Men and Women of Mathematics and of Godby Don B. DeYoung

Volume 3, Number 6 November / December 1998

...continued on page 2

...continued on page 7

I ntroduction: In 1982 an importantbook was written by Henry Morristitled Men of Science Men of God

(Morris, 1982). The volume has been agreat encouragement to Christians with aninterest in the history of science. The bookalso reminds practicing scientists of therich biblical foundation of modern science,now nearly forgotten. This article appliesthe same theme to mathematicians. Somenames may be unfamiliar today, but duringtheir lives these men and women werehousehold names. Each person listedmade fundamental contributions to ourmathematical understanding of the Crea-tion. Not all the included names necessar-ily represent the young-earth creation po-sition, but their testimonies are strong.

Niels Henrik Abel (1802-1829) was bornin poverty in Kristi-ania, Norway.When his pastor fa-ther died, eighteen-year old Niels caredfor his mother andsix siblings whilemanaging to studymathematics during

free moments. He soon was making majorcontributions in trigonometry theory, es-pecially the study of difficult transcen-dental functions. Abel also founded grouptheory, a major field of math today. Theclass of abelian groups are named in hishonor. He always maintained the Christi-anity of his youth, and family poverty did

not dispel an optimistic outlook on life.Unfortunately, Abel’s life was cut short atage twenty-six by a tuberculosis epidemic.

Maria Gaetana Agnesi (1718-1799) wasone of the mostextraordinarywomen scholarsof all time. By ageten this girl fromMilan, Italy hadmastered French,Latin, Greek, andHebrew lan-

guages. She soon followed her father intothe world of mathematics. Maria ex-panded the known calculus of her day,

I n the mid1970's I readthat there was

a secular, state uni-versity that had aDean of the Col-lege of Engineer-ing who was acreationist. Icouldn't believe myeyes. As a crea-tionist researchprofessor at a large,state university inFlorida, I knewhow hard it is for acreation scientist toget tenure and bepromoted. But acreationist becom-ing a top adminis-trator, a Dean of anentire College —that sounded al-most impossible.

Of course, that creationist Dean was noneother than Dr. David R. Boylan, who isnow retiring from the Board of Directorsof the Creation Research Society (CRS).

Dr. Boylan went to Iowa State Uni-versity in Ames, Iowa in 1948 as an As-sistant Professor of Theoretical and Ap-plied Mechanics. He earned the Ph.D. inchemical engineering in 1952. By 1959 hewas a Full Professor and Associate Direc-tor of the Iowa State Engineering Re-search Institute which utilized over $4million a year in research contracts.

In 1970 Dr. Boylan was named Deanof the College of Engineering at IowaState University where he served untilJuly of 1988. He presided over a period ofsignificant growth with the enrollment ofthe College of Engineering growing from2,500 students in 1970 to 5,800 studentsin 1988. Dave Boylan resigned from theDean's position at the age of 65, but he didnot retire. He went back to teaching, fi-nally retiring from secular academia in

May of 1992.

I first met Dave Boylan in April of1983 at a CRS Board of Directors meet-ing at Ann Arbor, Michigan. He served onthe Board for 21 years (1977 to 1998).Due to the age limitation in the CRS

FormerIowaState

UniversityDean

RetiresFrom CRS

Board

byDavid A.

Kaufmann,Ph.D.

November / December 1998 2A publication of the Creation Research Society

writing Analytical Institutions in two largevolumes. Only her womanhood preventedMaria from honored membership in themathematical societies of her day. HerCatholic faith grew in personal importanceover the years. Around age 45 she beganto devote all her time to helping the sickand poor around her. She took charge of alocal hospital and became known as “anangel of consolation.” Upon her deathMaria was buried alongside some of thepatients she had cared for. This dearwoman combined an outstanding mathe-matics career with a life of sacrificialChristian service.

George Boole (1815-1864) was an Eng-lish mathematician who helped establishsymbolic logic, now called Boolean Alge-bra. Though he was trained as a preacher,Boole’s binary mathematical abilities soonblossomed. His unique algebraic systemwaited until the modern digital electronicsrevolution to find widespread application.

Boole had great interest in the spiritualwelfare of youth. In a sermon to youngmen he said, “Would that some part of theyouthful enthusiasm of this present as-sembly might thus expend itself in laborsof benevolence! Would that we could allfeel the deep weight and truth of the Di-vine sentiment that ‘no man liveth tohimself and no man dieth to himself.’”This truth is taken from Romans 14:7.Boole’s final words were the request thathis five young daughters not fall into thehands of the liberal preachers of his day.

Augustin-Louis Cauchy (1789-1857) iswell known in mathematics. He did muchoriginal work in differential equation so-lutions and in understanding group theory.During the last 19 years of his life Cauchyproduced over 500 technical papers ex-plaining the mathematical foundations ofmechanics, physics, and astronomy. Hewas the first to fully explain the importantmathematical concepts of limit and con-vergence of functions. He was brought upin a French Catholic family. Cauchy tookhis faith seriously and was very evangel-

istic toward others. His final words wereto the Archbishop of Paris who was at hisside: “Men pass away but their deedsabide.”

Augustus De Morgan (1806-1871) was aworld-class mathematician who foundedsymbolic logic along with George Boole.Nearly two centuries later, this field ofmathematics is essential to the growth ofdigital electronics. De Morgan was aChristian with strong principles. He wasnever awarded his graduate degree fromTrinity College in England because he re-fused to sign a questionable doctrinalstatement. A sentence in De Morgan’swill reads: “I commend my future withhope and confidence to Almighty God; toGod the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,whom I believe in my heart to be the Sonof God but whom I have not confessedwith my lips because in my time suchconfession has always been the way up inthe world.”

Leonhard Euler (1707-1783) was the sonof a Calvinist pastor and lived in Switzer-land. One of the greatest mathematicians

of all time, Euler always remained close tohis Christian roots. Although he becameblind in later years, Euler still managed toauthor outstanding mathematics papersand books totaling 70 volumes. He wasthus one of the most prolific mathemati-cians of all time. Euler was a family manwith 13 children, and he claimed that hishome was his joy. Euler’s contemporariesincluded the French atheists Voltaire andDenis Diderot. A popular story shows thatEuler enjoyed humor. One day, in thepresence of Russia’s Catherine the Great,Euler and Diderot debated theology. Eulersaid, “Sir, (a+bn)/n = x, hence God exists.What is your reply?” Diderot, not recog-nizing a meaningless formula, sat in em-barrassed silence. The room erupted inlaughter, and Diderot soon retreated to hishome in France.

Willem Jacob s’Gravesande (1688-1742) was an outstanding Dutch mathema-tician. His Mathematical Elements ofPhysics (1720) promoted the creationistviews of his contemporary Isaac Newton.s’Gravesande wrote that the task of phys-

ics was to determine the laws of nature aslaid down by the Creator, and to unfoldtheir regular operation throughout the uni-verse. Newton agreed with this lofty jobdescription for scientists.

Christian Huygens (1629-1695) was Eu-rope’s greatestmathematician dur-ing his lifetime. Hisaccomplishmentsincluded the inven-tion of the pendulumclock in 1656, ge-ometry theorems,optics laws, and thediscovery of

Saturn’s largest moon, Titan, in 1655. Healso developed the wave theory of light.Huygens reasoned in a 1690 book thatGod’s providence and wisdom are mademanifest in the creation and complexity ofliving things.

Leopold Kronecker (1823-1891) wasborn the son ofprosperous Jewishparents in Liegnitz,Poland. Kroneck-er’s name todayappears often inmathematical phys-ics. For example,the Kroneckerdelta function is

named in his honor. He made importantcontributions in the theory of algebra, el-liptic functions, and calculus. Kroneckerhad a special fondness for the beauty ofwhole numbers. He once jokingly said,“God made the integers, all the rest is thework of man.” Each of Kronecker’s sixchildren embraced the Christian faith.Following their example, Kronecker him-self converted from Judaism to evangelicalChristianity in the final year of his life.

Colin Maclaurin (1698-1746) was theson of a Scottishpastor. As an out-standing mathemati-cian, Maclaurin wasinvited to join theBritish Royal Soci-ety at age 21. TheMaclaurin series, aspecial case of theTaylor series, is

used universally in modern mathematics toexpand functions. Maclaurin held an un-

“God made the integers,all the rest is the work of man.”

— Kronecker

Men and Women...continued from page 1

3A publication of the Creation Research SocietyNovember / December 1998

wavering belief in God and in the futurelife, which he explained in a published ar-ticle about Isaac Newton. After his deathin 1746, Maclaurin’s friend AlexanderMunro paid tribute to him with thesewords: “He was more nobly distinguishedfrom the bulk of mankind by the qualitiesof the heart: his sincere love of God andmen, his universal benevolence and unaf-fected piety together with a warmth andconstancy in his friendship that was in amanner peculiar to himself.”

Pierre Louis de Maupertuis (1698-1759)distinguished him-self in mathematics,physics, and biol-ogy. He was anearly president ofthe French Acad-emy of Science.Maupertuis did ini-tial studies on theprinciple of least

action which describes a tendency of na-ture to function in the most efficient waypossible. For example, light always fol-lows the path of least time when travelingbetween two points. Maupertuis wrote in1756, “These [conservation] laws, sobeautiful and so simple, are perhaps theonly ones which the Creator and Organizerof things has established in matter in orderto effect all the phenomena of the visibleworld.”

Marin Mersenne (1588-1648) was a closefriend of the creationist astronomer PierreGassendi. Mersenne advanced the study ofacoustics, mechanics, and optics. As oneexample, in 1634 he discovered the well-known law that the period of a pendulumvaries as the square root of its length. Healso described the mathematical details ofthe cycloid curve. A Bible believer, Mer-senne’s 1623 book Questions in Genesisdefended Christianity against, in hiswords, “atheists, magicians, deists andsuchlike.”

Charles Sanders Pierce (1839-1914)made mathematical contributions in manyareas. He studied associative algebra, thetheory of aggregates, transfinite arithmetic,and probability. Pierce was also interestedin the integrity and well-being of Americansociety. In an article on mathematicallogic titled The Red and the Black, Pierceshowed that hope for the future is essentialfor a community’s health. He went on withthese words, “As for the other two senti-

ments which I find necessary, they are soonly as supports and accessories of that. Itinterests me to notice that these three sen-timents seem to be pretty much the same asthat famous trio of Charity, Faith, andHope, which, in the estimation of St. Paul,are the finest and greatest of spiritual gifts.Neither Old nor New Testament is a text-book of the logic of science, but the latteris certainly the highest existing authority inregard to the dispositions of heart which aman ought to have.”

John Henry Pratt (1809-1871) madeearly studies of the exact mathematicalshape of the earth, which is not quitespherical due to its rotational motion. Hisanalysis led to the oblate shape, a sphereslightly flattened at the poles, which is ac-cepted today for the earth. Pratt also cor-rectly calculated the earth’s radius and theprocessional motion of its axis. The son ofmissionaries, Pratt spent his life sharingthe gospel with others. He believed thatscience and Scripture were complementaryavenues for learning about the Creator. Hedied in India while on a missionary tour of

duty, at age 62.

Andreas Tocquet (1612-1660) taughtmathematics in several European universi-ties. He originated many theorems, espe-cially those involving the geometry ofcylinders and rings. A master teacher andwriter, Tocquet’s textbooks were used bygenerations of mathematics students. Hemaintained a lifetime devotion to theCatholic faith and was known for a posi-tive Christian testimony before his stu-dents.

John Wallis (1616-1703) was a mathe-matics professorat Oxford Univer-sity in England.His 1656 bookArithmetica Infi-nitorum containsmany originaltheorems andderivations con-cerning conic sec-

tions. Wallis originated the use of the

“lazy eight” symbol for infinity. He alsowas the first to suggest the physics law ofconservation of momentum, in 1668.During 1690-1692 Wallis published a se-ries of letters and sermons in support of theHoly Trinity which he directed againstUnitarian opponents. As a helpful illus-tration he compared the mystery of theTrinity to a mathematical cube with itsthree dimensions of length, width, andheight. All three sides equally make up thecube, yet are distinct. Wallis’ lifelongfaith was supported by a Puritan upbring-ing and lifelong membership in the Churchof England.

Edmund Taylor Whittaker (1873-1956)did original mathematics work with dif-ferential equations and complex variables.His book The Calculus of Observations(1924) was one of the first written ex-pressions of numerical analysis. His out-standing lectures at the University of Ed-inburgh motivated mathematics careers foran entire generation of students. Whittakerwas a deeply religious scholar. He wrotethat he deplored the trends of modern life

in which “the sense of the creaturelinessand dependence has passed away, and Godis left out of account.”

Conclusion: In 1996, one thousandrandomly-selected scientists were askedabout personal beliefs. The results weresurprising: 39.3 percent expressed faith ina personal God. A similar survey eightyyears earlier in 1916 gave a similar 41.8percentage for belief in the Creator. Thosewho predict the imminent demise ofChristianity in today’s technological worldare clearly wrong. A biblical faith is im-portant to true science and mathematicalunderstanding at all times, including thepast, present, and future.

ReferenceMorris, Henry. 1982. Men of Science Men of God.

Institute for Creation Research. San Diego.Dr. DeYoung is Professor of Physics at Grace Col-lege in Winona Lake, Indiana, and is Vice-Presidentof the Creation Research Society. This article is ex-cerpted from a future creationist biographical bookon which he is working.

“These [conservation] laws ... are perhaps the onlyones which the Creator and Organizer of things has

established in matter in order to effect all thephenomena of the visible world.”

— Maupertuis

4A publication of the Creation Research SocietyNovember / December 1998

T his is a personal account andsummary of current trends increationist research. It is based on

my observations and impressions after at-tending the Fourth International Confer-ence on Creationism (ICC). The purposeof this report is twofold: 1) To allow me togather and synthesize my thoughts, im-pressions, and memories of the conference.2) To provide a summary of the conferencefor those who could not attend, so they canhave the benefit of knowing what is goingon in creationist research. Obviously, thepapers, information, and topics covered inthis report will primarily be the ones thatmade the biggest impression on me. WhileI will attempt to be as thorough as possible,something of importance to someone elsereading this report may be omitted. Fi-nally, as there were two simultaneoustracks, I was not able to attend all of thelectures. Hence, the reporting on thoselectures that I did not attend is based on thepapers as printed in the proceedings andaudio tapes of selected lectures that were ofinterest to me.

There was also a third track, whichwas an educational track. Ginger attendedmost of those sessions. Her thoughts,impressions, and conclusions are includedin the educational section of this report.

About the ConferenceHeld every four years, the ICC is sponsoredby Creation Science Fellowship (CSF) ofPittsburgh. This conference was heldAugust 3-8, 1998 at Geneva College inBeaver Falls, PA near Pittsburgh. Ap-proximately 350 scientists, teachers, andgeneral public attended the conference.

CSF did a marvelous job of hostingthis year’s conference. I was impressedwith how well organized it was and howsmoothly it was run. As a host site, GenevaCollege was superb. The food service inthe cafeteria was excellent. I was alsoimpressed with the meeting rooms andauditorium. Sound, lighting, and seatingwere all very good.

Technical Sessions (General)There were 47 technical papers presentedat this conference and provided in the bookof proceedings. One paper in the pro-ceedings was not presented and one paperwas presented over 2 sessions. For thepurposes of a general overview, I have di-vided the papers into general categories.The general categories are Astronomy,Biblical Studies, Biology (which includespapers dealing with studies of biologicalfossils), Geology, Physics (includingAstro-Geophysics), and Social Sciences(including papers dealing with worldviewsand law). The number of papers repre-senting the various categories is shown inTable 1. This categorization is my own —others may group the papers differently,especially since some of the papers covermore than one category. Table 1 reflectsonly the papers published in the proceed-ings, and does not include the eveningsessions and the education track.

Observation of Table 1 shows that thepreponderance of papers focused on Biol-ogy, Geology, and Physics. Note that theSocial Sciences, Biblical Studies, and es-pecially Astronomy are not well repre-sented. In his presentation on the finalnight of the conference, Dr. Kurt Wiseindicated that the fields of Geology andBiology are the furthest along in develop-ing creationist models. The number ofpapers in those fields confirms that thefocus of research is indeed in those areas.Hence, it would not be surprising that theywould be the furthest along. It should benoted that some of the Astro-Geophysicspapers that I included in the Physics cate-gory could be included with Geology,which would make that the highest cate-gory. Dr. Wise con-sidered Geology to befurther along than Bi-ology.

ImportantAdvancesIn this section I will

highlight a few of the papers that stood outto me as making critically important ad-vances to Creation Science.

Age of the Earth: First is a paper byAndrew Snelling of Australia, which wasvoted to be the best technical paper. It isentitled, “The Cause of AnomalousPotassium-Argon ‘Ages’ for Recent An-desite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zea-land, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon ‘Dating’”. Please do not be in-timidated by the title. (I would be.) Theimpact of this paper on the creation/evolution debate is simple and profound.

Dr. Snelling collected samples of so-lidified lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe. Thelava flows are known to have solidified in1949, 1954, and 1975. He had thesesamples Potassium-Argon dated with in-dicated ages ranging from less than270,000 years to 3,500,000 years. Stan-dard dating methods maintain that Argon(40Ar) does not begin to accumulate in alava rock until it solidifies. In other words,while the lava is still liquid, the argon isable to escape. The problem is that thesesamples showed ages of hundreds ofthousands of years when we know that theysolidified less than 50 years ago. If theysolidified less than 50 years ago and thestandard dating methods are correct, thereshould not be enough Argon in the rocks toobtain ages of hundreds of thousands tomillions of years. Since we know whenthey solidified, then the only alternativeleft is that the standard dating methods areflawed.

Finding extra Argon in lava rocks isnot new, but Dr. Snelling went much fur-ther and concluded that the extra Argonappears to have come from “leftover pri-

DISCIPLINEDISCIPLINEDISCIPLINE NUMBER OF PAPERSNUMBER OF PAPERSNUMBER OF PAPERSAstronomyAstronomyy 22Biblical Studies 7

i li lBiology 1111GeologyGeology 1111Physics 10Social Sciences 6

Table 1 Distribution of Papers in the ProceedingsTable 1- Distribution of Papers in the ProceedingsTable 1- Distribution of Papers in the Proceedings

Current Trends in Creationist Research:A Report on the 1998 International Conference on Creationism

by Richard Overman, M. S. and Virginia (Ginger) Overman

5A publication of the Creation Research SocietyNovember / December 1998

mordial argon” in the upper mantle. Inother words, the kind of Argon that ismeasured in Potassium-Argon datingschemes has existed from creation. Heconcludes that this has two very importantimplications. “First, this is clearly con-sistent with a young Earth, where the veryshort time-scale since the creation of theEarth has been insufficient for all of theprimordial argon to be released yet fromthe Earth’s deep interior.”

The second implication is that “whensamples of crustal rocks are analyzed for[Potassium-Argon] ‘dating’, the investi-gators can never really be sure that the40Ar in the sample is from in situ radio-active decay … or whether some or all of itis from the excess 40Ar” in the mantle. Inshort, Dr. Snelling has scientifically shownthat the zero initial condition assumptionof radiometric dating is probably a verybad assumption. This meansthat when a scientist measuresArgon in a rock sample, he orshe has no way of knowinghow much of the Argon is dueto radioactive decay and howmuch was there to begin with.Hence, there is no way ofknowing how “old” the rockis. We hope and expect to be able to showthese same results with other radiometricdating techniques, and to destroy radio-metric dating as the savior of an old earth.

Categorizing Species: Another paperthat piqued my interest and that, I believe,may have very significant implications onthe creation/evolution debate was a paperentitled “Is Life Singularly Nested orNot?” by Dr. Kurt Wise. Dr. Wise ad-dressed the area of animal classifications,such as, mammals, reptiles, vertebrates,primates, etc. One of the dilemmas thatcreationists have had is that evolutionseems to explain the current way of or-ganizing organisms better than does crea-tion. This should not be surprising sinceevolutionists invented it. Even thoughthey invented it, they still have to playgames with animal characteristics in orderto make their systems work.

Dr. Wise showed that trying to fit theanimals into a single pattern, which iscalled singularly nested, is an exercise infutility. Many “best” groupings can beidentified for the animals. In other words,depending on which characteristics you are

looking at, a single animal could be in-cluded in multiple groups. Computermodeling has shown that there are manyways to organize the animal kingdom, andany one of the ways could be consideredthe “best” way. This is called multi-nesting. Dr. Wise proposes a multi-nestedapproach to classifying animals and endswith the following conclusion.

“The unique nested pattern of lifememorized by our children insecondary school is pointed to asevidence of macroevolution intertiary schools. This contributesto the faith-challenges encoun-tered by our children in evolu-tionary education. If life is net-worked or multiple-nested, andour children were taught a properperspective on that, the appeal tobio-classification as evidence of

macroevolution would be nulli-fied.”

Vapor Canopy: The next paper I willaddress is on a topic I have been followingfor a few years which, in my opinion,represents one of the best examples ofcreationist research. For years creationistshave proposed that God placed a vaporcanopy around the earth on the second dayof creation. It is believed by many that thecollapse of this canopy was the cause ofthe 40 days and nights of rain during thetime of the flood. David Rush and Dr.Larry Vardiman tested this theory withcomputer modeling and gave their initialreport at the third ICC in 1994. The reportwas not encouraging. They found that ifthere was enough water in the canopy toprovide substantial amounts of rain for 40days and nights, the temperature on earthwould be too hot for people to live. Inorder to get the earth surface temperaturesdown to a tolerable level, there could onlybe enough water in the canopy for a fewfeet of rain on the earth. This came as amajor surprise to the creationist commu-nity and has caused us to open new lines of

scientific inquiry into the meaning of “thewindows of heaven were opened” as theBible describes one source of water for theflood.

Dr. Vardiman provided an update tothis research at this ICC. He has refinedthe computer modeling but has not beenable to account for substantially more wa-ter in the canopy. This line of research, todate, does not show that the canopy did notexist. It only shows that the canopy couldnot have been a substantial source of waterfor the flood. The research continues, butit needs to be more widely disseminated.Many popularizers of creation are stilltouting the canopy as the source of waterfor the 40 days and nights of rain. Re-search to date indicates this may not havebeen the case.

Neanderthal Man: Finally, I willdiscuss a fascinating paper by Dr. John

Cuozzo entitled “What Hap-pened to the CranifacialStructure of Humans whoLive Past 100 Years? Nean-derthal Similarities.” Dr.Cuozzo has been researchingNeanderthal fossils for anumber of years. He has also

been researching changes to the humanhead and face with aging. He stated that“The picture that we get here is of an agingskull which, in general terms, grows muchlonger, a little wider with practically noincrease and sometimes decrease inheight.”

He also noted that other researchershave found that “the cranium throughoutlife continues to thicken in certain places.”By compiling data from extensive studies,Dr. Cuozzo and Brian Garner were able todevelop a computer model of modern hu-man head and facial changes with age.With the computer model, they were ableto predict what a human face and headwould look like at age 500. Comparingtheir computer predictions with Neander-thal skulls, he concluded that “Evidencehas been presented for the Neanderthalpeoples to actually be the old humans de-scribed in the Bible.”

Importance of the ICCThe papers summarized above highlightthe importance of conferences like theICC. One of the conference participants

I believe everyone who speaks oncreation science has an obligation tokeep current on creationist research.

6November / December 1998 A publication of the Creation Research Society

commented that “most of the prominentpopularizers of creation science are nothere.” He was right and his comment wassaddening. God has given me a ministry ofteaching the truths of creation wherever hesends me. One reason I attended the ICCwas so I could keep current on creationresearch. As a non-prominent popularizerof creation science, I would not want to beteaching untruths while teaching the truthsof God’s creation. I believe everyone whospeaks on creation science has an obliga-tion to keep current on creationist research.(I shall gracefully descend from my soap-box at this time.)

My PaperOf the 150, or so, papers that started thepeer review process, I had the privilege ofpresenting one of the 47 that were selected.My paper, entitled “Comparing OriginsBelief and Moral Views,” was a report onmy Masters Thesis at the Institute forCreation Research. As I became moreinvolved in creation science, I kept hearinga common refrain similar to “what youbelieve about creation and evolution af-fects your moral views.” While thisseemed reasonable, I began to ask myself“how do we know this?” I wondered ifthere were any scientific data to supportthis view. People who made this claimwould often support their idea with philo-sophical or anecdotal information, but Icould not find any empirical studies tosupport this claim. So, I conducted a sur-vey of K-12 science teachers in America.

The survey was designed to measuretheir beliefs about creation and evolutionas well as measure their moral views.When I compared their origins beliefs totheir moral views I found that there is,indeed, a relationship. Those who tendedto believe in creation tended to have“positive” moral views (moral views thatare consistent with the character of God asrevealed in scripture). Those who believedin evolution tended to have negative moralviews. The survey was not designed todetermine whether one caused the other. Itwas only designed to see if there was arelationship.

More research needs to be done to seeif there is cause and effect. I hope that thiswill be the first of many studies and willserve to open a new line of scientific in-quiry in creation science. If we can con-

clusively show that a person’s belief aboutcreation and evolution affects his or hermoral views, maybe God’s church willtake this issue more seriously and under-stand the danger of compromising withevolutionary religious beliefs. (Since thisis my paper, I guess I’m allowed anothersoapbox.)

Educational TrackNone of the papers published in the ICCproceedings were from the educationaltrack. I was left with impressions of howthe truths of creation should be taught inthe public education arena. Many of thespeakers relayed their personal experi-ences — some positive, but mostly nega-tive. I will attempt to summarize the ad-vice I gleaned from the papers.

Do not bring up the subject of God,just stick with the science. Dave Nutting,from Alpha Omega Institute in Colorado,says that when students in public schoolsask him who he thinks the Creator or De-signer is, he answers by saying he believesthat He is the God of the Bible. If they areinterested in knowing more about that,they can attend the church meeting atwhich he is speaking.

Videotape the session. Dave Nuttingalways videotapes his sessions so that ifanyone sues him, he has protection andproof of exactly what he did.

Get permission from those in author-ity over you. Let the principal or otherswho are in authority over you know whatyou plan to do. Several attribute keepingtheir jobs to doing just that.

Get personal counsel (be proactive)before you start. Legal actions broughtagainst teachers often occur within a pe-riod of a few days. If you wait until then toget a personal lawyer, you will probablystill be waiting for an appointment wheneverything is over and a decision has al-ready been made.

Mark Wisniewski wishes he had pro-cured personal counsel before the wholemess started with him. He was using theissue of creation/evolution to teach hisstudents critical thinking skills. A studentwrote in the school paper a praise ofWisniewski’s technique. The press pickedit up and the ACLU came in and threatenedlawsuit of the school system. As a result,neither he nor any other teacher can ad-

dress any controversial topic. Mark at-tributes keeping his job to his being amember of the teacher’s union. A unionlawyer, who he assumed would be repre-senting him, told Wisniewski that he hadnot done anything wrong. A few days laterhe went to the scheduled meeting with theschool administration. However, just min-utes before the meeting a different lawyerarrived to represent him, and told him thatwhat he was doing was illegal. He hadn’teven had an opportunity to talk with thenew lawyer to explain what he had beendoing.

Don’t be cooperative with the press.Mark Wisniewski was interviewed by thepress who turned everything around, mis-representing what he was trying to do inclass. In hindsight, he would not have triedto answer to them.

Make sure you have tenure before youstart to teach anything about creation. Dr.Kenyon, a university professor, introducedhis students to creation and the problemswith evolution, but he waited until after hehad tenure. Then, even though some ac-tion was taken, he could not be fired. Theresulting action was that he could onlyaddress the topic in 5% of his classes. Hefigured out that he could teach the topic inone or two of his classes.

According to Robert Melnick, a law-yer with the Rutherford Institute, theACLU is waiting with their guns loadedand millions of dollars to challenge anyteacher who teaches creation and theproblems of evolution. This is not to scareyou away. It is reality. One thing I wouldsuggest is joining one of the alternativeteachers’ groups (alternative to the NEA)who told me they would back up teachersfinancially if they were taken to court.Check with them to be sure that they willindeed back you up, and be sure it is inwriting. One organization I have spoken tois the Christian Educators Association In-ternational (818-798-1124).

ConclusionI am very excited about the current trendsin creationist research. I have come tobelieve that the age of the earth is one ofthe most crucial issues in the creation/evolution debate. If we can conclusivelyshow that the earth and universe are not

...continued on page 7

7November / December 1998 A publication of the Creation Research Society

Board Member Retires...continued from page 1

Constitution, he is no longer eligible toserve. For years he was Chairman of theConstitution/Advanced Planning Com-mittee. All my dealings with Dave Boylanwere fantastic. He was always organized,efficient, punctual, and worked throughany problems that arose. He always hadan attitude of humility and servant hood. Inever once saw him ramrod his ideas orways on anyone on the Board. He wasmore of a “go-giver” than a “go-getter.”

What a pleasure to serve with a man whowas a real servant-leader. How fortunatewere those faculty members in the Col-lege of Engineering at Iowa State to workunder a leader with his traits.

Although Dave Boylan has retiredfrom secular academia and the CRSBoard, he has not retired from serving hisCreator, Savior and Comforter. Presentlyhe is a Professor and Special Counsel tothe President of Faith Baptist Bible Col-lege, Ankeny, Iowa. The CRS Board willcontinue each year conducting its busi-ness. But we will do it without Dave

Boylan. I personally will miss his humbleinput and faithful service. Thanks, Dave,for allowing me the privilege of workingwith you these past 15 years.Dr. Kaufmann is Secretary of the CRS Board ofDirectors. He recently retired from his position asProfessor of Exercise Science at the University ofFlorida.

I’ve been around since Creation WeekDrawn toward earth in my grand sweep.

Like you I can’t escape the force.It pulls on me, I stay the course.

I watched the world during the Flood.I rode the waves, and stirred the mud.

Both worship and fear have come my way.The fear will increase in a future day.

Meanwhile I serve as a faithful guide.Across the earth I softly glide.

Man cannot understand my start.I come from the Creator’s loving heart.

Who am I?(See back page for answer.)

by Don DeYoung

millions of years old, we will have won thebattle that will break the back of evolu-tionary philosophy. Scientists working onthis issue are making great strides.

It is also exciting to see where the re-search trends in Biology are going. I’mheartened to see that creationist biologistsare casting off evolutionary-based baggagelike the current species classification sys-tem. They are opening their hearts andminds to other possibilities. In so doing,they are more open to the leading of the

Holy Spirit as they attempt to “think God’sthoughts after him.”

The one area where I believe crea-tionist efforts are severely lacking is As-tronomy. If we are going to win theage-of-the-universe battle, we must answerthe question of millions of light years.There are also many other lines of scien-tific inquiry in Astronomy that need to beaddressed. I pray that God will raise upmore creationist astronomers who are will-ing to shed evolutionary-based baggageand be willing to open their hearts andminds to the leading of the Holy Spirit soGod can reveal His truth.

May God grant us the wisdom, courage,

and love for one another to carry on andsolve the mysteries of His creation. I praythat we will be united in one common goalof glorifying God and exposing the mythof evolution.Rich Overman’s master’s degree is in science edu-cation. He can be reached at Creation EducationResources, Inc., P.O. Box 1853, Orange Park, FL32067-1853.

ICC Report...continued from page 6

The real difficulty with his the-ory is in explaining how the

information coding the path ofevolution ... was built into thelaws of nature at the creation

of the universe.

The major thesis of the book is “thatthe cosmos is uniquely fit for hu-man existence” (p. xii), and evi-

dence of such unique fitness is presented.Denton builds his case by accumulatingarguments to such an extent that it almostbecomes repetitive, which is acknowl-edged by the author. He argues that it isprecisely because so many arguments canbe made that he can draw his conclusion.Whilst facts concerning the unique condi-tions necessary for biological life are notnew, Denton's book does an excellent jobin presenting them.

Denton appears to accept thewhole evolution scenario, from theBig Bang to the Big Brain; that is,that all phenomena in the cosmoscan be explained in terms of anatural evolutionary process (p.xviii). Where his views differ fromthe standard orthodoxy is in themethod of evolution. Instead ofrandom mutations as the raw mate-rial on which natural selectionworks, Denton proposes that evo-lution has been a directed processfrom the beginning. Denton suggests thatthe direction of evolution was prepro-grammed or preordained when the uni-verse came into existence, but appears toaccept that since then evolution has run itscourse without added assistance. Hence,biological evolution occurs naturalisti-cally, in a sense, but it can only followgenetic paths already mapped out for itahead of time. According to this idea thepathways available to each organism, asthe evolutionary tree of life branches outover time, are severely restricted by theoptions available to it in DNA space.

In the beginning of the book Dentonmakes it clear that the teleological argu-ment presented is incompatible with a be-lief in special creation, to the extent thatevidence for one is evidence against theother (p. xviii). I found this reasoning a bitstrange as Denton's main evidence, as pre-sented in the book, is the unique fitness of

life on earth — that is, that organisms areoptimally designed for their role. A crea-tionist would, quite reasonably, cite this asevidence for a designer. Denton adds thatevidence for his case would be consistentwith or supported if “life on earth ap-proximates to the plenitude of all possiblebiological forms” (p. 299). Such a notion isimpossible to prove, but even if it could beshown to be true I also fail to see how thiscould be used as evidence against specialcreation.

Denton toys with the possibility that

junk DNA may have coded for some of thedirection that biological evolution hastaken over time. In fact, he states that“Junk DNA and directed evolution are inthe end incompatible concepts. Only if thejunk DNA contained information specify-ing for future evolutionary events, when itwould not in a strict sense be junk in anycase, could the finding be reconciled with ateleological model of evolution” (p.289-291). Many creationists would alsosupport the idea that what is currently la-beled as junk DNA may yet be shown tohave a purpose, although not an evolu-tionary one.

The main argument Denton puts forthto support the notion of directed evolutionis that the universe and earth, with theirlaws of physics, chemistry, etc., areuniquely fit to support life, and that anyslight variation to one of many constantswould make life almost impossible. In-

cluded in his argument is that life, if itexists elsewhere in the universe, must ofnecessity be similar to that on earth. This isbecause there is not, according to his the-ory, the flexibility for life to evolve in anyother major way. In fact, Denton states thathis hypothesis, based on the anthropocen-tric presumption, would be disproved if itwere demonstrated that life systems basedon different designs are possible, or if ex-amples were shown where “the laws ofnature are not specifically fit for life as itexists on earth” (p. 380).

The book is full of illustrationsof how finely tuned are the condi-tions for life, and how tinkering withany part of the system would havecatastrophic results. Some examplesdiscussed include “the fitness of wa-ter for carbon-based life, the mutualfitness of sunlight and life, the fit-ness of oxygen and oxidations as asource of energy for carbon-basedlife, the fitness of carbon dioxide forthe excretion of the products of car-bon oxidation, the fitness of bicar-bonate as a buffer for biological

systems” (p. 391), etc.

Denton also discusses “complex andunusual adaptations whose evolution isvery difficult to account for in terms of agradual accumulation of successively ad-vantageous changes” (p. 354). Among thecomplex systems discussed are the eye ofthe lobster, the eye of the scallop, the mar-supial frog, and the avian lung. Here Den-ton should be commended for pointing outone of the main difficulties with undirectedevolution; i.e., how the complex structuresseen in some organisms could have comeabout without pre-planned design.

In conclusion, Denton’s notion of di-rected evolution, through a process akin toa type of ‘naturalistic predestination,’ isbased on evidence for the unique fitness ofcomplex life forms on earth. The real dif-ficulty with his theory is in explaining how

Book ReviewNature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe

(New York: The Free Press, 1998) by Michael J. Denton. 448 pages, $27.50 (hardcover)

Reviewed by Peter Line, Ph.D.

8November / December 1998 A publication of the Creation Research Society

...continued on page 9

the information coding the path of evolu-tion (both biological and non-biological)was built into the laws of nature at thecreation of the universe. For example,since he accepts the Big Bang theory, howcan the information to direct evolution toeventually produce the human brain bestored in atoms of hydrogen, of which the

matter in the universe was once supposedlycomprised.

This may not be what Denton is say-ing, but if the whole evolution scenario hasbeen contrived ahead of time then what arethe alternatives? There must be some in-formation, either restricting evolution toonly follow the pre-planned paths leadingto viable alternatives, or directing evolu-tion over hurdles that it can only overcome

by assisted jumps. If not, then his theorydiffers little, if any, from undirected evo-lution. Hence, the question needs to beasked concerning the whereabouts of theinformation needed to direct the path ofevolution. On this point Denton is vague,leaving the reader with the impression thathe is himself very much struggling for an-swers.Peter Line is a research neuroscientist living in Car-rum Downs, Victoria, Australia.

9November / December 1998 A publication of the Creation Research Society

Nature’s Destiny...continued from page 8

In his talk, Gould suggested that thefuture and past are not predictablebecause chance determines all. Ac-

tually, the theory of chaos was mentionedas the main mechanism for turning asingle cell into many life forms in a veryshort span of time (60 million years). Hespent much time talking about historical“what if” scenarios in order to point outthat a slight change in the result of anyparticular battle would have resulted in adrastically different historical timeline.He then took this point into the evolu-tionary realm and maintained that we(homo sapiens) are basically just a glori-ous accident.

He also spent some of his timecreationist-bashing. He talked about thecreation phenomenon in derogatory termsand took pleasure in showing a statue ofAgassiz which had fallen from its pedes-tal in an earthquake and was headfirst inthe surrounding cement. He dismissedGod by suggesting (and quoting Darwin)that since chance is a determining factorin life, then there is no need for God.During his talk he promoted his idea of“quirky functional shifts” as latentmechanisms of diversification of species.He also suggested that dinosaurs gotfeathers to aid in thermoregulation and bya “quirk” they eventually got wings to fly(or not as the case may be). It is obviousthat Gould has not changed from believ-ing in punctuated equilibrium.

I am amazed beyond measure at thegullibility of students, teachers and thepublic in general. There was not an iota

of “good” science in this talk. Let meexplain:

1. Chance is not a deterministicfactor. Chance or probability issimply man’s way of copingwith ignorance. We use prob-ability to help us improve ourpredictions despite our igno-rance. Throughout Gould’s talkit was apparent that for him,chance is a real force. It is not.

2. Chaos is not a deterministicfactor. Chaos is just a groupingof chance events. If I leave myteenagers at home for the week-end without supervision“chaos” will be MY descriptionof the result; but it is not thedetermining factor in the pro-duction of what I call chaos.The teenagers themselves arethe determining factor.

3. The word evolution was mis-used throughout the talk. Gouldtalked about peppered moths,and plants growing despite toxicwaste, claiming that these arenot examples ofevolution be-cause this would mean thatevolution happens too fast.Wrong, Dr. Gould. These arenot examples of evolution be-cause they are simply examplesof population dynamics, and aswe creationists have been sayingfor years, this is natural selec-tion which will only decrease

the gene pool and/or decreaseadaptability. Gould used theword “evolution” to describenatural selection, chance events,macro-evolution, and historicalcultural events. This can beconfusing to the average audi-ence, and probably is meant tobe so.

4. Quirky functional shifts areused by Gould to explain whyone evolutionary group wins outover another. In Gould’s view,these extraordinary evolution-ary shifts in organism function-ality render a species capable ofimprovement, with large evolu-tionary leaps the result. Theword “quirky” appears to beused by Gould to explain fossilevidence that doesn’t fit thegradualistic view of evolution.For examples of environmentalevents that would cause theseshifts, he cited the BurgessShale fossils and the disappear-ance of dinosaurs due to a me-teor hitting the earth. Naturally,he never once suggested a bio-molecular mechanism for thesequirky functional shifts.

5. Why would dinosaurs evolvefeathers for thermoregulationwhen they were perfectly able tohandle thermoregulation be-fore?

CommentaryEvangelist Stephen Jay Gould at McGill University

by Laurence Tisdall, M.S.

...continued on p. 10

Before I came to believe whole-heartedly in the Bible I believedin evolution. First, because it

had the authority and aura of Science(after all, Science had taken us to themoon...). Second, because of intellectualpride: I had good grades at school, I as-pired to be an engineer, and Science wasmy favorite subject. Moreover, followingthe trends of that moment, I had become askeptic of those things I was once taughtin Catechism and Sunday School, else Iwould be old fashioned and ridiculed.Third, because it was convenient: it didnot threaten my desires for sex out ofmarriage, nor my desire to be rich, nor mydesire for fame.

However, at the same time I couldeasily believe in UFO’s. Technologicaldevelopments made it seem that somedayit would be possible to explore the stars.Other factors included the thought thatnature could easily sprout life somewhereelse in the universe (evolution), and theneed for something bigger than life tobring the magic back to everyday reality.Thus I felt "modern," intelligent, enlight-ened, refined, and proud. But deep in-

side, I felt alone in the universe, fearful ofthe future (back then in the ’70s we werein the middle of the Cold War, and nu-clear annihilation seemed so real), withcynicism about everything.

So, believing in evolution is notreally such a far-fetched proposal afterall; I was there. But it is a religion,similar to Islam, Buddhism, New Age —modern man's religion. At first glance, itdoesn't seem a religion, because it sup-posedly is nonspiritual, void of magic,void of rituals and dogma. But in reality,it is so much so and even more. AlthoughI despised prayer, I could so easily accepttranscendental meditation. Believing inevolution made me feel so superior,which reminds me of the ancient line,“you will be like God, knowingeverything...”

In my own life, only family tragedyburst the inflating bubble that was myoutlook in life. Family tragedy, like theillness and death of my mom, made merethink what life was all about. Also,God opened my eyes to my own biasesand hypocrisy. All of us tend to think we

are good, that we are better than somepeople. But God allowed me to see mybad side, and this time I couldn’t hidebehind someone worse than I. You see, Istarted looking at Jesus, and once you seehis sacrifice for you, there are no moreexcuses.

Something else helped me to growup and change my mind about evolution.I couldn’t trust Billy Graham, but I couldeasily trust Carl Sagan. I couldn’t believein the Bible, but I could easily accept asfact every page of National Geographic.I took a look at myself in the mirror, andrealized that I had PREJUDICE, that Ihad a BIAS. We are all in favor ofsomething and against something, but theevolution crowd think that they have amonopoly on fairness and objectivity. Iwas there. Sometimes our world has tobe turned upside down for us to see our-selves as erring creatures, to lower ourconcepts about ourselves, to look at our-selves and see our shortcomings, to stopthe conceit. Once we do that, the Truthbecomes clearer.Manuel Rios is an Aerospace Engineer in the U.S.Navy.

Testimony

I Was Thereby Manuel Rios, M.S.

10November / December 1998 A publication of the Creation Research Society

6. Gould did not explain why anyphylum would become static. (Itseems to me that evolution wouldbe better served if all life formswere very plastic and able toadapt quickly). He does, how-ever, admit that stasis is the normin the geologic column.

7. Gould did not explain how asimple cell can branch out into somany phyla, so quickly (BurgessShale). It appears that beneficialmutations must be the norm, inGould’s mind. He claims thatchaos theory can explain thiswithout any problem. What faith!

Gould is definitely in a war with God.He took scripture out of context to try toprove that even the Bible promotes chance(Eccl. 9:11). He is very intelligent and isan evangelist in every respect. He eventried to console people about the future bymaintaining that good political decisionswill likely keep the undesirables in check.(This statement was made in the context ofevolutionary racism such as Naziism.) Hesaid that the universe has no reason for itsbeing — it’s just here. And his “alter call”is for the audience to just accept the factthat they exist, and to make the best of it.

As a final comment, I do not believethat Gould is a foe of any size for thecreationist. He wants to convince hisaudience that God is not, but that Gould is.I pray for his soul. He truly personifiesRomans 1:18-24 and, as can be expected,

the world runs to worship him. How sadto see the creature fight the creator, andhow sad to know that the end thereof isseeing the Light, understanding the Light,but never being able to live in the Light(Jesus Christ) (John 1:1-4).Laurence Tisdall’s graduate degree is in botany. Heis president and founder of the Creation Science As-sociation of Quebec.

Evangelist Gould...continued from page 9

11November / December 1998 A publication of the Creation Research Society

Many children, together with their par-ents, are confronted by the subject oforigins in public school classrooms. Itmay surprise some to learn how evolutionis sometimes presented in the early ele-mentary grades. This email message wasreceived from a desperate parent:

Dear CRS,

Last week was not pretty for my fourthgrade daughter who attends publicschool. Jenny had to make a presentationon how the earth was formed and lifebegan. Her presentation was second tolast — after other kids had given theirmostly evolutionary ideas. With tears inher eyes, she could hardly bring herself toread her three sentences that said she be-lieved God created the earth. She wasn'tsure she was right. As it turned out, allbut one of her classmates agreed with herwhen they voted at the end of her time.

On Tuesday, Sept. 29, she must pre-

sent one fact, based on recent evidence,that supports her theory of creation. Canyou help us come up with a fact or twobased on recent research (within the lastone to five years) that can be explained bya 9-year-old and understood by the rest ofher class? Thanks for any help you cangive.

Thank you very much,Steve ...

The message was forwarded to CRSBoard member Dr. Wayne Frair, whoprovided some information this younggirl could use. A few days later, the fol-lowing email was received from the girl’sfather:

Dear CRS,

This week went great! We were able tosend her into the classroom with a coupleof facts to back up her “theory” of crea-tion. She confidently raised her hand and

went first. Neither my wife nor I werethere, but after class the teacher asked fora copy of her presentation!!

Thank you for your help. The battleis ongoing though. Next week is cave art,though the teacher said they are not goingto talk about WHO drew the cave art.That will be followed in October by twoUniversity professors (paleontologists),who will do a presentation of some sort. Ibelieve that concludes their prehistoricunit. The rest of the year I will be trying tocounteract “environmentalism.” It ismostly an Earth Flag theme, with a lot of“save the earth” undercurrents.

I don't know... I may just pull her outof this optional “enrichment” class. It’s alittle hard to help a fourth grader under-stand where all this is coming from andwhere it is headed, etc. Any thoughts?

Thank you so much,Steve ...

Dear CRSHelp for a Fourth Grader

CRSnet update

F or over four years the CRS has sponsoredCRSnet. Early on it was simply an effortto compile the email addresses of CRS

members. Soon it developed into a private,full-fledged list-serv discussion group for anyonewho accepts a recent creation and worldwidecatastrophic flood as described in Genesis. Itwas hoped that ultimately CRSnet participantswould lend their support to creationist efforts byjoining the CRS. Several indeed became CRSmembers, for which we thank the Lord. How-ever, the proportion of CRS members on CRSnetremained steady at about 50%.

This fall a decision was made to limit par-ticipation to CRS members only. Thus, CRSnetparticipation is now one of the several benefits ofmembership in the CRS. Currently, we haveabout 140 active participants, with another 70 orso who have chosen to be inactive, but who can“drop in” any time to see what’s being discussed,or to post a message relevant to creation andevolution.

If you are a CRS member and would like toparticipate or just listen in to the discussions,send an email message to Glen Wolfrom atglenw@tfs.net.

from the editors of the

Creation ResearchSociety Quarterly

andCreation Matters

Note: Items in “Creation Calendar” are for information only; the listing of an event does not necessarily imply endorsement by the Creation Research Society.

Creation MattersISSN 1094-6632

A publication of the Creation Research SocietyVolume 3, Number 6

November / December 1998

Copyright © 1998, Creation Research SocietyAll rights reserved.

General Editor: Glen WolfromEmail: CRSnetwork@aol.com

For membership / subscription information, advertising rates,and information for authors:

Glen WolfromP.O. Box 8263

St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263Email: CRSnetwork@aol.com

Creation Research Society Website:http://www.creationresearch.org

Articles published in Creation Matters represent the opinions and beliefs of theauthors, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the

Creation Research Society.

Advertisements appearing in this publication do not necessarily implyendorsement of the products or services by the Creation Research Society.

February 21 Creation Seminar by Dr. Don DeYoung St. Paul’s Evangelical Lutheran Church Lockport, IL Dr. Ron Schoenbeck, (815)838-6762February 25-27 Origins 99 — Student / Teacher Young-Age Origins Conference Bryan College Dayton, TN (423)775-7599 email origins@bryan.eduMarch 12-14 Creation Seminar by Dr. Don DeYoung Grace Brethren Church Toppenish, WA Pastor Greg Stamm, (509)865-4007

March 27 Creation Research Society Public Meeting 5:45pm — Youth Seminar: “How to Become a Creation Scientist” Grade School to Creation Research Prof. by D. Kaufmann, Ph.D. Evolutionist to Creation Scientist by Lane Lester, Ph.D. 7:00pm — A Biologist Looks at Origins by John Meyer, Ph.D. Astronomy and Creation by Don DeYoung, Ph.D. Southern Minn. Assoc. For Creation Albert Lea, MN Bryce Gaudian, (507)256-7211 email aerialhelp@vanladder.comApril 23-26 Creation Seminar by Dr. Don DeYoung Riverside Grace Brethren Church Johnstown, PA Pastor Don Rough, (814)288-1163

Creation Research SocietyP.O. Box 8263

St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263USA

Return Service Requested

Creation Matters

Nonprofit Org.US Postage

PAIDCreation Research Society

November / December 1998

Contents

Men and Women of Mathematics and of God ............... 1

Former ISU Dean Retires from CRS Board ................... 1

A Report on the 1998 ICC .............................................. 4

Who Am I? ..................................................................... 7

Book Review:Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purposein the Universe ............................................................... 8

Evangelist Stephen Jay Gould at McGill University ........ 9

I Was There .................................................................. 10

Help for a Fourth Grader .............................................. 11

CRSnet Update ............................................................ 11

Creation Calendar ........................................................ 12

Answer to “Who Am I?”The moon.