Creation 8(3):47–48, July 1986
Browse our latest digital issue Subscribe
Evolution of Thought
- Easter Bunny Fossil?
- New Species?
- What can a panda bear?
- Dinosaurs in the Dark
- Feathered Snake
- Reader’s Digest ‘Facts’
- Differing Reviews
- Bigotry Victim
- Investigate Creation!
Easter Bunny Fossil?
A rabbit-sized mammal that supposedly ate eggs is thought to be the original owner of fossil bones found in 1983 at Riversleigh Plateau in north-west Queensland by a team led by zoologist Dr Michael Archer, from the University of New South Wales. Dr Archer said the nameless animal had two forward-pointing teeth and sharp v-shaped back teeth that must have worked like scissors. But since it had no teeth to grind its food, Dr Archer said the creature’s front teeth could therefore have been used to pierce birds’ eggs, and therefore it probably lived in treetops.
January 29, 1986.
A foal whose mother was a mule and father a donkey has been described as a ‘new kind of hybrid animal’. The foal was named Dragon Foal, and is said to have a donkey’s tail and legs, a horse’s neck and shoulders, and a mule’s head and ears. Mules, of course, are usually sterile, so Dragon Foal’s arrival caused great interest when she was born in China in 1981. Scientists in Peking recently checked the mother’s chromosomes and said she was indeed half horse and half donkey. They were surprised that horse and donkey chromosomes could join in a single fertile egg. ‘If you want to think of it as a new species, you can,’ said a researcher. ‘But at the moment I couldn’t say that it’s definitely a new species.’ Why? Because it hasn’t successfully reproduced after its kind.
January, 1986 (p. 12)
What can a panda bear?
According to the latest evolutionary analysis, the red panda is not as closely related to the raccoon as it looks. And the black and white giant panda is more of a bear than most biologists thought. So say researchers from the US National Cancer Institute and the National Zoo after analysing genes and proteins from pandas, raccoons and bears. They concluded that red and giant pandas shared an ancestor until 30 to 50 million years ago, when three groups arose—one leading to raccoons, another to the red pandas, and a third to giant pandas and bears. As is normal, no fossil evidence exists to confirm this theory.
Be sure to see our article on the red panda in Did You Know? in this issue
Dinosaurs in the Dark
The discovery of dinosaur bones in Alaska (see Creation Ex Nihilo Vol. 8
No 2) has posed a new problem for evolutionists. One popular theory says that dinosaurs
were wiped out during a long period of darkness and climate change. This gloom,
they say, was caused by a dust cloud after an asteroid or comet hit the earth. But
now it has been suggested that at a latitude of 70 degrees north, these Alaskan
dinosaurs would have seen at least two months’ darkness every year. So they
could have survived the gloom produced by a dust cloud in the earth’s atmosphere.
Another theory on dinosaur extinction is wiped out.
1986 (p. 19).
In the book published by the Australian Skeptics titled ‘Creationism An Australian Perspective,’ edited by Bridgstock and Smith, one author, Dr Tony Thulborn, claims that Archaeopteryx is ‘a splendid example of a transitional fossil.’ He backs up his claim by giving an example of how reptile scales can be changed into bird feathers. Vitamin A is said to be one ingredient which can transform developing scales in chicken embryos into feathers, and their feathers into scales. But then, chickens grow feathers and scales anyway. When Dr Thulborn can use vitamin A to grow feathers on a snake we’ll be a little more interested.
Creationism An Australian Perspective,
(first edition) 1986.
Reader’s Digest ‘Facts’
Reader’s Digest, that great sausage-machine of evolutionary misinformation, has done it again. Last year they put out a book called Reader’s Digest Book of Facts. But when the Digest deals with evolution, facts don’t really mean facts. The first ‘fact’ they present tells us the first forms of life ‘were undoubtedly single-celled creatures, perhaps not unlike the primitive amoeba of today.’ We are also given a ‘fact’ about how a human embryo re-traces the history of evolution: it develops slits in the neck like fish gills, it has a tail, and so on. This ‘fact’ is so wrong that the idea was discredited and thrown out decades ago. Then we are told how ‘man-made life’ came about in experiments by Miller and others. But in fact, all that was produced was a mixture of amino acids that would destroy life—a long way from forming ‘life’. This book of ‘facts’ contains so much speculation that we have heard of people sending their books back to the publishers and telling them to get their facts straight. Why not join them and send yours back?
Book of Facts.
A favourable review of Dr Henry Morris’s book, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, appeared in last November’s Sydney Anglican magazine, Southern Cross. The reviewer, Stephen Geard, is a member of various organisations including the British Biblical Creation Society and the American Creation Research Society. In the February, 1986, issue of the same magazine, a letter by anti-creationist Dr Alex Ritchie of the Australian Museum in Sydney claimed there was nothing in the review to indicate Stephen Geard’s scientific qualifications, but there was ‘a great deal to indicate he is an acknowledged fundamentalist creationist. ’ Dr Ritchie suggested Dr Morris’s book be reviewed again by some scientist active in the Christian community ‘who has no difficulty reconciling his or her religious beliefs with acceptance of the fact of evolution…’ While Dr Ritchie’s letter contained something to indicate his scientific qualifications, it contained nothing to indicate that his view of Scripture should be adhered to at all.
November, 1985 (p. 12, 13),
and February, 1986 (p. 11).
Dr Jerry Bergman, author of the well-researched and down-to-earth article on UFOs
and evolution in this issue of Creation Ex Nihilo, was dismissed from Bowling
Green State University in Ohio several years ago for his creationist beliefs. Contrast
Newsletter now reports that when it was suggested Dr Bergman had been a victim of
religious bigotry, Attorney G. Merle Bergman (no relation to Jerry) reacted by saying
he was ‘aghast’ at the suggestion. The attorney claims the real issue
is not bigotry, but whether Dr Bergman can be an objective teacher with a proper
grasp of reality. Since Dr Jerry Bergman is a creationist, the attorney argues,
he cannot be an objective teacher or have a proper grasp of reality.
Watch for the same thing happening in New South Wales, Australia.
For more evidence of anti-creationist bigotry, click here
Creation science (Australia) should be investigated by a national committee, according to the Association of Australasian Palaeontologists. In the minutes of their ninth general meeting, University of Christchurch, New Zealand (December 4, 1985), the association has recommended that the Geological Society of Australia ‘investigate the implications of “creation scienceâ€? on geological education in Australia’.
It’s nice to see creation science is having such an impact.
Association of Australasian Palaeontologists,
Minutes of Ninth General Meeting,
December 4, 1985.
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.