"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

Abstract Radiometric rock dating, the methodology of determining the date of formation of a rock sample by the well-established rate of decay of the isotopes contained, depends on accurately determination of the starting points, the original concentrations of the isotopes. Many methods of estimating these beginning concentrations have been proposed, but all rest on tenuous assumptions which have limited their acceptance. This paper attempts to show that the Isochron-Diagram method contains a logical flaw that invalidates it. This most accepted of all methods has two variations, the mineral isochron and the whole-rock isochron. The logically-sound authenticating mechanism of the mineral isochron is applied to the whole-rock isochron, where it is invalid. The long-term stability of the whole-rock is applied to the mineral, where it is inappropriate. When the isochron data are the result of the rock being a blend of two original species, the diagram is called a mixing line, having no time significance. This paper shows that all whole-rock isochrons are necessarily mixing lines. It is noted that by analogy the mixing-line logic casts strong suspicion on the mineral isochron as well. Since only whole-rock isochrons play a significant role in the dating game anyway, isotopic geochronology can be rather generally discredited. Keywords: Age Geochronology Isochron Isotope Old-earth Radiometric Young-earth Introduction: Thanks mainly to the fact that they appear to be so constant, the decay rates of radioactive materials have become the primary mechanism for attempting to discover the age of rocks.[5,16] In addition to a constant rate of variation, however, any timing mechanism must also have a calibrated beginning point. A number of methods have been tried to calibrate the "radiometric clock". But they have all required unprovable and apparently unwarranted assumptions. Faure, in his textbook [9] refers to all of them as "assumed values" except for those obtained by the "isochron", or similar linear method. The linear methods are several, and have in common the reduction of the data to a set which can yield a straight-line plot. Many exceedingly detailed descriptions of these methods are available.[1,2,5,16] A summary description of the Rb-Sr isochron is included below. Arndts and Overn alerted the creationist community to the fact that in spite of the mathematical rigor of the isochron, it also has unwarranted assumptions, and the data carefully gathered and processed to indicate immense ages can more appropriately be dismissed as indicating the recent mixing of two or more magmas.[1,2,3] Dalrymple[6] challenged our analysis with five points, all of which were promptly and thoroughly refuted.[4] In Dalrymple's latest book [7] he ignores the entire issue of the whole-rock isochron, only defending the mineral isochron. There is sound logic supporting the mineral isochron, but another fatal flaw. Individual mineral crystals are not closed systems. Even over the few thousands of years available in the young-earth paradigm, they are insufficiently stable to give acceptable data to the geochronologists. The Rb-Sr Isochron Method Rubidium and strontium occur as trace elements in many common rock types. Rubidium has two isotopes. ⁸⁵Rb (stable, abundance 72%) and ⁸⁷Rb (radioactive). ⁸⁷Rb decays to ⁸⁷Sr with a half-life of (approximately) 48.8 billion years. Strontium is stable in all natural forms, and in addition to the radiogenic ⁸⁷Sr (7%), has isotopes ⁸⁸Sr (82%), ⁸⁶Sr (10%), and ⁸⁴Sr (<1%). The general method of dating is to take several samples of the rock, to determine the ratios of the Rb-Sr isotopes in each, and by simultaneous equations determine the probable beginning points for each, from which the age may be determined.[16] For the sake of compatibility with the available laboratory instruments, the specific ratios chosen are ⁸⁷Rb-⁸⁶Sr and ⁸⁷Sr-⁸⁶Sr. The algebra is equivalent to a simple straight-line diagram as in Figure 1. where points a, b, and c represent the samples. Here is graphically represented the fact that the amount of daughter isotope increases as the amount of parent increases in the sample. The magnitude of that increase (i.e. the slope of the line) depends on the time allowed for the decay process to transpire, or the age of the rock. If we extrapolate down the line to the zero intercept, we have a representation of a sample with no parent isotope to contribute to the daughter concentration. This must represent the initial daughter concentration. The slope is the age and the intercept is the initial daughter ratio. The scheme is mathematically sound. We must examine the assumptions. For a problem to be solvable by simultaneous equations there must be as many independent equations as there are unknowns. The unknowns are the original ⁸⁷Sr-⁸⁶Sr ratio for each sample and the age of each sample. Each sample gives one equation, but introduces two additional unknowns. Regardless of the number of samples, there are never enough equations to cover all the unknowns.[16] These problems must be resolved by the assumptions. The same age It is assumed that all samples analyzed together are the same age. The word "isochron" (from the Greek "same time") symbolizes that. We do not dispute this assumption. The same initial strontium ratio If all initial ⁸⁷Sr-⁸⁶Sr ratios in the system are assumed to be the same, the scheme can be made to work, as the unknowns are reduced to two, the common age, and the common strontium ratio. Any two samples may now introduce the required two equations, and any more beyond that will simply improve the accuracy and the confidence level. This assumption is outside the experience based on field data, however, where the general case is that every sample has its own unique ratio. However, it can be rationally assumed that each sample we find has its own age and its particular rubidium concentration, which over time may have imparted a unique portion of daughter isotope. The assumed uniform strontium ratios should certainly be valid when applied to a rock system solidifying from a uniform homogenized melt. We must emphasize, however, that this enabling assumption must fail in the absence of an initial homogenized melt. A "closed" system If isotopes have migrated in or out of the sample during the aging period, the resulting data have no time significance. Isochrons are thought to be self checking in this regard, since with several samples an open system with random migration should scatter the points off of the straight line. Indeed, it often happens that there is a scatter of data, rendering the isochron worthless. But there are many occurrences of isochrons having acceptably straight-line form that are also rejected. Often "metamorphism" is cited as the probable cause, the system having opened, either partially or completely resetting the clock. [11,19] In order to assure an acceptably closed system, samples as large as 1 meter cubes have been suggested.[20] The assumption of a closed system for many of the isochrons, if they have not been questioned by the geochronologists, will not be challenged here. We note that these are generally obtained on the samples of larger dimensions, that is the whole-rock isochrons. Independent equations If the equations are not independent, the problem cannot be solved. This would be the case where all samples on the diagram plot on a single point. Although the single point on the diagram is valid, there is no way of finding a slope or intercept. If the melt were initially homogeneous and remained closed, it could be expected still to be homogeneous, and yield that single-point isochron. This should be the general case of the whole-rock isochron. The need is to find samples with a variety of initial rubidium content but still having initial strontium ratios that are known to be uniform. The assumed initial homogeneous melt cannot be expected to give whole-rock samples with variable rubidium, but the assumed uniform ⁸⁷Sr-⁸⁶Sr ratios demand such an initial homogeneous melt. The mineral isochron solves the dilemma. The mineral crystals have done the job in an elegant way. Crystals naturally form around a specific chemical composition, each atom occupying its naturally-assigned site. Foreign atoms just don't fit, either electrochemically or physically, and are strongly rejected. Depending on its concentration in the melt, a foreign element may have more or less acceptance in a crystal, based on its chemical and physical resemblance to one or another of the normal host elements. As the crystals form, each different mineral type accepts a different trace level of rubidium and of strontium. Because of their individual unique chemistry they each extract a different amount of rubidium and of strontium from the melt. The crystals of the individual minerals are used as the rock samples in the mineral isochrons. Mixing Often an isochron yields an unacceptable slope, indicating an age much too young or much too old to be compatible with the accepted model. [19] Frequently the slope is negative.[18,14] A common explanation for these cases is "mixing". It has always been recognized that the same straight-line plot as the isochron can be achieved if the original melt were a mixture of two original homogenized pools.[12] Figure 1. may also be used to illustrate this case. If points a and c are the compositions of the two original pools that partially merged to form the melt, any sample from the melt will occupy a place on a straight line between them, such as point b. No sample will be found above a or below c. Such a "mixing line" has no time significance, and the textbook warns to be wary of accepting such mixing as a true isochron. Faure's text also proposes a test for mixing. [13] If a plot of ⁸⁷Sr-⁸⁶Sr vs 1/Sr (the concentration of strontium) shows a linear relationship, then mixing is indicated. A brief study conducted in 1981 showed a high degree of correlation to this mixing test in the isochrons being published.[3] A subsequent public dialog between Dalrymple[6] and Arndts & Overn [4] concluded that although the mixing test is strongly indicative of mixing, there are circumstances under which mixing would not be detected by such a test, and others wherein the test could give a false indication of mixing. The caution for the geochronologist would be to suspect any isochron, since there is no way to rule out mixing. It is now clear, however, that there is at least one positive test for mixing. It is the whole-rock isochron itself. If the whole rock yields samples that give a linear plot, whether the slope is positive or negative, or whether the slope signifies an age that fits a preconceived model or not, there is no other known mechanism outside of mixing to which the data may be rationally ascribed. Discussion Mixing is an unfortunate misnomer that has become popular for describing rocks formed from two or more original melts, or from a melt becoming contaminated by isolated incorporation of local rock. Understand it to mean partial mixing, with resulting heterogeneity. Complete mixing would result in homogeneity, and would give only a single point to plot. No curve of any kind, nor even a scattering of points would occur. This homogeneity is the assumed starting point in the history of the rock being dated. It then solidifies. But now, years later, we dig up 6 adjacent meter cubes of the rock, and discover that the normalized ratio of the parent (and incidentally of the daughter) is different in each cube, sufficient to plot as an "isochron". How can we rationally accept the assumed initial homogeneity? We can not. What is needed but missing in the whole rock isochron is a mechanism to establish initial homogeneity, and then to extract heterogeneous samples. The mineral crystals do the job in an elegant way. Each type accepts a different level of contamination of the parent isotope, chemically determined. One cannot rationally extend this process back to the whole rock. It has been tried, but there is a fallacy . [5,20] As we stated in 1986: [5] The whole-rock isochron is justified on the basis that migration of the isotopes in a metamorphic event may be confined to distances of perhaps 1 cm. This is much larger than the average crystal size. Thus the original constituents of each crystal will lie nearby. By taking samples of 100-cm dimensions, one could assure that the entire content of the original crystals are well represented by the sample, with very small error. However, this matrix is the original melt that was theorized to be homogeneous. The ability to find differences in the rubidium content among the samples violates the assumption of original homogeneity. Original inhomogeneity is the only possible explanation: in other words, mixing. This method of justifying the whole-rock isochron on the basis of the mineral is logically unsound. Within the larger matrix the tiny crystals may incorporate discrete trace elements and return them over time. But they are powerless to alter the composition of the whole-rock matrix. It is claimed that fractional crystallization of magmas and separation of crystals from the remaining liquid result in suites of comagmatic rocks of differing composition. [10]. This may be true, but there is no experimental evidence that this can generally be applied to trace elements that are foreign to the crystals. Add the fact that trace elements are not securely held by crystals until temperatures are well below the melting points, and this postulate falls far short of explaining the variation in rubidium in whole-rock isochrons. Mixing is much preferred, particularly when it is noted that many data sets have negative slope, where mixing is always the accepted explanation. Often the negative-slope data pertain to large formations that particularly fit the hypothesis of slow cooling from a melt. [15,18] In the case of the mineral isochrons the scheme postulates an initial homogeneous melt, represented by a single point on the diagram. As the crystals form, their differential solubility will move their individual points on the diagram horizontally , different distances. (Only horizontally, since the vertical is a ratio of two isotopes of the same element). The large volume of whole-rock isochrons, however, shows the general case to be an initial heterogeneous melt represented by the kind of diagram published as an isochron, and which we conclude is actually a mixing line. Any point in the melt can be represented as a point on the straight line. When mineral crystals form, each crystal will move its point off the straight line in one or the other horizontal directions. The result is a scattering of the points. The geochronologist discards it as one of the following: A three or more part mixture, Subsequent metamorphosis, Not a closed system: In this case he recognizes that crystals really cannot be expected to be a closed system. They tend to continue to reject contaminants long after formation, the mobilities of foreign elements in crystals being a whole school of scientific study. The retention of trace elements in crystals is so inadequate that it has been possible to construct "Isochrons" from various parts of the same crystal.[17] It is common that when the mineral isochron fails, the geochronologist then produces a whole-rock isochron from the same formation. The ability to obtain a whole-rock diagram, straight-line or not, can be considered proof that the data represent a "mixing line" rather than an "isochron". If mixing has not occurred, and the system has remained closed, then the whole-rock data must all lie on a single point. In fact, even if the whole-rock data show scatter, either mixing is indicated -- but of a complex nature, with more than two components -- or there have been subsequent alterations described as the system being open, or both. Has any legitimate isochron ever been formed? It is improbable. There is ample evidence for mixing. Any "isochron" could be mixing. There is no way to rule it out. All whole-rock "isochrons" are mixing, and they are approximately 90% of all published. Many of the remaining (mineral) "isochrons" have a whole-rock point located close enough to the straight line to discredit them. Why should we expect any of the others to be "true isochrons", since mixing has the strongest probability? If one possesses a strong faith in the antiquity of the rocks, one could rationally expect that an occasional mineral isochron is legitimate. But it would also require the whole-rock diagram to be concentrated in a single point. (Neither a straight line or scattered). Often a whole rock point is put on a mineral diagram. That does not meet the criterion. Several whole-rock samples must be obtained, using the same techniques required for the whole-rock method. Their individual data points must be identical, i.e. superimposed on the diagram. At that point mixing would not have been ruled out, but all available tests requiring mixing would have been eliminated. In the dialog with Dalrymple [4] it was noted that he is unwilling to defend the whole-rock isochron. In his latest book [7] on the age of the earth he has included a section that describes the elegant process with which crystals (minerals) give the necessary heterogeneity to make the system work. He also shows why the mineral isochron cannot be relied upon for dating, but does not state that conclusion. He carefully avoids describing the whole-rock method, which leads the casual reader to conclude that it is validated by the same processes as is the mineral method. Nothing could be farther from the case. Dalrymple has seen our initial critique of the whole- rock method, [5] and is obviously reluctant to forthrightly claim any scientific merit for it. He has clearly sidestepped the issue. Dalrymple [7] does not depend directly on isochron dating of rocks to date the earth, but rather on the lead- isotope ratios. He must be commended for his carefully pointing out the many assumptions involved. However, he finally ignores them and claims that the age has been determined within a very narrow margin. His ultimate method is to take the radiometric ages of lead ores (Circa 2.6-3.5 Ga) and correct to the beginning. Again I point out that the "isochrons" used to date the ores, as well as those of the meteorites, that add so much to Dalrymple's confidence in the method, are most probably mixing. Note tables 7.4 and 7.5, [Ref 7] which give many meteorite ages. Almost all are whole-rock. Additionally note that with all his enthusiasm for the isochron, Dalrymple characterizes the method as a "first approximation" [8] As has been pointed out many times before, all radiometric methods including the linear-plot techniques have been effectively "calibrated" to the fossil dates by selecting among the discordant data those that fit the accepted stratigraphic model. [16] Since the proponents of the isochrons don't take them at face value, others should by equally wary. See also: " Still No Proof For Ancient Age -A Response " by W. M. Overn and Russell T. Arndts A technical analysis of "Isochrons" as defended by Dalrymple against creationist criticism, showing that despite mathematical sophistication, they are unreliable and are calibrated to "known ages" using the geologic column. For Exciting New Work On Radiometric Dating Showing a Young Earth, Click HERE BIBLIOGRAPHY [1] Arndts, R. & Overn, W. 1981 "Pseudo Concordance in U-Pb Dating" Bible-Science Newsletter 19(2):1. [2] Arndts, R. & Overn, W. 1981 "Isochrons" Bible-Science Newsletter 19(4):5-6. [3] Arndts, R., Kramer, M. & Overn, W. 1981 "Proof of the Validity of the Mixing Model" Bible-Science Newsletter 19(8):1. [4] Arndts, R. & Overn, W. Proceedings of 1985 Creation Conference North Coast Bible-Science Association, Cleveland, Ohio. [5] Arndts, R. & Overn, W. 1986 "Radiometric Dating -- An unconvincing Art" Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism Vol 2, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp 167- 173. [6] Dalrymple, G. B. 1984 "How Old is the Earth? A Reply to {at}Scientific Creationism' " Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division AAAS 1(3):84-86 [7] Dalrymple, G. B. 1992 The Age of the Earth [8] Ibid p. 402. [9] Faure, L. 1977 Principles of Isotope Geology John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, New York. p.78 [10] Ibid p. 79. [11] Ibid p. 83-87. [12] Ibid p. 97-105. [13] Ibid p. 101. [14] Jager, E. & Hunziker, J. C., eds, 1979 Lectures in Isotope Geology Springer-Verlaug, Berlin, Heidelberg and New York, p. 36 [15] Ibid p. 142-144 [16] Overn, W. 1986 "The Truth About Radiometric Dating" Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism Vol 1, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp 101-104. [17] Scharer, V. & Allegre, C. 1982 "Uranium - Lead System in Fragments of a Single Zircon Grain" Nature 295 (Feb.): 585 [18] Tilton, G. R. & Barreio, B. A. 1979 "Origin of Lead in Andean Calc-Alkaline Lavas, Southern Peru" Science 210, 1245-1247 [19] Woodmorappe, John 1979 "Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised" Creation Research Quarterly 16, 102-129 [20] York, D. & Farquhar, R. M. 1972 The Earth's Age and Geochronology Pergamon Press, New York, pp. 80 ff.

July 11 is the 10th anniversary of the publication of theistic evolutionist Francis Collins’ The Language of God , which became a New York Times bestseller largely because of Collins’ reputation as director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. That book, in turn, helped Collins gain new fans and a nomination from Barack Obama to head the National Institutes of Health. Confirmed by the Senate, Collins has been in that position ever since, and I’m glad he’s there. But his book, and a talk about it I heard Collins give in New York, also displayed what Collins now admits was arrogance. Collins claimed on page 136 that huge chunks of our genome are “littered” with ancient repetitive elements (AREs), so that “roughly 45 percent of the human genome [is] made up of such genetic flotsam and jetsam.” In his talk he claimed the existence of “junk DNA” was proof that man and mice had a common ancestor, because God would not have created man with useless genes. Last year, though, speaking at the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference in San Francisco, Collins threw in the towel: “In terms of junk DNA, we don’t use that term anymore because I think it was pretty much a case of hubris to imagine that we could dispense with any part of the genome, as if we knew enough to say it wasn’t functional. … Most of the genome that we used to think was there for spacer turns out to be doing stuff.” Good for Collins—and maybe he’ll go on to deal with other times scientists feel sorry for God as they look at His purportedly poor design. For example, evolutionists use the retina of the eye as evidence against creation, because nerve endings are at the front rather than at the back, which at first glance seems better placement. Yet, as Lee Spetner explains in The Evolution Revolution (Judaica Press, 2014), physicists now see front placement as the best one for “ingeniously designed light collectors.” The list of needed retractions should include what you probably learned in high school about apparently purposeless human vestigial organs. Robert Wiedersheim’s 1895 list of 86 has shrunk, as almost all of them have proved to have functions. For example, the most famous vestigial organ—the vermiform appendix—is a crucial storage place for benign bacteria that repopulate the gut when diarrhea strikes. The appendix can be a life-saver. I haven’t seen Richard Dawkins recant his 2009 statement: “What pseudogenes [often labeled as junk DNA] are useful for is embarrassing creationists. It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make up a convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have created a pseudogene—a gene that does absolutely nothing and gives every appearance of being a superannuated version of a gene that used to do something.” Why? Maybe so when we look at the work of God’s fingers, from the moon and stars to the way He has knit together our inward parts, we bow our heads in awe. Maybe to embarrass evolutionists. Bookmarks Cristóbal Krusen’s They Were Christians (Baker, 2016) has readable chapter biographies of notables including Dag Hammarskjöld, Frederick Douglass, and Fyodor Dostoyevsky; and P hilosophy in Seven Sentences by Douglas Groothuis (IVP, 2016) introduces readers to seven philosophers. The war against Darwin dissenters continues, as Jerry Bergman documents in Silencing the Darwin Skeptics (Leafcutter, 2016). Thomas Frank’s Listen, Liberal (Henry Holt, 2016) attacks the Democratic Party from the left. If your high-school student says he’s a socialist, Gerald Grafe’s The Root of All Money (CreateSpace, 2015) could serve as an antidote. —M.O. Reprinted with permission. Olasky, M. (June 24, 2016). Admission of function: Junking slurs about 'junk DNA.' WORLD Magazine. https://wng.org/articles/admission-of-function-1620609700

Really! God does not believe in atheists. Sure, He knows there are those who claim there is no God. But first of all, He calls them fools. ( Psalm 14:1 ) Then He says that deep down inside, they actually know He is there. They did not get to where they are by way of intellectually honest inquiry but are rather practicing suppression of the truth. And because of this, they are not only without excuse but objects of His extreme anger. ( Romans 1:18-21 ) Further, Scripture predicts that eventually every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. ( Philippians 2:9-11 ) Some will bow in grateful praise for forgiveness and a future eternity with Him. ( Revelation 21:1-7 ) Some will bow with gritted teeth, in dread and remorse for wasted life and opportunities, recognizing that they have been willing victims of the master deceiver and will share his fate. ( Revelation 20:10-15 ) Ross Olson

There are all sorts of different reasons for believing in God, and here I will mention only one. It is this. Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen for physical or chemical reasons to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It is like upsetting a milk-jug and hoping that the way the splash arranges itself will give you a map of London. But if I cannot trust my own thinking, of course I cannot trust the arguments leading to atheism and therefore the reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought or anything else: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God. C. S. Lewis

The talk to the Jewish Community Relations Council today at noon was very interesting. Although there was not much visible agreement with my position, I pray that the seeds which were planted will germinate in a few hearts. I thanked them for having me and did tell them at the end to keep an open mind. It had taken me a long time to even consider the evidence when I was first confronted it because there tends to be an emotional reaction to things that oppose what we have accepted for a long time. I spoke first and had been given special permission to go for 12 minutes because the other three were all opposed to intelligent design and that was the length of my PowerPoint presentation. The early guidelines said 5 - 10 minutes and at the event, the moderator said 8 minutes. The others had also been given a copy of a previous version of my talk by the coordinator of the event -- attached to an e-mail giving the ground rules. I think it was inadvertent and she had not given much thought to it, just including all the information she had at hand. No one else had submitted a transcript ahead of time so I did not get to preview their arguments, but of course, they were predictable. I e-mailed the group after that and told them that "since the element of surprise was lost ;-) I attached the current version of the talk." I said I hoped that it would improve the discussion. There were about 20 people there. ID advocate and author Walter Remine had heard about it and came. Otherwise it was all members of the Jewish Council or other interested Jews, mostly older people (meaning my age). By a straw vote they took at the end, of those voting 15 wanted a policy forbidding intelligent design in Jewish schools and only 2 did not. The other speakers talked a lot about separation of church and state. They all believed that science and religion were in separate realms and did not intersect. They said that ID was "only a Trojan Horse for Creation." They reiterated that one did not need to have explanations of mechanisms in order to continue accepting evolution. They were all cordial but simply could not accept any of my arguments. The biologist mentioned as evidence for evolution controlling genes that may cause an antenna to grow where an eye should be -- but of course this is in fruit flies whose genome knows how to make antennae. The comments and questions from the audience included many of the familiar themes. One elderly gentleman asked to be able to read an article from the New York Times about "evolution in action -- the mutating avian influenza virus." I responded that this was a very important question because it represented the usual proof of evolution cited by most evolutionists -- micro evolution -- and explained that we see it in dog breeds and Darwin's finches but that macro evolution needs the development of new features, new information. But the unique part of the response of this group was the emotional underpinning of much of their reaction. They were upset about my statement that there is truth. They take this as a threat by Christianity against Judaism. I tried to point out that first of all, saying that there is a correct answer and knowing what the answer is are two different things. But although it sounds humane to say that everybody is right, it ends up meaning that nobody is right and that religion, relegated to its own realm, is only a psychological crutch and tool to encourage moral behavior. The morality of evolution is survival and producing the most progeny in the next generation even though most evolutionists borrow their morality from a better source. And my closing comments about the intellectual support that evolution gives to eugenics and genocide were met with anger and offense. Most evolutionists, they said, are moral people. They could not accept the connection. I said that most people do not live in complete harmony with their underlying assumptions but that evolution at its root accepts the idea that some are more highly evolved than others, and that there is no clear dividing line that makes human life qualitatively different. The extreme is Dr. Peter Singer, ethicist at Princeton who believes that there ought to be mechanisms for killing defective humans and that some animals are more valuable than some people. Some of the comments from the audience -- and the anti ID comments from the other panelists -- went on for a long time touching on a dozen topics so that it was impossible to follow most trains of thought. I did suggest that all of us might need to join the support group for people who talk to much called "On-and-on." Walter said that in exchange for a monopoly in the classroom, evolutionists should engage ID advocates in debates and discussions -- in writing and available for people to review. He held up his book and said that although it proposed an alternative to evolution it has not been reviewed by an evolutionist. One man said that when the environment was deteriorating and resources being used up, it was tragic that we spend so much time on this issue. He implied that it was trivial and also said that the same arguments keep coming up again and again. (Of course, if an argument has not been answered, it will not just go away.) I responded that it was a more basic issue than he realized because evolution amounted to training in illogical thinking. Certain conclusions were declared out of bounds by fiat and it was not possible to follow the evidence where ever it went. In discussion afterwards, one man insisted that religion, especially religion that thinks there are right answers, is the source of evil and persecution. I did not deny that wrong has been done in the name of religion, but in the case of Christianity, it is against the principles that Christians claim to follow. But in the case of evolutionists, it is completely consistent with underlying beliefs to eliminate the negative influences on evolution. His wife is a convert to Judaism and he has "fundamentalist" in-laws. He says he has a cordial relationship but they stay clear of certain topics. He asked if Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God and I said that Christians worship the same God as Jews but the character of Allah does not seem consistent with the God of the Bible. The only point that seemed to make him pause was the idea that in a naturalistic world, there is no mechanism for free will. One woman, who seemed to be genuinely interested in learning, talked for a while afterwards. She is a devout Jew and was troubled by the implications of the idea that there were right answers and whether as humans we could ever expect to understand God. I said that a 2 year old cannot completely understand what mommy and daddy do at work, but can understand those incomplete but true things that mommy and daddy tell. I pointed out that God wants us to believe the right things, not just anything. Moses believed God on the basis of the facts -- the burning bush and the miracles. Moses told the people to test the prophets and not follow those whose wonders did not come to pass nor those who told them to follow another God. I also said that I believe that if someone recognizes the hand of God in creation and seeks in humility, God will reveal more. Ross For the talk on which these responses are based, click on www.tccsa.tc/articles/id_jcrc.pdf

I am honored to be invited to present an unpopular side to a very explosive issue. To protect those who extended the invitation, let me mention that I was not their first choice. But, rushing in where angels fear to tread, I will do my best to justify their confidence and make further investigation for many of you at least interesting if not imperative. This is a huge topic involving science, philosophy and law. I am not an academic in any of these subjects but a pediatrician, trained 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 attending today, because by your presence at a conference like this you indicate a belief that there is more than one view on the subject and that hearing those views has value in making a rational decision. Second, I commend you for considering a topic that some might feel has already been decided by Judge John Jones of Pennsylvania. Indeed, you are taking an opportunity that Judge Jones feels should be denied to public school students on constitutional grounds. 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 (actually Fort Snelling) 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 even 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 scroll 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. In addition, there is a tremendous herd instinct in science. You don't get tenure and grant money by disproving your department 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, wit h 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 10¹³⁰ of getting it right. And there are only about 10⁸⁰ atoms in the universe and 10¹⁸ seconds in 30 billion years. An d 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 Judeo-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, presumably because of a book that might be there! 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. I am very impressed with the activities of Justice Squared and Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas that I found described on your websites. I see at the root of everything that you do one underlying principle, the intrinsic value of each human being. I hope you can see that within a naturalistic evolutionary world view, there is no logical basis for that claim. For if we are all the results of generations of mindless competition in the struggle for survival, then there are some individuals that are more valuable than others and some may even be declared less than human. This opens the door to intellectual justification of the horrors of racism, eugenics and genocide. And when our young people are told that they are merely animals, glorified primordial slime with no ultimate meaning, no wonder they walk dazed into their self esteem class. Yet if they believe that they are the handiwork of an Intelligent Designer, even in a world that seems to have gone sour, they are free to investigate what that Designer might require of them and that there may be a purpose greater than their own and their species' survival. 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 For the responses of the group that heard the talk on "Intelligent Design And The Jewish Schools" click on www.tccsa.tc/articles/jcrc_responses.pdf

Carlsbad Cavern Nation Park https://www.icr.org/article/carlsbad-caverns-national-park-fast-formations Waco Mammoth National Monument https://www.icr.org/content/waco-mammoth-national-monument

Origins is like forensic science. There are no controlled experiments on the origin of life as it actually happened. Stanley Miller was able to produce simple organic molecules using the presumed “primitive atmosphere” of the earth, electric sparks and a trap. But he was no closer to life than finding a block shaped rock is to finding a spontaneously formed Taj Mahal. The secular scientist avoids considering creation by defining science as the search for natural explanations, -- which is reasonable -- but then subtly implying that only the natural exists. This is a philosophical assumption, not science and not logic. When no plausible natural cause can be found, is it not logical to consider something outside of natural causes? For example, 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. Why is it so hard to postulate an intelligent source? Romans 1 gives us a clue. There is active suppression of the truth going on to avoid an uncomfortable conclusion that we are responsible to our Creator. But what of the Christian who says, “Couldn’t God have used evolution to create?” The answer, of course, is, “Yes, but did He?” I will summarize some of the scientific points. Firstly, there is design in life that cannot be accounted for by chance or any other natural process. Darwin had no idea of the intricate design of living matter and since he was much more honest and frank than his latter day disciples, I think that today he would admit that his hypothesis has been falsified. 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 a living cell.¹ Even staunch evolutionists now say that they “have no theory” for the origin of life, but refuse to admit that if there is no natural explanation, then their working hypothesis needs to be a supernatural one. Theistic evolutionists will respond that God manipulated nature over billions of years, or intervened at intervals to produce the beginning and progression of life. This means that they accept the “other evidences” of evolution. Let me briefly summarize the problems with those. Similarity of form does not prove common ancestry but can also mean common design. (Let me add that young earth creationists believe that the original Genesis kinds were capable of great diversification, similar to what we have seen with the breeds of dogs.) The fossil record is actually evidence against gradualistic evolution with millions of missing links, and the “punctuated equilibrium” theory is really a grasping at straws, only superficially plausible. And fundamentally, fossils require rapid burial. Closed clams, seen all over the world, were covered before they could open in death. And when interacting with an unbeliever, theistic evolution, long age creation, and intelligent design that does not refer to Biblical data, are all open to the criticism that the designer seems incompetent and clumsy. Atheists point to poorly designed features or broken processes and ask why a creator had to keep tinkering. (Now, some of so-called “design flaws” have actually been shown to be superior engineering, such as the inverted retina in mammals with the blood supply in front, critical for cooling and in no way interfering with vision because of the wavelengths of light passing through it.) But only the Biblical creationist can speak of a perfect creation forever changed by the Fall and the Curse. The problems are not part of God’s original design, but even so He can use them to draw people to Himself as they come to the end of their own resources. As to the age of the earth, this seems to be the most formidable barrier to accepting Biblical creation and requires more technical knowledge. Let me cite a few examples that point out the weakness of the arguments for old age and the increasing scientific respectability of a young earth view. Firstly, the geologic column, such as exposed in the Grand Canyon, 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, there is great difficulty in accounting for the sinking and rising of the continents, regardless of how many eons of time are postulated. And in the case of the Grand Canyon, there is a 200 million year gap in the sequence, between the Cambrian and the Mississippian. The Ordovician and Silurian periods are missing and there is blending and interbedding at the junction. The lower layer would have had to remain soft for 200 million years, not below the water lever (or there would be deposits) and not above (or there would be erosion) 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.² 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 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.³ The source of the water and the mechanism of a worldwide flood are worked out in competing models with scientific and Biblical credibility by such creation scientists as Walter Brown⁴ and John Baumgardner⁵ among others. 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.⁶ And the ocean would be like the Dead Sea if it had been taking in salt for billions of years.⁷ The Grand Canyon also contains pollen in the Pre-Cambrian layers when only single celled organisms were supposed to be alive. This was supposedly discredited by a scientist who used a different method of extraction. But Creation Research Society duplicated the original data and found pollen of extinct species of modern types of trees, so that modern contamination could not be a possible explanation.⁸ Radiometric dating has been used to support long ages, but dating of lava samples from volcano eruptions of known 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 old⁹ 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.¹⁰ 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.¹¹ In Ica, Peru¹² and Acambara, Mexico,¹³artifacts over 2000 years old have been found that depict humans and dinosaurs together, some showing apparent domestication. What about the astronomical data that implies we are seeing light from stars that has been travelling for billions of years before it reaches us and events such as supernova that seem to have occurred more than 6000 years ago? First of all, the challenges of astronomy do not negate any of the powerful evidences for a young earth that I have given. Secondly, there are many assumptions in determining the distance of astronomical objects. And thirdly, having been convinced of the accuracy of the Bible, I am not going to discard it when one particular answer is not yet clear. And there are clues. One is Russell Humphreys’ time distortion with a universe aging rapidly during a short time on earth.¹⁴ Also there is a credible argument that the speed of light might be decaying because, after all, light does change speeds in media of different density and space may have changed from a perfect vacuum to its present near-vacuum state.¹⁵ Further, the Scripture repeatedly states that God “stretched out the heavens,” which may well have something to do with what we are seeing. 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, self proclaimed evangelical Christian, Mary Schweitzer, claimed that young earth creationists were “hijacking” her data.¹⁶ But bucking peer pressure, plant geneticist J.C.Sanford, at the peak of his illustrious career decided to ask the question, “Can natural selection improve the human genome.” The result is in his book, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome .¹⁷The Conclusion? Natural selection can not improve the human genome. It cannot even prevent steady deterioration. There are at least 100 new deleterious mutations in each individual with each generation. 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 some day -- perhaps very soon,-- come to an end. Much more can be found on www.tccsa.tc  and in the over 140 links to other websites. ___________________________ ¹ www.tccsa.tc/articles/is_evolution_reasonable.html   ² www.tccsa.tc/articles/grand_canyon_missing_strata.pdf  (Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 23, March 1987, pp 160 –167.) ³ www.tccsa.tc/articles/Saltville.pdf (Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 2 pp 72-84 September 2003) ⁴ www.creationscience.com/ ⁵ www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/tectonics.asp   ⁶ www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_4/polystrate_fossils.htm  (Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 3 pp 232-240 March 2007) ⁷ tccsa.tc/articles/ocean_sodium.html  From "Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism," Pittsburgh, 1990, vol.2, pp. 17 - 33. ⁸ www.tccsa.tc/articles/grand_canyon_3.pdf  (Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 24, March 1988, pp 173 – 182.) ⁹ www.icr.org/article/114/ ¹⁰ www.icr.org/article/117/ ¹¹  Texas Track and Artifacts by Bob Helfinstine and Jerry Roth, available from the author. See www.tccsa.tc/index.html#texas_tracks ¹² www.mondovista.com/dinostone.ica2.html  and  www.mtblanco.com/ForSale/2006/ICAStones.html ¹³ Mystery in Acambaro by Charles Hapgood, Adventures Unlimited Press, Kempton IL, 1973 www.wexclub.com/aup   ¹⁴ www.icr.org/article/446/ ¹⁵ creationontheweb.com/content/view/2551/ ¹⁶ www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html  and http://www.icr.org/article/4130/ ¹⁷ Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome , FMS Publications, Waterloo New York, 2005.

When I first presented these talks on young earth creation it was to be along with speakers for theistic evolution and old earth creation and that we each had only 10 minutes. When I told my prayer partners about this opportunity, one of them said, “At least you only have to cover a few thousand years.” I think that a straightforward reading of Scripture would lead to a young earth creation view if it were not for the conviction that science has proven immense ages or that evolution is an undisputable fact. I understand those feelings because I had them after completing my medical education in 1967. I was essentially a “fully competent creation” believer, considering that God threw out the first matter and knew it would spontaneously organize itself up to life and human beings, only needing the extra intervention of God adding a soul. And I was a sincere believer. In fact I was a missionary with the Evangelical Free Church in Hong Kong.  I became convinced of intelligent design in the 1970’s by A. E. Wilder-Smith’s book, The Creation of Life , ¹ with his clear demonstration that information does not occur by chance and that long periods of time actually degrade information. But it was only some time later that I began to also see the scientific evidence for a young earth. I then personally evolved into a young earth creationist. Views on origins are not essential to salvation or spiritual growth. Wecan be wrong about many things and still be warm-hearted, Spirit-filled workers in God’s Kingdom. Yet if our faith is illogical, the next theological generation may think it through and walk away. So my second talk is crucial, showing the scientific evidence for both creation and a young earth. But there is precedent for sticking with a clear reading of the Bible even when science seems to contradict it. For decades, archaeology seemed to have proven that there was no Jericho at the time of Joshua, implying that the story of the walls coming down was just a good story. But those who held to the historicity of the account were not idiots or ignoramuses. They were actually right, because when the data were properly analyzed, it was all as the Bible states it to be. ² What does the Bible say? First of all, there is the description of the first day of creation, followed by the statement, “And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.” This formula is repeated at the end of the description of each day. Now it is commonly stated that the Hebrew “yom,” like the English “day” can also refer to a longer period of time, such as “in the day of the pioneers,” but the mention of evening and morning as well as the ordinal designation, “first, “second,” etc. clarifies that the meaning is an ordinary day. And appealing to 2 Peter 3:8, “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day,” is not really to the point because although God does not see time as we do, the real issue is not the length of the days but the whole fabric of Scripture. Exodus 20:11 indicates that God took a whole day for each phase, not because He needed the time but as an example for us in our sub-creating. “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but He rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”  Some insist that a young earth view is a modern invention and the ancients believed in long ages. Certainly many of the Greeks and Romans held evolutionary views including an eternally existent universe, which is why Paul’s creation evangelism of the Athenians produced such a startled reaction. The rabbis in the Talmudic literature never question creation in six normal days. Of the church fathers, only Origen and Clement of Alexandria believed in long ages and they were allegorizers of all Scripture. Irenacus and Justin Martyr did not believe in a “Day-Age” theory but only proposed that as creation took 6 days, human history would take six thousand years, with the Millenium beginning about the year 2000. ³ But the most serious defect with both theistic evolution and long age creation is the damage to the authority of Scripture and the nature of God. Interspersed through the whole creation account is the phrase, “And God saw that it was good.” The only exception is the comment in Genesis 2, "It is not good for the man to be alone.” But after creation is complete, “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” Yet if Adam and Eve were standing on thousands of feet of sedimentary rock recording disease, predation, and death, what does God mean by “very good?” Further, Romans 5:12 says, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men...” And Romans 8:22 states that everything changed with human sin. “We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.” But what of the objection that Romans 5:12 refers only to spiritual death? Of course Adam and Eve lived over 900 years after their sin, but the dying process began with sin and the curse pronounced by God indicated that indeed, things had changed. All through the Bible, death is treated as an intruder, not, “just part of life.” Jews were unclean if they touched a dead human body. Animal sacrifices, beginning with the animals that God slew to make the first garments for Adam and Eve when they became ashamed of their nakedness, were necessary for the covering of sin. Even the symbolism of a burnt offering demonstrates the destructive power of sin, as the blood is drained out of a wonderfully complex living being and its intricate structures are utterly destroyed by fire. And most important of all, Jesus had to suffer and die physically to atone forever for our sins. Of course a person can be a believer with incorrect or missing theology, such as the thief on the cross, but errors lead to problems transmitting the faith. Can the Bible be trusted? Is God a poor communicator? Genesis 1:30 states, “And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." All animals were vegetarian! But what of the fossils of predation if they came before Adam’s sin? And, by the way, tooth structure does not determine diet. Think of fruit bats and Panda bears. Were there “soulless hominids” living at the time of Adam? If so, I suspect that Adam, when naming the animals, being a man, might have said, “Hey God! She looks good to me. A soul is optional.” By the way, would it have taken too long for Adam to name the beasts in a morning? Remember that it was a limited selection of the created life forms, “the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.” Also, even now we know that the original Genesis kinds were capable of great diversification, for instance all the cats seem to be related and all dog-like creatures. Adam, also, was very bright, with a perfect body and brain. All long age scenarios have to minimize the account of the flood because they attribute the geologic column to periodic rising and falling of the land over millions of years and a worldwide flood would obliterate their strata while creating its own. Does the Biblical  description fit with a local flood? Genesis 6:19, “And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.” Even with lower hills than today’s mountains, since water runs down, it would not stay local. And why did Noah spend 100 years building an ark if he only had to move? Incidentally, in Job 40 and 41, as demonstrations of His power, God describes two creatures–as if Job had seen them alive, that sure sound like a long neck dinosaur and some fearsome marine reptile. Most damaged by these long age visions of history is our view of the nature of God. Is He really cruel enough to use competition, predation, disease and death to create? Does He take millions of years of tinkering to arrive at the crown of His creation, human beings created in His image? Is this the same God who parted the Red Sea, raised Jesus from the dead and will come back in a blink of the eye to suddenly destroy the forces of evil and create a new heavens and a new earth? If the new creation is “very good,” is that reassuring?  Finally, does the Bible allow for long ages after the creation of man. Do the genealogies have gaps? Certainly passages such as Matthew may skip some names, but we have specific numbers attached to the original records. Genesis 5:6 is a typical example, “And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos…” Whether it means that Seth was the father, grandfather or great-grandfather of Enos, we know that he was 105 when it happened. The numbers really can be added up and although partial years may add or subtract a little, there is no room for 2 million or even 200,000 years from the beginning of the human race. Some warn that the lesson of Galileo is to never mix science and theology, but the truth is surprising. The Catholic Church had actually adopted a non-Biblical Aristotelian science, with a perfect unchangeable heavens in circular motion around the earth. The warning is actually for those who have tied their faith to a fallible theory such as the Big Bang. ⁴ After I became a young earth creationist, I discussed it with several of my old professors, both Christians and non-Christians, and discovered a powerful reason why some resisted even considering it. Of course there is human pride and the unwillingness to say, “I was wrong,” but for those in academic positions, to oppose the ruling paradigm can be a career-ending move. I found that many warm-hearted Christians took on “protective coloration” and essentially said to their secular colleagues, “I believe everything you do, I just think God did it.” To which the colleague may silently think, “I see no need for the God part.” Yet Romans 1:20 states clearly, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” See the website for Twin Cities Creation Science Association www.tccsa.tc   ___________________________ ¹ The Creation of Life , Harold Shaw Publishers, 1970 ² http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/Did-the-Israelites-Conquer-Jericho-A-New-Look-at-the-Archaeological-Evidence.aspx ³ http://www.icr.org/article/164/ ⁴ http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html?zoom_highlight=galileo