In Six Days
Why 50 Scientists Choose
to Believe in Creation
Edited by Dr John Ashton
Wayne Frair, biology
Professor Frair is professor emeritus of biology at The King’s College, Tuxedo,
New York. He holds a B.A. in zoology from Houghton College, New York, a B.S. in
zoology from Wheaton College, Illinois, an M.A. in embryology from the University
of Massachusetts, and a Ph.D. in biochemical taxonomy from Rutgers, The State University,
New Jersey. He is the author of a number of research papers on turtles and also
on creation-evolution topics, including the book A Case for Creation.1
He was a witness for the defense at the famous 1981 creation versus evolution trial
in Little Rock, Arkansas. Professor Frair is a fellow of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science and, for the years 1986 to 1993, served as president
of the Creation Research Society.
My interest in Bible-science issues was amplified after I became a Christian in
January 1945, while I was in the U.S. Navy during the Second World War. My personal
journey into the mysteries of the origin of life began in 1946 when I was out of
the navy and taking classes at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. We were
fed a diet of evolution, but I wondered if there were not other defendable positions.
In my junior year I transferred to a Christian institution (Houghton College) where
I continued with a major in zoology and minors in chemistry and Bible. Here, my
major professor, Dr. George Moreland, was a Bible-believing creationist, and I grew
in knowledge under his tutelage. After completing a B.A. degree, I entered Wheaton
College in Illinois, where I completed a B.S. degree with honors in zoology. Here
I probed more into the Bible, theology, and several fields of science while working
with professors who were creationists.
For one year I taught science at Ben Lippen, a Christian middle and high school.
Then I returned to the University of Massachusetts and completed an M.A. degree
in embryology, writing a research thesis on the effects of 8-azaguanine (the first
anti-cancer drug) during a chick’s embryology.2 My advisor, Dr.
Gilbert Woodside, was chairman of the Department of Zoology at the University of
Massachusetts and was an evolutionist with an international reputation in embryology.
He apparently did not appreciate a scientific alternative to evolution, but he declared
to me very clearly that evolution was not applicable in the field of embryology.
It was obvious to him that evolution actually had hurt embryological disciplines,
because many fine scientists had wasted their time trying to fit data from their
studies into some illusionary evolutionary scheme.
After graduation, I accepted a position as instructor in biology at The King’s
College in New York, and four years later took a leave of absence to complete a
doctorate at Rutgers University. My advisor there was Dr. Alan Boyden, department
chair of zoology, and the world’s leader in serology. Using blood serum proteins,
the professors and students in that department at Rutgers were classifying plants
and animals. Another name for this field of research is biochemical taxonomy. In
the implementation of a chemical approach to taxonomy (classification and naming)
the Rutgers group were the pioneers.
Professor Boyden inclined to accept evolution, but actually he was very disillusioned
about the value of evolution in his own field of research. He would call evolutionists
“ancestor worshippers and people with a backward look.” He showed considerable
concern in teaching his students not to think macroevolution in their studies involving
systematics (system used for taxonomy) of plants and animals, and he even published
a book against popular evolution positions.3 I did research and wrote
a dissertation on the biochemical taxonomy of turtles, completing the doctorate
in 1962. Then I returned to The King’s College, where I was chairman of the
Department of Biology most of the time until my retirement in 1994.
My research, especially on turtles over nearly 40 years, has increased my admiration
of God as Creator. Along with thousands of other scientists, I do not believe that
evolution was the method that God used in creating various types of life.4
For example, there is no clear evidence that turtles ever evolved from anything
else. However, there have been changes among the turtles. Actually, a purpose of
my own research has been to understand better how turtles have diversified.5
The doctrine of evolution is popular, but I estimate that in the United States there
are probably more than 25,000 scientists who reject the evolutionary doctrine that
all living organisms are related. There are other thousands around the world who
share similar feelings. Many who do not support evolution but rather prefer a creation
position are Christians, but there also are Jews, Muslims, and those of other faiths
(including atheism) who are anti-evolutionists and who have a variety of views regarding
how living things appeared on the earth and developed their present features on
this planet.
Also, as a Christian, I accept the historicity of the Bible, this being supported
by much external empirical evidence, and I have found no reasons from science to
reject the Bible. Of course, there are some figures of speech, such as “the rivers clap their hands” (Ps.
98:8), or when Christ called Herod “a fox” (Luke
13:32). But it has been my custom for more than 40 years, a custom
which is consistent with that of conservative Christian biblical scholars, to take
an inductive-historical approach to the Bible. This means that to construct our
theology we start with accepting the Bible as literally and historically true, and
we compare one passage with others to obtain a consensus on their meanings.
The Bible clearly does not answer every question we can concoct, but it is certainly
clear on the fundamentals as found in the Apostles’ and other basic creeds.
For instance, it does not clearly explain whether there is physical life outside
the earth. The Bible in
1 Corinthians 13:12 tells us that we know only in part while we are in this
life; so it is possible to live with some questions here on this earth, but someday
in heaven we will know. In order to grow in better understanding our God’s
revelation in the Bible, I have been reading completely through both the Old and
New Testaments at least once a year for about 40 years.
There is much objective factual evidence (for example, from archaeology) for accepting
the Bible as God’s revealed truth. But also it is very important to realize
that the Scriptures deal realistically with the nature of humans. The Bible says
that we all have sinned (Rom.
3:23) and need to experience the salvation made possible when Christ died
for us (Rom.
5:8). We can experience biblical truths for ourselves, for example, when
we realize that our attitudes to issues in life have noticeably changed following
our acceptance of Christ as Savior (2
Cor. 5:17). I recall some time after my salvation experience reading the
verse in
Romans 8:16 that God’s spirit testifies with our spirit that we are
God’s children; and it was exhilarating for me to realize that I had already
experienced this glorious truth.
In our scientific studies we learn a lot about nature, which is God’s creation.
Also, God reveals himself in history and our consciences, but most importantly in
His inspired Word, the Bible. For a full and fruitful life, no matter what our occupation
is, I believe we must live in accord with this book.
Articles
References and notes
- Wayne Frair and Percival Davis, A Case for Creation, School of Tomorrow,
Lewisville, TX, 1983.
- W. Frair and G.L. Woodside, Effects of 8-azaguanine on Early Chick Embryos Grown
in Vitro, Growth 20:9–18, 1956.
- Alan Boyden, Perspectives in Zoology, Pergamon Press, New York, 1973.
- Frair and Davis, A Case for Creation.
- W. Frair, Original Kinds and Turtle Phylogeny, Creation Research Society Quarterly
28(1):21–24, 1991. Also see K.P. Wise, Practical Baraminology,
Journal of Creation 6(2):122–137,
1992 and D.A. Robinson, A Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of the Testudine Apobaramin,
Creation Research Society Quarterly 33(4):262–272,
1997.
| Besides the many thousands of articles that are freely available on this site, our staff answer many hundreds of emails in response to it. Help us help advance the gospel.  | | |
|
