Crater Lake National Park: Serene Beauty After Volcanic History https://www.icr.org/article/crater-lake-national-park/

Badlands National Park: “Flood Features and Fossils” https://www.icr.org/article/13856/?+Facts+Is+Now+Available Mammoth site at Hot Springs Video: Awesome Science: Explore the Mammoth Site World's Largest Petrified Park and Museum - Lemmon, S.D. FREE Ever seen a gas station made of petrified wood? Or a museum made of petrified wood with a floor of fossilized grass? How about 100 conical shaped structures some 20 feet tall, made of petrified wood and concretions* called “cannonballs”? How about a castle with turrets reaching 32 feet into the air, all made of petrified wood! This city park was created in the 1930’s, after the towns people collected petrified wood in a 25 mile radius and brought it all together. Petrified wood Evolution would want you to believe that it takes millions of years for wood to petrify or turn to stone. It doesn’t take a long time for wood to petrify. It takes the right chemical conditions for wood to become petrified. For example, a farmer’s fence posts below the ground dating from the mid-1800’s, were found totally petrified! The top portion had rotted away while those in the ground had petrified! A piece of wood was dangled in Yellowstone’s silica hot springs for a year and was found to be substantially petrified! Petrified wood can be found at the chapel of Santa Maria de Salute in Venice, Italy. This massive stone block chapel was built in 1630 to celebrate the end of the Plague. The city of Venice is built on water saturated sand and clay, so the chapel’s foundation was reinforced with 180,000 wooden pilings. How have these wooden pilings remained firm for some 400 years? They are petrified! The once wooden pilings have turned to stone! It does not take a long time to petrify, just the right conditions. Petrified wood is not as rare as you may think. In fact it is an abundant fossil and found worldwide. To make petrified wood, wood needs to be buried in oxygen-poor sediment. Water then percolates through the ground bringing with it minerals. Cell by cell, the original wood is completely dissolved away and replaced. The ideal environment for wood to become petrified is burial by volcanic ash. This provides the needed minerals and hot water for the wood to petrify. The color of the petrified wood depends on the minerals in the water. Arizona’s petrified wood is famous for its yellows and reds (from the iron minerals) and green and blues (from the copper). The petrified wood of the Dakotas are usually very light brown or cream colored. The Flood of Noah’s day would have had the right conditions in order for wood to petrify; the trees had to be buried quickly before decomposing. Living trees that die and fall in the forest will decompose from fungus, bacteria, and other creatures. Flood waters would have percolated down into the soil extracting minerals and depositing them in the wood. Petrified wood is abundant and worldwide, yet it rarely occurs today because of the special conditions required. What event in history would have worldwide deep burial of wood in a water saturated ground? The Flood of Noah’s time provides the answer. So the next time you pick up a piece of petrified wood, realize you are holding a piece of evidence for a worldwide flood, the Flood of Noah’s day. -Ham, Ken, ed, 2010. The New Answers Book 3. Master Books: Green Forest, AR. p. 96. - Morris, Dr. John. 2002. The Geology Book. Master Books: Green Forest, AR. p. 71. - Snelling, Dr. Andrew. September 1995. “Instant Petrified Wood”. Creation Magazine, p. 38-40. *Concretions When handed a concretion, I thought it looked like a perfectly round cannonball and I wanted to know who made it. I found out concretions are round rocks made of silt or clay sized particles that have cemented together to look like a cannonball. They are very common throughout the rock record and come in a variety of sizes with some concretions the size of boulders. They often erode out of sedimentary layers. Is there anything inside? Some concretions have organic material within, others have no organic material. Concretions are not being formed today. Giant red concretions almost 10 feet in diameter can also be found having weathered out of a side hill at Theodore Roosevelt national park- north unit. So, how were they formed? Within the Flood framework, these concretions would have formed as they were rolled along in high energy forces resulting in rapid formation and burial. Froede Jr. Carl R., 2007. Geology by Design. Master Books: Green Forest, AR. p.82-90. Grand River Museum - FREE Lemmon, South Dakota This is a creation museum with dozens of displays of dinosaurs and fossils found in the area. This museum is unique in that these are not plaster cast models but the real thing. This museum also features exhibits on the Native Americans and cowboys.

On April 18, 2015, Biologos held a seminar at Constance Evangelical Free Church in Andover Minnesota, co-sponsored by MacLaurin CSF, a Christian study center at the University of Minnesota, which recently merged with Christian Student Fellowship. The title was "Integration of Science and Faith" and the goal was stated like this: "What if, rather than emphasizing opposition, we sought to understand the common ground shared by science and faith, without compromising either the science or Scripture and the Christian faith?" Speakers were John Walton (Professor of Old Testament at Wheaton) and Keith B. Miller (Professor of Geology at Kansas State). Biologos, founded by Human Genome Project coordinator Francis Collins, states on its web site: Core Commitments We embrace the historical Christian faith, upholding the authority and inspiration of the Bible. We affirm evolutionary creation, recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years. We seek truth, ever learning as we study the natural world and the Bible. We strive for humility and gracious dialogue with those who hold other views. We aim for excellence in all areas, from science to education to business practices. Attendees at the conference heard from Dr. Walton that Adam and Eve were real people but had been chosen from among hominids to represent the human race and were thus not the parents of all. Also heard was the assertion that "very good" is not "perfect" and there was death in the Garden of Eden. Dr. Miller stated that there was no geologic evidence for a worldwide flood. So the question should come to mind, how is this "upholding the authority and inspiration of the Bible?" Can a person be a real Christian and be wrong about certain issues? Of course! The heart of the gospel is that I recognize that I am a sinner, helpless to save myself and call on the Lord Jesus Christ to forgive my sins and be the Lord of my life. As time goes on, the Holy Spirit will convict the growing believer of those areas of life that are incompletely surrendered. We are warned that this is an ongoing battle. Romans 12:1 - 2: "Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God -- this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is -- his good, pleasing and perfect will." Francis Collins became a Christian as an adult and an academic -- which means that he was necessarily committed to an evolutionary world view because you do not rise in that world as an intellectual outlier. At the conclusion of the Human Genome Project, he declared that the work had proven evolution. Dr. Collins based that conclusion on the presence of "junk DNA", which he and the academic community considered useless remnants of our evolutionary past. From his book "The Language of God," he claimed that huge portions of our genome are repetitive junk: "Mammalian genomes are littered with such AREs [ancient repetitive elements]" wrote Collins, "with roughly 45 percent of the human genome made up of such genetic flotsam and jetsam." In the intervening years, functions have been found for the "junk." In fact a new level of complexity not previously understood has been revealed. Areas of the DNA that do not code for genes include sophisticated regulatory mechanisms that turn genes off and on -- essential for development and ongoing life. Dr. Collins could have retracted his conclusions, risked the wrath of his secular colleagues and re- examined the case for creation ex nihilo (creation of the universe from nothing and Adam and Eve as special creations "in the image of God" and placed in a perfect environment.) But he did not. Gathering a following who agreed with him and receiving a large grant from the Templeton Foundation, he set out to re-educate the churches about what he considered the real message of Genesis and the proper acceptance of evolution as God's method of creating. He is able to offer materials and resources very reasonably because of the Templeton funding and able to gain a hearing because of his reputation and the (falsely) reassuring statement of "Core Commitments." Finally in 2015, Collins admitted that his original contention, that "junk DNA proved evolution," was fallacious -- in fact it was "hubris." So-called "Junk" actually has critical regulatory functions. But he has not so far called off the attack dogs of Biologos who continue to seek to deride, belittle and mock the teaching of special creation by Christians. Come on, Dr. Collins! Collins Redaction (Used by permission of World Magazine). But Collins did not call off Biologos from their mission to “save evangelicals” from young earth creation! Christians and their churches, overwhelmed by the power of the opposition in so many cultural areas and perhaps tired of fighting so many battles, will find it attractive to be able to say, "we can believe in both evolution and creation." Is there any precedent for this sort of challenge? Read Paul's warning about those who distort the truth: Acts 20:28 - 32 "Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!" If you agree with Biologos, I challenge you to re-open your mind and look at the powerful case for intelligent design, imposed on nature, not arising from it by natural laws -- which themselves require a designer of unimaginable sophistication. And also begin to investigate the surprisingly powerful case for a young earth, effectively censored by powerful propaganda but occasionally peeking out, like in the case of dinosaur bones with intact un-fossilized marrow in the bones and even a thoughtful consideration of the fact that the billions of fossils all over the world had to be buried quickly and deeply to escape decay. If you disagree with Biologos, I challenge you to speak the truth, in love, of course, but making resources available to your churches and friends who may have only heard one side of the story. It may be risky, to be considered intellectual Neanderthals (actually the Neanderthals were quite bright, but you know what I mean) and to be confronted with questions you may not be able to answer. Yet there are MANY resources. We have 140 Creation Web Sites linked to www.tccsa.tc . Also look at the article linked below and a printable version of this article. As the Lord said in Joshua 1:9 "Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go." Terrified is what you feel in the short term, discouraged in the long battle. Does that about cover it? Ross S. Olson MD

Christopher Rupe and Dr. John Sanford In his personal prologue, John Sanford admits that he, as a mature scientist in the field of genetics, had accepted the story of human evolution without question until he determined that his own field showed the impossibility of that scenario. He collaborated to write this book because when he presents his case against evolution, as laid out in his book Genetic Entropy , people argue that he must be wrong because the fossils clearly show ape to human evolution. In tackling that topic, he answers the objection that neither he nor Christopher Rupe have PhDs in paleoanthropology by pointing out that paradigm-challenging ideas never come from within a field, where “group think” rules. The book systematically analyzes the data, picking up the thread begun in the 1992 book, Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow. Time has not helped the evolutionist cause. More specimens and better analytical techniques have solidified the case. Neanderthal has been shown to be fully human and from the archeological record, Homo erectus also makes tools, art and buries its dead, despite having physical deformities. Essentially, genus Homo, including Nadeli and “Hobbit” are all humans, some degenerate, due to small population size, inbreeding, starvation and changes in the population that result from those conditions. If you use modern forensic computer programs to reconstruct the appearance of these individuals, instead of evolutionarily biased artistic reconstructions, you get faces of people you might see on the street today. “Lucy,” the archetypical human precursor, is a very incomplete skeleton. The hands and feet are missing and the skull and pelvis fragmented. Thus a lot of latitude was possible in the reconstruction of the anatomy. Overall, Australopithecus is clearly an ape but at this point in the narrative a more disturbing element is introduced. Some of the bones found with her seemed to belong to a Homo species. Then a track of footprints was found (far away from Lucy) and even slightly older but fully human in form. The largest would have worn a size 11 shoe and probably been over 6 feet tall. Lucy was about 3 foot even! Disputes arose about the dating but eventually the prints were attributed to Lucy’s kind. Museums today depict Lucy with human feet and hands (and a thoughtful expression on her face.) As more specimens indicated that Australopithecus had ape-like hands and feet, it was proposed that there was sexual dimorphism – the males human-like and the females apish. That ought to get a feminist response – if there is a difference in humans, usually the men are the more ape-like. The expose of the dating controversies ought to also attract lawyers, as the dating and re-dating, rejection and rationalization of dating techniques shows that the theory drives the data rather than the other way around. Maybe psychologists ought to get in the mix too because every fossil hunter clearly thinks that his is the key discovery and bends heaven and earth to support it. Political intrigue and clever marketing are rewarded. But as a result, every time a new discovery is supported, it throws human evolution into turmoil. After dismantling the fossil evidence, Sanford reviews the genetic evidence, which is devastating to any possible positive change and conclusive that every species is deteriorating. Having removed all other possibilities, the authors suggest the only rational conclusion: that humans did not evolve but were created. The authors deal with all the usual objections to that possibility and end with a personal appeal. An evolutionist will have to be impressed with the extensive documentation and be led to the conclusion unwillingly, but hopefully affected by the humble expression of human concern of these two diligent authors. The book is well illustrated and has its extensive documentation in footnotes. It was published by FMS Publications ( www.contestedbones.org ) in 2017, 333 pages, costing $20.00 softcover, $25.00 hardcover. It could use an index. Ross S. Olson MD

In a commentary published 7/22/2012 (“Genesis of a Social Divide”), Mr. Peter Lescak described his change from belief in biblical creation to evolution. I went through that transformation, too. But later I went beyond it, back to young earth creation, backed up by scientific evidence. This happened when years later I was given a book by biochemist A. E. Wilder-Smith, The Creation of Life which showed clearly that order of the kind seen in life does not arise spontaneously by natural law and requires an intelligent intervention. Why was I never shown this evidence before? I began to read widely. We recognize an arrowhead as a product of intelligent manipulation, even though it is theoretically possible that erosion might form one. A living cell is as complex as a city and the human brain is as complex as the internet and no natural process produces things like the Encyclopedia Britannica. In fact, time and chance degrade information. The mathematical odds of forming a single protein molecule from its component parts can be shown to be so unlikely that it could not have happened anywhere in the known universe in 30 billion years, much less be combined with the hundreds of other components to form the simplest possible living cell. Similarity of form does not prove common ancestry but can also mean common design. (Young earth creationists believe that the original Genesis kinds were intrinsically capable of great diversification, something we have seen with the breeds of dogs – who remain dogs, none-the-less.) And fundamentally, fossils require rapid burial. Closed clams, seen all over the world, were covered before they could open in death. Firstly, the geologic column is said to be the result of slow deposition of material over tens to hundreds of millions of years. Yet there are sharp distinctions between the layers as if something suddenly changed. Further, in the Grand Canyon there is a 200 million year gap in the sequence, between the Cambrian and the Mississippian with blending at the junction. The lower layer would have had to remain soft for 200 million years, waiting for the next geologic epoch. It is much easier to see it as the result of a truly worldwide flood, with massive erosive forces caused by tidal waves sweeping over the entire globe, depositing their loads in twice daily low tides. Formations such as the very pure St Peter Sandstone require rapid current to sort and move it, usually attributed to river deltas. Yet it covers an area from Minnesota to Missouri, Illinois to Nebraska, to a depth of 100 to 300 feet. The presence of marine fossils rules out desert sand dunes. The flood model also can explain the presence of huge deposits of pure uncontaminated salt and gypsum as chemical deposition of mixed brines, not as the remnants of evaporated seas. The source of the water and the mechanism of a worldwide flood are being worked out in competing models but the fact remains that the uniformitarian origin of the layers is not credible, as shown by polystrate fossils, such as 30 – 50 foot tree trunks standing upright. Obviously they could not wait for thousands much less millions of years to be covered and fossilized or they would have rotted. And the ocean would be like the Dead Sea if it had been taking in salt for billions of years. Radiometric dating has been used to support long ages, but dating of lava samples from volcano eruptions of known historical ages has given erroneous ages in the millions. Recently the project called RATE has shown that rocks contain too much helium to be millions of years old and also there is measurable carbon 14 in all fossils, oil, coal and even diamonds when it ought to be totally gone, implying a young and similar age for all those materials. Evidence of coexistence of humans and dinosaurs is vigorously opposed by the evolutionary establishment but is actually quite convincing. Human and dinosaur tracks have been found in the same strata and have been uncovered on film to prove that they were not manufactured. In Ica, Peru and Acambara, Mexico, artifacts over 2000 years old have been found that depict humans and dinosaurs together, some showing apparent domestication. Recently a T Rex bone was found that contained blood vessels, cells and collagen fibers in the marrow cavity. Rather than admit that this specimen could not be 65 million years old, the response was to claim that we need to rethink how soft tissue is preserved for long ages. In a demonstration of the incredible power of professional peer pressure, the discoverer, a self proclaimed evangelical Christian, claimed that young earth creationists were “hijacking” her data. But bucking peer pressure, plant geneticist J. C. Sanford, asked, “Can natural selection improve the human genome?” The result is in his book, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome . The conclusion? Natural selection cannot improve the human genome. It cannot even prevent steady deterioration. There are at least 100 new mildly deleterious mutations in each surviving individual with each generation. (The severe defects do not survive.) The overall fitness of the human race is decreasing by about 1 - 2% per generation. He concludes that we are headed for extinction as a race and that the human genome cannot yet be a thousand generations old or we would already be extinct. This, of course, is contrary to evolution but fits completely with the Biblical account of a perfect creation, spoiled by sin and a world that will someday – perhaps very soon, -- come to an end.

In homes, offices, factories and laboratories, chaos never turns into order on its own and proceeds to maintain and expand itself, although the theory of evolution suggests this would be a normal and natural event. Instead, any order turns into disorder sooner or later, as predicted by the second law of thermodynamics. Everyday experience and empirical science seem to contradict the theory of evolution. This contraction is usually explained as a virtual one, by stating that the second law of thermodynamics only holds for closed systems and by reference to the experiments of Miller, Nobel Laureate Prigogine and Dawkins as a proof that in open systems chaos definitely can turn into order by itself. In this study, this argumentation is investigated more accurately, and found to be untenable. The implications for science are explored. When discussing the theory of evolution, sometimes the second law of thermodynamics is brought up to contradict the theory. This objection from science is mostly answered by stating that the second law only holds for closed systems, and that in open systems - like the earth - chaos can turn into order just by itself. The correctness of this thesis is underpinned by referring to the world-famous Miller experiment, the research of Nobel Laureate Prigogine into chaotic systems (Prigogine, 1984) and the computer simulations of evolution by Dawkins (1991). Everyday experience, however, shows that any kind of order - for instance, a tidied up room or desk, an efficiently moving production process, or a complicated chemical substance - never emerges by itself, but that directed external effort is necessary to establish and maintain it. In homes, offices, factories and laboratories, chaos never turns itself into order and proceeds to maintain and expand itself. Every system appears subjected to the omnipresent property of reality that any order finally turns into the ultimate disorder, if directed external effort to maintain the order is stopped. The experiments of Miller, Prigogine and Dawkins, however, seem to suggest organic molecules have a tendency to order themselves on their own when an advantageous fluctuation of chaos emerges. But is this suggestion realistic? How do the experiments of Miller, Prigogine and Dawkins relate to the second law of thermodynamics, and is it true that the second law only holds for open systems? Has a director of a chemical factory to reckon that one day evolution theory will lead to techniques that will make simple chemicals start arranging themselves into more complex substances without directed external effort? And should software engineers worry that one day they will be replaced by fully automated mutation and selection processes that will expand a program of a few bytes into a complex billion-byte program? In this study, these questions are investigated. First we look at thermodynamics, and the second law in particular, more accurately. Then, we assess Prigogine’s examples of chaos turning into order, as well as the Miller experiment. Next, we investigate the processes of order turning into chaos in computer programs and in DNA, as well as the provisions that are present to maintain the initial order. Dawkins’ computer simulations of evolution illustrate the findings. Finally, we discuss our results and close with directions for further research and some concluding remarks. Thermodynamics, Chaos and Order Thermodynamics is often looked upon as a specialist sub-area of physics, where complicated calculations of phenomena such as the compression and expansion of gasses are made. This image of making complicated calculations is more or less correct, but thermodynamics is definitely not a backwater corner of physics. On the contrary, it lays down the relationships between the energy, heat, order and probability of systems, varying from motors to molecules, and is one of the pillars of physics and chemistry. Thermodynamics is a science that emerged from the field of engineering. Over the years, empirical knowledge was laid down into general rules that appeared to be trustworthy and finally gained the status of laws. Since thermodynamics deals with systems in reality, which are always influenced from the outside, the laws of thermodynamics relate to open systems. The first law of thermodynamics describes how the internal energy of a system changes when energy is passed to the system, or when it affects its surroundings. The second law describes the relationship between the supply of energy to a system and the change of its order. The third law describes the change in the order of a system as the temperature approaches absolute zero, and the fourth (or zeroth) law concerns the way irreversible processes influence one another. The Second Law Many inventors have dreamed of constructing a system that keeps moving without the supply of energy. An example of the design of such a perpetual motion machine is an electric motor that is fed by the electricity generated by a dynamo that is driven by the same motor. Disappointingly, the dynamo does not supply enough electricity to keep the motor running, and both stop when the motor is switched to the electricity generated by the motor-driven dynamo. Numerous other methods of constructing a perpetual motion machine have been tried, but time and again it appears that the energy supplied to a system never can be extracted from it completely in the form of work done by the system on its surroundings (A), and that a system can never be brought to a higher energy level without doing work on the system (B). As a result every perpetual motion machine construction always goes back to standing still. The empirical principles denoted as A and B are known as Kelvin’s principle and Clausius’ principle, respectively. In thermodynamics, both rules are combined into one principle, which is known as the second law of thermodynamics. It states that the supply of energy to a system resulting in a movement from a state 1 into a state 2 always leads to a smaller decrease of the disorder of the system than would be possible theoretically. The second law has the shape of a mathematical calculable formula (see for instance, Van den Bergen, 1974, p. 29), thanks to the use of the concept of “entropy” as a measure for the disorder of a system: The left term of the formula describes the supply of energy over the boundaries of a system when moving from state 1 to state 2. The right term describes the decrease of the entropy of the system. Using Bolzman’s law S = k Ln W (W is the probability of the state of a system) and elementary mathematics, the entropy S of, for instance, human DNA (a string of 3 billion characters) can be calculated. The second law indicates that a system can only move to a less probable state (i.e., a state of higher order/less disorder) if energy is supplied to the system from the outside. This corresponds to the principle of Clausius. The second law also indicates that not all supplied energy can be transformed into a reduction of the disorder/entropy, but that always some entropy-reduction is lost. This corresponds to the principle of Kelvin. The second law thus expresses the same properties of physical reality as the principles of Kelvin and Clausius do. No Conservation of Entropy The second law not only indicates that a directed supply of energy over the boundaries of a system (hereinafter referred to as a “directed external effort”) is always needed to reduce the disorder of a system, it also tells what happens when directed external effort is lacking. In that case, the entropy (disorder) is not conserved, but increases, until the maximum state of disorder is reached. It is clear that for closed systems the left term of the second law is zero and the entropy of the system will increase. But for open systems too, the left term can be zero. If an open system is subjected to undirected external effort, for instance random flows of wind and water, lightning, radiation, or random movement and transportation processes, than the left term will be zero averaged over a longer period of time. After a longer period of time, open systems that are subjected to random, fluctuating energy flows will turn into the largest possible disorder too, as ruins, ragbags, junkyards and car dumps make clear. Order Out of Chaos In open systems that are subjected to undirected external forces, order can emerge, as Nobel Laureate Prigogine has shown (Prigogine, 1984). At a beach, for instance, grains of sand at random jumping in the wind can form regular ripples, and on a cooling window, complex structures of frost flowers can emerge. In addition, Prigogine shows that in living nature, too, chaos can turn into order. For instance, bacteria in a chaotic environment can ultimately form regular structures, and in a population of insects the great variation in shape of their wings can ultimately reach one stable form. It seems that when circumstances are advantageous, chaos can turn into order just by itself, in lifeless as well as in living nature. Besides, Miller has shown that random forces have the ability to create the building blocks of life, resulting in the interconnection of lifeless and living nature. All together, a continuous line seems to be present, starting at the self-organization of grains of sand into regular ripples, to the self-organization of organic substances into DNA-building blocks, and finally toward cells containing DNA and living organisms. When looking more accurately into the emergence of order in open systems by the influence of random external forces, firstly it appears that the emerging order is only temporary. Averaged over a longer period of time, the left term of the second law is zero and the disorder in the system will increase, since provisions to maintain the emerged order are missing. On a beach covered by well-structured wind ripples, the wind will blow from a different direction on another day and the wind ripples will disappear. The frost flowers formed on a window pane when water vapor cools and the water molecules are captured into a regular structure of “energetic holes” will disappear as soon as the fluctuating temperature moves above zero, and the water molecules will start moving again. Both the structures of sand grains as the structures of frozen water molecules lack a provision for maintaining the temporary order and will disappear again. Secondly, order that emerges from undirected external forces not only has a temporary character, but does not expand, unless directed external effort is supplied. This law of nature is clearly illustrated by the famous Miller experiment (see fig. 1). Random flashes of electricity can turn basic organic substances into the building blocks of DNA. But the next moment, new flashes may destroy these building blocks. The larger the building blocks, the faster they will be destroyed again. Therefore, Miller transported the building blocks formed towards a distillation flask, sheltering them for destruction by new flashes of lightning, resulting into the production of a more and more concentrated organic soup. Miller’s experiment confirms the second law, and shows that the order in a system can only be maintained and increased by directed external effort. Thirdly, Prigogine puts the examples of chaos turning into order in lifeless nature on the same level as the examples from living nature. In doing so, he overlooks the DNA program in living organisms, which controls the material and energy flows of the organism. A sand grain is just a small lump of silicon. A bacterium, however, can be viewed as an entirely automated and autonomous biochemical robot, interacting with its environment, and maintaining and reproducing itself. Therefore the process of chaotic jumping sand grains turning into orderly ripples cannot be compared to a colony of bacteria forming orderly structures. It is often supposed that organic molecules have a natural bias to order themselves into increasingly complex structures. It is thought that if an advantage fluctuation of chaos arises, the molecules will move to a nearby, higher and maintained level of order; after some time, a subsequent advantageous fluctuation of chaos will arise and another a step of increasing order will be set; et cetera. More accurate assessment of this line of thought, which is handed by Miller and Prigogine, shows, however, that (1) the emergence of order in chaotic systems is only temporary; (2) the maintenance and further expansion of the order that may emerge in chaotic systems demands directed external effort; and (3) the chaotic processes in living nature that sometimes are turned into order are strongly influenced by the DNA programs of the organisms involved. Chaos Out of Order The emergence of chaos out of order is a property of reality that is as omnipresent and as influential as gravity. Sooner or later, cars break down, paint peels off, ships rust, rooms get untidy and dirty, furniture falls apart, faces sag and become ugly, clothes wear out and tear, houses and factories go to ruins, tools become unusable, books and CDs unreadable, and chemical substances loose their activity. All these open systems finally turn into the ultimate state of disorder when directed external effort to maintain them stops. All of this is fully in line with the second law. Order can only be maintained if directed external effort is present. We will illustrate this by investigating the provisions that are present in computer programs to maintain the order, and subsequently the provisions that are present in DNA programs for this purpose. The Maintenance of Order in Computer programs In the ICT-industry, the maintenance of order is a major problem. When information is read or copied, errors can be made, and when storing information, the data can degenerate through radiation, chemicals, or mechanical damage. Therefore, each byte (recording an information entity) contains what is known as a check bit. When a byte is mutated, the check bit changes and the program stops and generates an error massage. The suggestion of evolutionary theory that mutation of a DNA program can lead to the improvement and expansion of it, does not in any case apply to computer programs. The mutation of the bytes of a computer program by mechanical measures or by a software-damaging program will only generate error messages and will never, even after a billion trials, generate any improved or extended program. In evolutionary software development, therefore, only the parameters of a program are changed at random (Koza, 1992). Parameters that lead to an advantageous program output are selected and used as a basis for new random parameter changes, et cetera. In, for instance, the design of aircraft or ships random change of program parameters and selection appears to be a powerful strategy to optimize a certain design within the boundaries of its system space, and adapt it to the demands of a certain environment. Dawkins’ evolution simulation program is a clear example of this technique (Dawkins, 1991). The simulation program can draw symmetric structures of branched lines, which can vary in number, gradient and length. If a certain branched structure (“tree”) vaguely resembles the shape of a living organism (in general an insect), it is selected and new variations of the parameters are tried, searching for an even better resemblance. This procedure of the mutation and selection of the program parameters finally results in the production of a number of insect-like trees. The program, however, continues drawing trees. Only after the addition of extra lines to the computer program (denoted by Dawkins as the addition of new genes) can the functionality of the program be expanded, resulting in the drawing of segmented trees. Only after a complete rewrite will the program start drawing boats, or cars, or aircraft. Dawkins experiment shows that only by directed external effort the order of his drawing program can be expanded, as the second law of thermodynamics predicts. The Maintenance of Order of DNA programs A living cell can be viewed as a fully automated biochemical robot controlled by a DNA program. In an organism, each cell contains the same DNA program, which is continually read and copied. In humans, the DNA program comprises 3 billion characters and would fill a bookcase of 7 meters long and 3 meters high when printed on A4 paper using a Times 12 font, resulting in 4900 characters per page and 100 pages per centimeter of bookshelf (see fig. 2). As in computer programs, the order in a DNA program is subjected to the basic property of reality that any order has a tendency to decay into chaos. This natural process is slowed down by the 8-fold redundancy of the information in the DNA (in pairs of chromosomes, each consisting of two chromatides, which each consist of two complementary strings containing the same information), and by complex biochemical processes around the DNA that continually compare the redundant information and repair damaged characters. In addition to that, living organisms must surmount numerous obstacles in the struggle for food, shelter and a partner. If a certain mutation of the DNA cannot be repaired and is passed to posterity, the offspring is usually beaten in these struggles by the organisms that possess undamaged DNA. In the end, they appear not fit for survival and cannot pass their mutant DNA to posterity, by which the mutation is still eliminated from the gene pool of the species. Despite the continuous repair of the DNA and the presence of selection processes that hinder the passage of damages to posterity, degeneration of the order in the DNA cannot be prevented entirely. Thermodynamics predicts that the “bookcase of 7 by 3 meters” that is stored (8-fold) in every human cell ultimately will be full of errors and will become unreadable. Environmental pollution will speed up the decay, not to mention nuclear disasters or a nuclear war. The most likely place in the DNA that will become unreadable first is the Y-chromosome, which has no partner, and where the mechanism of comparison and repair are 50% less intensive than elsewhere in the DNA (Sykes, 2004). The nuclear disaster in Chernobyl in 1992 led to the widespread and far-reaching disfigurements of plants, animals and people. No improvement in the flora and fauna around Tsjernobyl was observed as a result of the massive mutation of DNA. Also in the field of oncology, longtime research has produced no indication whatsoever that the mutation of DNA may lead to improvement and growth of the gene pool of a species. Nevertheless, evolution theory claims that mutation (= damaging) of the DNA and selection of the resulting improvements is the motor of change in living nature. Cancer researcher Prof. Plasterk (1996, p. 28) makes clear that this is a misconception: "There are bunches of biologists who think that evolution happens by the emergence of a mutation somewhere in the species, that brings a selective advantage. It is known for half a century yet that it does not go like this, and cannot go like this.... The forming of species goes by the selection of combinations, not of mutations." Modern genetics has proven that the numerous changes in the shape of organisms that occur in living nature are not the result of a supposed process of gene mutation and selection, but of the process of gene recombination and selection. Dogs, for example, vary extremely in size, color, coat, behavior, etc., depending on the specific combination of genes from the same gene pool (i.e., of the wolf). Dogs that possess an advantageous combination of genes are selected by dog-breeders for reproduction (see fig. 3). In free nature, natural selection takes place. Finches, for instance, that possess a gene combination for a broad beak are sometimes able to survive, whereas finches with a gene combination for a narrow beak will not. When the selection criteria of the environment change, the combinations of genes that are advantageous will change too, as well as the corresponding appearances of organisms. Their gene pool, however, stays unchanged. The changes in the shape of the beaks of finches or the appearances of dogs thus have nothing to do with the mutation of genes. The mutation of genes is an absolutely different process, which is combated vigorously by mechanisms of comparison and repair in the cell kernel, and by selection processes in the struggle for food, shelter and a partner. Discussion The Tenability of the Theory of Evolution In this study we investigated the contradiction that seems to be present between both real-life experience and empirical science with the theory of evolution. In real life, chaos never turns into order by itself and starts maintaining and expanding itself, as the second law of thermodynamics confirms. Remarkably, the theory of evolution states exactly the opposite, and claims that the change from chaos into order is a natural process. When assessing the line of reasoning that is followed to prove this, we found that the argumentation is based on (a) a misinterpretation of Miller’s-experiment, (b) an unjustified extrapolation of Prigogine’s examples of order emerging temporarily out of chaos, (c) Prigogine’s overlooking of the DNA programs in living organisms, which strongly influence the change of chaos into order in living nature, and (d) the confounding of a supposed process of gene-mutation and selection by the real process of gene-recombination and selection in living nature. We also found that thermodynamics is concerned with open systems and that all processes of chaos turning into order, both in non-living and living nature, are fully in line with the second law of thermodynamics. We illustrated this with Miller’s experiment, Prigogine’s results and the evolution simulation program of Dawkins. We also found that the assumption underlying the theory of evolution that (organic) molecules have a bias to start ordering themselves in the absence of directed external effort into ever more complex structures, is false and fully in contradiction with empirical science and in particular the second law of thermodynamics. In view of these results, the conclusion that the theory of evolution is untenable seems inevitable, as 200 scientists, among which 4 Nobel Laureates, found before in 1991 on a conference in Paris (Staune, 1991). The scientific untenability of the theory of evolution is not surprising. No laboratory staff anywhere in the world seriously consider the possibility that one day they will witness simple substances start ordering themselves into more complex substances that begin to maintain themselves without directed external effort. Likewise, no director of any chemical plant will worry that one day his expensive installations, in which energy is skillfully directed towards basic chemicals in order to produce complicated chemicals, will be no longer necessary because the basic chemicals will start ordering themselves and will be available for free. Although it seems inevitable that the theory of evolution should be rejected, there is no impetus to do so. The theory of evolution does not lie at the basis of scientific theories, methods and techniques people are dependent on in their daily lives and work. The contradiction of the theory with everyday experience and empirical science, therefore, never becomes apparent in painful practical problems caused by evolutionary theory-based methods or techniques that appear to be inadequate. In fact, the theory of evolution has the unassailable position of a generally accepted myth of the origin of life, which can explain any phenomenon in living nature, although these explanations are not testable (a must for a scientific theory). Moreover, the theory articulates the enticing notion that “everything will get better by itself.” As an optimistic myth with a scientific aura, the theory of evolution has a strong position, which is scarcely threatened by what empirical science and everyday experience have to say about chaos and order. Integrity and Progress of Science The history of science shows a continuous rise and fall of theories. The paradigms theories are grounded in, however, are only changed with great difficulty (Kuhn, 1970). If the rejection of a theory were to imply the rejection of the underlying paradigm as well, rejection would be vigorously resisted, as, for example, Galileo experienced when challenging the earth- centered paradigm of the universe. Although the theory of evolution is scientifically untenable, it is not likely that it will be rejected soon, since the theory embodies a powerful and generally accepted paradigm for looking at life, its origin and meaning, which is defended with strong religious sentiments. The contradiction with empirical science, however, corrupts the integrity of science and results in boundaries in scientific theorizing and research that should not exist, to assumptions that are not reliable to build on, and to lines of thought that are false. All of this does not benefit the progress of science. Belief and Science The theory that the order in living nature, and in particular the order in the DNA of organisms, has emerged by itself, must be rejected on scientific grounds. According to thermodynamics, this order can only have emerged by directed external effort. Those who want to denote this directed external effort as “God” must realize that the theory “God created the DNA” is untestable, and thus is not a scientific theory but a belief. The theory “The DNA is the result of intelligent design” is also untestable, and thus a belief. Therefore, any form of creationism cannot fill the gap in the scientific domain that results from rejecting the theory of evolution. It can only be filled by a new testable theory that does not contradict everyday experience and empirical science. In the meantime, the position “We do not have a testable theory (yet) that explains the origin of life” can be taken. The appearance of a gap in scientific knowledge may be uncomfortable, but covering that gap by a theory that contradicts empirical science and everyday experience is worse, and corrupts the integrity of science and hinders the progress of science. Directions for Further Research If the theory of evolution is rejected on scientific grounds, firstly, room emerges to take new directions in DNA research. In view of the fact that mutations of DNA are continually repaired and eliminated in survival and selection processes, it is not likely that 90% of DNA is junk. It is more likely that a DNA program, like any other construction program or cookbook, not only describes what the intended construction is to be built of, but also when and how the building materials must be used. In complex construction programs, this process can embrace more than 90% of the program. Therefore, it must be expected that the 90% of human DNA that does not code for proteins contains process information, for instance how to realize the structure of the skeleton, the heart, the ear, or the eye. This direction of research may lead to new nanotechnology-based techniques to record process information. In medicine, this may lead to the development of a new generation of smart drugs. Secondly, on the interface of DNA-research and computer science, new lines of research are opened in the preservation of the integrity of very large data sets, using multi-redundancy and combined comparison and repair mechanisms. Such techniques seem to be interesting in high-risk environments, for instance space traveling and electronic warfare. Thirdly, it opens new directions of theorizing and research in geology. Since earth layers are dated with fossils and fossils are dated with earth layers, geology and paleontology are linked by circular reasoning. Because evolution theory postulates a high age of fossils, earth layers are dated in hundreds of millions of years, and the assumptions over the initial values in radiometric models are brought in line with that. After removing evolution theory from the domain of science, earth layers need no longer be hundreds of million of years old, and new interpretation of empirical facts becomes possible, for instance the fact that all fossils containing earth layers still contain 14 C. (Arnold, Bard, Maurice & Duplessy, 1987; Beukings, Garfunkel & Lee, 1992; Kretschmer, 1998). Fourthly, in astronomy new directions in theorizing and research become possible when the universe does not necessarily need to be billions of years old in order to allow for the long period of time the evolution theory needs. Assumptions over the initial values of astronomical models can be reconsidered and room emerges for a reinterpretation of empirical findings, for instance the discovery of interconnected red-shift galaxies, and the finding that only 4% of the predicted amount of matter in the universe has actually been perceived yet. Concluding Remarks The theory of evolution contradicts everyday experience and empirical science. In this study, the argumentation to prove the virtuality of this contradiction was investigated and found to be false. Everyday experience and empirical science show that only by directed external effort can chaos turn into maintained order. This principle of reality holds for all open systems, including the DNA program in living organisms. Those who want to denote the external effort that must have caused the order of the DNA as “God” must realize that the theory “God or an Intelligent Designer created the DNA” is untestable, and thus is not a scientific theory but a belief. Therefore, the gap in the scientific domain that results from rejecting the theory of evolution cannot be filled by any form of creationism. It can only be filled by a new testable theory that does not contradict everyday experience and empirical science. In the mean time, the position “We do not have a testable theory (yet) that explains the origin of life” can be taken. That is a very respectable position, for non-scholars and for scholars. References Arnold, M., Bard, E., Maurice, P. & Duplessy, J.C. 1987. 14 C dating with the Gif-sur-Yvette tandetron accelerator: status report. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, B , 29: p.120- 123. Bergen, A.C. van den. 1974. Thermodynamica . Delft: TUD-Press. Beukings, R.P., Gurfinkel D.M. &. Lee, H.W. 1992. Progress at the Osotrace Radiocarbon Facility. Radiocarbon , 28: p.229-236. Dawkins, R. 1991, The Blind Watchmaker . London: Pinguin Books. Koza, J.R. 1992. Genetic programming: on the programming of computers by means of natural selection . Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Kretschmer, W., e.a. 1998. The Erlangen AMS facility and its applications in 14 C sediment and bonedating. Radiocarbon , 40: p.231-238. Kuhn, T.S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Plasterk, R. 1996. Signaal (column). Intermediair, 25 oktober, p. 28. Prigogine, I & Stengers, I. 1984. Order out of Chaos . Toronto: Bantam Books. Staune, J. 1991. L’Evolution condamne Darwin, Figaro Magazin, 26 oktober. Sykes, B. 2004. Adam’s curse: a future without men . London: Bantam Books. dr. Wim. M. de Jong is innovation management consultant and researcher at INI-Consult. Besides, he is the initiator of the Evoskepsis association. (The objectives of Evoskepsis are the stimulation of the scientific debate over the tenability of the theory of evolution and the defense of science against religion)

Summary: Fingerprints are a legally recognized form of proof. The derived and experimentally confirmed universal electrodynamic force has a combination of spherical and chiral symmetry that produces a unique fingerprint. Chiral symmetry is marked by right and left handedness, mirror symmetry, and spiraling caused by the triple vector cross product R x (R x V) term in the universal force law. Structures with chiral symmetry have a number of identical sub-elements associated with the prime number system, i.e. 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, ... This unique symmetry fingerprint is exhibited on all size scales from the closed charge loop that is the basic building block of elementary particles, to the structure of elementary particles, to the structure of atoms and nuclei, to the structure of molecules, to the structure of crystals, to the internal vein structure of leaves, to the structure of leaf patterns on the plant, to the structure of flower petal patterns, to the structure of seed patterns, to the structure of planets like Saturn, to the structure of our solar system as reflected in the modern version of Bode's Law, to the structure of galaxies, to the structure of the whole universe as reflected in Tifft's quantized red shifts in agreement with Bode’s Law. The evidence above is presented in pictures, graphs and diagrams and appears to prove that the universe is governed on all size scales by the symmetry of the universal electrodynamic force. The Bible indicates in many passages that God interacts with his creation in an electromagnetic fashion. This is seen in Genesis 1:3 when God begins to create the universe, He creates light first. It is seen in the flaming sword of the Cherubim guarding the Garden of Eden after man sins. God speaks to Moses in the wilderness via the burning bush which is not consumed. Also God speaks to the Israelites from Mount Sinai via light, lightning and thunder which are electromagnetic phenomena. When Moses receives the Ten Commandments from God on Mount Sinai, his face glows so brightly from being in the presence of God that he has to cover it up for the sake of his fellow Israelites. God leads the Israelites in the wilderness with a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. When God enters the tabernacle that Moses built, his shekinah glory is an electromagnetic phenomena that resides over the Ark of the Covenant representing the presence of God. The same thing happens when God enters the temple that Solomon built in Jerusalem. When Elijah confronts the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel to show whether God is Baal or Jehovah, it is the fire from heaven that decides the issue. When Elijah is taken into heaven, it is a chariot of fire that comes to get him. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are rescued from the fiery furnace by God who is more glorious than the fiery furnace to the Babylonians present. In the New Testament Jesus is transfigured before Peter, James and John so that they can see his glory. The creation of the New Testament Church on the Day of Pentecost was marked by the coming of the Holy Spirit that was indicated by cloven tongues of fire above each person. The same thing happens when the church spreads to the Samaritans and they receive the Holy Spirit. Finally the cloven tongues of fire mark the spreading of the church to the Gentiles when the centurion Cornelius and his household receive the Holy Spirit. The Second coming of Christ is prophesied to be in clouds of glory. The Bible says that the divine force is the electromagnetic force by which God created and sustains the universe and performs miracles. In Habakkuk 3:4 the Bible says “His brightness was like light; He had rays flashing from his hand, and there His power was hidden.” This is further amplified in the New Testament in Hebrews 1:1-3a “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power...” If the identification of the universal electromagnetic force as the divine force is correct, one might expect the symmetry of the universal electrodynamic force to be God’s symmetry also. This appears to be the case. The scripture declares in Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.” Matthew 28:19 gives the Great Commission as “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” indicating that God has a triune nature. These same two symmetries are also exhibited in the Tabernacle of Moses and the Temple of Solomon. The Holy of Holies of Moses’ tabernacle (10 x 10 x 10 cubits) and of Solomon’s temple (20 x 20 x 20 cubits) are perfect cubes with triune symmetry. In the tabernacle and temple are additional items with symmetries. The Menorah or light in the tabernacle consists of seven golden candlesticks. In Zechariah 4:10 the lights of the candlesticks are identified as the eyes of the Lord which run to and fro through the whole earth. In the New Testament Revelation 4:5 the seven golden candlesticks are further identified as the seven spirits of God. There are other symmetries associated with the tabernacle. There are five pillars at the entrance and eleven curtains of goats hair used as a covering for the tabernacle. God had told Moses to make the Tabernacle after the heavenly pattern shown him on Mount Sinai (Exodus 25:40) indicating that symmetry was important. Everything that God created appears to bear his symmetry. The triune symmetry of God appears to be the most common form in nature. Did God put his fingerprint in his revelations to man? An analysis of the symmetry of Genesis 1:1 reveals that the layout of the order of the Hebrew letters has perfect triune symmetry, i.e. 3 x 3 x 3 symmetry. There are three letters that occur three times and nine letters that occur twice in an alphabet of 27 unique letters. For this analysis one must use the Hebrew alphabet in use at the time, not the Modern Hebrew alphabet which has changed. Note that in the first verse of the first book of the Bible that God spelled out his unique perfect triune symmetry. We traditionally put the author’s name at the beginning of the book. In the New Testament the Greek alphabet varied from city to city. If one combines the alphabets of all the cities to which the apostles wrote in Greek, one finds that together they also have a unique set of 27 characters. No languages in the world currently have an alphabet with a unique set of 27 characters. According to the Free Online Dictionary beauty is the quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony or symmetry of form or color. Since the spherical and chiral symmetry of form and color in nature is just the fingerprint of the creator, one can say that the fingerprint of God is the source of all beauty in nature.

1. Feathers are highly specialized organs and the distinguishing feature of birds. Even the flightless penguin is classified as a bird because of its feathers. Part of the bird's anatomy is a furcula or "wishbone" and usually a sternum. Birds are warm-blooded and necessarily light-weight, and, it was long argued, the feathers were not preserved in the fossil record because of their delicate nature. However, "flocks" of genuine fossil birds have recently been discovered in China. In contrast to birds, the reptiles have a heavy bone structure, are cold-blooded and have neither furcula nor feathers. The word "Dinosaur" was coined in 1840 by Richard Owen, the dirctor of the British Natural History Museum. Although not believer in Biblical creation, Owen was a vigorous opponent of Darwinian evolution. Dinosaurs are said to have lived from the Jurassic to the Cretaceous Age, that is, 140 to 65 million years ago. There are three classes of dinosaur: The ornithischian or "bird-hipped" type with two very large rear- legs and two very small fore-legs, think of the kangaroo, the ostrich and the T-Rex; The saurischian or lizard- hipped type that walked on four legs and the double- beamed type with four legs, a long neck and a long tail. Not all dinosaurs grew to be large; most were quite small even chicken-sized. In 1833 French paleontologist Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire proposed that the birds had evolved from the ornithischian dinosaurs; this speculation was likely based on the fact that both reptiles and birds are oviparous (lay eggs). Charles Darwin was a great synthesizer of other people's ideas and twenty-six years later, in 1859, gave the world his theory of evolution ( 'Origin of Species ). On p. 280 he lamented that the fossil record should be full of intermediate varieties of creature (transitions) but geology had not yet provided any. He confessed this to be: "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." He then suggested the explanation was due to, "the extreme imperfection of the geological record". One-hundred and fifty years and tens of thousands of fossils later that situation has not changed! 2. However, Darwin's statement above provided a charter for fossil forgers because within months of the publication of the German edition of Darwin's 'Origin (in 1861) an impression of a single, modern-looking feather was "discovered" in the Jurassic limestone of Solnhofen quarry, southern Germany. It was dated at 150 million years and called Archaeopteryx lithographica , meaning "early wing". The limestone from this quarry was used to make lithographic plates for the printing industry while for some time a clandestine fossil forgery business had flourished there. The specimen is commonly referred to as "von Meyer's feather." The sale of this fossil to the Berlin and the Munich museums was negotiated by Dr. Karl Haberlein, medical officer for the district of Pappenheim near Solnhofen. Less than two months later, in 1861, another Archaeopteryx appeared from the same quarry. This was about as big as a pigeon, had remarkably clear feather impressions in the wing and tail areas and was headless. Moreover, it contained a very large furcula or wishbone but England's Thomas. H. Huxley declared this to be, "the greatest osteological difficulty presented by Archaeopteryx " and neither he nor Charles Darwin would accept this specimen as a genuine transition. Huxley also took delight in pointing out that the furcula was upside-down. Again, Dr. Haberlein negotiated the sale, this time to the British Natural History Museum. Its director, Sir Richard Owen, bought the specimen sight-unseen for 600 pounds (today, valued at two million); it is known as "the London specimen." German professor, Andreas Wagner, who had the opportunity to study this specimen, declared that it was nothing more than the reptile Compsognathus with feathers. He knew this chicken-sized dinosaur well, since he had discovered it and named it. 3. The third specimen at first named Archaeornis appeared 16 years later (1877) from the same quarry and was complete with the head and it had teeth which placed it nicely between the reptile and the bird. This time its sale was negotiated by Dr. Karl Haberlein's son, Ernst Haberlein, who demanded a stupendous price of 30,000 gold marks. National pride was at stake and the specimen finished in the Berlin Museum; it is referred to as the "Berlin specimen" and is the universal textbook exemplar. The early published engraving of this specimen included a furcula of the same shape and orientation as the London specimen, however, later photographs showed no sign of it. 4. Textbooks often speak about "many other examples" and by this they mean the remaining four specimens. The following is their description: A poorly preserved specimen discovered in 1956 and classified as an Archaeopteryx ; it is known as the Maxberg specimen and was in the hands of a private collector but has disappeared in recent years. A specimen discovered in 1855, displayed in the Teyer Museum and known as a pterosaur until 1970 when it was reclassified as an Archaeopteryx ; it is known as the Haarlem specimen. A specimen discovered in 1951, classified as a Compsognathus longipes then reclassified as an Archaeopteryx in 1973; it is known as the Eichstatt specimen. A specimen in another private collection classified as an Archaeopteryx in 1988 and referred to as the Solnhofen specimen. It should be emphasized that none of these four specimens show feather impressions, so-called fused clavicles (furcula or wish-bone) or any other avian characteristics; the only purpose for their being reclassified appears to be to swell the number of specimens. It is possible that Museum authorities were becoming concerned especially as two birdlike fossils named Protoavis texenis were found in 1983 with furcula and sternum but no feathers and, according to the geology, 75 Ma years before the Archaeopteryx . Certainly, questions were being asked and by some high-profile scientists from other disciplines and an International Conference was called at Eichstat, Germany, in 1984. 5. Dr. Lee Spetner of the Weizman Institute, Israel, working in cooperation with British astrophysicist, Sir Fred Hoyle, long suspected that the London specimen was a fake and finally were able to examine the actual specimen at the British Museum. The date was December 1984. They were not allowed to touch the specimen, merely photograph it. No main-line science journal would publish their findings so they published a cut-down version in The British Journal of Photography . Later, in 1986, they published a full book giving all the documented details. Briefly, Hoyle and Spetner charged that the London specimen was actually that of a Compsognathus to which impressions of modern feathers and a "furcula" had been added. They suggested that the forgers had carved [or possibly masked off with wax and dissolved with acid] a shallow depression about the "wing" and "tail" areas, back-filled with a mixture of finely ground limestone and gum arabic then modern feathers pressed into this mixture. After setting, the feathers were stripped out leaving the two halves of the slab much as we find them today. Scanning electron microscope analysis of two very small samples was permitted, one taken in the wing area and a control sample taken beyond the fossil area. The control showed a clean crystalline structure as would be expected. The wing sample was amorphous suggesting that it was a mixture of fine particles and an organic i.e. likely gum arabic? Both analyses were confirmed by X-ray luminescence analysis but having come this close to proof of forgery, the Museum refused further tests. 6. Examination of the Berlin Specimen. None but the certified believer can expect to be permitted to examine the actual specimen, however, the published photographs taken over the years are almost as revealing. A popular engraving of this specimen was published in 1880 and it clearly had a furcula in the same location, of the same shape and the same orientation as that in the London specimen. However, Carl Vogt had photographed this specimen shortly after its discovery in 1877 and Professor C. H. Hurst photographed this same specimen in 1893. Both photographs are identical and there is no furcula. Hurst pointed out that the popular 1887 textbook illustration had bent primary quill feathers (some bent by 40 degrees!) and that these originate in the ulna or fore-arm whereas on the fossil those same quill feathers were straight and originate in the manus or "hand." Controversy arose in which Hurst further pointed out that not only did Professor Dames 1884 description of the fossil state that the primary quills were attached to the longest finger but that bent feathers would in any case be useless for flight. W. D. Pyecraft of the British Museum also defended the straight feathers saying that most modern birds have straight feathers and they do originate in the hand. Incredibly, every modern photograph of the Berlin specimen now show these quill feathers as bent and originating in the fore-arm. According to the published photographs the change from straight to bent feathers took place between 1893 and 1923. If indeed this was a forgery then the forger had no choice but to use straight quill feathers and correctly placed them originating from the manus. It seems that later, someone at the Berlin Museum mistakenly thought that quill feathers originated in the ulna and illustrated them that way. Since that time the fossil itself has somehow been modified so that the incorrect illustrated version persists even in modern photographic reproductions. 7. In summary so far, there are just two fossil representatives of the alleged transition from the reptile to the bird: the London and the Berlin specimens. Both have feather impressions, both originated from the same quarry and passed through the hands of the same Haberlein family who were paid enormous sums of money. It is only the London specimen that has the alleged furcula but that bears no resemblance to any bird's wishbone — it has been described as a "bent sausage" and is up-side-down. There is said to be other specimens; these consist of four produced by reclassifying other fossils but none of these have feather impression or furcular. By the late 1980's Museum's began a PR campaign: Dinosaurs were now declared to have been hot blooded thus avoiding a major problem of the transition; the 1993 film Jurassic Park had a nimble team of dinosaurs. Then, in the 1990's, China offered a new opportunity. 8. In the past decade or so the belief that the dinosaur is the bird's ancestor has indeed been maintained by the fossil search in NE China. The Early Cretaceous sedimentary layers of the Jehol Group of Northeastern China, which includes outcrops in the Liaoning Province, have provided a rich source of fossils including: A large diversity of organic material such as well preserved insect wings, feathers and fur from birds and mammals and an almost identical theropod to the Late Jurassic Compsognathus found in the Solnhofen quarries of Germany. Of course, the local Chinese especially the Liaoning quarries, are very much aware of the Western interest in fossils showing the evolutionary development of the bird from the reptile. Indeed, Feduccia described this quarry as a "fake-fossil factory." The discoveries have been as follows: 1995.Confuciusornis sanctus . This bird is one of several suggesting "flocks." It has a beak, no teeth, but feathers and wing claws i.e. a modern-type bird. Found in the Late Jurassic placed it at 140 Ma, however, this presented a serious challenge to the London and Berlin Archaeopteryx since these are of the same age and claimed to be transitions! The incredible solution has been to reclassify the geological stratum for Confuciusornis moving it forward to the Early Cretaceous thus making it 100 Ma. 1996. Sinosauropteryx prima. Discovered in the Liaoning quarries it is in every respect a Compsognathus like those at Solnhofen; it was optimistically named "First- Chinese-Winged-Reptile." The avian claim was based on a line of "proto-feathers" or dino-fuzz i.e. collagen fibre, running along the spine. It had a lung physiology similar to the present-day crocodile. 1999. Archaeoraptor liaoningensis sloan. This was the exclusive catch of the National Geographic magazine (November 1999) but within two months was found to be a fake consisting of two and possibly five separate fossils. The magazine issued a five-page, close-print-no pictures, explanation in their October 2000 issue. 2003. Microraptor gui. This was supposedly a four-winged dinosaur that used its wings for gliding. Of the six specimens found, five show apparent feathers and were bought from the same "fake-fossil factory" at Liaoning quarry. This raises serious doubts while the sixth specimen has no sign of feathers; the researchers admitted that some of the pieces of rock had been glued together improperly. 9. In 1991 an event occurred that, while not concerned with the alleged reptile to bird transition, is causing the supporters of evolution some even deeper concerns today. Mary Schweitzer, at that time a graduate student, discovered blood cells in a piece of non-lithified T.rex bone. She describes herself as "a total Christian" yet is firmly committed to the millions of years and has advanced among the ranks of her peers. In 2004 she discovered soft tissue inside mineralized T.rex bone and in 2005 discovered proteins. These organic inclusions cannot possibly have survived for millions or even thousands of years. Her discoveries have been published and similar evidences are being reported by others. All told, they offer the greatest challenge to evolution yet! 10. For the Creationist concerned about seeing God's hand in all these events there are two of significance: First, Heilman showed in 1926 that the Compsognathus has the closest anatomical structure to the birds including a forward facing pubis; How did Dr. Haberlein know this in 1861? Acts 15:18 "Known to God are all His works" indicating that while we have a free-will to love God, He has provided "evidences" for those who choose not to. Secondly, see the familiar passage in Romans 1:18-23. —o0o— Creation Moments, Inc. 1-800-422-4253. September 2008 www.creationmoments.com

The article appeared in The Discerner , the voice of Religion Analysis Service, Volume 26, Number 3, July-August-September 2006. Used by permission. In these days when we read or hear information relating to the age of the earth, the most likely number will be in billions of years. This does not fit a literal reading of the Bible. Some Christians reaction to insistence that the long ages are not valid is What difference does it make? It makes a difference when we consider that the Bible is God's written word, (I Peter 1:20,21) and God does not lie. The ideas of long ages, and dating techniques used to compute long ages, are inventions of mortal man and are not subject to rigorous scientific proof. The geology professor that taught the course in Nuclear Geology, in response to a request for proof for long ages, stated, "There is no proof. It's mostly speculation. But I choose to believe." Choosing to believe is not science, it's religion. (Ref. Alexander, Calvin, PhD, Univ. of MN., Jan. 5, 1982) What is taught in schools is that there is proof for long ages because we can calculate it. What is generally not known by teachers and students alike is that they have been given philosophy in place of facts. God and Time God exists outside of time. I AM Exodus 3:14, John 8:58 God is. The past, present and future in our time frame of existence is all the same to God. When did time begin? Gen. 1:1 In the beginning (of time), God created the heaven and the earth. What was there before Gen. 1:1? Only God, in three persons. Spiritual beings Where there is no physical space or matter, there is no need of time. God and the concept of time in Biblical terms: Psalm 90:4 A thousand years in God s sight are as yesterday. 2 Peter 3:8 ...one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Three Aspects of God God of creation God of revelation: He told us that He created, how He created, when He created, and why He Created. God of salvation: Our redemption was planned before He created. 2 Tim. 1:9 Calculating the Age of the Earth from the Bible From God's Word and its record of human history, the age of the earth can be calculated to a period of thousands of years. Time differences exist between the Masoretic and Septuagint texts, but both are less than 10,000 years. What does the record actually tell us? There are a number of opinions as to what the Scripture says. Authorities generally agree that the literal-day interpretation of Genesis not only is a "legitimate" interpretation of the text, but that it is the obvious view. This view is held by Dr. Davis Young, Dr. Pattle Pun and others even though they do not believe this interpretation. They disagree with this description of creation because it does not fit their "Scientific" view of the origin of the earth. The creation sequence as stated in Genesis is also questioned. Gap Theory To accommodate long ages, it was assumed by some that there were long periods of time between the specified steps of the creation account. Those who wish to accept the theoretical long ages of the earth as determined from radiometric dating assume that there were millions of years between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2. Day-Age Theory A similar view of the creation period considers each day as a geological age in which gradual changes in the physical structure were accompanied by gradual changes in the plant and animal life. Objections to the creation account given in Scripture are not scientific but philosophical. If the story of the "evolution" of the earth, as proposed by those who hold to the theory, were presented in the same format as the Biblical account of creation, would it be believed as a scientific explanation of the origin of the earth and life? (CRS Quarterly March 1979, p203 The Story of Evolution in Biblical Style , E. Theodore Agard and Charles D. Howe) A proper philosophical base is needed for the investigation of the world and the universe. The doctrine of creation provides that base, and the associated presuppositions are formed around that base. The created universe was expected to have: Design - intelligence Order - plan Purpose An alternate philosophical base - Universe not created - it evolved. Product of basic material (time and chance) No intelligence Irrational operation (why specific laws?) A Problem for Christians - Long Ages Basis for long ages The process of evolution needed long ages. Gradual changes that were to eventually produce new species needed time to accomplish the process. In spite of the fact that no intermediate fossil forms have ever been found, there was always hope that some would eventually be found. Age of rocks By assuming that the earth was old, geologists began assigning dates to rock strata. The deep layers of sedimentary rock are filled with fossil forms of plants, fish, amphibians and animals. Certain index fossils were used to provide age to rocks in areas where strata sequences were not well defined. From these early studies the sequence chart known as the geologic column was made. It is in a variety of forms found in many science textbooks. Dating of rocks and fossils The age of the earth is considered by many to be 4.5 billion years. This number appears in science textbooks and in science news articles, but few people are aware of how it was derived. Dating techniques for geological formations have been changing over the past several hundred years as new techniques are developed. Dating techniques Earlier dating was accomplished by such processes as measuring the accumulation of minerals and salts in the ocean, counting the annual deposits in the deltas at the mouths of rivers, measuring the erosion rate of waterfalls, measuring the accumulation of meteorite dust or measuring the decay of the earth's magnetic field. Most dates derived from these processes were in the range from several thousand to several hundred million years. The accuracy of the results depends heavily on the assumptions used. The same is true of the 4.5 billion year date. People in general are not aware of the assumptions used for these dates. It was the discovery of radiometric dating and its application to earth crystalline rock that resulted in a large increase in the assumed age of the earth. Not all rocks are dated by the same methods. The geologic column and the assumed ages of fossil bearing strata were derived before radiometric dating was developed. Sedimentary strata are not dated by their vertical sequence, their mineral content or their physical characteristics. They are primarily dated by fossil content. Index fossils, such as trilobites and dinosaurs, have been assigned to certain time periods based on evolutionary theory. Radiometric dating techniques are used on crystalline rocks such as granites and basalt. Small radioactive inclusions are found distributed within the rock. Radioactive decay is a natural process by which an unstable Parent isotope* decays into a stable Daughter isotope by a specific sequence of radioactive emissions. By measuring the amounts of the Parent and Daughter isotopes and knowing the decay rate, a series of calculations can provide a "radiometric age" for a rock sample. This may or may not be the true age of the rock. The assumptions are key in arriving at radiometric dates. Most assumptions are not proven or are not provable. The main assumptions of the testing methods for the uranium-lead or rubidium-strontium decay series are: The rock system must be closed. There must have been no gain or loss of either Parent or Daughter isotope during the life of the rock. Initial Daughter isotope can be determined accurately. The decay process is known and is constant. The measurement of the isotopes is accurate. There are several problems with these assumptions. It is doubtful that there are completely closed systems over long periods of time. Initial conditions can only be estimated. Decay rates are known for current conditions, but factors such as the change in the speed of light can have a direct effect on the decay rate. Measurement accuracies may depend on the skills of the operators. The sample may not be indicative of the whole rock formation. Potassium-argon dating of rocks had been common although there have been questions of its accuracy. Recent studies in its decay process by Dr. Edward Boudreaux has revealed that there are two decay rates for potassium, one much faster than the other.** By using the longer decay rate for making calculations, the over abundance of Daughter isotopes produces an extremely old age for the sample. *Isotopes are atoms of the same element having the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons. ** Boudreaux, Edward, and Baxter, Eric, A computational model for nuclear Binding and isotope decay Energies, Common Sense Science, 2000 Long Ages in Astronomy? Distance to Stars Large distances to stars, galaxies and quasars and the size of the universe are used to indicate long ages. How is distance measured? There is no way to directly measure the distance to most stars and galaxies. Distance to a limited number of close stars has been measured by parallax, taking angular measurements at different times of the year and using trigonometry to calculate the distance. The determination of the billions of light years for distant stars and galaxies is based on two factors, light intensity or brightness and the red shift of light received from the galaxies. It was assumed that the red shift of light was a Doppler effect produced by the recession velocity of the galaxy or star in question. This was a reasonable assumption, and although it was questioned, no other mechanism was offered to explain the observed effect, until the last 20 years. The brightness, red shift relationship has been formulated into the "Hubble Law" which is not a law since it has never been verified. As larger telescopes have been built and more sophisticated recording devices have been designed, it has been possible to detect very faint stars and galaxies. The general assumption was that these faint objects were very far away, and because they generally exhibited greater red shift than the brighter galaxies, it was further assumed that they were moving away from us at very high speed. There are some basic problems with this concept. First, there is no justification for assuming that all faint galaxies are far away just because they are faint. Star density in a given galaxy does not have to be the same as other galaxies nor does galaxy size have to be similar to other galaxies. Galaxies appear to occur in pairs or in larger groups. The red shift of light from galaxy pairs is usually different, indicating from the Hubble relationship that they are moving at different velocities relative to the earth. However, over the years no apparent change in their relative positions has been observed. Red Shift If the red shift of light from the galaxies is not an indication of relative velocity, then some other explanation must be given. When a series of studies of Quasars (quasi-stellar objects) was started it was found that their red shifts were larger than the faint galaxies. They were first assumed to be even farther away than the galaxies, but as data were accumulated it became evident to some astronomers that the quasars were associated with galaxies and showed distinct violation of the red shift-distance relationship. Reports of these findings were not accepted by the astronomy journals since the implications of such data were contrary to the Big-Bang hypothesis. Astronomers were comfortable with the Big-Bang cosmology, and anyone upsetting it was not welcome in their midst. A large body of evidence exists showing that galaxies and quasars can violate the red shift-distance relationship. Quasars are not the most distant objects in the universe, but are associated in space with relatively nearby galaxies. (Arp) Documentation of the red shift problem is found in Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies and Seeing Red by author and astronomer Dr. Halton Arp. Quasars enormous red shifts are not from Doppler effects of an expanding universe. Red shifts are intrinsic properties of the quasars and galaxies related to their magnetic field strength . (Ref. Bergman, David, Origin of the Redshift, Common Sense Science, 2001) Quasars and galaxies have origins different from the standard Big Bang model of the universe. Quasars and small galaxies appear to be generated from large galaxies. (Not proven) A static universe, one that is neither contracting nor expanding, could be a reality. This is not a popular concept with most astronomers and astrophysicists. We don't know how far away most of the stars and galaxies are or how they are changing, but evidence is quite clear, God didn't use the Big Bang to create the universe. Conclusions logically drawn from factual data are no more valid than the assumptions on which they are based British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made the following statement. "I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall hangs over the Big Bang theory. When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers." The Big Bang Under Attack , Science Digest, V. 92 May 1984 p. 84 Factors Supporting a Young Universe Supernova remnants should number in the thousands if the universe is old, but there are only 205 detected. This is 65 less than expected by astronomers even assuming the universe is 7,000 years old. (Ref. Davies, Keith, Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Creationism, pp. 175-182, 1994) Deep Space Galaxies appear much the same as other galaxies, indicating that galaxies have not evolved but were created much as we see them today. (Ref. Goldsmith, D., Digging deeply in galaxies pasts, Science 271, 1996) Red dwarfs are assumed to be faint old stars that should number in the thousands if the universe is billions of years old. However, astronomers have reluctantly admitted that the limited number found fits a biblically young universe of 10,000 years or less. (Ref. Davies, Keith, Interview in 'This Week in Bible Prophecy' No. 191) Christians Reaction to Long Ages Many Christian scholars began to accommodate long ages into their interpretation of Genesis. The long age ideas did not initially find acceptance in most churches. But as some seminaries began teaching future pastors the new ideas, the long age concepts began to invade the churches. Bible commentaries and reference Bibles carried the message of long ages. The Scofield Reference Edition , because of its wide distribution and support of long ages, was instrumental in leading people into the mindset of long ages. While many remained true to the literal interpretation of Scripture, large numbers of Christians accepted the idea of long ages without understanding the full implication of their action. The accuracy of the Genesis record was being questioned, and more liberal interpretations were being made in other portions of Scripture. "Creation not only serves as a good basis for science, but for all of life. It brings meaning to the totality of existence." (Chittick) ------------------------------------------- Robert Helfinstine is a retired professional electrical engineer having spent 40 years working for Honeywell in the field of control systems for aircraft, spacecraft and missiles. He worked for two years in Europe, part of the time in Germany and part in Sweden. Robert has been on the board of directors of the Twin Cities Creation Science Association since 1976 serving as secretary, treasurer and president. In 2003 he was granted the title of president emeritus . His main area of study in the creation science field was post-flood catastrophes and their correlation with Scripture. He has also participated in excavation activities for dinosaur and human tracks in Texas and dinosaur bones in Wyoming. The book Texas Tracks and Artifacts was written to document some of the work done in Texas. In 1996 Robert went to Ukraine to teach a 50-hour course in Bible-Science Relationships at Zaporozhye Bible College, a topic that was well received by the students. Beginning in his high school years he has been active in church and church related activities. He has served as Sunday School superintendent, treasurer, trustee and deacon as well as being a Bible teacher. Robert is also a registered Tree Farmer. With a ready supply of ash, birch and oak wood for lumber, he enjoys making furniture and other wood products.

"Should intelligent design be taught alongside evolution in biology classes in Minnesota's public schools? Why or why not? What policies, if any, should local school boards or the state legislature enact? What role, if any, should elected officials' religious beliefs play as they consider this issue?" This is a huge topic involving science, philosophy and law. I am not an academic in any of these subjects but a pediatrician, trained in the 1960s at the University of Minnesota and indoctrinated to believe that evolution was proven beyond any doubt. But about 30 years ago I began to question that premise, to research the subject and discuss it with people of all opinions. In the process, I discovered that much of the disagreement is philosophical. Let me try to give a quick overview. But first, I want to commend you for reading partisan articles like this because by it you imply a belief that there are right answers to the questions that have been posed. This means that you do not blindly follow the post-modern view that there is no truth, or that every person can have his or her own truth, or that arguments are only attempts to exercise power over others. Second, I commend you for looking at a topic that some might feel has already been decided by Judge John Jones of Pennsylvania. But in case you think that judicial decisions are the last word on any subject, let me take you back about 150 years ago to the 1857 Dred Scott decision of the US Supreme Court, when the Court threw out the case of a slave who had lived in free territories and was suing for his freedom. They ruled that a slave is property and not entitled to the rights of a citizen. It was "the law of the land!" Is anyone here willing to say that the Supreme Court of 1857 had the final word on that subject? (Be careful because you may be implying that you are judging by a standard higher than the Supreme Court!) The Dred Scott decision galvanized the abolition movement ― which sought to end slavery ― and eventually hastened the bloody Civil War. It was a very controversial subject, with the power and prestige of the government apparently on the side of slavery. Also, most of the abolitionists had a religious motivation ― they believed that all people really were created equal. That would have caused them to fail the so called "Lemon Test" used by courts today to determine if a point of view affecting public policy or judicial decisions violates the constitutional provision against "establishing religion." But, of course, it can be fairly stated that the Court of 1857 was a creature of its age, and I agree. I maintain that it is the same today. Abolitionists of that day knew that they were right and the Court was wrong. I claim that the Court of today is wrong again and its errors need to be exposed. You might say though, it is not just judges who reject Intelligent Design (ID) but scientists, who really ought to know. Yet the opposition I have seen from scientists is most often based on exclusion of the supernatural from science by definition. So you can see that the problem rests on definitions. What is science? What is the establishment of religion? What is education? And those definitions flow out of their underlying philosophies. Science in its root meaning is knowledge, and has come to mean that kind of knowledge gained by observation and repeatable experimentation, which, by the way, does not apply to past non-repeatable events, like origins. Methodological naturalism is the idea that science looks for natural mechanisms to answer its questions, which is reasonable. But philosophical naturalism goes far beyond that to say that natural mechanisms are all there are! Now first of all, that is not a scientific statement but a philosophical assumption. And it is not even logical. Actually to say it with assurance, a person would have to be omniscient ― knowing everything ― otherwise the supernatural could exist outside of his or her knowledge. (That person would thus be God and we would have the strange situation of God being an atheist.) When there is no natural explanation and not even a plausible natural explanation anywhere on the horizon, is it permissible to postulate a supernatural one? For example, if a certifiably dead person came alive again and this was confirmed with rigorous assurance, is it not logical to suppose that a miracle had taken place? Or must one say that the only acceptable explanation is that physiological processes just might reverse themselves by chance? And if the structure of living things is found to be so complex and interrelated that no plausible natural mechanism can be found to explain it, is it not permissible to state that, at least as a working hypothesis an Intelligent Designer was involved? What are some typical objections to the concept of ID? One is that the argument from design is invalid and we only recognize design when we know of the designer. But I maintain that if you were a visitor from some distant galaxy you would still recognize a low tech object like an arrowhead as being designed and be able to pick it out of a pile of pebbles. We do this by comparing what we see with what we know happens naturally and can tell the difference. Think about it, if the letters in your alphabet soup began arranging themselves to write the entire Encyclopedia Britannica, you would suspect that something was messing with your soup ― or with your mind. And by the way, if to recognize design we must know of concrete examples, look at computerized information storage and retrieval systems. We DO know that intelligent human beings can design hardware and software to do this. And the DNA system is far more miniaturized and sophisticated than anything that humans have designed! Secondly, some think that it is a false dichotomy to say that a weakness of evolution is a point for ID. But let's look at logic for a moment. Either there is a natural mechanism for something or there is not. If there is no natural mechanism, then the mechanism must be outside of nature ― supernatural. You might say you want to keep looking for natural mechanisms and that is fine, but at the moment, you have to admit that the working hypothesis is a supernatural one. Thirdly, some say that ID has no predictive value. Of course they have already rejected, with a wave of the hand, the significance of finding irreducibly complex structures ones that cannot be made by adding pieces one at a time. Yet living things are full of them. Evolutionists have come up with all sorts of very speculative solutions to this problem ― the parts could have been used for some other purpose in the cell before coming together in the new structure, or the conditions were different in the past or there was some sort of "simpler" life form in which this was all possible. They do not do the math on any of these proposals, however, because if they did, it would be obvious that the chance of any favorable mutation is vanishingly small, even over billions of years. These fanciful and highly speculative solutions are only plausible if you already believe that evolution must have taken place. But ID also predicts that structures of unknown significance will be found to have functions, and this has come true. A century ago there was a long list of "vestigial organs" which evolution predicted were junk left over from the evolutionary past, useless structures "on the way out." Even though some textbooks still list them, they are all scientifically known to be useful. The same thing is happening with so called "junk DNA." Evolutionists thought that DNA that does not code for genes was debris from ruined genes and only useful as a pile of spare parts that might mutate into something useful. Yet new functions are being discovered constantly, including embryological development and regulation. Does ID "stop science" as some claim? No, in fact it is evolution that has sometimes slowed the search for functions. And also, many of the great names in science could be labeled as ID advocates, such as Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell and Louis Pasteur. But, you might say, if all this is so obvious, why do not more scientists accept it? Why are the refereed journals not full of it? Can you believe that there could be persecution? Investigate what happened to Dr. Dean Kenyon, distinguished professor at San Francisco State University, removed from teaching introductory biology when he expressed doubts about Darwin. Or consider Forrest Mims, science writer of impeccable credentials, fired after being hired to write "The Amateur Scientist" column for Scientific American when it was discovered that he did not accept evolution, even though that concept never came up in the columns. Thomas Kuhn got at part of the reason for this sort of behavior in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions . A ruling paradigm tends to oppose change and there is a tremendous herd instinct in science. You don't get tenure and grant money by disproving your chairman's life work. And, for the sake of illustration, let us suppose that there really is an Intelligent Designer and that there really are features of life that cannot be explained naturally. The people who refuse to consider supernatural causes will never be able to discover the truth! They will continue to propose mechanisms and patiently wait for what they consider confirmation. But because they are desperate, they accept things such as finding some parts of one molecular machine ― little literal machines that fill living cells ― used in another. That is no proof of evolution because even human designers do that. And if evolutionists are so confident of their case, why do they oppose airing it out for all to see? Why do they so rarely debate Intelligent Design advocates? Why do they not let the evidence for both sides be available to students so they can learn to think critically? Why have they consistently opposed the very minimal step of allowing the weaknesses in evolutionary theory to be taught? Why do they use character assassination and intimidation as weapons? For example, Dr. P.Z. Myers proposed "firing and public humiliation" for advocates of ID. Rather than education, evolutionists seem to want indoctrination. Actually, abiogenesis, the origin of the first living things would require so many incredibly improbable events, that most evolutionists no longer even claim to have a theory on the topic. Origin of life would have to happen without the benefit of natural selection to weed out the losers ― since natural selection only works with a living, reproducing organism. There is actually not enough matter and time in the universe to come up with one simple protein molecule, much less a living cell. And they then pretend that they do not need a theory and will just patiently wait for science to come up with some new law that creates information out of chaos. This turns science on its head, with theory trumping evidence! It essentially calls for a naturalistic miracle! If you want to do a calculation you can try to construct a 100 unit protein molecule from a primordial soup of the 20 different amino acids used in life. Even if you allow them to all be the left handed isomers instead of the mixture that would occur naturally, there is only one chance in 10 130 of getting it right. And there are only about 10 80 atoms in the universe and 10 18 seconds in 30 billion years. And the simplest cell needs at least 230 proteins with their controlling DNA, all put together in the proper configuration to function. It is an incredible assumption to say that it could all happen by natural mechanisms. And deceptively, evolutionists try to pretend that natural selection somehow reduces the odds when the truth is that natural selection only selects, it does not create and the creating in evolution must be done by random mechanisms. But what of "establishing religion?" This subject would take another hour to develop but let me try to whet your appetite. I think the Founders of this nation would be flabbergasted at the spin put on that phrase ― without precedent ― by our courts beginning about the middle of the last century. Think about it, the whole structure of the government from chaplains in the legislature to the Ten Commandments on the wall of the Supreme Court building and the use of the Bible in taking oaths all give very strong clues that religion, specifically the Christian religion, was understood to be foundational. Looking at the writings of the Founders, something rarely done today, confirms this. They did not, however, want to have a national church as so many European nations did. They wanted the people to be free to practice any or no religion, which is what the Constitution said. Yet even a conservative judge, a church-going man, such as Judge Jones, in his decision mentioned "the Constitutional separation of church and state." Actually that phrase is not in the Constitution but in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Baptist Association of Danbury stating that the government would not interfere in the affairs of the church. Yet the current view grows naturally out of a philosophical assumption that religion is a matter of personal preference, like taste in art, for which there is no right or wrong answer. If so, it has no place in public policy. Yet if there is objective evidence for the existence of a Supreme Being, to whom we may all be responsible, this will be very confusing and disturbing to people who thought they had isolated religion to the private life of believers. And look at the rational rabbit hole you fall down if you accept the current take on the subject. Even if there is evidence for an Intelligent Designer, it could not be taught in the public schools, certainly not by people who believe it, because it might cause the students to believe in God, which would establish religion and thus be unconstitutional. Incredibly, Judge Jones even said it was unconstitutional for teachers to tell students that they could research the topic in the library! Is there a religious side to this issue? Indeed there is ― on both sides. As Richard Dawkins said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." It is true, atheism cannot live without evolution, or some other natural mechanism to account for life ― and indeed, the entire universe. Religion can live with evolution, to be sure. But if the evidence says that evolution could not have happened, then atheism changes from a dispassionate search for truth to a rebellion against the conclusion. A person will necessarily bring his or her own religious bias to public issues, whether it is belief in a supreme being, a belief in no supreme being, or the belief that religion should not influence "real life." And many evolutionists have an anti-religious bias, such as Dr. P. Z. Myers who has stated that he wishes he could go back in a time machine and assassinate Abraham, or Dr. Richard Dawkins who says religion is like smallpox, but harder to eradicate. In summary, there is a strong intellectual case for Intelligent Design. It cannot be excluded from science by philosophical fiat and to withhold the evidence from students is a betrayal of education. I agree with the Discovery Institute that Intelligent Design should not be mandated, but as a start it should at least be permitted. Certainly teachers who do discuss it should not be punished. And finally, the current understanding of "establishment of religion" needs to be re-examined by going back to where the Supreme Court got off the constitutional track. Otherwise it leads to the absurdity of denying potential truth, and because by forbidding everything else, the courts have now established atheism as the national religion. Resources: On the Founders: WallBuilders www.wallbuilders.org On Intelligent Design: Discovery Institute www.discovery.org I am very happy to discuss these matters in further detail ross@rossolson.org

Introduction Professor Daniel Hays, in his article Reconsidering the Height of Goliath in the December 2005 issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society , argued that the giant Goliath, who was killed by David, was only 6 feet 9 inches tall and not 9 feet 9 inches. The key passage on the height of Goliath is I Sam 17:4-7, which reads as follows: 4. Then a champion came out from the armies of the Philistines named Goliath, from Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. 5. He had a bronze helmet on his head, and he was clothed with scale-armor, which weighed five thousand shekels of bronze. 6. He also had bronze greaves on his legs and a bronze javelin slung between his shoulders. 7. The shaft of his spear was like a weaver‘s beam, and the head of his spear weighed six hundred shekels of iron; his shield carrier also walked before him. [NASB] The NASB quoted above, like all other English translations of the Old Testament, is based on the Masoretic Hebrew Text of I Sam 17. However, Dr. Hays in his article argues that there is a textual error, made by a sloppy or exaggerating scribe, in the height of Goliath as given in the Masoretic Text [MT]. He correctly notes that one Hebrew text [4QSam a ] from the Dead Sea Scrolls [DSS] and most versions of the Greek Septuagint [LXX] translation of the Old Testament give Goliath‘s height as 4 cubits and a span instead of 6 cubits and a span. 1 According to Dr. Hays, this 4-cubits reading should be adopted; this means that Goliath was only 6 feet 9 inches tall and not 9 feet 9 inches tall. 2 In other words, he assumes that the LXX/ DSS texts are correct and that they both contradict and should be used to correct the MT on the size of Goliath. As a result Hays argues that Goliath was a very large man at 6 feet 9 inches, but not a real giant. However, there are good biblical, archaeological, and historical reasons for rejecting these assumptions by Dr. Hays. This paper will argue that while the MT and the LXX/ DSS appear to be in conflict with one another, they actually are not. This paper will also argue that both the 6-cubits reading and the 4- cubits reading of I Sam 17:4 give the same basic height for Goliath. In addition, this paper will argue that both readings are saying that Goliath was about 8 feet tall, but not 9 feet 9 inches. This paper on the height of Goliath will also seek to answer the related question: How tall were the exodus giants? As will be seen, these two questions are directly tied to one another, since it is almost certain that Goliath was a descendant of the Anakim giants who lived in Canaan at the time of the exodus. Before beginning this study on how tall Goliath and the exodus giants were, it is necessary to review five key assumptions made by Dr. Hays either explicitly or implicitly in his article. Below is a brief list of his assumptions in bullet form. The DSS/ LXX reading contradicts the MT The DSS/ LXX‘s reading is correct, the MT‘s is a textual error Both the DSS/ LXX and the MT used the same size cubit The size of this ancient common cubit was 18 inches Goliath was only 6 feet 9 inches tall As will be seen, this paper rejects these five assumptions. However, there are two assumptions by Dr. Hays, which are considered correct. King Saul was between 6 and 6 1⁄2 feet tall David was 5 feet 0 to 5 feet 3 inches tall How Big Was The Ancient Cubit? Professor Hays in his article assumes that the ancient cubit referred to in both the MT and the LXX/ DSS texts was 18 inches. While many modern reference works, and even the NASB translation of the Bible in footnotes, do list the ancient Biblical cubit as 18 inches, this can be very misleading, and I believe that these sources misled Dr. Hays. In considering the size of the ancient cubit, there is another related measurement in the Bible, which must be studied along with the cubit, and this is the span. The ancient cubit was the distance from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. The span was the distance between the tip of the little finger to the tip of the thumb, when the fingers were spread as far a part as possible. The ancients assumed that two spans made a cubit. Using 18 inches as the size of a cubit, this would mean that a span was 9 inches. The problem is that this ancient system of measuring by cubits and spans was very inconsistent. It depended upon the size of the person doing the measuring. For example, I am just under 6 feet tall, my cubit is 19 inches, but my span is 8 3⁄4 inches. It should be noted that two spans for me are 17 1⁄2 inches, not 19 inches. For almost everyone, two spans are shorter than one cubit. It should also be noted that this ancient system varied greatly depending upon the size of the person doing the measuring. Let me illustrate this point by using a couple of modern examples. When I was a boy, I once went with my grandfather to look at a horse that was for sale. He needed a horse to match the size of another horse he owned so that he could form a team. It is important that horses in a team be the same size. When he went to see the horse that was for sale, he measured its height by placing one hand side by side over the other. The horse had been advertised as being a certain number of hands tall, I forget the exact number, and my grandfather found it over one hand short of what was advertised. Did this mean that the seller was dishonest? No, it only meant that the seller‘s hand was not as large as my grandfather‘s. My grandfather decided not to buy this horse. Earlier he had measured his own horse using his hands and knew that it was larger than the one that was for sale. While inaccurate and highly variable, this system worked well for my grandfather. The same was true for the ancients using cubits and spans. Incidentally, there is a standardized "hand" used by professional horse breeders today. I am no expert, but I believe that it is 4 inches. Another good example is the modern 12-inch foot. The overwhelming majority of people in the world have feet that are well under 12 inches long, the standardized English foot. I have used my own feet and seen other people use their feet to measure the approximate length of something when a tape measure was not available. However, my foot is only 10 1⁄2 inches. Today the standardized foot for measuring is 12 inches, but it should not be assumed that this was always true in other historical periods in England. I remember reading somewhere that the 12-inch foot was not officially adopted until the reign of the English King Henry VIII in the 16 th century. Henry‘s 12-inch foot seems to have been used as the standard, and he was about 6 feet 4 inches tall. Originally the equestrian hand and the English foot were both variable, but in time became standardized. The ancient cubit too was variable, and attempts were made by kings and other powerful people to standardize it. The problem is that even standardized royal cubits varied greatly in the ancient world. Standardized royal cubits in the ancient Near East were almost always based, at least in theory, upon the king‘s cubit, although there were some temple complexes in Mesopotamia, which appear to have had their own standardized cubit. For ancient Canaan it appears that 17 1⁄2 inches was the royal cubit, at least this was the size of the cubit used to build a royal palace in pre-Israelite Megiddo. 3 In Egypt the standardized royal cubit remained constant at 20.65 inches throughout its history. 4 The Egyptian common cubit is sometimes given in references books as 17 1⁄2 inches, but this is very misleading, since there was no standardized common cubit in ancient Egypt, or for that matter anywhere else. In Mesopotamia the standardized royal cubit varied. In Babylonia in southern Mesopotamia it was 19.8 inches. 5 However, archaeological evidence from northern Mesopotamia, which was obtained from the royal Assyrian palace at Khorsabad [Dur-Sharrukin], indicates a cubit that was about 15.9 inches. 6 The Khorsabad cubit is probably very close to what the common cubit of the average person would have been in the ancient Near East. The Khorsabad royal cubit may have even been based on the common cubit. If so, it was the only standardized common/ royal cubit known to have been used in the ancient Near East. Ancient kings liked to be thought of as big men, and frequently, as their artwork shows, they exaggerated their height. The 20.65 inch royal cubit used in Egypt would suggest that the pharaoh was about 6 feet 5 inches tall. To my knowledge, not one single mummy of an Egyptian pharaoh has ever been found that was even close to being this tall. Even though the king‘s cubit was clearly exaggerated, Egyptian royal officials always used this standardized royal cubit. However, it should not be assumed that the average person used exaggerated royal cubits in everyday life, especially for measuring every-day things like the size of a horse or the size of a dead man, i.e. Goliath, laying on the ground. In other words, royal cubits and common cubits varied greatly in size, and the average person would have used his own cubit and not the royal cubit for making everyday measurements. With the possible exception of the Khorsabad cubit, common cubits were never standardized, varied greatly from person to person, and were by their very nature always considerably smaller than the royal cubit. Modern scholarly speculations on the size of the common cubit, which are generally based upon archaeological evidence from large non-royal buildings, can also be very misleading. Only important people built temples, private palaces, and other large buildings in the ancient world, and it is highly likely that they too, like kings, exaggerated the size of their cubit. It should be noted that it was common, even in non-royal Egyptian tombs, for important people in artwork to exaggerate their size in relation to other people. It is highly unlikely that the Israelites had developed their own official standardized royal cubit during the early period of the reign of Saul when David killed Goliath. Unless it is specifically stated in the Bible that some sort of "royal" cubit is being used, it should generally be assumed that the common cubit is being employed. Actually, the ancient Israelites may have never developed their own standardized royal cubit. The ancient Jewish palace at Ramat Rahel, which was built by King Hezekiah and which dates to the late 8th century BC, was, according to its excavator, laid out in royal Egyptian cubits. 7 It should not, however, be assumed that the royal Egyptian cubit was the standardized royal cubit always used in ancient Israel. Hezekiah was a lover of all things Egyptian. He even placed Egyptian symbols–winged sun disks and four-winged scarab beetles—on his own royal l‘melekh seals. 8 There is one passage of Scripture, which appears to give an ancient "royal" Jewish cubit of some sort, although as was indicated above this royal cubit may have been borrowed and not native. This passage is Ezek 40:5, and the key portion of this verse reads as follows: "...and in the man‘s hand was a measuring rod of six cubits, each of which was a cubit and a handbreadth." [NASB] This verse suggests a royal cubit that was a handbreadth larger than the common cubit. The prophet Ezekiel was a captive Jew living in the Babylonian Empire at the time that he wrote this passage of Scripture. If it is assumed that Ezekiel was thinking in terms of the Babylonian royal cubit of 19.8 inches, then subtracting a handbreadth of 3 1⁄2 - 4 inches gives a common cubit of about 16 inches. Even if it assumed that Ezekiel was using the royal Egyptian cubit, his common cubit would still have only been about 16 3⁄4 inches. However, it is likely that Ezekiel was simply adding a handbreadth to the everyday common cubit of the average person in Israel. Since the common cubit varied with the person doing the measuring, in considering the height of Goliath, it is first necessary to ask the question: How tall was the person doing the measuring? It was probably David who measured Goliath. It should be remembered that David cut off Goliath‘s head and carried it away, and measuring him after this would have been problematic. However, the arguments given below would have held true for any average Israelite of that period. But for the sake of argument, assume that David did the measuring. David was a teenage boy, and as I Sam 17 indicates, he certainly was considerably smaller than King Saul. It is very likely that David was about the size of an average Jewish male at that time. In his article, Dr. Hays correctly notes that the average Jewish male was between 5 feet 0 and 5 feet 3 inches tall at that time. 9 However, David, being a teenager, might not have yet attained his full height. In addition, Hays himself cites 10 Victor Matthews‘ Manners and Customs in the Bible , which gives the average male Semite‘s height during the earlier patriarchal period as only 5 feet 0 inches. 11 Hence it is very possible that teenage David was less than 5 feet 3 inches tall, and he may have been only 5 feet 0 inches tall or less. But for the sake of argument, assume that David was 5 feet 3 inches tall. If it is assumed that David measured Goliath, then the question arises: How big was David‘s cubit? One thing is for certain; his "common" cubit would not have been 18 inches. An 18-inch cubit would suggest someone who was about 5 feet 8 inches tall, not 5 feet 3 inches. My unscientific, but I believe fairly accurate, study of students and a few other individuals who are about 5 feet 3 inches tall suggests a cubit of slightly more than 16 1⁄2 inches. For those who are 5 feet 0 inches, their cubit would be about 16 inches. Assuming a 16 1⁄2 inch cubit for a David who was 5 feet 3 inches would indicate that, according to the 6-cubit MT, Goliath was about 8 feet 11 inches tall. Incidentally, David may have measured Goliath with his helmet on, and this may have increased his height. The Philistines are known for the plumed helmets, which they wore. There is however another factor, which must be considered when trying to calculate Goliath‘s height in modern feet and inches. Was Goliath first measured in spans, and were the spans then converted into cubits? It seems very likely that this was the case, and yet two spans are always shorter than one cubit. It should be noted that both the MT and the LXX/ DSS texts mention a span when giving Goliath‘s height. If it is assumed that the measurement of Goliath‘s height was first made in spans, and then converted into cubits, then his size shrinks further. My unscientific study indicates that people who are 5 feet 3 inches tall have spans that are slightly under 8 inches. But for the sake of argument, assume 8 inches. This would shrink Goliath to about 8 feet 8 inches. This is very close to the 8 feet 7 inches, which the Khorsabad cubit would yield for Goliath‘s height. At this point it should be noted that it is likely that Goliath was several inches shorter than this, since the span of most people who are 5 feet 3 inches tall is slightly less than 8 inches. And in addition, if teenage David, a Semite, was not 5 feet 3 inches tall, say 5 feet even, then his span would have been even less than 8 inches. Again it should be remembered that 5 feet 0 to 5 feet 3 inches was the range in the height of the average Semite male at the time of David. My own unscientific study of the span of people who are about 5 feet tall indicates a span closer to 7 1⁄2 inches. If it is assumed that David‘s span was 7 1⁄2 inches, then Goliath would have been about 8 feet 2 inches tall. This places Goliath well within the range of modern giants. According to Guinness World Records , the tallest man ever was Robert Wadlow who was slightly over 8 feet 11 inches tall. 12 Wadlow died in 1940, and currently the tallest living man in the world is Leonid Stadnik of the Ukraine who is 8 feet 5 inches tall. 13 As was stated above, Dr. Hays‘ argument on the height of Goliath is based on an assumed cubit of 18 inches. However, if it is assumed, as was almost certainly the case, that Goliath was measured in true common cubits, then Dr. Hays, using the LXX/ DSS‘s 4-cubits reading, has a major problem, he would have to shrink Goliath considerably from 6 feet 9 inches. Assuming the 171⁄2 inch cubit found at Megiddo, then at 4 cubits and a span, Goliath would have been slightly under 6 feet 7 inches tall. But if it is assumed that Goliath was measured in 8 inch spans or 16 inch cubits, Goliath would shrink to 72 inches, in other words to exactly 6 feet tall. If the span used to measure Goliath is assumed to have been 7 1⁄2 inches, Goliath shrinks even further to 5 feet 8 inches. This is a very short giant! Scriptural Context and the Height of Goliath When dealing with any textual or interpretive problem in the Bible, it is always necessary to place that problem in its Scriptural context. When this is done with the height of Goliath, there are four major contextual problems, which arise against the theory that Goliath was only 6 feet 9 inches tall. First, I Sam 9:2 states that King Saul was head and shoulders taller than all of the other Israelites. Dr. Hays himself therefore rightly concludes that King Saul was between 6 and 6 1⁄2 feet tall. 14 For the sake of argument, assume that King Saul was 6 feet 3 inches. Even assuming an 18-inch cubit, Saul was only about 6 inches shorter than Goliath‘s 6 feet 9 inch height. But if it assumed that Goliath was measured in 17 1⁄2 inch Megiddo cubits, Goliath would have only been about 6 feet 7 inches tall, only 4 inches taller than King Saul at 6 feet 3 inches. However, as was noted above, if an 8-inch span [or the Khorsabad cubit] was used to measure Goliath, then Goliath would have been only 6 feet even and would have been shorter than Saul! Things become even worse when a small 7 1⁄2 inch span is used, since Goliath then would only be 5 feet 8 inches tall, 7 inches shorter than Saul. However, I Sam 17 clearly considers Goliath as much taller than Saul. King Saul in I Sam 17 is clearly portrayed as a coward, but shrinking Goliath to 6 feet even, or even worse to 5 feet 8 inches, makes Saul into a world-class coward! The second major Biblical problem is I Chr 11: 23, which states the following about Abshai, the cousin of David: 23. He killed an Egyptian, a man of great stature five cubits tall. Now in the Egyptian‘s hand was a spear like a weaver‘s beam, but [Abshai] went up to him with a club and snatched the spear from the Egyptian‘s hand and killed him with his own spear. [NASB] In other words, assuming an 18-inch cubit, Abshai killed a giant who was 7 feet 6 inches tall, and yet David only killed a giant who was 6 feet 9 inches tall. Incidentally, there is no LXX textual problem with the 5-cubits height given in I Chr 11 for this tall Egyptian. It is strange that I Sam 17 makes so much of David having killed Goliath at 6 feet 9 inches when Abshai killed a giant who was 7 feet 6 inches tall! The third major Biblical problem is the implied height of King Og of Bashan, who the book of Deuteronomy says was a member of a people called the Rephaim. The Rephaim were a people encountered by the Israelites at the time of the exodus. In the LXX, the name Rephaim is always translated into Greek as "gigantes," i.e. "giants." As will be seen below, there are strong historical and Biblical connections between the exodus giants and Goliath. Deut 3:11 states: 11. (For only Og, king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaim. Behold, his bedstead was an iron bedstead; it is in Rabbah of the sons of Ammon. Its length was nine cubits and its width four cubits by ordinary cubit.) [NASB] While the above passage does not give Og‘s height, it is clear that he was very tall. Assuming an 18-inch cubit, Og‘s bed was 13 1⁄2 feet long and 6 feet wide. There is no textual problem for the size of Og‘s bed. Incidentally, this passage from Deuteronomy also tells the reader that there was an "ordinary cubit." In other words, there were different sized cubits used by the ancient Israelites. Moses, being familiar with the royal Egyptian cubit, seems to have wanted his readers to know that common cubits, not royal cubits, were being used. In royal Egyptian cubits, Og‘s bed would have been 15 1⁄2 feet long! If an "ordinary cubit" of 16 inches is assumed, Og‘s bed would have been exactly 12 feet long and 5 feet 4 inches wide. This would be an appropriately sized bed for a man, who was over 8 feet tall, but not for a man who was only 6 feet 9 inches tall or less. While some Bible critics would question this story of Og‘s iron bed based upon the assumption that iron was not yet in use this early, Allan Millard has as an excellent article on Og‘s iron bed in Bible Review , and he deals very well with the evidence for the early use of iron in the Late Bronze Age in the ancient Near East. 15 And, the fourth major Biblical problem is the weight of Goliath‘s armor. It should be noted that the weight given for Goliath‘s scale armor in I Sam 17:5 excluded his helmet, sword, spear, javelin, and greaves. His scale body armor alone weighed, as Dr. Hays himself correctly notes, from 125-135 lbs. The weight of all of Goliath‘s armor and weapons must have been well over 160 lbs, and this suggests that he was not only tall, but also a very large man. The weight of the armor and weapons that Goliath was carrying was about three times as heavy as that of a fully armored Greek hoplite soldier of the classical period. Dr. Hays tries to deal with this issue by arguing that Goliath, while not exceptionally tall, was large and powerfully built. Hays also argues that Goliath, because he was so strong, wore armor thicker than other soldiers, and that this explains the great weight of his scale armor. In other words, Dr. Hays argues that the weight of Goliath‘s armor just shows that he was strong, rather than giving evidence of his great height. 16 However, no ancient soldier would have carried more weight in his armor into battle than was necessary for protection. Scale armor, which the Biblical text says Goliath wore, was designed to be flexible, and adding extra weight would have detracted from flexibility. The Sea Peoples/ Philistines, who invaded Egypt in the early 12 th century BC, are pictured in Egyptian art wearing scale armor, which was almost certainly exactly like Goliath‘s, and they are also depicted as being agile in battle. Roman soldiers later also wore a version of scale armor for its flexibility. Professor Hays, in trying to defuse the issue of the weight of Goliath‘s armor and spear, makes a historical error in his discussion on Goliath‘s spear. Based upon an article by the famous archaeologist Yagael Yadin, Dr. Hays incorrectly assumes that Goliath threw his huge spear in battle. 17 Spears in the ancient world were used for thrusting and only javelins were thrown, as I Chr 11:20 clearly shows. It should be noted that Goliath carried both a spear and a javelin. [I Sam 17:6-7] Goliath was prepared to engage the enemy at a distance by throwing his javelin, at mid-range by thrusting with his spear, and at close range by cutting with his sword. Goliath‘s huge spear with its 15 lbs point, would have been used to punch holes in a line of foot soldiers. Goliath even seems to have used both hands to swing his huge spear, since he had another man carrying a shield in front of him. The DSS/ LXX‘s reading of 4 cubits and a span for the height of Goliath does not match well with any of the portions of Scripture studied above. On the other hand, the MT‘s reading of 6 cubits and a span does match very well. As was noted above, Dr. Hays understandably assumes that the 4-cubit reading of the DSS/ LXX is in conflict with the 6-cubit reading of the MT. This assumed conflict between the MT‘s 6-cubits reading and the LXX/ DSS‘s 4-cubits reading will be resolved in the last section of this paper. However, before considering this issue, there are two other related features, which must be studied: First, what does the Bible have to say about Goliath‘s ancestors the Anakim giants, who are mentioned in the exodus story and in other Biblical texts. And second, what do Egyptian texts have to say about the Anakim giants and their height? As will be seen, their height is given in an ancient Egyptian text! The Anakim Giants in the Bible In the Old Testament, the exodus giants, whom the Israelites encountered in Canaan, are called by several different names: the Rephaim, the Emim, the Zamsummin, the Anakim, and the Nephilim. It is necessary first to take a brief look at these five names, and second to look for the places where these peoples were located. The names Rephaim, Emim, Zamsummin, and Anakim are actually different names for the same basic people. This can clearly be seen from several Biblical texts. In the following passages of Scripture, I have emphasized these five key names. Gen 14: 5 states that: 5. In the fourteenth year, Chedorlaomer and the kings that were with him defeated the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim and the Zuzim in Ham and the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathim. [NASB] Even though the Hebrew word Rephaim should almost certainly be translated as "giants" as is done in the LXX, for the sake of argument, it will be assumed here that the NASB is correct in rendering Rephaim as a proper noun, in other words as the name of a people. It should be noted that the NASB inconsistently renders this same Hebrew word, but preceded by the Hebrew definite article, as "the giants" in I Chr 20:4,6,8. While it is not apparent from Gen 14:5, the Rephaim and Emim were the same people, who were living in two different areas to the east of the Jordan River and Dead Sea. Both the Rephaim and the Emim are also to be identified with the Anakim. This can be seen in Deut 2:10-11 which states: 10. The Emim lived there [in Moab] formerly, a people as great, numerous, and tall as the Anakim . 11. Like the Anakim , they are regarded as Rephaim , but the Moabites call them Emim . [NASB] Deut 2:20 even gives one more name to the Rephaim who lived east of the Jordan River and Dead Sea. It reads as follows: 20. It [the land of the Ammonites] is also regarded as the land of the Rephaim , for Rephaim formerly lived in it, but the Ammonites call them Zamsummin . [NASB] In the passages cited above, the Emim, Zamsummin, and Rephaim are all said to have once lived east of the Jordan River and Dead Sea. There are a variety of Biblical texts, which also place the Anakim and some Rephaim to the west of the Jordan River and Dead Sea. If it is assumed that the word Rephaim is a proper noun and the name of an ancient people, then Rephaim was a general name used for the Emim, Zamsummin, and Anakim. Anakim was a tribal name for the Rephaim who lived west of the Jordan River and Dead Sea, and Emim and Zamsummin were tribal names for the Rephaim who lived east of the Jordan River and Dead Sea in Moab and Ammon. Those Rephaim living east of the Jordan River and Dead Sea, but not in Moab or Ammon, were simply called Rephaim. However, as was noted above, the name Rephaim should almost certainly be translated as "giants," as is always done in the LXX. As was seen above in Deut 3:11, the Israelites eliminated the Rephaim/giants, except for King Og, who lived east of the Jordan River and Dead Sea. The location of the Anakim to the west of the Jordan River and Dead Sea can be seen in the classic Biblical passage dealing with the exodus story where 10 of the 12 spies give their bad report on the land of Canaan to Moses and the Israelites. Num 13: 22 reports that the spies saw Anakim living in the city of Hebron, which is located only about 25 miles south of Bethlehem. As will be seen below, there is a connection between the area of Bethlehem, David‘s hometown, and the Anakim/ Rephaim giants. Num 13:33 has these 10 spies telling Moses and the Israelites that in the city of Hebron: 33. There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim ); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight. [NASB] In the above passage, the Anakim ["sons of Anak"] are also called Nephilim. The Hebrew word Nephilim is rendered as "giants" in the LXX and in some English translations, and it is left un-translated and considered to be a proper noun in other English translations, as is the case above in the NASB. While the meaning of the Hebrew word Nephilim in Num 13:33 and in Gen 6:4 is greatly debated by Biblical scholars, it does appear that in Num 13:33 these ten Israelite spies were using it as a synonym for Rephaim, i.e. giants. The possible meaning of the Hebrew word Nephilim as used in Gen 6:4 is beyond the scope of this present paper. Before the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, the Anakim [spelled Enakim in LXX] were widely scattered in the area west of the Jordan River and Dead Sea. Josh 11:21-22 not only places them in this area, but also specifically states that Anakim giants even remained after the Conquest in several Canaanite cities, including the city of Gath, Goliath‘s hometown. 21.Then Joshua came at that time and cut off the Anakim from the hill country, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab and from all of the hill country of Judah and from all the hill country of Israel. Joshua utterly destroyed them with their cities. 22. There were no Anakim left in the land of the sons of Israel, only in Gaza, in Gath and in Ashdod some remained. [NASB] Even though it is implied, but not specifically stated in the Bible, it is clear that the Anakim/ Rephaim giants earlier lived near Bethlehem in the hill country of Judah. I Chr 14:8-12,16 states that David twice defeated the Philistines in the "Valley of the Rephaim," which was located very near to Bethlehem. Incidentally, it appears likely that David‘s ancestors earlier had helped Joshua drive the Anakim giants from the Valley of the Rephaim during the period of the conquest. These passages from I Chr suggests that, after the Philistines invaded and conquered the Rephaim/ Anakim giants in Gath in ca. 1200 BC, the Anakim merged with the Philistines and in time came to be considered as Philistines. This can be seen in I Chr 20 where several battles are mentioned between David‘s army and the "Philistines." But, in I Chr 20:6-8 a six-fingered "giant/ Repha" is mentioned as a citizen of Philistine Gath, Goliath‘s hometown. The city of Gath was located only about 35 miles from Bethlehem, and only about 20 miles from Hebron. It seems very likely that the two Philistine attacks, which were defeated by David in the Valley of the Rephaim, were attempts by a mixture of Anakim and Philistine peoples to reclaim land lost earlier to the Israelites during the conquest under Joshua. In other words, Goliath the "Philistine" was almost certainly a descendent of the Anakim giants mentioned in the exodus and conquest stories. Recent archaeological work at the site of the ancient city of Gath [Tell es Safi] has found evidence of a mixture of Philistine culture with a native "Canaanite" culture. 18 Archaeologists Aren Maier and Carl Ehrlich report discovering huge amounts of a pottery type dubbed "Ashdod Ware," which was named after the ancient Philistine city of Ashdod, the site where it was first discovered. Ashdod Ware is considered to be a mixture of Philistine and Canaanite pottery styles. 19 Considerably more Ashdod Ware has been found at Gath than at Ashdod, and as a result Maier and Ehrich have proposed renaming it "Gittite Ware." In other words, the Philistines did not exterminate, but rather merged with the conquered native people of Gath, and the archaeological record matches what the Bible has to say about Gath. Maeir and Ehrlich, writing of Gath in their article in Biblical Archaeology Review , state: "This archaeologically based reconstruction of the history of the site is in accord with what the Bible (and extra-Biblical sources) tells us about Gath." 20 Incidentally, Gath was huge for an ancient site, about 100 acres, and was as large as the ancient Philistine city of Ekron. 21 All of the above evidence clearly indicates that the "Philistine" Goliath of Gath was a descendent of the Anakim giants mentioned in the exodus and conquest stories found in the Old Testament. As will be seen below, this connection will allow the use of Egyptian epigraphical evidence to help determine his height and the height of his relatives the exodus giants. The Anakim Giants in Egyptian Texts The ancient Egyptians clearly knew of the Anakim giants and were afraid of them. The Anakim are mentioned four times in Egyptian Execration Texts from the Middle Kingdom Period, ca. 1850 BC. Egyptian Execration Texts are generally found on broken pottery figurines. The Egyptians would make a clay model of a feared enemy with his arms bound behind his back. On this clay model, sometimes just a jar, the Egyptians would write the names of feared enemy leaders and their people groups. This clay model or jar was then baked into pottery. The Egyptians would then smash this pottery model or jar into pieces. Pity the poor Egyptologist who must put these smashed pieces back together! This ancient Egyptian practice is much like what is done in modern voodoo where a figurine is made of an enemy and then tormented. It is almost certain that this voodoo- like magical cursing of an enemy was a common practice throughout the history of ancient Egypt, but it appears that imperishable pottery was only used in the Middle Kingdom Period. Nevertheless, these Execration Texts are tremendously valuable because they clearly show the peoples who were the feared enemies of the Egyptians in the Middle Kingdom Period. As was stated above, one enemy feared by the Egyptians was the Anakim. There are several Egyptian Execration Texts, which mention the Anakim. John A. Wilson translates three of these references to the Anakim in James Pritchard‘s The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Picture . I have emphasized key names in all of Wilson‘s translations given below. The Ruler of Iy'anaq, Erum, and all the retainers who are with him; the Ruler of Iy’anaq, Abiyamimu and all the retainers who are with him; the Ruler of Iy'anaq 'Akirum and the retainers who are with him, .... 22 As Wilson suggests in a footnote, these Iy‘aneq people are almost certainly to be identified with the Anakim mentioned in the Old Testament. 23 The –im ending on Anakim is the Hebrew masculine plural. When this is removed, the similarity of Anak to Iy‘anaq is obvious. Iy‘anaq should also be compared to the LXX‘s "Enak" spelling for Anak. Another Egyptian Execration Text mentions the Anakim and clearly places them in the general area of Canaan. Since this text gives the names of peoples living close to the Anakim, most of this text, but not all, is quoted below. Wilson translates this text as follows: ...the Ruler of Shutu, Ayyabum and all the retainers who are with him; the Ruler of Shutu , Kushar, and all the retainers who are with him; the Ruler of Shutu, Zabulanu , and all of the retainers who are with him; the Ruler of Asqanu , Khalu-kim, and all of the retainers who are with him; the Ruler of Jerusalem , Yaqar- ̳Ammu and all of the retainers who are with him; the ruler of Jerusalem , Setj- ̳Anu, and all of the retainers who are with him;.... All the rulers of Iysipi and all the retainers who are with them; all the Asiatics ____ of Byblos , of Ullaza, of Iy’anaq , of Shutu , of Iymu`aru , of Qehermu, of Iyamut, of Rehob , Yarimuta, of Inhia, of Aqhi, of 'Arqata of Yarimuta, of Isinu, of Asqanu , of Demitiu, of Mut-ilu, of Jerusalem of Akhmut, of Ianhenu, and Iysipi; their strongmen, their swift runners, their allies, their associates, and the Mentu in Asia. 24 Again, the Iy‘anaq mentioned here are almost certainly the Anakim. This long list of cursed enemies ends with the phrase: "the Mentu in Asia." Wilson writes in a footnote that this phrase was used in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics as: "an old designation for Egypt‘s immediate neighbors to the northeast." 25 In footnotes to his translation, Wilson makes two interesting identifications of the peoples mentioned in this long list: Shutu=Moab and Asqanu=Ashkelon. 26 There are other execration texts, which Wilson refers to in a footnote, but does not fully translate, which mention: "the Ruler of Shechem," "the Ruler of Pella," "the Ruler of Aphek," "the Ruler of Hazor," "the Ruler of Acre," "the Ruler of Shemu‘anu," and "the Ruler of Beth- Shemesh." 27 Incidentally, it is likely that the "Iymu‘aru" mentioned above were the Amorites with whom the Israelites clashed during the exodus and conquest. All of these various peoples once lived on both the eastern and western sides of the Jordan Rift. The references to Jerusalem, Ashkelon, Byblos, Shutu, and other sites suggest the possibility that at least some of the Anakim lived both on the eastern and western sides of the Dead Sea and Jordan River. The Old Testament clearly places the Rephaim/ Anakim on both sides of the Jordan Rift. If Shutu was Moab as Wilson suggests, then the rulers named Ayyabum and Zabulanu become very interesting because Ayyabum is almost certainly the name Job, and Zabulanu is almost certainly the name Zebulon. While the Zebulon mentioned here is certainly not Zebulon the son of Jacob, it is however possible that Ayyabum is Job of the book of Job. It should be noted that the book of Job places Job, a Semitic herder, in the general area just to the east of Moab. One other interesting name given by Wilson is Shemu‘anu [a place], which is almost certainly the name Simeon. 28 Incidentally, if Shutu was the Egyptian name for the area of Moab in the Middle Kingdom Period, then Shutu [an area] may have some sort of a connection, or be some sort of an earlier version of the name Shasu, which, as will be seen below, was used by the Egyptians in the New Kingdom Period as a name for various tribal Semitic peoples who lived north of Egypt; some of whom lived in the area of Moab. A new, detailed study of all of the personal names, peoples, and places in Canaan, which are mentioned in the Egyptian Execration Texts, could prove to be highly significant for Biblical studies. However, such a study is beyond the scope of this present paper. Suffice it to say here, Egyptian Execration Texts from the Middle Kingdom Period certainly knew of the Anakim and clearly placed them in the land of Canaan. While the Execration Texts quoted above do not mention the height of the Anakim, there is another Egyptian text, which does. However, before looking at this text, it is necessary first to look briefly at the name of another ancient people who were sometimes the enemies of the Egyptian people. New Kingdom pharaohs frequently mention a people called the Shasu. The Shasu may have been the people called the Shuhites in the Old Testament; however, the Egyptians clearly used the name Shasu in a much broader sense than the Old Testament does the name Shuhite. Nevertheless, the book of Job does seem to indicate that the Shuhites were Semite herders who lived in the same general area where the Egyptians placed some Shasu peoples, who were also Semite herders. The term Shasu seems to have been used by the Egyptians for a variety of Semitic ethnic tribes. For example, Siegfried Herrmann in his book Israel in Egypt provides a translation of an ancient Model Letter used to train Egyptian governmental scribes. Another communication to my [lord], to wit: We have finished letting the Shasu tribes of Edom pass the Fortress [of] Mer-ne-ptah Hotep-hir-Maat—life, prosperity, health!—which is [in] T KW, to the pools of Per-Atum [of] Mer-[ne]-ptah Hotep-hir-Maat, which are [in] T wk, to keep them alive and to keep their cattle alive, through the great Ka of Pharaoh.... 29 Herrmann dates this Model Letter to ca. 1192 BC. Although there are some modern scholars who deny that these "Shasu tribes of Edom" were the Edomites of the Old Testament, they almost certainly were. Edomites are specifically mentioned in Num 20:14-21 as being present in the land of Edom at the time of the Exodus, and the land of ancient Edom is clearly pictured in Num 20 as including or bordering on parts of northeastern Sinai. There are also a number of Old Testament texts, which depict the Edomites as herders. This Model Letter, which has Edomites entering Egypt with their herds from the Sinai, fits very well with what the Old Testament has to say not only about the Edomites but also about the Israelites. In this Model Letter "the Shasu tribes of Edom" are mentioned as being allowed to enter Egypt in order "to keep them and their cattle alive." They are sent with the pharaoh‘s permission to a pool of water near the city of Per-Atum. Herrmann correctly identifies Per-Atum with the ancient city of Pithom mentioned in Exod 1:11. 30 He also states that the modern site of Tell el-Mashuta is the site of the ancient city of Pithom and that T kw/ Tjeku was the general area surrounding Per-Atum/ Pithom. He goes on to equate T kw/ Tjeku with the land of Goshen, where Gen 46 states that the pharaoh settled the Israelites. 31 The Shasu tribes of Edom in this Model Letter are strikingly similar to the ancient Israelites, who earlier in the time of Joseph were allowed by the pharaoh enter Egypt in order to keep them and their herds alive during a time of famine. It should also be noted that the Israelites, like the Shasu of Edom, were settled in the area of the cities of Pithom and Raamses. [Gen 46] The striking similarity of this ancient Model Letter to Biblical texts presents major problems for the theories of modern minimalist scholars who deny the historical accuracy of the Joseph and exodus stories. By any means, the Shasu of Edom are almost certainly the Edomites of the Bible. There are also good reasons for assuming that the ancient Egyptians at times also called the Israelites "Shasu." The German scholar Siegfried Herrmann cites a reference to the "Shasu of Yahweh" which was found on a column base in the Temple of Amun at Soleb in what is today the Sudan. 32 According to Herrmann, this reference to the Shasu of Yahweh dates to ca. 1400 BC during the reign of Pharaoh Amenhotep III. 33 There is another reference to the Shasu of Yahweh, which was found in an inscription at Amarah near Cairo and dating to the reign of Pharaoh Seti I in ca. 1300 BC. 34 Donald Redford maintains that these references to the Shasu of Yahweh indicate that the worship of Yahweh began in ancient Edom, long before there were true Israelites. Redford, writing on the Shasu of Yahweh mentioned in the Soleb Inscription, states: For half a century it has been generally admitted that we have here the tetragrammaton, the name of the Israelite god "Yahweh"; and if this be the case, as it undoubtedly is, the passage constitutes a most precious indication of the whereabouts during the late 15 th century BC of an enclave revering this god. 35 Redford then strangely states: ....it would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that "Israel" as known from the period of the Judges or the early monarchy was already in existence... 36 He then goes on to write: The only reasonable conclusion is that one major component of the later amalgam that constituted Israel, and the one with whom the worship of Yahweh originated, must be looked for among the Shasu of Edom already at the end of the fifteenth century. 37 In other words, Redford is here arguing that the Shasu of Yahweh came from the area of Edom and became a part of the people later called Israelites, but he insists that there weren‘t any true Israelites in the 15 th century BC when the Soleb Inscription was made. As will be seen in an upcoming article now being written by my colleague the Egyptologist Charles Aling and me, the Amarah Inscription lists both the Shasu of Yahweh and the Shasu of Edom, and this fact clearly indicates that the Shasu of Yahweh and the Shasu Edomites were not the same people. In spite of Redford‘s very strange reluctance to call the Shasu of Yahweh true Israelites, they almost certainly were. Incidentally the hieroglyphs of the Soleb Inscription translate as "the land of the Shasu of Yahweh." This also strongly indicates that the Shasu of Yahweh had their own defined area of settlement, and that it was not in the same area where the Shasu of Edom lived. What is even stranger, is the fact that American Biblical scholars have for so long largely ignored these references to the Shasu of Yahweh. Incidentally, since Redford wrote his book the name Israel with a people determinative hieroglyph has apparently been found on a column base dating to the reign of Pharaoh Amenhotep II in ca. 1425 BC. 38 This newly published inscription destroys Redford‘s arguments against calling the Shasu of Yahweh true Israelites. Herrmann was a supporter of the late date theory of the exodus in the mid 13 century BC and consequently like Redford he did not identify these "Shasu of Yahweh" as true Israelites. However, it seems almost certain that they were true Israelites. If the Shasu of Yahweh were true Israelites, as they almost certainly were, then both Edomites and Israelites, or to accommodate Redford, "proto-Israelites, were at times grouped under the general Egyptian term of Shasu. This is a fact, which must be kept in mind, but almost never is, when looking for references to the Israelites in Egyptian texts. There are also Egyptian texts, which suggest that the Egyptians classified all Apiru, Amorites, Amalekites, Moabites, Ammonites, Kenites, Edomites, and Midianites as Shasu. 39 As was noted above, the Israelites, and also probably nomadic Arameans, should be added to this list of the Shasu. It appears that the term Shasu was used by the Egyptians to mean nomadic Semites with herds who lived on both sides of the Dead Sea and Jordan River. For the most part the Shasu do seem in Egyptian texts to be located in the area east of the Dead Sea and Jordan River and also in the northern Sinai. But there are also texts, as will be seen below, which do seem to place the Shasu west of the Jordan River and Dead Sea. Many modern translators render Shasu into English by the term of "Bedouin" thus indicating that they were all nomadic herders. 40 However, a careful examination of the references made to the Shasu in Egyptian texts seems to indicate that at least some of them at times lived in cities. It is for this reason that some scholars refer to them as "semi-nomadic." It should also be noted that the Soleb Inscription indicates that the Shasu of Yahweh had their own "land." In other words they were not completely nomadic, as for example were the highly nomadic ancient peoples of the Asian steppe who at times ranged for hundreds of miles. To summarize, it appears that the ancient Egyptians used the name Shasu for a variety of Semitic peoples, most of whom, but certainly not all, were nomadic herders who seem to have lived mainly in the areas of the modern nations of Israel and Jordan. It is also apparent that the ancient Egyptians generally did not bother to distinguish between the various Shasu Semitic tribal groups, who lived in these areas. However, there are indications in Egyptian texts that Shasu sometimes fought Shasu. It should be noted that during the period of the Judges the Israelites fought against the Ammonites, Moabites, Midianites, and Ammorites; all of whom were classified by the Egyptians as Shasu. The Old Testament has the Rephaim/giant King Og living with the Moabites and also has some Rephaim in the land of the Ammonites. If the Egyptians also classified the Moabites and Ammonites as Shasu, as they almost certainly did, then it should come as no surprise that the Egyptians would have classified the Anakim as Shasu, since some of them lived among the Moabites and Ammonites. All of this to argue that it is very likely that the Anakim of the Middle Kingdom Period came to be included among the Shasu during the New Kingdom Period, about five centuries later. It should be noted at this point that the Philistines/ Sea Peoples did not begin their conquest of Canaan until after the reign of Ramses II; it was during the reign of his son Merneptah that they began their invasion of coastal Canaan. As was seen above, it is nearly certain that the Anakim in time came to be seen as Philistines. But, before the coming of the Philistines, it appears nearly certain that the Egyptians grouped the Anakim with the Shasu. As the following Egyptian text from the reign of Ramses II shows, there were giant Shasu people living in Canaan west of the Jordan River and Dead Sea in the 13th century BC. It is almost certain that these giant Shasu are to be identified with the Anakim giants whom the Israelite spies encountered in southern Canaan at the time of the exodus. These Shasu giants are mentioned in an ancient Egyptian text titled The Craft of the Scribe , which is found in Papyrus Anastasi I , and which dates to ca. 1250 BC. The Craft of the Scribe was used for centuries later as a "Model Letter" for training royal Egyptian scribes. 41 As the full text of this ancient work makes clear, the setting is a mountain pass in Canaan during a hypothetical Egyptian military campaign. The face of the pass is dangerous with Shasu, hidden under the bushes. Some of them are 4 or 5 cubits, nose to foot, with wild faces. 42 James P. Allen, who translated The Craft of the Scribe in the three-volume set The Context of Scripture , states in a footnote, that "4 and 5 cubits" means that these Shasu ranged from "6 feet 8 inches to 8 feet 6" inches tall. 43 Allen correctly assumes that the cubit mentioned in this text is the Egyptian royal cubit. However, he seems to have underestimated its size slightly. The actual size of the Egyptian cubit was 20.65 inches. 44 Four Egyptian cubits at 20.65 inches equal 82.6 inches or slightly over 6 feet 10 inches. Five Egyptian cubits equal 103.2 inches or about 8 feet 7 inches. A cursory reading of the above quotation would seem to suggest that some of these Shasu giants were even taller than 8 feet 7 inches, since the measurement given is from "nose to foot" and not from the top of the head to the bottom of the foot. However, I consulted my colleague the Egyptologist Charles Aling, and according to him this phrase in hieroglyphic means total height. This Egyptian text presents a major problem for Dr. Hays‘ argument for a 6 feet 9 inch Goliath, since it has giants that are as tall as 8 feet 7 inches! The shortest members of this group are said to be over 6 feet 10 inches tall. Before leaving the Egyptian evidence on the Anakim giants and their height, it must be noted that the Old Testament agrees remarkably well with the ancient Egyptian evidence on them. The Old Testament has Anakim/Rephaim giants living near the Jordan River and Dead Sea during the lifetime of Abraham in ca. 2100 BC. Egyptian Execration Texts dating to ca. 1850 BC also mention the Anakim living somewhere in the areas of Moab, Ammon, and southern Canaan. Assuming the early date for the exodus and conquest, the Old Testament has Anakim/Rephaim giants living in Bashan, Moab, Ammon and Canaan in ca. 1450-1350 BC, and it also has David killing the giant Goliath in Judah in ca. 1025 BC. In between these two Biblical dates, the ancient Egyptian text The Craft of the Scribe has Shasu/Anakim giants living in southern Canaan in ca. 1250 BC. 4 Cubits or 6 Cubits: How Tall Was Goliath? In earlier discussions above, it was suggested that the LXX/ DSS‘s reading of 4 cubits and a span for the height of Goliath is actually not in conflict with the Masoretic Text‘s reading of 6 cubits and a span. Not all supposed textual conflicts are real; some are only apparent. The Septuagint [LXX] was a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek. According to Jewish tradition, the LXX translation was made at the request of Pharaoh Ptolemy II of Egypt [285-247 BC]. The Ptolemies, descendants of a general of Alexander the Great, were Greeks and were Greek-speaking, as were also almost all of the citizens of Egypt‘s capital city of Alexandria. Jews made up about 1/4 th of the population of Alexandria, and in time they forgot their Hebrew and became Greek speaking. While it is likely that the Torah, the first five books of Moses, was translated for Pharaoh Ptolemy II during his lifetime, it is probable that most of the rest of the LXX Old Testament was translated later. Almost all modern scholars believe that the rest of the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into Greek by a variety of scholars and not by the same 72 Jewish scholars who did the original LXX Torah translation. When it was fully translated, the LXX rather quickly became the Bible used by Greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria. From Alexandria its use spread to all of the other Greek-speaking Jews in the eastern Mediterranean area. Generally, but not always, when the Old Testament is quoted in the Greek New Testament, it is the LXX translation, which is used. The key feature to keep in mind is that the LXX was a translation made in Alexandria, Egypt, and according to tradition, it was made for the pharaoh. An ancient Jewish scholar translating I Sam 17 into Greek in Alexandria would have faced a major translation problem, i.e. how to deal with the great difference in size between the Egyptian royal cubit and the Hebrew common cubit. The ancient Egyptian royal cubit was the standard adopted for use in Egypt by the Ptolemies. Six royal Egyptian cubits and a span would make Goliath 11 feet 1 inch tall. This is an impossible height for Goliath, and it appears that some unknown Hebrew scholar recognized this and decided to translate the 6 common cubits of the Hebrew text of I Sam 17 into royal Egyptian cubits. In making this conversion from Jewish common cubits to Egyptian royal cubits, this ancient Hebrew translator had to chose between 4 or 5 royal Egyptian cubits. At 5 Egyptian royal cubits and a span Goliath would have been about 9 feet 5 inches tall. The Jewish translator of I Samuel 17 seems to have considered this also as still too tall. He appears to have opted for 4 cubits. At 4 cubits and a span in Egyptian royal cubits, Goliath would have been slightly over 7 feet 8 inches tall. This is close to the 8 feet 2 inches obtained above by assuming that Goliath was measured using a 7 1⁄2 inch span for David. Incidentally, apparently another LXX translator of I Sam 17 opted for 5 cubits, since the Greek Codex Venetus has 5 cubits and a span. 45 It should also be noted that by selecting 4 cubits and a span, the LXX translator placed Goliath in the middle of the height range of the Shasu giants mentioned in the Model Letter from the reign of Ramses II, which is quoted above. These Shasu/ Anakim giants are said in this letter to have been 4 and 5 royal Egyptian cubits tall. It is even possible that the LXX translator(s) of I Sam 17 knew of this Model Letter or had heard of the size of these giants from the Egyptians, and wanted to fit Goliath in between 4 and 5 cubits. Conclusion The 6 cubits and a span given for the height of Goliath in the Hebrew Masoretic Text is the original reading; it is not a textual error. The 4 cubits and a span reading found in the LXX is almost certainly a translation of the MT‘s common cubits into royal Egyptian cubits. It should also be noted that there are even some ancient versions of the LXX, which have 6 cubits and a span for the height of Goliath, and as was seen above, one has 5 cubits. It should also be noted that one of the most important LXX texts, which has the 4-cubits reading, is "Alexandrinus," and it unquestionably came originally from the city of Alexandria, a city where the educated Greeks would have known and used the royal Egyptian cubit. The 6-cubits reading found in some other LXX texts of I Sam 17 might even suggest that some other non-Alexandrian Jew did his own Greek translation from the Hebrew, and did not translate Hebrew common cubits into royal Egyptian cubits. Dr. Hays explains the 6-cubit reading in some texts of the LXX as a later correction made to conform with some sort of an early proto-Masoretic Text. 46 This leaves the problem of the DSS Hebrew text [4QSama] of I Sam 17, which also gives 4 cubits and a span for Goliath‘s height. This DSS [4QSama] reading can be explained either as an attempt to correct the Hebrew text using the LXX or as a Hebrew copy of I Samuel, which was made for or by a Jew from Alexandria, who wanted Hebrew common cubits converted into Egyptian royal cubits, a standard with which he was more familiar. The question now arises, how tall was Goliath? It is nearly certain that he was not over 9 feet tall. But, it is likely that he was over 8 feet tall, and he may have been as tall as 8 feet 7 inches. This would make Goliath about the same height as the current tallest man in the world Leonid Stadnik who is 8 feet 5 inches tall. However, as was stated above, David may have measured Goliath with his helmet still on, and this would shrink Goliath‘s height some. Nevertheless, it would be safe to say that Goliath was over 8 feet tall. In addition, as the weight of his armor and weapons clearly indicates, he was not only tall, but he was also huge in weight. Since classical hoplite warriors seem to have weighed from about 135-150lbs and since Goliath was carrying armor which weighed about 3 times as much as a hoplite, it is likely that Goliath, without his armor and weapons, weighed over 400 lbs. As for the exodus giants, it is clear that they too were very large men who ranged in height from 6 feet 10 inches tall to well over 8 feet tall. Goliath fits very well with these exodus giants, who were almost certainly his ancestors. By the standards of ancient Jewish men, who were 5 feet 0 to 5 foot 3 inches tall, Goliath and the exodus Anakim would have certainly been seen by the Israelites as giants. In conclusion, the historical, archaeological, and biblical evidence supports the Masoretic Text‘s reading of 6 cubits for the height of Goliath. It also should not be assumed that the LXX‘s 4-cubits reading in I Sam 17:4 is in conflict with the MT‘s 6 cubits reading. The 4-cubits reading in the LXX and DSS is almost certainly a translation of the Hebrew common cubit into Egyptian royal cubits. Modern English translators of the Bible, therefore, should retain the 6-cubits reading of the MT and should not adopt the LXX/ DSS‘s reading of 4-cubits as given for the height of Goliath in I Sam 17:4. I would also recommend that English translations of the Bible like the NASB not state in footnotes that the ancient Hebrew common cubit was 18 inches. If translators need approximate sizes for the two basic types of cubits used in the ancient Near East, then I would suggest 20 inches for the royal cubit and 16 inches for the common cubit. 1 J. D. Hays, Reconsidering the Height of Goliath, JETS 48/4 (2005) 702. 2 Hays, Goliath, 701. 3 M. C. Tenney, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (6 vols.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976) 5.914. 4 Tenney, Zondervan 5.914. 5 Tenney, Zondervan 5.914. 6 Tenney, Zondervan 5.914. 7 G. Barkay, Royal Palace, Royal Portrait: The Tantalizing Possibilities of Ramat Rahel, BARev 32/5 (2006) 38-39. 8 Barkay, Royal , 41. 9 Hays, Goliath, 708-10. 10 Hays, Goliath, 710. 11 V. Matthews, Manners and Customs in the Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991) 3. 12 L. Barrett, et als. Guinness World Records: The World’s Biggest Everything (New York: Time Inc., 2006) 10. 13 Daily Mail (UK), Sept. 28, 2007. 14 Hays, Goliath, 711. 15 A. Millard, King Og’s Iron Bed, BibRev. Apr. 1990, 16. 16 Hays, Goliath , 709. 17 Haysk Goliath , 708-9. 18 A. M. Maeir and C. S. Ehrlich, Excavating Philistine Gath, BARev, 27/6 (2001) 27. 19 Maeir, Gath, 29. 20 Maeir, Gath, 27. 21 Maeir, Gath , 22-24. 22 J. B. Pritchard, ed., ANEP , 225. 23 J. B. Pritchard, ed., ANET , 328 n. 2. 24 Pritchard, ANEP , 225-6. 25 Pritchard, ANET, 328 n.14. 26 Pritchard, ANEP , 225 n.3,6. 27 Pritchard, ANET , 329 n. 9, 28 Pritchard, ANET , 329 n.9. 29 S. Herrmann, Israel in Egypt (Ser. 2, no. 27, Studies in Biblical Theology , Naperville, IL: Alex R. Allenson, 1973) 25. 30 Herrmann, Israel, 26. 31 Herrmann, Israel, 26-7. See also S. Herrmann, Der Alttestamentliche Gottesname. Evangelische Theologie , 26 (1966) 281-293. 32 Herrmann, Israel, 285. 33 Herrmann, Israel, 31. 34 D. B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton: Princeton Un. Press, 1992) 272-3. 35 Redford, Egypt , 272. 36 Redford, Egypt , 273. 37 Redford, Egypt, 273. 38 M. Gorg, Israel in Hieroglyphics , No. 106 (2001) Biblische Notizen , n.p. 39 K. R. Cooper, The Shasu of Palestine in the Egyptian Texts, Artifax, 21/4 (Fall 2006) 22-25. 40 Pritchard, ANET , 259. 41 W. W. Hallo, ed., The Context of Scripture (3 vols.; Leiden:Brill, 2003) III 9. 42 Hallo, Context , III 13. 43 Hallo, Context, III 15 n.50. 44 Tenney, Zondervan, 5.914. 45 Hays, Goliath , 705-6. 46 Hays, Goliath , 705. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, J. P. The Craft of the Scribe. Vol. III of The Context of Scripture . W. W. Hallo, ed. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Barkay, G. Royal Palace, Royal Portrait: The Tantalizing Possibilities of Ramat Rahel, BARev 32/5 (2006). Barrett, L. et als. Guinness World Records: The World’s Biggest Everything. (New York: Time Inc., 2006. Cooper, K. R. The Shasu of Palestine in Egyptian Texts. Artifax , 21/4 (2006). Gorg, M. Israel in Hieroglyphics. Biblische Notizen, 106 (2001). Hallo, W. W., ed. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Hays, J. D. Reconsidering the Height of Goliath, JETS 48/4 (2005). Herrmann, S. Der Alttestamentliche Gottesname. Evangelische Theologie, 26 (1966). Herrmann, S. Israel in Egypt. Studies in Biblical Theology , Ser. 2, no. 27 (1973). Maeir, A.M. and Ehrlich, C.S. Excavating Philistine Gath, BARev, 27/6 (2001). Millard, A. King Og’s Iron Bed, BibRev. Apr. 1990. Matthews, V. Manners and Customs in the Bible. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991. Pritchard, J. B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Un. Press, 1950. Pritchard, J. B., ed. The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Un. Press, 1965. Redford, D. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Un. Press, 1992. Tenney, M.C. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . 6 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.

Introduction A great deal has been written and discussed about the origins issue in public education. The controversy centers on evolution versus special creation or intelligent design, which translates into science versus religion, at least that is the popular notion. It is difficult to find a resolution for a conflict of ideas involving two separate and distinct domains. Then again, perhaps a disagreement between science and religion does not even exist. Perhaps the conflict is first and foremost entirely within the domain of science, between legitimate or real science and Darwin's particular brand of science. If so, the focus of that disagreement is on two distinctly different standards of scientific investigation. That being the case, a resolution to the origins curriculum in public education is entirely feasible. The central question is whether evolution is accountable to real science or Darwin's substandard brand of science? In other words, the opposing entities are legitimate science versus Darwin's pseudoscience. Darwin's brand of science is false science, mainly because his investigation into origins deliberately rejects the much-heralded scientific objectivity. Religion does enter in as a motivational factor. Darwin's preconceived belief in evolutionary naturalism was his motivation for departing from legitimate science. Legitimate science would not provide the credibility he needed for his argument. In fact, legitimate science is designed to challenge the validity of theories. As a consequence, the curriculum does not challenge evolution instead it is promoted and propagandized at every opportunity. It comes across as browbeating students into an acceptance of evolution. The big fraud is students think they are being taught real science but it is nothing more than Darwinian pseudoscience. The popular notion is evolution can have no religious connection because it comes to us under the auspices of science. The fact of the matter is the question of origins is the preeminent question for nearly all religions; therefore, any answer to the question of origins, whether originating from science or theology is bound to have religious underpinnings. Given the inherently religious nature of the question of origins, it is quite likely there is no such thing as a secular explanation for origins. Evolution, for example, is a doctrine of Religious Humanism: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created. Humanism believes that man is part of nature and that he emerged as the result of a continuous process (Kurtz, 1984, p. 8). Thus when evolution is taught, it becomes a medium for intrinsically evangelizing the beliefs and values of Religious Humanism. Religious humanists have a very cozy setup— they are allowed to have their explanation for origins taught to the exclusion of other religions and at the taxpayers' expense. Darwinian Pseudoscience When reading the Origin , one discovers a great deal of speculation but very little substance. One also comes across several procedures that are a departure from real science, such as, utilizing hoped-for evidence rather than real time evidence, the use of an analogy to try to prove natural selection and, most importantly, the rejection of alternative points of view, which in science parlance is known as counterinduction. These procedures are unscientific, which means they defy common sense. Science is nothing more than the application of common sense. No investigator in any other field of endeavor would seriously consider utilizing the pseudoscientific procedures that Darwin applied. In any other field of endeavor it would be apparent that those procedures are not designed to seek truth but indicate that the investigator believes he already knows what truth is. If evolution were any other theory, the science establishment would consider Darwin's procedures unacceptable and even ludicrous. Darwin is on record as admitting that the fossil record, with its absence of numerous intermediate fossils, contradicts his idea of evolution. But Darwin, true to form, attempts to explain away the absence of numerous intermediate fossils: The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory (Gould, 1977, p.76). According to Darwin's way of thinking, evolution is valid while the search for numerous intermediate fossils continues. That does not make sense. Instead, it should be, the theory is invalid unless numerous intermediate fossils are discovered. That makes sense. So far the alleged numerous intermediate fossils have remained elusive. Real scientists deal with evidence in real time and not with what they hope the evidence will be at some time in the future. Nevertheless the science establishment allowed Darwin to get away with it. One test for the validity of a theory is its ability to fulfill a prediction. Darwin's theory can not fulfill the prediction for the discovery of numerous intermediate fossils; consequently, he had to abandon real time evidence and go to hoped-for future evidence. An obvious alternative explanation as to why numerous intermediate fossils are not found could be that natural selection is not happening. In the Origin Darwin consumed many pages attempting to prove natural selection by making it analogous to the artificial selection of domesticated plant and animals. Real science places little value on analogies. Darwin's analogy has been removed from some, if not all textbooks, probably because the analogy can be turned around and artificial selection can be used to reveal the impossibility of natural selection. As the names imply, natural selection and artificial selection are not analogous, but the antithesis of one another. The analogy should be returned to the textbooks and students should be taught how to turn it around from an asset to a liability for evolution. An analysis of the natural selection/artificial selection analogy is in the Great Evolution Curriculum Hoax . Who stated, "But analogy may be a deceitful guide"? Darwin did, near the end of the Origin , but that did not prevent him from using the natural selection/artificial selection analogy in the front of the book to deceive his readers (Darwin, 1872, p.370). The following quote from the Introduction to the Origin reveals Darwin's rejection of alternative points of view or what is known as counterinduction: For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done (Darwin, 1909, p. 20). We see that Darwin was well aware of the vital importance of alternative points of view, yet he elected to proceed without them. Counterinduction is so vital to scientific methodology that to reject it is tantamount to classifying evolution as a doctrine rather than theory. Doctrines are articles of faith that one may voluntarily chose to question or not question, but one is required to question theories. The world fell for Darwin's audaciously, clever choice of words, "cannot possibly be here done". Certainly one cannot expect someone to do the impossible. But the reality is that what Darwin claims to be impossible is a routine necessity for science. If we contrast Darwin's position with the high regard real scientist have for counterinduction, we see what a tremendous betrayal it is: Therefore, the first step in our criticism of customary concepts and customary reactions is to step outside the circle and either to invent a new conceptual system, for example, a new theory that clashes with the most carefully established observational results and confounds the most plausible theoretical principles, or to import such a system from outside science, from religion, from theology, from the ideas of incompetents, or the ramblings of mad men. This first step is, again, counterinductive. Counterinduction is thus both a fact—science could not exist without it—and a legitimate and much needed move in the game of science (Feyerabend, 1978, p. 68). The purpose of counterinduction is to reveal possible weaknesses in the theory in question and to instill open-mindedness. Darwin's rejection of counterinduction is an admission that his research does not represent real science. It can hardly stated more clearly. Of all the theories ever formulated since the advent of modem science, Darwin's theory (I use the word loosely) is probably the only one in which the science establishment allows a special dispensation to forgo counterinduction. There were objections to this turn of events within the science community, for example, Asa Gray, a contemporary of Darwin and a noted Harvard professor of botany, expressed the following objection regarding Darwin's research methods: The mode in which illustrative facts are used indicates on the part of the author a bias which, to say the least of it, is very far from becoming in a lover of science (Gray, 1860, p. 480). Again Gray states his objection: In almost every page (of the Origin ) we meet with facts which, as we shall have occasion to show, may be found as useful to an opponent as to an advocate of Mr. Darwin's views; while of many of them one cannot help standing in doubt as to their value, when considered even from the author's point of view (Gray, 1860, p. 457). Gray was not the only critic of evolutionists, but evolutionists apparently had the momentum to shrug criticisms off. Perhaps they were aided by an illusion shared by others in the scientific community that after providing mankind with numerous new technological developments to improve their quality of life, the crowning achievement would be to provide the masses with a scientific, even a pseudoscientific, explanation for the origin of life. The Ramifications of Darwinian Pseudoscience Let us now see how this all plays out. If the true concept of science does not exist without counterinduction and Darwin deliberately chose not to include counterinduction, does not that make his research unscientific and Darwin himself something less than a scientist? And, if evolution proponents granted Darwin a special dispensation not to include counterinduction, does not that make them something less than scientists or at least what Gray described as not lovers of science? Ironically, by allowing Darwin to unscientifically exclude counterinduction from his explanation for origins, evolution proponents inadvertently opened the door to all explanations for origins. If evolutionists can have their explanation for origins in the biology curriculum while being unscientific in vitally important ways, why cannot all other explanation for origins be in the curriculum even if they too are considered unscientific in some way? On the other hand, evolution needs biology as its evangelizing medium, but biology does not need evolution or any other explanation for origins for that matter. There is a great deal to teach in biology without even addressing the question of origins. Yet, despite the unwarranted and unusual cooperation from the science establishment, which allowed Darwin to investigate according to his own unscientific rules, a threat to Darwin's research always remained. That threat is a rule of logic, which states: A single absolute conflict between fact and hypothesis is fatal to the hypothesis, falsa in unofalsa in ominbus . It is a simple rule of logic that people consciously or subconsciously practice in their daily routines. This means that some unforeseen evidence or some deeper analysis could manifest itself in a way that would make evolution logically indefensible. In that case it would not matter whether evolution is being sold as religious doctrine or scientific theory the consequences would be the same and all of the other evidence in the one-sided argument would not be worth the paper they are written on. And that, as we shall see, is exactly what happened when natural selection's incipiency problem was brought to Darwin's attention. The Role of Educators Educators are not lackeys for the science establishment. We have our own professional standards to uphold. Darwin's brand of research does not represent legitimate science. Educators do not knowingly teach bad science because a segment of the science establishment or a segment of society wants it done. Counterinduction is as vital to educators as it should be to scientists. To educators, counterinduction spells the difference between education and indoctrination. The problem is that professors in higher education graduate teachers who are uninstructed and unaware that the typical evolution curriculum is dogma masquerading as science. I am firmly convinced that a vast majority of teachers, once aware of that deception, would not hesitate to incorporate scientific objectivity into the curriculum. I am also firmly convinced that a vast majority of parents would back them up. I had already decided to be critical of the evolution evidence in the classroom and, after reading Darwin's rejection of alternative points of view, I knew I had made the right decision. When it comes right down to it evolution cannot be taught any other way and still claim to be a scientific theory. Theories do not exist to be blindly defended tooth and nail; they exist to overthrown if possible. That is the scientific status of theories. The reason for the severe treatment of theories is practical and not personal. It is to prevent investigators in related fields from wasting time and effort on what could later turn out to be a false lead. All explanations for the origin of life, if they are in a science textbook, should expect a skeptical treatment of them. The last thing science is intended to do is promote theories for the purpose of fulfilling an individual's or an organization's private agenda. I taught a scientifically objective evolution curriculum for many years and no parent or student ever objected. Some people in the community were seriously opposed to having evolution questioned, but they could do nothing about it. One tactic was to try to equate the questioning of evolution with teaching creation, but the evolution data can be questioned quite well without having to advance any other explanation for origins. The opposition could not publicly confess what they really wanted, which is to have evolution taught as an unquestionable doctrine, just as Darwin conceived it. The evolution curriculum presently in the textbooks must be made accountable to legitimate science for several reasons. Legitimate science is secular whereas Darwinian pseudoscience is a religiously motivated form of science. The pseudoscientific presentation of the evolution data in the textbooks is dogmatic and therefore indoctrinating rather than educating, making it professionally unacceptable to educators. Students and parents expect the evolution curriculum to be representative of legitimate science and not Darwinian pseudoscience, which is rogue science. In fact, evolution science is so bad that it becomes the perfect subject by which to teach real science methodology. By introducing counterinduction, the incipiency problem and other unfavorable information that is censored, students may witness the transformation of evolution from a religious doctrine that does not have to abide by the principles of scientific inquiry to a theory. That is the only way an instructor can teach the curriculum and still maintain his professional integrity and the integrity of science. Darwin's Capitulation and a New Origins Curriculum Code Right around 1870 and shortly before the last edition of the Origin St. George Mivart pointed out the fatal flaw in the idea of natural selection as a naturalistic, on-going creative mechanism. The fatal flaw has to do with incipient or rudimentary organs. According to the evolution scenario, organs would have to initially appear as useless, rudimentary structures, which over eons of time would eventually evolve into functional organs, at which time they would contribute to the organism's survival. But, during the incipient stages, even going back to the first conglomeration of cells, the organ would provide no survival advantage to the species. The crux of the issue being that if natural selection cannot account for the incipient stages of development, when organs have no use, it cannot account for the existence of fully developed organs and organisms. Mivart's conclusion is that the idea of natural selection as a naturalistic, on-going creative mechanism is pure fantasy. Take a look at the imaginary examples of natural selection that textbook authors provide and one will note they pertain to fully developed organs and not the creation of those organs. For example, how giraffes evolved longer necks is an example of natural selection that textbook authors frequently use. But it is a false example natural selection because it fails to explain the origin of necks themselves, as they allegedly evolved through incipient stages, before they could contribute to the survival of the species. The beauty of the incipiency problem is one need not defer to so-called experts on the subject. Anybody with a modicum of common sense can recognize the impossibility of natural selection to create new species when incipiency is taken into consideration. Mivart reported his doubts about Darwinian evolution to T.H. Huxley. Mivart was probably blissfully unaware as to how dedicated Huxley was to Darwinian evolution. In fact, Huxley earned the sobriquet of "Darwin's bulldog" for his zealous promotion of Darwin's theory. Huxley was not about to brook any criticisms of evolution from his former student. In short order, the entire inner circle of Darwinists were made aware of Mivart's criticisms, or more accurately, to the Darwinists' mind-set, Mivart's betrayal. To their way of thinking, by trying to advance scientific criticisms of evolution, Mivart was also refuting the materialistic world-view that evolution represented to them. The legacy from the original Darwinists is a biased, dogmatic presentation of the evolution evidence in the typical secondary school evolution curriculum, which is not an inadvertent consequence of sloppy science, but an effort on the part of those responsible for the curriculum content to defend it as an essential component of their particular world-view. To make a long story short, the Darwinists, rather than being scientifically objective and acknowledging the legitimacy of Mivart's criticisms, took it personally, as an affront to their belief system, and initiated the old ad hominem ploy: When unable to refute the message, then attack the messenger. Over the next few years, Mivart was ostracized as a turncoat; "The antipathy, gradually establishing the caricature of Mivart as a dogmatic and biased opponent of Darwinism, led for all practical purposes to the negation of his more pregnant observation." (Gruber, 1960, p. 80). Meanwhile, Mivart had published a book entitled, On the Genesis of Species , in which he expounded on his evolution criticisms, paramount of which is the incipiency problem. This made it necessary for Darwin to respond to Mivart, which Darwin did in the last edition of the Origin . Instead of attempting to refute the incipiency problem, Darwin acknowledges its legitimacy; He had no other choice; nobody can address the incipiency problem without acknowledging its indisputable refutation of natural selection. That is why, to this day, evolution proponents do not allow incipiency into the evolution curriculum. Darwin's mental acrobatics are difficult to follow. After recognizing the legitimacy of the incipiency criticism, he continues as though everything is fine and dandy, by suggesting other methods of evolution that have absolutely no credibility. In other words, he abandoned natural selection, the mechanism that had become synonymous with evolution, yet somehow this is not supposed to diminish the belief that evolution is possible. Darwin's capitulation statement stands out as something apart in its bluntness, yet at the same time, he appears to renege: I have now considered enough, perhaps more than enough of the cases selected with care by a skilful naturalist to prove that natural selection is incompetent to account for the incipient stages of useful structures; and I have shown, as I hope, that there is no great difficulty on this head (Darwin, 1909, p. 243). The "skilful naturalist" is Mivart, whom he mentions by name in the preceding pages. Mivart is the person who should be given credit for recognizing the incipiency problem, yet Darwin addresses the issue as though he should be given credit for disproving his own theory. Darwin's problem is how to capitulate without having a world of recrimination descend upon him? The worst scenario, but the proper one, would be to call a meeting of the top scientists and report the incipiency problem. Instead, Darwin chose to write one last edition of the Origin and in it reveal the incipiency problem. The incipiency problem would be in the sixth edition for anybody to read-that is anybody who is willing to take the time to plow through the book. He certainly was not going to announce it as a new development in the Introduction. Then too, evolutionists who do read about the incipiency problem, unless they are more dedicated to the principles of science than they are to the preservation of the theory, are going to be inclined, like the original Darwinists, to keep silent about it. So there the capitulation statement is, hidden in plain sight, destined to be excluded from the main body of knowledge about evolution. In the capitulation statement, the wording after the semicolon may sound like he is immediately refuting the first part, but is meant to placate the evolution enthusiasts whom he let down with his abandonment of natural selection. To appease their disappointment and to persuade them that they may continue to believe in evolution, he goes on to suggest other methods of evolution. For example, Lamarck's now defunct theory of use and disuse, if a giraffe needs a long neck, nature will provide one by constant stretching. He also suggested a vague possibility of "variations without natural selection" and finally the possibility of every stage of evolution being useful for survival. In other words, an elimination of incipient parts altogether. The capitulation statement does if all for Darwin; it alleviates his conscience by addressing incipiency and placates the evolution enthusiasts with alternative methods of evolution. Whether or not they are willing to accept those alternatives is their business. Darwin himself probably maintained a belief in evolution as an article of faith regardless of how much credibility he placed in alternative methods. It is interesting to note that Darwin published a new edition of the Origin approximately every two years, until the admission of the incipiency problem in the 1872 edition. There is no seventh edition because Darwin did not have anything more to say, although he did live another ten years. The withholding of pertinent evidence is the ultimate form of unscrupulous persuasion. It is illegal in a court of law and should perhaps be equally so in science and education. But, for the last one hundred and thirty some years the science establishment has not seen fit to discuss the incipiency problem in the secondary school evolution curriculum. What a profound statement that is, as to the extent influential professionals in science and education are willing to go to defend the credibility of evolution theory, by taking advantage of students' youthful trust and ignorance. Scientifically oriented crusaders are sorely needed who will advocate students' academic freedom and in this case it is their right to know both the pros and cons of evolution theory. Students should certainly become knowledgeable as to the superficial quality of the evolution evidence. The evidence is so insubstantial that every item of evidence in support of evolution is also evidence against it from some other point of view and not necessarily a creation point of view. Without that awareness, the subliminal learner outcome in the curriculum is how not to think critically. The typical evolution curriculum is in need of freedom of thought-a scientific emancipation of thought. Long before evolution is a scientific answer to the origins question, it is first and foremost a religious answer to the origins question and that accounts for the dogmatic rather than theoretical presentation of the evidence in the typical textbook. It all began with Darwin whose methodology is faulty. He was more of an evangelist than a scientist. Everything he observed was construed to have a positive meaning for evolution to the exclusion of anything else. Any scientist will tell you that that is precisely the wrong way to research a theory because the investigator is simply trying to confirm a preconceived belief. Allowing alternative points of view into the curriculum merely corrects Darwin's faulty methodology. One might even conclude that alternatives allow science into the curriculum where pseudosciemce presently prevails. Even creation scientists have gotten into the act by failing, in the name of scientific objectivity, to publicly take issue with the suppression of the incipiency problem in the evolution curriculum. That is a puzzle because the primary motivation for censoring the incipiency problem has to be religious bias. Obviously, there is no scientific reason for not openly discussing the incipiency problem. Students have every right to know about the incipiency problem and nobody and nothing has the authority to deny them that knowledge. Who are the high and mighty, who have determined for everybody else, contrary to the fundamental principles of science and education, that students must not acquire any knowledge about evolution theory that might cast doubt upon its credibility? The battle for biology between creation scientists and evolution scientists is one that need not be fought because of the inability of science to conclusively prove any explanation for origins anyway. In the battle for biology, creation scientists should not be talking around the incipiency problem. Instead, it should be the central focus because without a naturalistic, on-going creative mechanism, evolution has no greater legitimacy in the biology curriculum than creation science. Creation science cannot present its evidence in the curriculum because it advocates a supernatural method of origins, and that supposedly places it outside the domain of science. But, if life did not arise supernaturally, then there must be a naturalistic, on-going creative mechanism for origins that is legitimately within the domain of science and is just waiting to be discovered — that naturalistic, on-going creative mechanism was thought, by some, to be natural selection, until 1872 when Darwin acknowledged the incipiency problem. It is understandable, from an evolutionist's point of view, why incipiency has to be suppressed, because without a naturalistic, on-going creative mechanism, there really is no theory of evolution that sets it apart from a creation explanation for origins. Let us face it if the incipiency problem had become common knowledge after the publication of the sixth edition, Darwinian evolution would not have made it into the textbooks. What is not understandable is why, when both creation scientists and evolution scientists claim to be champions of scientific objectivity, creation scientists particularly do not, in the name of scientific objectivity, insist that incipiency be part of the evolution curriculum. It seems like the natural thing to do. Somehow the incipiency problem will have to become common knowledge in spite of the science establishment's efforts to suppress it. What makes it doubly scandalous is the target of the incipiency cover up are America's youth. To summarize, two methods of teaching evolution exist, one is religious and the other is scientific. The former is evangelical the latter is analytical. They are not readily distinguishable to the layman because they both speak the language of science. But the religious method suppresses alternative points of view and censors evidence that is downright unfavorable. That describes the typical evolution curriculum. On the other hand, the scientific method of teaching evolution adheres to the principles of scientific inquiry. Because evolution is a doctrine of Religious Humanism, for example, the religious method of teaching evolution, may possibly be deemed unconstitutional. A Scientific Solution to the Origins Issue in Public Education with a New Origins Curriculum Code The term "biology" means the study of living things. It is a realistic definition that reflects the limited capabilities of science; consequently, it does not include the origin of living things. Historically, the origin of living things was considered supernatural to the naturalism of science. In order to bring the origin of living things into the domain of science a naturalistic, on-going creative mechanism was needed and that was Darwin's goal with his natural selection mechanism. But without a workable natural selection mechanism, we have returned to the original parameters of biology, which is limited to the study of living things and not their origins. The following curriculum code would guarantee that those parameters are not violated unless certain conditions are met: Whereas, the question of origins is the preeminent question for nearly all religions, including Religious Humanism Whereas, it is socially divisive and religiously discriminating to exclusively represent one particular explanation for origins as the so-called "unifying theme" in biology Whereas, science cannot experimentally prove any particular explanation for origins by any means presently known Whereas, Darwin's natural selection idea was prematurely accepted and has, with the passage of time and a more intense analysis, been revealed to be incompetent to create new kinds Be it resolved, that in order to insure the scientific integrity of the biological sciences, guarantee the constitutional intent of the doctrine of the separation of church and state and eliminate religious discrimination in public education, let no explanation for origins assume the status of the so-called "unifying theme" in biology unless the creative mechanism proves itself to be unquestionably viable. References Darwin, Charles. 1909. The Origin of Species , sixth edition. P.F.Collier and Sons, New York. Darwin P. 243. Darwin, Charles. 1872. The Origin of Species and the Decent of Man . The Random House, Inc., New York. Feyerabend, Paul. 1978. Against method; outline of an anarchist theory of knowledge. Humanities Press, London. Gould, S.J. 1977. "Evolution's erratic pace." Natural History, 76 (May 5):14. Gray, Asa. 1860. "A Critique of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." The North British Review, Vol. 32:465. Gruber, Jacob. 1960. A conscience in conflict-the life of St. George Jackson Mivart. Columbia University Press, New York. Kurtz, David. 1984. Humanist Manifesto I and II . Prometheus Books, Buffalo. This document is condensed from information contained in The Great Evolution Curriculum Hoax . This book is available from: National Book Network P.O. Box 191 Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17214 Phone: 877-323-4550