lord Rayleigh, John Ambrose Fleming, L. Merson Davies, Wernher von Braun and A. E. Wilder-Smith who, by the way, had three scientific doctorate degrees.

The following is just a partial list of many scientists who currently support Creation. All have earned one or more Doctoral Degrees. Some of them have been department heads or chairs at major universities.

Dr. Steven A. Austin, Geologist
Dr. Don Batton, Agricultural Scientist
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Biologist
Dr. Walter Brown, Mech. Engineer
Dr. Don Chittick, Chemist
Dr. Ken Cumming, Geneticist, Ecologist
Dr. Jack Cuozzo, Orthodontist
Dr. Donald B. DeYoung, Physicist
Dr. Robert H. Eckel, Med. Researcher
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Steven Grocott, Inorganic Chemist
Dr. Edmond Holroyd, Meteorologist
Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr. Andrew McIntosh, Mathematician
Dr. Henry Morris, Hydrologist,
Geologist, Mathematician
Dr. John Morris, Geological Engineer
Dr. Gary Parker, Biologist, Paleontologist
Dr. John R. Rankin, Mathematical Phys.
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Physical Chemist
Dr. Harold Slusser, Geo/Astrophysicist
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineer
Dr. Larry Vardimann, Atmospheric Scientist
Dr. Jeremy L. Walter, Mech. Engineer
Dr. Kurt Wise, Geologist, Paleontologist

Often, very vocal “anti-creationist” teachers and media writers have no specialized scientific degrees. They ignore what most practicing scientists know: science is based on observation, experimentation, and testing. Evolution falls outside the true realm of science.
If you would like to know more, we highly recommend these books. Call us at (970)-523-9943 or see www.discovercreation.org.

Men of Science Men of God - Henry M. Morris includes short paragraphs about 107 historical scientists, general reading, 107 pgs.

21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible - Ann Lamont All but two of these scientists are included in Morris’s book. This book gives a longer narrative about the scientists’ life and achievements. A little more technical, 252 pgs.

In Six Days, Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation
- John F. Ashton. 50 active scientists were asked why they believe in a literal six day Biblical Creation. Some responses are highly technical, others more personal. A must-read for anyone going into scientific disciplines.

Hanging on a Broken Limb
by Dr. Dan Korow

Newsflash China: Anthropologists reinvent our definition of the origin and order of primates! Chinese excavations have unearthed two newly discovered creatures. Warning: The newest evolutionary discovery may be an insult to your higher primate intelligence.

What are the claims? According to the AP March 16, 2000, once upon a time, a long, long time ago (45 mil. years to be exact) in a primeval rain forest far, far away, our primate family branched into existence from diminutive stock. Two unnamed species of primates weighing one third and one half of an ounce respectively can now join Eosimias centennicus (discovered in the mid 1990’s) in the long line of human ancestors. These new species stood no bigger than your thumb and walked on all fours “moving like monkeys atop tree branches”. To compensate for their “overheated metabolism”, they ate ravenously. Their diet consisted of insects and sap. Some scientists believe they could see and catch insects more proficiently because of their higher primate features. These included forward focusing eyes, and “soft hands without claws”. It is also stated that their small size and enormous appetite would have made them nocturnal feeders.

All this proves evolution, right ? Well, no, but welcome to the newest legend of our elusive primate lineage, Great Uncle Pee Wee and Aunt Teeny Weeny.

What’s the evidence supporting the above claims? These great discoveries consist of fossilized foot bones the size of a grain of rice and ... and that’s all! Wait a minute, there has to be more evidence present to conjure up new species! Even the earlier find of Eosimias consisted only of teeth and jaws. Remember, a skull or a full skeleton has not been found! Worse yet, ankle bones found later in China were linked with Eosimias based solely upon their having been found close by! How can anyone be sure they are right? Have they considered variation due to genetics, diet, environment, or age? After all, no one has seen these creatures alive.

Fossilized feet alone do not constitute adequate information to reconstruct missing anatomy and phantom creatures. We certainly can’t know their behavior and diet. These ancestral reconstructions appear to be the product of human imagination.

Why does each new discovery shake and redefine this house of cards better known as Evolution? Maybe because its basis relies on preconceived notions and imagination. Discoveries are often broadcast prior to peer review and to the exclusion of contradictory opinions. The public is often given unsubstantiated, unprovable claims that leave a lasting impression, only later to be retracted and quietly dismissed. It is crucial to objectively evaluate the data based on the plain evidence. We must not abandon the critical standards of the true scientific method!