"Pass the Peas (or the Genes) Please."
by Richard Stepanek

Before I became a Christian, I was taught that the Word of God was an outdated book written by primitive people who did not have modern scientific knowledge. However, the Bible revealed scientific knowledge thousands of years ahead of its time.

About the same time Charles Darwin was developing his theories of evolution, a man named Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk and scientist, was performing scientific experiments with pea plants. His work on breeding pea plants reopened the secrets of God’s plan for the continuity of life and the laws of heredity for which Charles Darwin was ignorant.1

In Genesis 1:11 God states that everything was to reproduce after its kind and the seed was in itself. In other words, the ability of an organism to reproduce after its own kind was programmed by God in the seed or DNA. Athough we see huge variations within a kind we do not see one kind of organism changing into another kind.

Mendel rediscovered these truths in his studies of the shape and color of peas. By interbreeding a pure yellow round pea with a pure green wrinkled pea he was able to produce all yellow round pea offspring (F1 generation). His work proved that the yellow round genes where dominant over the recessive green wrinkled genes.

Next, he interbred the F1 generation to produce the F2 generation. For every sixteen F2 generation pea plants produced, about 9 were yellow round, 3 were yellow wrinkled, 3 were green round, and 1 was green wrinkled. From just two peas, Gregor Mendel was able to produce great variation of peas.3

The results from Mendel’s research were already revealed to us in Scripture long before he was born. In Genesis 30 and 31, Laban agreed to pay Jacob with the spotted and speckled goats and brown-colored lambs from his herds. Jacob separated those animals out and instructed his sons to take them 3 day’s journey away.

As Jacob continued to be herdsman for Laban’s flocks, he was able to observe which solid-colored goats, for instance, were producing predominately speckled and spotted ones. By using these goats as the selective breeding stock, Jacob was able to increase his flock of speckled and spotted goats from Laban’s solid-colored flock. Although Jacob must have had some knowledge of breeding, God showed his favor to Jacob and intervened miraculously so that Jacobs flocks increased more dramatically than expected.

1Wieland C., Muddy Waters, Creation, vol.
23 no.3, pg. 27.

2 Morris., The Genesis Record, pgs. 62-64.

3A Beka Book, copyright 1986, Biology,
pgs. 580-587.

= solid-colored traits
= speckled/spotted traits

*Size indicated dominant vs. recessive

*This simplified diagram, based on one genetic trait, shows the possibilities of spotted/speckled goats Jacob could have expected through selective breeding. Obviously, God's intervention and/or further genetic variables could have accounted for more than these.

Fossils Are Fun - Once You blow the Smoke Away
by Mark Sonmor

Whether it’s “Walking with Prehistoric Beasts” on the Discovery Channel or looking at National Geographic in the dentist’s office, it seems every time I turn around, I’m faced with some new fossil that “proves” evolution. Normally, my reaction is to pass it off as evolutionary dogma and change the channel or read about something else like fly fishing. However, I’m finding that by doing that, we, as Christians, can miss out on opportunities to discover more about God through His creation.

So put down that copy of Field & Stream and look at the “Evolution of Whales” article in the November 2001 issue of National Geographic. It is this writer’s contention that once we blow some of the evolutionary smoke away, we can expand our view of God’s original creation and have some fun in the process.

As usual, the first items we encounter are beautiful photographs and attractive illustrations showing the evolutionary progression of modern whales from a doglike ancestor. Whenever we see great artwork, we at AOI have been trained to say, “What’s the evidence?” So my usual response is to analyze each fossil to see what the actual evidence is and see what other sources (creationist and noncreationist) have to say about it. Once I’ve done the research, and am satisfied that the evidence is too scant, too out of place, or too whatever to be a transitional form, I breath a sigh of relief until the next fossil comes along that “proves” evolution. In reality, however, what we are dealing with is not empirical science, but someone’s ideas about a bone belonging to some extinct creature. It’s not science. It’s philosophy.

In defending creation, I have heard some say that if evolution were true, we would expect to find thousands of transitional creatures in the fossil record displaying features such as half-feathers and half-scales, etc. Since we don’t find that, evolution can’t be true; so we’re safe...for the time being. In saying this there is the subtle implication that, given the right fossils in the right sequence, we might have to admit there really are transitional forms.

In reality, however, it is only someone’s opinion about a fossil that makes it a transitional form. No matter what anyone digs up. Whether it’s a half dog/half chicken with scales turning into feathers etc., it lived in the past and it is just as valid to say it was designed that way by God as it is to say it is a transitional form. Poof! A little smoke disappears.

But what about the ear bone of Pakicetus on page 70? Doesn’t the fact that it is more similar to early Eocene whales than to mammals mean that it was progressing toward whalehood? No. This is simply more opinion.

Of the pillars propping up evolutionary thought, this has to be the biggest. No matter what the field, it is automatically assumed that similarity equals common descent. However, this is not always observed. Sharks and dolphins look very similar but one is a fish and the other a mammal. A similar point can be made with bats, birds and butterflies. Ultimately, similarities are more easily attributed to a common Designer than a common ancestor. Poof! A lot of smoke disappears.

But what about the remnants of legs in modern whales shown on page 73? Don’t some modern whales show remains of what used to be legs? More philosophy? Yep.

In recent years, doctors’ opinions led to mass removal of tonsils and adenoids thinking they were evolutionary leftovers. Further research has shown they are useful in fighting infection. Yet, even if an organ’s function isn’t known, it is a person’s opinion about that organ that makes it an evolutionary leftover.

If whales never had legs, why are some found with atavisms or mutations resembling legs? How could their genes be expressing information that should never have been there to begin with? First of all, it is someone’s opinion as to what the mutation resembles. One might say what they are observing is a leg and one might say flipper. Secondly, if mutations are expressing genetic material from a previous evolutionary stage, does that mean that our ancestors had hairlips, or six fingers? The only way to determine if a mutation is expressing a gene from an early ancestor is to go back in time and observe evolution in progress. Since that is impossible, we are left with — you guessed it ... opinions. Poof! More smoke disappears.

Once we get past the evolutionary philosophy, we can start to see fossils in a different context. Provided the facts are accurate, we can look at the various whales and say, “Wow! Look at the variety of creatures God created.” As more bones are found, maybe we can discover more about Pakecitus and Ambulocetus and get a more accurate picture of what they really looked like. Of course it is important to remain skeptical, but too many times our skepticism can lead us to denial rather than discernment.

Prayer Alert: Ohio
by Andrea Korow

Will Ohio be another Kansas?

It’s too early to tell, but hopefully you will be praying!

The Ohio state school board is in the process of drafting new science standards and is the first to do so under the “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001” signed by President Bush on January 8, 2002.

The original bill, passed by the US Senate in June, included an ammendment by Sen. Rick Santorum, of Pennsylvania addressing the controversy of teaching evolution. However, before the full congressional vote, pressure from evolutionists caused the ammendment to be removed. The wording was then modified, and placed in the conference notes as a clarification of the committee’s intent.

“The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.”

Although the conference notes are not legally binding, their intent may have some influence on policy.
Current Ohio standards use a naturalistic approach which promotes Darwinian evolution. A network of concerned citizens and organizations have joined together to introduce Intelligent Design (ID) into the discussion.

ID advocates point to aspects of nature that are not satisfactorily explained by Darwinian gradualism and, instead, appear to be designed by intelligence. ID doesn’t necessarily speculate on the designer, just that there was one.

Some have labeled ID proponents as “inherently religious” and have accused them of trying to force religion into the schools. In reality, they can be from a variety of religious or nonreligious backgrounds.
Another misconception promoted by the media is that, “Ohio is considering discounting Darwin’s theory of evolution as the state adopts a new set of science standards for schools.”2 Actually, ID proponents say “intelligent design, the principal scientific alternative to Darwinism, should also be included in the curriculum.” ID supporters say that, “evolution leaves too many scientific questions unanswered.”3

Amazingly, 71% of Americans polled by Zogby International said “...that Americans overwhelmingly desire to have students learn the scientific arguments against, as well as for, Darwin’s theory.”1 Opposed were 15% and undecided 14%.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that mandating creationism in science classes is unconstitutional, but so far it has not faced the Intelligent Design argument. Supporters insist it is possible to talk about creation supervised by a guiding force without it being inherently religious.

Steven Rissing, professor of evolutionary biology at Ohio State University said, “Intelligent design isn’t a topic for scientists, only for religious leaders and politicians… Scientists limit their explanations to ones that are empirical, things we can observe.”

The Ohio state school board plans to have more forums throughout the state and make a recommendation by September so that a proposal can be adopted by the end of the year.

1“Intelligent Design is a Matter of Academic Freedom”, Cleveland Plain Dealer, 1-18-02

2,3 “Educators Debate How Life Began” Akron Beacon Journal 3-12-02