Actually his interest in Scripture and science goes back to his junior high and high school years. According to a personal account of this time in his life (published in the book in six days: why fifty scientists choose to believe in creation [edited by John F. Ashton]), Kurt Wise discusses how he agonized over the issue of evolution.

In the eighth grade, having entered an elaborate project on evolution into a large science fair, the young Kurt began to worry about conflicts between this material and his Christian faith. Later, in high school, he set out to physically cut from the Bible every verse which could not be accepted if evolution were true. It took him months to proceed through the whole Bible (he was nothing if not thorough!!)

When he had finished, he discovered that the book was in tatters. One would have to accept evolution or Scripture. The two were obviously incompatible. He therefore accepted Scripture although he believed he was throwing away his dreams of studying science. Those fears, of course, were not realized. We know that he actually achieved his dream of a doctorate in palaeontology from Harvard University.

Dr. Wise is obviously a very interesting man. We in Alberta are excited that he is coming to Edmonton to speak on the weekend of October 18, 2008. His first lecture, scheduled for 7:30 PM on Friday, October 17 will be Floating a Forest: A Study in Creationist Theory Formation. This lecture will be especially aimed at post secondary students, but everyone is invited. It will be held at King’s University College, 9125-50 Street, Edmonton.

Then on Saturday morning, Dr. Wise will lecture on The Pre-flood World. In the afternoon he will lecture on A Global Flood Model of Earth History and in the evening he will discuss The Post-Flood World: Morphing Moles and Left-over Catastrophism. The venue will be the South Edmonton Alliance Church, 6508-31 Avenue, Edmonton.

Events in Texas during April 2008 are certainly cause for concern. These events involve the Institute for Creation Research. This organization, founded in California in the 1970s, employs fully qualified scientists, with degrees from large secular universities, to conduct research and to teach science in terms of the creation model.

Since 1981 the ICR graduate school has granted fully approved degrees in science in California. ICR has always maintained that supporters of the young earth position should be careful and accurate in their pronouncements on science. To this end, they spent $5 million on research for the RATE project (radiometric dating) and they are similarly conducting original research on sedimentation projects connected with the great flood.

For various reasons ICR has recently moved their operations to Texas. They then, of course, applied for a permit to grant degrees in science as they have in California. Thus it was that the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) conducted an on site evaluation in November 2007. This THECB Site Team then recommended approval and the THECB Advisory Committee also recommended approval in December 2007.

The final step of full board approval should have followed.

Commissioner Raymond Parades however, in the interim, convened a separate panel of scientists and science educators. These people were paid a stipend and expenses to encourage Parades to declare that the original evaluations were “flawed.”

When the full board met on April 24, the ICR program was characterized as “fraudulent” or “substandard” science in that they were not teaching conventional science. The ICR officials were given no opportunity to reply, and the board voted unanimously to deny ICR the right to grant degrees. These procedures, contrary to the original committee’s recommendations, were unprecedented.

Many observers worry that this treatment of the ICR graduate school, an institution entirely supported by private funds, could soon extend to other private, already established institutions, with viewpoints at odds with the secular establishment. It is obviously important for those who value free speech, to support ICR in this quest for recognition.

In one publication, Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine, wrote a very cynical review of the movie. He agreed that scientists had lost jobs and other opportunities on account of their views. He seemed to think however that these victims should be grateful that worse things did not befall them. For example, he said of Guillermo Gonzalez, co-author of The Privileged Planet: “Gonzalez was not thrown into a concentration camp for his views. He just didn’t get tenure.” (April 18/08). Not obtaining tenure means that this highly qualified scientist is now unemployed. This is a terrible thing for somebody who has spent years training in a complex field.

It is all too apparent that many people in the sciences and media think that this kind of discrimination is perfectly O.K. However they would be the first to protest any kind of negative treatment of their own position. Now is the time for people of good will to show support for the right to express and defend one’s views in science as in everything else.

What this machine, located near Geneva, is supposed to do, is to smash small amounts of matter together at speeds so intense, that the material breaks up into fragments, some of which have never been seen before. The hope of physicists is that they will see particles which will enable them to explain where everything in the universe came from. These scientists are certainly ambitious!

You might imagine that to get to this point, we have a good under standing of everyday scientific issues. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If there is one material which is absolutely basic to our earth, it is water. This liquid covers about 70% of earth’s surface and its presence is essential for life. Water also makes our climate more moderate, less hot or less cold than it would be in a dry environment.

Of course there is lots of water available for scientific studies. How is it then that an essay in the scientific journal Nature (March 20/08) was entitled “Water – an Enduring Mystery”?

The article begins: “No one really understands water.” (p. 291). It continues that the more we use new techniques to study water, the deeper the puzzles about this liquid become. Indeed later in the essay, the author declares “even those who work on general theories of the liquid state of matter won’t go near water: it is too anomalous, too strange. It does not do what liquids are “supposed” to….” (p. 292) Water apparently has many unusual features. It expands upon freezing and it is able to absorb huge amounts of heat energy without itself warming much, among other features.

Philip Ball, the author of the essay on water, points out that it may seem strange that the current popular view of how water works may actually be wrong. Stranger things, however he says, have happened. The controversy might not seem to be very important, Mr. Ball declares, but our ability to understand how other materials interact in a watery environment, could be wrong if our concept of water is wrong. A new interpretation of how water molecules clump together could affect drug design, our theories of how components interact in a living cell, how minerals interact in rocks and many other disciplines.

Essayist Mr. Ball concludes that we should think of this puzzle as an “exercise in humility.” “Humble” is not the kind of adjective we would apply to scientists, on the other hand, who think they will soon explain the origin of everything. One of these scientists, Leon Lederman, has entitled the particle for which they are searching, the “god particle”, because then scientists will, they believe, have explained everything without any need for God. Indeed, an illustration in the July 19/07 issue of Nature depicts people worshipping a technicolour particle (p. 311). Science journals don’t normally deal with worship, but in the case of a particle, they made an exception.

These people should rather reflect how minimal our understanding is compared to the wonders of the creation. When we consider something as important as water, which has properties so important to us but which are so unexpected, it seems that we should humbly give thanks. This is the appropriate attitude when observing any part of nature.

I certainly have and usually I try my best to sound intelligent and explain that there isn’t good evidence… but I have to admit that my explanations are often stammered and punctuated with question marks. Not that I think there is evidence of these links, but it is just that I have never actually been able to put together a cohesive couple of sentences that sound convincing!

The DVD ‘The Image of God’ reviews the evolutionary ladder from apes to humans and describes the evidence, or lack thereof, for each step. This film uses a variety of experts in the field, such as Dr. Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer, an anthropologist specializing in fossils, from the University of Munich, Dr. Marvin Lubenow, author of the book Bones of Contention, and Dr. Chris Stringer from the Natural History Museum in London.

With some creationist perspectives and some not, the evidence is examined and it becomes obvious that the evolutionary ladder progresses from apes to human with nothing to link the two to each other. It is not really a ladder per se, but more of an evolutionary leap of faith. Even the evolutionists have to admit that there are “things that don’t fit easily” and that the basis of the scientific evidence depends on what you consider as markers of the ape kind or of humanity.

Although this film is not as ‘catchy’ as others in terms of music and photography, it delivers its message with solid information presented in an easy to understand format. As for myself, after watching this film, I feel prepared to discuss human evolution with whoever is willing – and to do so intelligently! Of course some reading on the topic would definitely be a bonus too.

Now, there is an opposite problem. How does one make a selection from the wide variety of new material which appears each year? One has to admit however that this is a happy problem. Some new books are fancier editions of previously covered material. However, in many cases, the new books are entirely new works that will be of interest to many.

Among books for youngsters there is one title that is definitely a gift item. Consider this book for a birthday or another significant day present. This is the Tower of Babel “Pop-Up” by Jon Taylor ($12.00, 22 pages). The large cover opens to reveal a Babylonian ziggurat, or ancient style tower from that part of the world. As the 3-D tower looms over the full colour pages below, the youngster turns pages which discuss the events of Babel and the significance of the appearance of new languages among the people. This is a fun book for early elementary age readers.

Another book guaranteed to be a hit with families with elementary age children, is the Complete Zoo Adventure by Mary and Gary Parker ($15.00, 155 pages plus cards). Anyone who has participated over the years in science workshops for children conducted by Mary Parker, will realize what an exciting project the zoo adventure represents. This book provides opportunities to learn about animal biology in terms of Scripture, animal design and lifestyle preferences. The book includes word games for duplication, and colourful cards to reinforce concepts. There is also excellent advice on how to make a trip to the zoo into a wonderful learning experience.

Also by Gary Parker is a new book called Building Blocks in Science ($12.00, 160 pages). This book, with black and white illustrations, is similar to the ‘Exploring’ series in that it includes questions at the end of each chapter and answers in the back of the book. Written at the junior high level, it introduces junior high readers to dinosaur, other reptile, bird and human fossils. The impact of the fall and the flood are important components of the discussion.

Of course not everyone is excited about science. For the people who enjoy history, the new book Amazing Grace of Freedom ($15.00, 140 pages) is an excellent choice. British aristocrat and Christian idealist William Wilberforce spent his career fighting slavery in the British empire. His victories in 1807 and 1833 demonstrated how one person can make a difference in world history. Beautifully illustrated, half the book presents the story of the making of the film Amazing Grace (which depicts these events) and half the book presents the history itself. Nobody can say history is uninteresting when it is presented like this!

Then for those of you who like Egyptian artifacts and Egyptian history, the book Unwrapping the Pharaohs (John Ashton and David Down, $30.00, 221 pages) is certain to excite your interest. This is a large heavy book with beautiful illustrations and clear discussion. It presents the argument that Egyptian history actually agrees with Scripture when errors and inconsistencies in the popular interpretation are eliminated. For those of you who like to dream of foreign travel, this book is almost as good as going there!

Obviously among our new titles there is something for every taste. It is always good to expand one’s interests. That is what books are for. Enjoy!

For a decade, medical research laboratories around the world have investigated the potential of embryonic stem cells. That is in spite of the profound ethical issues involved with these cultures. For a start, the work involves ripping apart developing human embryos (individuals a few days old) in order to extract the stem cells, and secondly because women must donate eggs, an uncomfortable and dangerous process, in order for suitable embryos to be created.

The attraction of embryonic stem cells is that they have the potential to develop into any, or all, of the cell types found in the human body. ‘Pluripotent’, is another term for this potential of embryonic stem cells to differentiate into many, or all, of the various types of cell in a fully developed individual. The word pluripotent comes from the Latin plures, meaning ‘very many’ and potens, meaning ‘powerful’.  Because the term pluripotent carries less emotional baggage than the term embryonic, in that fewer people know the meaning, American scientists have shown a preference for the term pluripotent when referring to cultures derived from embryos. It is evident therefore that many people would be pleased if similar results to embryonic stem cell cultures could be obtained by some other means.

In 2006 Shinya Yamanaka and Kazutoshi Takahashi of Kyoto University in Japan began to work on cultures of adult mouse skin cells. By means of retroviruses, four genes were added to the culture and some cells ended up with all four genes inside them. A retrovirus is backwards in its action. It is able to insert its genetic material into the DNA (genetic information) of the host cell. Thus in some cells, all four genes now were inserted into the mouse genetic information.

The four genes, called Oct4, Sox2, Kfl4 and Myc, code for proteins which cause other important genes to be expressed. The resulting cascade of expression by other genes , each calling for their own protein to be produced, in this case leads to the skin cells becoming pluripotent. Neither eggs nor embryos were needed to produce these pluripotent mouse cells. The Japanese then termed their new cultures ‘induced pluripotent stem’ cells or iPS cells, for short.

The interesting thing about this new technique is that it is relatively easy compared to the difficulties of working with eggs and embryos, and, what is more, it is not subject to any licensing requirements from boards concerned with ethics. At this point however the research involved only mice.

On the down side, the success rate was low. At any one time, less than 0.1% of the skin cells were successfully converted to the pluripotent state. In addition, some other disquieting facts were evident. The iPS cells are riddled with viruses. Some of these viruses have the potential to activate oncogenes (able to turn a normal cell into a cancerous one). In addition, one of the inserted genes, Myc, has also been implicated in the onset of cancer.

When the pluripotent cells were added to developing mouse embryos, the iPS cells developed too and became part of the baby mouse. That individual could now be called a chimaera or composite creature, with a combination of tissues derived from very different sources. Interestingly, 20% of the baby chimaeric mice developed cancer.

On November 20, 2007 Dr. Yamanaka announced that he had used his retrovirus technique to produce iPS cells in a culture of human skin cells. Again, the success rate was very low, only 10 successful cultures from 50,000 skin cells. The announcement caused some experts to renounce other techniques which involve use of human eggs. Iam Wilmut, famous as one of the creators of Dolly, the cloned sheep, announced that he now plans to use Yamanaka’s technique in his research.

On the premise that it is hard to argue with success, the Japanese government rushed to develop a Japanese based centre for iPS research. Also, by December 22, only one month after the initial announcement, the science ministry announced plans to increase funding tenfold for iPS research in Japan.

This sudden action on the part of the Japanese government, is very rare. However they did not want to lose the initiative in this popular field of medical research. After all, the benefits of the research are attractive to many people. The technique could enable patient-specific stem cells to be produced. Some day, it is hoped, the cultures may be safe enough (not cancer inducing) to use in the patients from whom the cultures were derived. Such patients could be provided with healthy heart cells, nerve cells, insulin producing cells or whatever the patient needs to return them to a healthy state.

It all sounds like a win/win situation. Dr. Yamanka however soon declared that the ethical issues with iPS cultures are worse than they are with embryonic stem cells. For a start, since the technique is relatively easy, laboratories all over the world could soon be producing such cultures, all without any ethical oversight at all. Dr. Yamanka is greatly concerned that some scientists will try to produce human gametes (sex cells) from the cultures. It may not be too difficult to produce both eggs and sperm from a culture of cells from a man. Thus a child could be conceived from male parents alone. This would not work on cells from a woman, however, since these cells lack a Y chromosome, essential for the formation of sperm. Dr. Yamanaka also fears that maverick scientists, working with iPS cells, may try to clone a human. Such techniques are already being attempted with mice.

As a result of Dr. Yamanaka’s concerns, on Feb. 21, 2008, the Japanese government sent directives to all research agencies. In Japan, no one is to attempt to implant embryos made from iPS cells into human or animal wombs, to produce an individual in any way from iPS cells or to introduce iPS cells into any stage of developing embryo or unborn young. Also the production from iPS cells of cells which lead to gametes is expressly forbidden.

Dr. Yamanaka, burdened by the possible ramifications from his research, encouraged the Japanese government to insist upon important controls on Japanese research using iPS cells. What, one wonders, are similar labs in other parts of the world undertaking at this time? Will other governments issue similar directives? We hope so, and soon. It can?t hurt to make sure that governmental funding agencies are informed about these issues.