This attitude may reduce astronomers’ pleasure in Saturn’s beautiful ring system. Recent studies of the rings have suggested that the rings could not last very long in their present condition and thus that they must be relatively young. Indeed a recent technical article stated: “The origin and evolution of planetary rings is one of the prominent unsolved problems of planetary sciences” (Nature Oct. 25/07 p. 1019). If the rings have been around for billions of years, that means there is nothing special about our being able to observe and enjoy these rings. However, if the rings have been around only a short time (anything less than billions of years) this means that we live in a “special epoch.”

One team of scientists recently studied strange features in the A ring (outermost of the bright rings) of Saturn. Physical studies of this ring suggest that it consists of huge rocks, each about 10 m in diameter. In one strip, there were tiny moons about 30-70m in diameter. The authors concluded that the source of the moonlets must have been a ‘moderately recent’ breakup of a much larger moon. These scientists did not believe that these small moonlets could have come about by the clumping of debris into a larger body, the opposite process from fragmenting (Nature Oct. 25/07 p. 1020).

Another planetary scientist, Larry Esposito, addressed the American Geophysical Union on the problem of Saturn’s rings. He declared that recent studies have demonstrated that the rings of Saturn are very long lived after all. According to Dr. Esposito “It means we are not in some special time – the giant planet has most likely always provided a stunning view.” (BBC News Dec. 13/07)

Dr. Esposito outlined how he came to his conclusion of great age: “Although the Voyager observations indicated Saturn’s rings were youthful, Cassini [probe] shows even younger ages; and because we see such transient, dynamic phenomena in the rings, we are able to reach the paradoxical conclusion – because the rings appear so young, they may actually be as old as the Solar system.” Apparently the rings appear so young that they must instead be old! “Paradoxical” means an opposite conclusion to what is suggested by the evidence. This conclusion fits his desire to avoid any hint of special conditions. Thus Dr. Esposito suggests that objects in the ring system first break up and then later clump together to form more moons in a cycle which repeats endlessly.

The study published in Nature in October 2007, just a few weeks before Dr. Esposito’s talk, came to the opposite conclusion. Based on known processes with crashes between boulders (which break them into smaller pieces), these authors calculated that the observed moonlets could completely disintegrate forever within a small fraction of the assumed age of the universe. That certainly makes our time special.

The interesting issue here is not what the calculated age of Saturn’s rings is, these answers are merely the maximum possible length of time a process could continue, not the actual time it has continued. What is interesting is the observation that the rings cannot have lasted very long and so are very young. This indication of youth means that we live in a special time frame. The reason we are able to observe those beautiful short lived rings is because God created them for our enjoyment. Paradoxical conclusions, which cite processes (clumping) which go against all observations, don’t make sense. So go ahead, feel free to conclude that we are all special!

In 1981 Kurt Wise graduated with a B.Sc. in Geology from the University of Chicago. One of his mentors there was palaeontologist David P. Raup. The latter recommended young Kurt to Harvard University where he worked under the famous palaeontologist Stephen J. Gould. Thus it was that Kurt Wise graduated with a Ph.D. from Harvard in 1989. Also during his years at Harvard, graduate student Wise was a teaching fellow. Among other courses, he lectured in Dr. Gould’s introductory geology and biology course and in famous geneticist Richard Lewontin’s statistical biology course. Both Drs. Gould and Lewontin were well known for their pronounced support of evolution and their atheism. Nevertheless Kurt Wise worked with them and he even won two certificates for teaching distinction at Harvard in the process.

The advantages of a Harvard education did not stop there however. Kurt Wise also knew prominent evolutionists Ernst Mayr and sociobiologist E. O. Wilson. Last, but not least, Dr. Wise also studied fractal geometry under the famous Benoit Mandelbrot, one of the developers of fractal geometry, when this mathematician was a visiting professor at Harvard during the period 1984-87. During all those years of study in a hostile environment, Kurt Wise never abandoned his faith.

Upon graduation, Dr. Wise accepted a teaching and research position at a Christian institution, Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee. Since then, until 2006, Dr. Wise lectured in science, carried out research, mentored young scientists who have since become influential in their own right, helped found the baraminology study group (which carries out research aimed at identifying the created kinds), and published two books for the Christian layman: Faith, Form and Time: What the Bible teaches and Science Confirms about Creation and the Age of the Universe (2002) and Something from Nothing: Understanding What you Believe about Creation and Why (2004).

In 2006 he was appointed to replace mathematician Bill Dembski as head of the Center for Theology and Science at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. At the time of the Wise appointment, Russell Moore, senior vice president for academic administration, pointed to the need to train leaders to equip young people to engage Darwinism from elementary school onward and also to assist all people to recognize Darwinist thinking in all its subtle variations.

The Creation Science Association of Alberta therefore is very much looking forward to hearing Dr. Wise’s lectures. We expect him to share some of his fascinating wealth of scientific knowledge with us in the context of the Biblical record of earth history. Don’t miss out on this event. Be sure to mark the weekend of October 18 on your calendar and watch for further details. An opportunity like this does not happen very often!

The interpretation of Tiktaalik as an ancestor of land animals (tetrapods or 4-footed animals) is based on the shape of the face (snout) rather than a comparison of anatomy in the pelvic region where hind legs would have to develop. The same thing applies to other supposed ancestors such as the fishes Panderichthys and Eusthenopteron. While the pelvic region of Tiktaalik and Panderichthys is a disaster as far as appearance of legs is concerned, the pectoral (front) fins provide more potential for some not very convincing arguments. The bottom line remains however that all these specimens are true fish with no legs, no feet, just fins and no potential for invading the land.

Eusthenopteron was a fish. We know about it from fossil specimens collected at Miguasha, Quebec. Despite the fact that Eusthenopteron was definitely a fish, its claim to fame is as an ancestor of animals that walked on land. Scientists like Prof. Erik Jarvik believed that some features of the fish conveyed hints of tetrapod (4-footed) features yet to appear. While all the fins in Eusthenopteron were true fins, this fish did have one feature which seemed suggestive of land animals. That suggestive feature was “strange features in the snout, indicating a close relationship to one group of recent amphibian, the Anura [like frogs].” (Jarvik in H-P Schultze and R. Cloutier (eds) 1996. Devonian Fishes and Plants of Miguasha, Quebec, Canada. p. 288).

Evidently Eusthenopteron‘s characteristics suggestive of a relationship to land animals, lay in the head region and not in the body. Obviously this is not a very convincing similarity to land animals. The characteristic which defines land animals is the possession of four limbs (legs). Biology is full of organisms with superficial similarities which indicate nothing at all about biological relationships. The snout of an organism is not where we look to identify a land animal. Eusthenopteron did have bones connecting the rear fins to the backbone, but this was true for the upper side of the body as well as the lower side. Legs developing from the upper side, as well as the lower side, would definitely not be good news for any creature.

Another promising fish fossil was collected in 1972 at a quarry in Latvia. This fish, Panderichthys, is also considered to be an important ancestor of the land animals, closer to the tetrapods than Eusthenopteron. On the positive side (from an evolutionary point of view), this fish possessed only 2 paired fins at the front end (pectoral fins) and 2 paired fins at the back end (pelvic fins) and none on the upper body. The pectoral and pelvic areas, of course, are where one would look for legs on tetrapods. In this fish however, the fins were merely fins, with no connection to the back bone. The pelvic (hind) fins in Panderichthys moreover were even less tetrapod-like than those in Eusthenopteron, which had a distinctively fish-like arrangement of fins.

As far as Panderichthys is concerned, its pelvic fins (hind end) were particularly small and weak. The front fins (pectoral) however were somewhat more robust. Indeed, scientists suggest that Panderichthys might have been able to prop itself up by its front fins and thus drag itself along in the manner of the modern walking catfish Clarias (Nature Dec. 22/29/05 p. 1147). We should note, of course, that the catfish, whatever its talents, is still a fish and nobody suggests it is developing into anything else.

Of course there is still Tiktaalik, concerning which some evolutionists claim to be so excited. The fact is however that this fish is even less promising as an ancestor of land animals than are Eusthenopteron and Panderichthys. It is true that the front fins are quite robust. Nevertheless they are still fins. The bad news however is that the backbone is very weak at the hind (pelvic) end and the pelvic fin is extremely small. The only features in which Tiktaalik seems more tetrapod-like are its breathing and feeding anatomy. In the rest of its body, it is much like Panderichthys. (Nature April 6/06 p. 748).

Thus once again we see that the similarities to the tetrapods (land animals) are in the head region. Heads do not define a 4-footed animal, the legs do. As we all know, biology is full of superficial similarities like head shape, which mean nothing.

So newspaper accounts may refer to Tiktaalik as an “evolutionary icon”, a “fishapod” and an “extinct fish with foot-like fins” which may convince some of the reality of evolution. However it is evident that this fish signifies nothing concerning the “invasion of the land.” The media and the scientific literature may portray Tiktaalik as ancestral to tetrapods, but one look at the technical literature demonstrates that this is not true.

The issue is the nature of science, and by implication, the nature of truth. The immediate issue is whether the practice of science should be like a monopoly, where only one point of view is allowed. Specifically, this monopoly view holds that Darwinian evolution is true. There are a lot of highly qualified scientists who object to this view of course, but when they speak their minds, they are often expelled from their jobs and denied research funding. Thus the name of the new movie is Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It recounts the stories of many scientists, especially intelligent design supporters, who seek to use their minds to examine evidence, rather than simply assuming that the majority position is correct.

Ben Stein, a writer and star in the new film, is well known in the United States. Not a scientist, his interest in the issue comes from a political interest in free speech. He wants to know why some highly qualified scientists are forced out of their professions when they question Darwinian evolution. Why is evolution so important to the majority of scientists that they refuse to allow any discussion on the topic?

The challenge for the film makers is to attract the interest of the public. Is this possible? We shall see. Certainly the promotional clips look promising. The film is produced by Premise Media Corporation whose objective is “Producing world class media that stirs the heart and inspires the mind to truth, purpose and hope.” The director and writers are all big names and it is expected that the film will be distributed through the usual commercial outlets. Watch for it!

In the meantime the defenders of evolution have not been idle. The American National Academy of Sciences in January 2008 released a new edition of their booklet Science, Evolution and Creationism which declares that evolution is essential to scientific research and to teaching. The 88-page booklet is aimed at anyone involved with science whether from a learning perspective, a teaching perspective, or from applied applications (like medicine and agriculture) or from a research perspective. One of the showcase examples of the reliability of evolution theory in the booklet is a Canadian fossil fish. In April 2006 Neil Shubin and others published an account of a Tiktaalik, a fossil fish from Ellesmere Island, Nunavut Territory in Canada’s north (Nature April 6/06 pp. 757-771).

In addition to the National Academy of Sciences booklet, a book by Neil Shubin, called Your Inner Fish: a Journey Through the 3.5-Billion Year History of the Human Body appeared in print in January 2008. According to media reports, Shubin hails Tiktaalik as a particularly dramatic demonstration of evolution. The confident cheers of the pro-evolution community might cause one to suspect that Tiktaalik supports their case. Nothing could be farther from the truth! When one considers the fossils themselves, an interesting story emerges.

The Montreal Protocol is twenty years old. It was the first major international agreement on an environmental issue of global concern. According to the agreement, major industrial nations agreed to phase out the manufacture of chlorofluorocarbons, chemicals used in cooling systems (refrigerators) and other important industrial applications. More recently the science upon which the negotiations were based, has been called into question. The story of research on atmospheric ozone is certainly a cautionary tale of how not to react to perceived environmental crises.

It was in 1974 that chemists Mario Molina and Sherwood Rowland first proposed the theory that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) would break down in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) thereby releasing chlorine atoms which could break down ozone gas into ordinary oxygen. Based on this theory, some people suggested that governments take action against the CFCs used in manufacturing, but nothing was done at the time. Then in 1985, the discovery of a large area of much lower ozone levels in the sky over Antarctica, really caught the world’s attention. Such an “ozone hole” in the Antarctic sky has since appeared each spring. Ozone levels soon bounce upward again, but scientists worry that a significant amount of ozone is being lost every year in the sky over this southern, very cold continent.

More recently, an ozone hole over the Arctic was also found during very cold springs in the northern hemisphere. A United Nations conference in Vienna in 1985 was hastily convened to search for an international response to the ozone problem. The reason for concern about ozone levels, is that this gas filters out harmful ultraviolet radiation (UV) which comes from the sun. As a result of its ability to break genetic information (DNA) in cells, UV radiation can cause cancer and cataracts. The Vienna conference however failed to achieve a consensus. The Montreal conference, which met two years later, approved the freezing of CFC production worldwide, initially at 1986 levels with a subsequent phased reduction over ten years. Thus the Montreal Protocol was achieved in 1987 and ratified two years later in 1989.

A retrospective article, written in 1993 in the journal Science, admitted that there were no actual documented negative effects from reduced ozone levels. There had, in fact, been no increase in dangerous UV light discovered in the USA. On the contrary, the data, if anything, suggested a slight decrease in UV light. The concern was over what might happen in the future. Thus the Science writer declared: “The gap between the present danger of ozone depletion – little or none that can be attributed to rising ultraviolet radiation at the Earth’s surface – and the possible danger in the future, had not the Montreal Protocol been passed, provided plenty of room for a wide range of opinions as to how much concern is warranted.” (Science June 11/93 p. 1580)

The 1993 Science article also mentioned that the current scientific understanding of global ozone behaviour was “fraught with uncertainty.” That admission certainly came to mind when a news item about ozone chemistry appeared in the journal Nature September 27, 2007. It was impossible to miss the title: “Chemists poke hole in ozone theory.” The opening paragraph declared that new experimental results “threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry” and if the data are confirmed, “scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed.”

According to the theory of Molina and Rowland, sunlight in the highest levels of earth’s atmosphere (upper stratosphere) breaks down CFCs and releases very reactive atoms of chlorine gas. Unlike most molecules which enter our atmosphere, CFCs arrive intact in the stratosphere because they are so resistant to chemical change. However even these molecules succumb to the effects of strong sunlight in the outer atmosphere. The reactive chlorine then steals an atom of oxygen from ozone. This leaves oxygen gas (O₂) instead of ozone (O₃). The chlorine oxygen combination then combines with another such combination to form dichlorine peroxide (Cl₂O₂). The sun then causes that molecule to break down too, releasing more reactive chlorine which can again attack more ozone. That was the theory.

What chemists have more recently carried out, is to measure how fast that reaction proceeds under conditions which are realistic for the upper atmosphere. Guess what! The measurements indicate that the reaction proceeds almost ten times more slowly than had been expected. The implications for this study were only evident when a scientist from the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany inserted the new reaction rate into computer models for ozone depletion.

It would be an understatement to say that the result was a shock. It now appears that 60% of the ozone destruction at the poles comes from an unknown mechanism! Markus Rex, the atmospheric scientist involved, thus declared: “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” (Nature Sept. 27/07 p. 382).

It seems ironic that the institute that Markus Rex represents, is named for Alfred Wegener, whom North American scientists vilified for forty years over his theories about continental drift. European scientists do seem to question current science dogma more frequently than do North American scientists. Nevertheless Markus Rex still declared his support for the Montreal Protocol and current views that CFCs are the main culprit in the ozone problem.

In view of the recent chemical studies, it makes sense that the Montreal Protocol does not seem to have resulted, at least not yet, in any improvement in ozone levels in the outer atmosphere. An article (the cover story) published in Nature May 4, 2006, was entitled “The search for signs of recovery of the ozone layer.” The article declares that there are a lot of factors which can influence ozone levels in the upper atmosphere. Thus we need long term data to see any trends. Indeed the authors Elizabeth Weatherhead and Signe Andersen declare: “The separation of long term change in ozone concentrations from natural variability is our current challenge.” (p. 39) These authors compared annual ozone averages at four latitudes from 1980 to 2005. What they found was “considerable variability that cannot be attributed to concentrations of ozone-depleting substances.” (p. 41)

In addition, they found that storms on the sun, which follow an eleven year cycle, and volcanic eruptions, both had an influence on ozone levels. In the early years of the controversy, many scientists denied that these processes had any significant effect on ozone levels. At the end of their article, the two authors conclude: “Considerably longer data series and improved understanding of atmospheric processes and their effects on ozone are needed to estimate future ozone levels with confidence.” (p. 44) In other words, long term studies are needed before any conclusions can be made about ozone in the outer atmosphere.

Before the Montreal Protocol was ratified, many concerned citizens and some scientists declared that the rush into worldwide action was premature. Long term studies would have been the prudent response in order to ensure that the CFCs were really to blame. After all, if there really was a problem that should be addressed, the smart procedure would be to correctly identify what the problem is. However, as a result of the Montreal Protocol, some compounds which were important for refrigeration, aerosols and fire retardants among other uses, have been replaced by less efficient, more expensive compounds. In the case of the ozone story, society will manage with the new situation.

Of greater concern is the way in which majority opinion among scientists all too often causes a stampede of support for that position. Scientists and other citizens critical of the majority opinion are ignored. There is little discussion of the evidence. Many governments take action in line with the majority opinion. Ethical issues such as embryonic stem cells, other environmental issues and issues in origins science, all are impacted by the majority opinion. The take home message from the example of the Montreal Protocol is that majority opinion does not guarantee reliability. The majority of scientists are often wrong. On any given issue, scientists in the minority may have something valid to say. At any rate it is a good idea to critically evaluate the evidence and arguments on both sides. Do not let yourself be stampeded like a lemming.

In the year 2000, InterVarsity Press published the book What’s Darwin Got to DO with it? A Friendly Conversation about Evolution. The comic book format features dynamic scenes and upbeat dialogue between Professor Teller, a well-known Darwinist lecturer, and Professor Questor, a proponent of Intelligent Design. The grey haired Prof. Teller, with glasses and beard, looks suitably academic. Prof. Questor, however is a young lady, blond and confident. Her grasp of the issues seems more precise than that of the older professor.

This comic book, in a zippy introduction, presents some hotly contested issues of recent times. These include technology and music stars – issues certain to catch the attention of young readers. We then side step nimbly into the pressing issue with which this book deals: Darwinism vs Intelligent Design. The plot involves a forum on evolution which has been set up on campus. However only one side is to be represented in the forum. When Prof. Questor volunteers to represent intelligent design, she is accused of being a trouble maker. She replies “Since when is it making trouble to test a scientific theory?” Her friend then asks how she can argue against all the evidence. Prof. Questor replies that it is not the facts, but some conclusions which she has begun to question. Thus already by page 5, an important point has been made.

Prof. Questor is very careful to define terms. She does not want to be classified as a creationist. While this is regrettable, it certainly is wise to define all relevant terms so that everyone is talking about the same thing. Events proceed apace. The two professors discuss contrasting views of science. Is there room for the actions of a supernatural creation in science explanations or not. One professor says yes, the other says no.

The story then proceeds to an amusing illustration of the roles of random mutations and selection in the appearance of new life forms. Then the issue of homologus structures (translated as “similar shanks”) is presented. Some discussions feature amusing personification of issues such as random mutations (the tough guy Mutaman) and his attractive sidekick Selecta (natural selection). Also we see Mr. E. Rosion (erosion) and custodian Pop Small (small populations). The most amusing illustrative vignette involves Inspector Snikwad who tries, without examining the evidence, to prove that the butler committed the crime. The name Snikwad seems closely reminiscent of a famous British evolutionist (Dawkins).

This book does a good job, in my opinion, of introducing in painless fashion, many points where evolution theory is found sadly lacking. The book does not really provide any alternative view of origins except that the prose introduction declares that one’s view of origins is critical to one’s whole worldview. Despite its shortcomings, I really liked this book because it is fun to read and because it introduces the reader to good information on evolution. Of course this is just an hors d’oeuvre. It is to be hoped that the reader, now well introduced to some of the issues, will proceed on to other more detailed books.