Revealing relevant political and religious news, history, topics and truths



(from: Robert Gentry’s Creation’s Tiny Mystery – 1986)

My Presentation at the AAAS Symposium

The creation-based organization, Students for Origins Research (SOR), previewed the AAAS creation/evolution symposium and featured a discussion of my research in the Winter-Spring 1982 issue of their publication, Origins Research. About this time Drs. Awbrey and Thwaites, symposium organizers, sent a letter (dated March 1, 1982) to SOR containing the statement, “It would certainly make the Santa Barbara meetings the most important meetings of the century, if even one piece of bonafide evidence for creation could be presented” (emphasis theirs). They further explained they wanted to see hard data from properly controlled experiments or observations, not meaningless extrapolations, out-of-context quotations, or vague generalities.

With this challenge in mind, I set out for Santa Barbara to present my published scientific results in the context of a creation model of origins. A lively crowd of about 200 scientists was present in the amphitheater where I spoke on the first afternoon of the day and a half of lectures; my presentation was video-taped the following day for wider distribution (Battson, 1982). The symposium was billed as a collision encounter—”Evolutionists Confront Creationists.” Believing that my published evidences for creation might satisfy the demand “to see hard data,” I decided to reverse the emphasis of the symposium and make the theme of my talk “Creation Confronts Evolution.” The Abstract of my talk, published in the Proceedings of the symposium, shows how this theme was developed:


If the earth was created, it is axiomatic that created (primordial) rocks must now exist on the earth, and if there was a Flood, there must now exist sedimentary rocks and other evidences of that event.  But, if the general uniformitarian principle is correct, the universe evolved to its present state only by the unvarying action of known physical laws, and all natural phenomena must fit into the evolutionary mosaic. If this fundamental principle is wrong, all the pieces in the evolutionary mosaic become unglued. Evidence that something is drastically wrong comes from the fact that this basic evolutionary premise has failed to provide a verifiable explanation for the widespread occurrence of Po halos in Precambrian granites, a phenomena which I suggest are in situ evidences that those rocks were created almost instantaneously in accord with Psalm 33:6,9: “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.” I have challenged my colleagues to synthesize a piece of granite with 218Po halos, as a means of falsifying this interpretation, but have not received a response. It is logical that this synthesis should be possible if the uniformitarian principle is true.

Underdeveloped U halos in coalified wood having high U/Pb ratios are cited evidences for a Flood-related recent (within the past few thousand years) emplacement of geological formations thought to be more than 100,000,000 years old.  Results of differential He analyses of zircons taken from deep granite cores are evidence for a recently created, several-thousand-year age of the earth. A creation model with three singularities, involving events beyond explanation by known physical laws, is proposed to account for these evidences. The first singularity is the ex nihilo creation of our galaxy nearly 6000 years ago. Finally, a new model for the structure of the universe is proposed, based on the idea that all galaxies, including the Milky Way, are revolving about the Center of the universe, which from Psalm 103:19 I equate with the fixed location of God’s throne. This model requires an absolute reference frame in the universe whereas modern Big Bang cosmology mandates there is no Center (the Cosmological Principle) and no absolute reference frame (the theory of relativity). The motion of the solar system through the cosmic microwave radiation is cited as unequivocal evidence for the existence of an absolute reference frame. (Gentry 1984a, 38; Appendix)

As the Abstract reveals, I suggested how the evidences for creation discussed in this book can be embodied within a viable model of origins based on the Genesis account of earth history. This tentative creation model postulates three special periods, or singularities, which cannot be explained on the basis of known laws. These singularities are the creation, the fall of man, and the flood—events marked in a major way by the intervention of the Creator.

The last part of the Abstract refers to my most recent investigations involving astronomy. Technical comments on the interpretation of galactic red shifts, the cosmic microwave radiation, and its surprising implications about the theory of relativity are given in the full article (Gentry 1984a; Appendix). This report elaborates on my discovery that the mathematical basis for the Big Bang model of an expanding universe is based on erroneous assumptions. My alternative model postulates that the galaxies in the universe are revolving in different orbital planes around a fixed Center, the Creator’s throne. This Center is calculated to be several million light-years away from our galaxy, the Milky Way. (These results formed only a small part of my talk and thus were not included in subsequent discussions at the symposium.)

During the question and answer session, doubts were expressed that my proposed creation model could account for all the data adapted into the evolutionary framework. I reminded all those present that their own model involves at least one singularity, the Big Bang, and then complete uniformity to the present. In contrast, my proposed creation model involves threesingularities, with uniformity between those events. I suggested that whatever data can be fitted into a one-singularity model must also fit into a model with three singularities, for in this case there is much greater latitude.

Still, many of those in attendance seemed to think that evolution must be true because of the abundance of data already fitted into this framework. I improvised a parable to show that these numerous points of agreement in no way confirm evolution. The quest for truth was analogized to the “Parable of the Grand Design,” which is featured in the Epilogue of this book.

A National Forum

In the same month that the AAAS symposium was held, the nationally circulated physics journal, Physics Today, opened the pages of their Letters section to the creation/evolution topic. From those Letters it was quite apparent that many physicists were still unaware of the implications of my work for creation. Taking advantage of this new forum, I published a letter describing the results of my research in the October 1982 issue (Gentry 1982). This first letter precipitated objections from a geologist. His comments and my response (Gentry 1983a) were both published in the April 1983 issue of this journal. Other objections and my responses (Gentry 1983b, 1984c, 1984d) were published in the November 1983, April 1984, and December 1984 issues.

Most of these objections reasoned from the assumption of the uniformitarian principle; hence it was argued that my interpretation of polonium halos must be incorrect. Significantly, none of those letters attempted to directly refute the evidence for creation. And most significantly, there was no mention of the crucial granite synthesis experiment.

Creation/Evolution Newsletter Attacks Polonium Halo Evidence

Publications of much less significance than Physics Today are also involved in the creation/evolution controversy. A notable example of this is the Creation/Evolution Newsletter, edited by Karl Fezer of Concord College, Athens, West Virginia. This newsletter is reputed to be “dedicated to defending and enhancing the integrity of science education.” Its contents include newspaper clippings supportive of evolution, news of the activities of certain creation scientists, and comments putting down scientists or theologians who support biblical creation. One issue of this newsletter printed a letter about my work preceded by these editorial remarks:


Robert V. Gentry is widely regarded as one of the more conscientious and scholarly creationists. His research on radioactive halos is in a field outside the expertise of most scientists. Gentry’s arguments are criticized by G. BRENT DALRYMPLE, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA, in the following letter to Kevin H. Wirth, Director of Research, Students for Origins Research, Santa Barbara, CA: (Fezer 1985,12)

Dalrymple charges in his letter (Dalrymple 1985; Appendix) that my creation model is “unscientific” and “ridiculous,” that my interpretation of the polonium halo evidence for creation is “absurd” and “naive,” and that my challenge to the scientific community to falsify my conclusions by the synthesis of a hand-sized piece of granite is “silly,” “inconclusive,” and “nonsense.” Another evolutionist (Osmon 1986) used Dalrymple’s comments when he published a follow-up letter in the same newsletter. My response (Gentry 1986; Appendix) to Dalrymple’s criticisms, given at the end of this book, also serves as a rebuttal to Osmon’s technical comments.

Elsewhere in his letter Osmon urges that my “creation hypothesis” should be given a “thorough review,” to see whether it fits the canons of science as defined by an evolutionist philosopher (Kitcher 1982). Kitcher’s book serves two functions for all those who are adamantly opposed to creation: (1) it attempts to establish that creation science is not true science; and (2) it constructs a philosophy of science in which evolutionists will never have to be placed in a position where they would be forced to substantiate the basic premise of their theory with experimental evidence.

Applying one of Kitcher’s criteria to my work Osmon concludes that:

. . . neither [Gentry’s] hypothesis or the [his] theory provides any problem-strategy at all. If a geologist asks how does rock with the properties of granite form, Gentry’s answer is “Kazam.” . . . (Osmon 1986)

This is somewhat ironic—I thought “Kazam” was the onomatopoetic description of the Big Bang!

In another place Osmon surmises that I might have proposed the falsification experiment because I knew “it would be very expensive to perform. . .” Here Osmon unwittingly reveals a basic contradiction in his argument. Over the last several decades countless millions of government funds have been spent on incredibly “far- out” ventures specifically designed to test a number of evolutionary predictions—one prime example being the costly unmanned space mission to Mars to look for evidence of the evolutionary beginning of life. This mission failed to find any trace of even the [p. 183] most primitive forms of life. Despite this failure, evolutionists continue to obtain funds for almost any experiment which they feel is important. We must conclude that until now evolutionists have not been inclined to launch a full-scale effort to perform the falsification test.

But why would confirmed evolutionists want to continually postpone a confrontation based on experimental evidence produced in the laboratory? After all, success in this experiment would be the desperately needed evidence to show that evolution has some basis in fact, for it would substantiate the evolutionary origin of the granites based on the uniformitarian principle. With everything at stake, why are there not scores of dedicated evolutionists seeking to vindicate the fundamental premise that holds all of the evolutionary scenario together? As a first step, why do they not show how polonium halos can be experimentally produced in granite that already exists, instead of just hypothesizing about how these halos might have formed in accord with conventional laws?

By minimizing the crucial importance of the granite synthesis experiment, Osmon has in effect deflected attention from some important truths: all models of origins—whether based on a biblical framework, an atheistic framework, or any combination of religious/atheistic beliefs—involve a faith factor. I have already discussed how the Big Bang cosmological model is dependent on this faith factor. The theory of punctuated equilibrium (quantum jumps from one species to another) also involves an immense faith factor for biologists mainly because its basic premises are little more than idealized speculation.

The important point is that all scientific models of origins rest on certain basic premises. Thus the ultimate scientific test of any model of origins hinges on whether its basic premises are true or false. If data are discovered which contradict either a model’s basic premises, or an undeniable consequence of those premises, then the model is false regardless of how many pieces of data can be fitted into it. Polonium halos in Precambrian granites falsify the entire theory of evolution because they contradict its basic premise, the uniformitarian principle.The only way this statement can be refuted is by providing laboratory evidence showing that granites with polonium halos can form naturally.

I do not believe that a report will ever be published describing the synthesis of a granite containing even a single 218Po halo, much less one containing all three types. (By comparison, some natural specimens of biotite contain thousands of 218Po halos in just one cubic centimeter.) My confidence is based on experimental data obtained from the laboratory of nature, the ultimate proving ground for all models of origins.

As detailed in Chapter 4, the secondary polonium halos in coalified wood provide demonstrative evidence that, even under ideal conditions of high uranium concentrations and rapid transport, only the 210Po halo type will develop secondarily from the accumulation of uranium daughter activity. In contrast, three types of polonium halos occur in granites where both the uranium concentration and the transport conditions necessary to produce secondary polonium halos are missing. Consequently, I maintain that all attempts to duplicate granite containing the three types of polonium halos will meet with failure.

In brief, the laboratory of nature has provided both positive, unambiguous evidence for a primordial origin of polonium halos in granites as well as decisive, independent evidence against their secondary origin.

Vistas in Creation

This book has shown a number of instances where evolutionists have misunderstood my creation model. That model, based on the Genesis record of creation and the flood, is not restricted or at all governed by the uniformitarian concept of a worldwide geologic column, which is based on radiometric dating and index fossil classification. Rather it begins by connecting “In the beginning . . .” with the primordial Earth being called into existence on Day 1 of creation week about 6000 years ago. More specifically, I envision a continual series of geologically oriented creative events occurring throughout the 24-hour period of Day 1, with each of those events beginning with the appropriate matter being called into existence from nothing. As mentioned in Chapter 10, the initial state of that matter may have been a primordial liquid, which was instantly cooled to form primordial rocks.

The Precambrian granites show evidence of an instantaneous creation and hence are identified as part of the primordial rocks of the earth; further investigations are needed to determine which additional rocks should be classified as primordial. Those other primordial rocks could include sedimentary rocks (without fossils) as well as some non-Precambrian granites and metamorphic rocks, such as some which occur in New England. While Day 1 includes the preeminent geological event of earth history, the geologic occurrences of Day 3 may also have been quite significant. Specifically, the appearance of dry land out of a watery environment on Day 3 may have been accompanied by the rapid formation of certain sedimentary rocks, in particular those that geologists classify as Precambrian. (Initially, of course, these “creation-week” sedimentary rocks would have been free of fossils.) The events of Day 3 might have included vulcanism and the formation/creation of some intrusive rocks as well. Conceivably, there may have been limited mixing of the different created-rock types during creation week.

My creation model of the global flood envisions tremendous upheavals of the earth’s crust and many opportunities for the deposition, intrusion, mixing, erosion, and reorientation of different rock types. Here are some of the possibilities: Although the flood itself lasted just a year, long-term geological effects may have lasted for hundreds of years thereafter. For example, while the sedimentary rock formations observed in the Grand Canyon are ascribed to the period of the flood itself, the erosional processes that cut through the freshly deposited sediments may well have continued for a number of years after the flood. In my model the bulk of fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks would have formed during the opening and closing stages of the flood, with lesser amounts being formed during the long period of subsidence and run-off after the flood.

Extensive vulcanism is envisioned as occurring during the same periods, which means that opportunities existed for the intrusion of volcanic magma into sedimentary formations. Vulcanism during and after the global flood provides a mechanism whereby the primordial and other rocks, created during creation week, could have mixed with flood-related volcanic and sedimentary material. To illustrate, consider that, as magma (hot fluid rock) formed deep in the earth passes upward toward the earth’s surface, it may pass through and melt, or alternatively encapsulate, a variety of rocks, beginning with those created on Day 1 or Day 3, and extending through those formed by volcanic and sedimentary activity during the time of the flood. Thus, when that magma finally cools to a solid, it would be a composite of all the rocks just mentioned. If the magma temperature was not too high, then the composite rock would contain unmelted fragments of all the rocks through which the magma had passed. Moreover, during and after the flood there were many instances where heat and pressure from hot gases and molten rock deep in the earth caused the uplift and intrusion of granite rock into recently deposited sediments. The hot gases accompanying these solid granite intrusions would have turned the adjacent sediments into metamorphic rock.

This description of my creation model is by no means exhaustive; however, I trust it will provide an expanded framework for interpreting diverse geological data. To me the Genesis record of creation and the flood is the master key which unlocks all of Earth’s geologic history. More details about my creation model are given in the Appendix, p. 325.

Chapter 15: Continued Attacks on Creation Science

This closing chapter illustrates how some confirmed evolutionists continue to ignore, disparage, misconstrue, or suppress the scientific evidence for creation. Having said this, I nevertheless respect the right of anyone who chooses to accept evolution as his model of origins. This is what democracy is all about. Here we have the right to choose any philosophy—or scientific hypothesis—after having the opportunity to evaluate all the relevant data.

Survey of Creation-Science Literature Yields Questionable Results

In his capacity as Research News Editor of Science magazine, Roger Lewin again attacks creation science in his May 17, 1985, article “Evidence for Scientific Creationism?” (Lewin 1985). The reader will recall my attempt to correct his inaccurate account of my testimony at the Arkansas trial. At that time the Letters Editor, Christine Gilbert, replied that the editorial staff of Science had decided not to publish my technical response to his comments on my research. She added that Lewin was unable to include certain details because of his space limitations. My complaint to Science did not question the column space given to my testimony but his garbled and incomplete account. It is interesting to note, however, that Science printed the entire Opinion written by Judge Overton. Evidently, space limitations are no problem when the commentary supports evolution.

This 1985 article by Roger Lewin erroneously portrays to the scientific community that creation science is devoid of published material in the eminent scientific journals of the world. He uses information obtained from a computer survey by Eugenie C. Scott, an anthropologist at the University of Colorado, and Henry P. Cole, a professor in educational psychology at the University of Kentucky. Lewin refers to their article (Cole and Scott 1982) to back up his contention that “so-called creation science” is based on “putative pillars,” not genuine evidence documented in the technical literature. He quotes Scott and Cole’s conclusion, that “nothing resembling empirical or experimental evidence for scientific creationism was discovered” in their survey of the scientific literature. Lewin re-emphasizes this point in discussing their latest survey (Scott and Cole 1985), when he focuses on their central theme: “why don’t the professional scientists among creationists publish empirical, experimental, or theoretical evidence for scientific creationism?”

As soon as I read Lewin’s article, I tried unsuccessfully to contact Dr. Scott at the University of Colorado and left word for her to return my call. I was able to reach Dr. Cole, though, at the University of Kentucky. Over the telephone I went into much detail outlining the basic results of my research efforts since the mid-sixties and questioned the conclusions of their recent survey. He replied defensively that Dr. Scott was more familiar with the radiohalos than he and that he would ask her to call me. In particular I asked Cole about their report in The Quarterly Review of Biology and the following statements made therein relative to my research:

. . . Probably the best anomaly in the scientific creationists’ arsenal is the existence of polonium halos, a “minor mystery” in Judge Overton’s words, of which the scientific creationists are quite proud. Gentry [Gentry 1982] claims that the existence of Po halos in granite, coalified wood, mica, and other substances indicate that such materials were formed suddenly, under cool conditions, an interpretation supporting special creation. These observations, however, have alternative explanations within normal physical science, and are therefore not unambiguous evidences for Special Creation [Dutch 1983 and Hashemi-Nezhad et al. 1979]. (Scott and Cole 1985, 26)

Scott and Cole show their unfamiliarity about my work when they include coalified wood in the category of substances which “formed suddenly.” More unfamiliarity is evident by their claim that my observations have alternative explanations within normal science, a claim they support by citing Dutch and Hashemi-Nezhad et al. But these scientists did not do specific research on polonium halos (Gentry 1983b, Gentry 1984a); thus they had no alternative explanations based on demonstrable evidence, only hypothetical solutions. Postulating a hypothetical origin for the polonium halos in granites is something that anyone can do. But for a scientist to truthfully claim he has found a conventional explanation of polonium halos[p. 188] in granites, he must provide demonstrable evidence that his explanation is correct.As I have noted several times, this can be accomplished only by the artificial synthesis of polonium halos in granites (Gentry 1979, Gentry 1980, and Gentry 1984a; Appendix). Such proof of a conventional explanation for these polonium halos has not been demonstrated. I explained this to Dr. Cole, and again he indicated that Dr. Scott was largely responsible for the comments about my work on halos.

Soon after our conversation he wrote me a letter, stating that he had reread the article written by Dr. Scott and him along with the pertinent references to my work. He insisted there were, “indeed, other scientists who provide alternative explanations for the existence of Po halos.” He ended the letter, assuring me that he would call Dr. Scott and ask her to contact me.

I have yet to hear from Dr. Scott! And obviously my conversation with Dr. Cole had not changed his mind. He was more convinced than ever to uphold what had been written in their article. He was content to let plausibility arguments serve as “alternative explanations [for Po halos] within normal physical science.” I suggested that, if in fact he knew of scientists who had demonstrable experimental evidence to refute the results of my work on the halos, they should by all means submit such evidence to the review process in journals like Science or Nature, where it could be critically analyzed along with my response. Published theoreticalstatements about the origin of the halos, on the other hand, do not and never will constitute an alternative explanation derived by the scientific method.

In Scott and Cole’s article in The Quarterly Review of Biology, they quote from my 1974 report in Nature and then comment on the statement as follows:

. . . In an article in Nature [Gentry et al. 1974] he asks “Do Po halos imply that unknown processes were operative during the formative period of the earth?” He makes no statement about special creation here, however, and in fact goes on to posit another kind of explanation: “Is it possible that Po halos in Precambrian rocks represent extinct natural radioactivity and are therefore of cosmological significance?. . .” (Scott and Cole 1985, 27)

Scott and Cole, not being geophysical scientists, misinterpret my conclusions because they do not understand the terminology. They are not aware that connecting polonium halos with “extinct natural radioactivity” is just a technical way of saying the primeval earth formed very rapidly. One of my earliest reports was almost rejected because a referee understood this connection with creation. Thus, Scott and Cole are wrong when they say, I went on “to posit another kind of explanation” about the implications of polonium halos. The terms “special creation” or “creation” were not used in my reports to avoid rejection of the manuscripts.

Their concluding remark about my article is:

. . . Later in the [Gentry’s] article (p. 566) another hint is offered: “Just as important as the existence of a new type of lead is the question of whether Po halos which occur in a granitic or pegmatic [sic, pegmatitic] environment . . . can be explained by accepted models of Earth history.” . . . Articles of this sort are likely what creationists refer to as “masked” literature. (Scott and Cole 1985, 27)

Scott and Cole imply that there is something masked about the above statement, but actually they easily noticed the implications for creation, which, as Chapter 3 showed, was my intent in putting this statement in my article. But of far more significance is something they did not say: that is, the implications for creation, expressed in my article, have never been rebutted. This fact was carefully “masked” in the report of their survey.

Scott and Cole’s final declaration to the scientific community had the effect of a trumpet, sounding the call to battle against creation science:

. . . science teachers are faced with community campaigns for the teaching of scientific creationism by influential persons, some with scientific credentials, who repeatedly claim there is as much, and equally as good, scientific evidence for scientific creationist concepts as there is for evolution. Teachers, school administrators, and lay persons on school boards are hard pressed to deal effectively with these claims. Support from university-level scholars is often crucial to these disputes, but it is not always offered. Objective documentation of the fallaciousness of the scientific creationist claim that their views are based upon scientific evidence provides “ammunition” for these people. We hope the results of our study will be useful for those who directly confront the creationists. (Scott and Cole 1985, 29)

Apparently Roger Lewin wanted to do his part in providing ammunition “for those who directly confront the creationists,” for he concluded his May 17, 1985, article in Science by quoting those very words. Unquestionably inveterate evolutionists were inspired with new zeal as they prepared to use his article as a basis for renewed attacks on creation science. Doubtless they thought that Lewin had furnished them with all the relevant facts in his possession. Did he?

Another Response Denied

…I recounted that Lewin was present throughout my entire four-hour testimony at the Arkansas trial, when published reports of my research on creation were presented in detail to the Court. Why, then, did he choose to remain silent about my publications for creation science instead of completely supporting Scott and Cole’s claim that such published evidence was practically nonexistent?  …I showed examples of evolutionists who claim that creation scientists tend to twist the facts and resist unwanted information. I ask: Is Roger Lewin’s refusal to report the whole story about published evidences for creation due to his resistance against unwanted information? His journalistic bias for evolution prompted me to send a response to Christine Gilbert, Letters Editor of Science; it was an attempt to present the other side of the story, effectively omitted by Lewin:


Roger Lewin (1) quotes Scott and Cole (2,3) to deny both the existence of recent published evidences for creation and the possibility of censorship. Despite these denials, all three of these evolutionists have omitted discussion of a critical test of the evolution and creation models. This test is derived from my published evidence which implies that polonium halos in Precambrian granites originated with primordial polonium (4). On this basis, these granites must be the primordial Genesis rocks of our planet, having been created rather than having crystallized naturally, as evolutionary geology supposes. If the Precambrian granites, with their polonium halos, are indeed the handiwork of the Creator, then, in my view, it is impossible to duplicate them. On the other hand, if the granites just formed naturally, as evolution assumes, then it should be possible to reproduce a hand-sized piece of granite in a modern scientific laboratory. My first opportunity to present this test to the scientific community came in 1979 (5). There was no response to this challenge; so on every available occasion I have repeated it (6) and focused attention on how clearly the issues are defined: Success in duplicating a granite containing just one 218Po halo would confirm the evolutionary view that both these entities formed by natural processes, and this would falsify my creation model. Failure in this experiment would mean the opposite is true.

Now Scott and Cole (3) say, “It is the nature of scientists to study and debate any scientific fact or finding that challenges existing scientific theories and models. If even one of the creationists’ basic assumptions or [p. 191] concepts were supported by empirical evidence from any of the fields of scientific inquiry, scores of scientists would flock to the sites of the evidence and work earnestly to undo or ‘falsify’ prevailing scientific theories in light of this new evidence.” Thus, when these authors were confronted with the falsification test in one of my publications (7), why didn’t they issue an urgent call for “scores of scientists” to begin working “earnestly” on it?

A more penetrating question is why Lewin has maintained a deafening silence about this matter for over three years. He was present at the Arkansas trial when I testified about the polonium halo evidence for creation and explained the falsification test in detail. Yet he neglected to mention this decisive test of the two models in his coverage of the trial (8). I attempted to have this glaring omission (and other inaccuracies about my testimony) corrected through a rebuttal letter to Science, but my response was denied publication. Subsequently, I lost my position as a Guest Scientist at a national laboratory, even though shortly before my dismissal some of my latest research efforts (9) came to the favorable attention of the U.S. Senate (10).

How much longer will the scientific basis for creation be suppressed? For six years I have waited for those scientists who oppose creation to publish their results on the experimental challenge described above. Why would they wait interminably to refute what I claim to be unambiguous evidence for creation—except that they face an impossible task!

Robert V. Gentry


  1. Lewin, Science228, 837 (1985).
  2. P. Cole and E. C. Scott, Phi Delta Kappan(April 1982), p. 557.
  3. C. Scott and H. P. Cole, Quat. Rev. Biol.60, 21(1985).
  4. V. Gentry, et al., Science 194,315 (1976).
    R. V. Gentry, et al., Nature 252, 564 (1974).
    R. V. Gentry, Science 184, 62 (1974).
    ______, Annual Rev. Nucl. Sci. 23, 347 (1973).
    R. V. Gentry, et al., Nature 244, 282 (1973).
    R. V. Gentry, Science 173, 727 (1971).
    ______, Science 160, 1228 (1968).
    ______, Nature 213, 487 (1967).
  5. V. Gentry, EOS 60,474 (1979).
  6. V. Gentry, Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting, Pacific Division,AAAS 1,38 (1984).
    ______, Physics Today(December 1984), p. 92.
    ______, Physics Today (April 1984), p. 108.
    ______, Physics Today (April 1983), p. 13.
    ______, EOS 61, 514 (1980).
  7. V. Gentry, Physics Today(October 1982), p. 13.
    [p. 192]
  8. Lewin, Science 215,33(1982);
    Ibid., p. 142 (1982).
  9. V. Gentry, et al., Geophys. Res. Lett.9, 1129 (1982).
    R. V. Gentry, et al., Science 216, 296 (1982).
  10. Congressional Record – Senate 128,4306 (1982).

I was hoping Science would be more open to publishing this response than they were to the one I submitted in 1982. Unfortunately, this rebuttal to Lewin’s view of creation science was also rejected with the excuse: “We wish we could print more letters, but space restrictions limit us to a very small fraction of those we receive.” I was curious as to whether there may have been other reasons for their refusal to publish my remarks and telephoned the Letters Editor. She informed me that the decision not to publish my response was made by Daniel Koshland, Editor of Science. Subsequently, on June 22, 1985, I wrote to Dr. Koshland, asking for a re- evaluation…  I never received a reply from Koshland about this appeal.

In May 1985, Dr. Russell Humphreys of the Sandia National Laboratories also wrote a letter responding to the implications of Lewin’s article on Scott and Cole’s surveys. His letter was likewise turned down for publication, and on July 30, 1985, he appealed to Christine Gilbert for a second consideration:

Dear Ms. Gilbert:

Thank you for informing me of your decision not to publish my 28 May letter. It is the most courteous rejection I have ever received. I would like to ask you, however, for a few details on why it was rejected. I know that you have very limited space, but there must be some reasons why you filled that space with other letters than mine.

The reason I am asking is that I have a suspicion the letter was rejected because it supported creationism. My suspicion is based on the fact that in six years, I have seen only one letter in Science which was in favor of creationism. I’m sure you have received many more than that, mine among many others. Even your sister magazine across the Sea, Nature, has published a reasonable number.

I’m sure you can see how this is related to the subject of my letter, which concerns Roger Lewin’s claim that creationists don’t submit articles to mainstream science journals. If Science does indeed have a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters, surely Mr. Lewin can see why creationist scientists don’t spend the much greater effort of submitting articles. I would appreciate it if you would tell me frankly: Does your journal have such a policy? If it does not, the best way you could prove it is by publishing a competent creationist letter every now and then.

Yours very truly, /s/ Russ Humphreys

D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
Division 1252
Sandia National Laboratories


On August 30, 1985, she replied to him as follows:

Dear Dr. Humphreys:

Thank you for your letter of 30 July. It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism. This is because we decide what to publish on the basis of scientific content.

The letters we received objecting to the study reported by Roger Lewin contained arguments that were largely conjectural or anecdotal. They were therefore not considered acceptable material for Science.

Yours sincerely, /s/ Christine Gilbert

Letters Editor

Notice that the excuse given was that the negative comments were “largely conjectural or anecdotal.” The readers can decide if my June 1985 response, reprinted earlier in this chapter, fits this description. Note also that Gilbert’s admission that Science has a discriminatory policy against publishing creation science letters seems to contradict its own editorial policy stated in every issue—the claim to include “the presentation of minority or conflicting points of view.”

In summary, the first intent of my response was to especially focus the attention of the scientific community on Lewin’s continued silence about the scientific evidences for creation and the falsification test. The second intent was to emphasize that, in the case of my research, there had been no attempt within the scientific community to “flock to the sites of the evidence and work earnestly to . . . ‘falsify’ . . . this new evidence” as Scott and Cole assured would be the case if “even one of the creationists’ basic assumptions or concepts were supported by empirical evidence . . .”

By refusing to publish my response the editor of Science effectively allied himself with Lewin and decided to stonewall the entire matter. Perhaps he felt secure in believing that his decision would never become known to the scientific community, or if it did, that he would have their full support in taking action to suppress dissent about such an unpopular cause. Whatever the reason, both the editor of Science and Lewin have shown how confirmed evolutionists can use the power of the Establishment to prevent free and open discussion of the published evidences for creation, evidences that most clearly and directly falsify the basic premise of the general theory of evolution.

Part of the Affirmation of Freedom of Inquiry discussed in the Overview says “that the search for knowledge and understanding of the physical universe … should be conducted under conditions of intellectual freedom …” and “that freedom of inquiry and dissemination of ideas require that those so engaged be free to search where their inquiry leads, free to travel and free to publish their findings without political censorship and without fear of retribution in consequence of unpopularity of their conclusions.” The reader may decide whether the editor of Science followed the principles of this Affirmation.

Response to the National Academy of Sciences

The ultimate battle against creation science since the Arkansas trial has been waged by the National Academy of Sciences. Much discussion concerning how this prestigious scientific organization has denied the evidence for creation was presented in the Overview. In this concluding chapter, since the reader may now have a different perspective of the evolution/creation controversy, I ask: Is the National Academy of Sciences correct in claiming that special creation is an invalidated hypothesis? In the Conclusion of its booklet, Science and Creationism, we find the Academy’s final evaluation of creation science:

It is, therefore, our unequivocal conclusion that creationism, with its accounts of the origin of life by supernatural means, is not science. It subordinates evidence to statements based on authority and revelation. Its documentation is almost entirely limited to the special publications of its advocates. And its central hypothesis is not subject to change in light of new data or demonstration of error. Moreover, when the evidence for creationism has been subjected to the tests of the scientific method, it has been found invalid. (National Academy of Sciences 1984, 26)

This paragraph contains five accusations, each deserving special comment:

(1) The first sentence effectively hides the failure of evolutionists to confirm a basic prediction of their own theory—the spontaneous origin of life from inert matter. Instead of admitting that this failure invalidates the entire theory of evolution, the Academy attempts to exclude creation science from the scientific landscape by defining science to exclude supernatural power. It is somewhat of a paradox that the Academy would advance such a view because the theory of evolution is in desperate need of a supernatural power both for the origin of life and for the Big Bang. Generally these facts have not been understood by the public.

(2) In the second sentence the Academy claims that the idea of a supernatural origin of life is equivalent to subordinating scientific evidence to revelation. In truth, the abject failure of scientists to synthesize life from inert matter points to only one conclusion—that life originates only with the Creator—just as indicated by the biblical account.

(3) By claiming that the documentation for creation science lies almost entirely within the realm of special publications of its advocates, the Academy Committee members disregarded the scientific publications described in this book supporting creation. Readers should understand that the Academy cannot plead ignorance of those publications. Through my testimony at the Arkansas creation trial in 1981 and my presentation at the American Association for the Advancement of Science symposium in 1982, a significant number of prominent evolutionists became aware of the implications of my research.

(4) The claim that the central hypothesis of creation science is not subject to change in the light of new data is directly refuted by the falsification test that I had proposed to the scientific community in 1979. As noted before, the failure of evolutionists to respond to this critical test leads to only one conclusion—the fundamental uniformitarian principle is not now, nor has it ever been a sufficient basis for granites to form. Without this principle the evolutionary mosaic disintegrates.

(5) In the last sentence the Academy asserts that evidence for creation has been subjected to the scientific method and found to be invalid. This statement is definite and unequivocal, with no qualifications. Thus far, to my knowledge, whenever my evidences for creation have been critically examined, they have successfully withstood those examinations. Nevertheless, due to the impeccable reputation of the Academy for scientific integrity, we must ask: Is the Academy able to back up its all-inclusive claim? If so, it should immediately reveal what published scientific report negates my published evidences for creation.

American taxpayers, especially those who question the evolutionary model, deserve to know whether such a report actually exists. If it does exist, the integrity of the Academy remains intact. If it doesn’t exist, then the Academy’s claim must in reality rank as only one of its greatest wishes. In the latter case, it seems that all open- minded evolutionists should query whether their faith in evolution has been misplaced. They might consider that the Creator left trillions of “tiny mysteries” in earth’s Genesis rocks to establish substantive faith in the inspired record of creation.

Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences

Shortly before I was scheduled to speak at the First International Conference on Creationism to be held at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in August 1986, I sent a letter to Dr. Frank Press, President of the National Academy of Sciences, via overnight courier, inviting him to come to my lectures and present any evidence which he thought invalidated my scientific data. On several occasions during my presentation I asked whether any representative of the NAS was present. The audience was silent. About a month later I then sent a duplicate letter to Dr. Press. Still there was no reply.

However, some others in attendance at this Conference did raise objections; this afforded me an opportunity to clarify many issues, in particular that the White Mountain granites in New Hampshire are also created rocks. My contribution and response to those objections were later published in the Proceedings of the conference (Gentry 1987a; Appendix).

Thus came to an end my attempts to elicit a reply from the Academy before this book was first published in late 1986. But the next year another opportunity arose to ask for a public response from Dr. Press and other prominent evolutionists, and the results of that inquiry will now be discussed.

University of Tennessee Public Forum on Creation Science

Early in 1987, The Society for Creation Science, a student organization, invited me to speak at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. My presentation entitled “Should Creation Science Be Taught at UT?” was publicized in the student and local newspapers, The Daily Beacon and the Knoxville News-Sentinel, and on local radio and television networks. A few weeks before my program I wrote Dr. Press and other evolutionists, challenging them to come and present any evidence which invalidated my results on creation. About 600 persons representing a cross section of community, students, and faculty came to the Alumni Gym on the evening of April 13, 1987. Neither Dr. Press nor any of the other invited evolutionists came, but some did come from the UT geology department. Their presence made that evening a memorable occasion.

In my talk I used a familiar example to illustrate why polonium halos in granites are unique evidence of creation. A glass of water was placed on top of an overhead projector that was focused on a very large screen in the front of the auditorium. Then I reminded the audience that according to evolutionary theory the granites had formed as hot, molten rock slowly cooled over millions of years of geological time. To illustrate that polonium halos could never form under these conditions, I compared the effect of a tiny speck of polonium in molten rock with an Alka- Seltzer tablet which was then dropped into the glass of water. The beginning of effervescence was equated to the instant that polonium atoms began to decay and emit radioactive particles. I explained that traces of those particles would disappear as quickly in “liquid” rock as bubbles from the Alka-Seltzer disappear in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. These frozen bubbles would be analogous to the exceedingly large number of polonium halos now encased in granites around the world. Just as frozen bubbles would be clear evidence of an instantaneous freezing of water, in like manner polonium halos are undeniable evidence that many rapidly “effervescing” specks of created polonium interacted with a sea of primordial matter that was almost instantly “frozen” as solid granite.

Next I discussed the falsification test and was answering a question when someone spoke out from the audience. I encouraged him to come down front to the microphone, for it was apparent he had strong feelings which he wished to express. The following exchange of comments was taken from the videotape of the evening’s presentation:

UT PROF: My name is _________, a professor of geology at UT. Who said you cannot form granite in the laboratory? It’s been proven for 25 years, by hundreds of publications, and just because you are ignorant of [those] publications, doesn’t mean that it can’t be done. I can do it in my laboratory. People all over the world can.

GENTRY: You know, I am just so happy you came forward tonight. I am absolutely gratified, because I will give you the piece of granite. How long is it going to take you to do it?

UT PROF: Under controlled cooling rates, you can form it in about a week.

GENTRY: Can we all come back in a week, and . . . see it? Just like this?

UT PROF: In that approximate grain size, not that size, obviously. It would have to be much smaller.

GENTRY: Oh, wait a minute. What was this about the grain size now?

UT PROF: That approximate grain size is controlled, is a function of the cooling rate, the kinetics of the situation, the crystallization and growth. And you can form that coarseness of granite minerals; you can form those mineral compositions with a cooling rate of about ½ degree per hour crystallizing.

GENTRY: I want to show you a piece of biotite, a piece of granite, which contains the polonium halos. Why don’t you look at it? . . . How long do you think it would take you to do this? This one. [I handed him the larger piece shown in Plate 11-b of the Radiohalos Catalogue.]

UT PROF: That? The grain size, and I don’t know exactly [which] mineral compositions are there, but I estimate the same approximate cooling rate. Anything slower than ½ a degree per hour over the crystallization range of approximately 200 degrees over which these minerals crystallize will be sufficient to do this.

GENTRY: And will in a week . . . ?

UT PROF: And people at UCLA, at Cal Tech, at Chicago, at MIT, at Harvard, at . . . wherever you want to go, can do this. So I don’t see that it’s a big problem. Frank Press is from MIT, and that’s where, I mean, he would be speaking to that. But I think more properly that the reason why you are not getting a rebuttal to this is that people just don’t want to rebuttal [sic] it. . . . It is so well established in the literature.

GENTRY: Now, is this the first time that you have heard of this test?

UT PROF: Yes, it is.

GENTRY: I see. So you think that in one week you can get this piece of granite back in your laboratory?

UT PROF: I can give you . . . many, many publications about . . .

GENTRY: No, no. I am not talking about publications. I am saying, you have claimed tonight that you can do it, is that true?

UT PROF: I don’t have my laboratory set up right for doing that particular thing. I’m working on basalts, but, yes, you can do that.

GENTRY: . . . I think that . . .

UT PROF: I will tell you the laboratory where I could go and do it, and that would be at Johnson Space Center. They do that down there now.


UT PROF: Well, okay, . . . what I am saying is that you can make the grain size of the minerals; you can make the mineral compositions without any problem in the laboratory, . . . when you are geared up to do this particular type of thing. It takes controlled cooling rates, in closed containers. You cannot . . . you could make something grain-sized; hand-sized—but we don’t make them that large; we have problems with containers; we make them smaller. So we make them on the order of just a few, you know, five millimeters, six millimeters across. We are not making a hand-sized . . . in fact, we can duplicate everything, and it has been done for many, many years.

GENTRY: . . . Well, let me ask you this question. Following now on the comments you just made in the . . .

UT PROF: . . . I’m sorry, . . . but I feel that I’ll be willing to show you the literature. I’ll be willing to talk to you about demonstrations, whatever you want. But I am not about to come up and, and sit here and have you change things around about basalts and granites. I mean it is well established in the literature. I . . . can give you that. (Applause)

[Earth Science Associates 1987. See ESA reference (p. 353) for ordering a copy of this videotape.]

His bravado had an effect on the audience. Everyone present realized that the battle lines were very clearly drawn, and the vigorous applause given after the geology professor’s remarks showed he had supporters for his position. Some of my friends later told me they were concerned my case was lost at this point. But they, along with most everyone else present, were unaware of some extraordinary events that had transpired over the preceding month. In the next several minutes they would hear me recount how those events had dovetailed to bring into focus a largely overlooked prediction in my book concerning any attempts to synthesize granite.

At this point in my presentation I related that in early 1987 a staunch evolutionist in Canada had written me about a geology course, “Understanding the Earth,” offered by TV-Ontario. He was quite adamant that the third program in the series, “Igneous Rocks,” showed the synthesis of granite in a laboratory. I soon obtained a copy of the aforementioned program from Dr. David Pearson, a geologist from Laurentian University, Ontario, who had made the television series in the mid- 1970’s.  His broadcast notes gave the following description:

A laboratory experiment demonstrates the conditions under which granite might have cooled slowly. Powdered granite sealed in a capsule and heated to 800° C under a pressure of 50 tons per square inch, and then allowed to cool, shows a close resemblance to actual granite. Such conditions of temperature and pressure may therefore be those under which granite crystallizes in nature.

Immediately I began a search for a specimen from that experiment. I called Dr. Pearson for assistance and to find out what he meant by close resemblance. He was unable to help because he wasn’t even involved in the original experiment. He indicated this portion of the videotape was a clip from an old Encyclopaedia Britannica film that had been made in the mid-sixties. When I called them in March 1987, the film was no longer available.

Over the next few weeks I pursued a labyrinthian path across America before finally locating one of the scientists involved in the Britannica experiments. He initially indicated that all the specimens from those decades-old experiments had long since been destroyed. Nevertheless, my persistent phone calls caused him to remember that one specimen might still remain packed away somewhere in another part of the country. Circumstances indicated he could not even begin his search for the specimen in question until just a few days before my UT presentation. In spite of considerable odds, the one and only specimen of its kind was found on the evening of April 11, 1987, and sent to me via air express that very night.

If evolutionists were right, that rock specimen should be a piece of granite. But I had already predicted (pp. 130-131) a different result by comparison with what happens when granite deep in the earth is melted. The granitic magma thus produced may rise to the surface and cool quickly, to obsidian, a glassy rock, or it may cool slowly underground, eventually becoming rhyolite, a fine-grained rock pictured in Plate 11-d (see Radiohalo Catalogue). Rhyolite is quite different from the coarse-grained granite shown in Plate 11-b. Thus I had earlier reasoned: If slow cooling of a granite melt within the earth does not result in the formation of granite—and this is where granite supposedly formed according to evolutionary theory—neither would it happen in a modern scientific laboratory. This was my prediction. When the package arrived Sunday morning, I knew the time had come for it to be tested. I opened the box, examined the specimen, and with a sense of keen anticipation looked forward to showing it the next evening.


Now the moment had come. After describing the foregoing scenario to the audience, I then flashed up on the screen a photograph displaying both the piece of rhyolite shown in Plate 11-d and the rock specimen that I had received just the day before. The texture and color of the rock from the laboratory experiment showed an unmistakable similarity to the rhyolite. The audience could plainly see that granite which is melted, and then slowly cooled under modern laboratory conditions, produces a fine-grained rock almost identical to rhyolite—the fine-grained rock resulting from the slow cooling of molten granite deep in the earth. In neither case does the crystallization process reproduce the original granite rock as postulated by the theory of evolution. My prediction had been confirmed while the fundamental premise of evolution was revealed to be false. As never before polonium halos in granites were shown to be indelible autographs of creation, fingerprints of the Creator, thus identifying the granites as the primordial Genesis rocks of our planet. The audience was quiet as I concluded my remarks to the geology professor:

GENTRY: I will make a suggestion then. If indeed the day ever comes when you are successful in doing what you claim to be able to do tonight, my telephone number will be given to you. You can call me and immediately call WTVK-TV and WBIR-TV [Knoxville’s NBC and CBS affiliates]. Make it a city-wide or state-wide public event, whatever you would like to do, and publicly put your evidence where your expertise has been tonight. [Earth Science Associates 1987.—See ESA reference (p. 353) for ordering a copy of this videotape.]

The events of that evening gave the audience new insights into the nature of evolutionary science. The UT geology professor never called me about his references on granite synthesis. Later I called him, but he refused to discuss the matter. Then I wrote to the UT Geology Department chairman for help but received no reply.

Though Dr. Press did not attend, he did send a letter which I read at the UT forum.  It says nothing to refute the Po-halo evidence for creation but instead tries to minimize its significance by using the ACLU’s strategy at the Arkansas trial. There it was labeled “a very tiny mystery.” Press’s letter (Press 1987; Appendix) refers to it as “one small piece of data,” which ignores the vast number of unexplained Po halos in Earth’s primordial granites. And what of the evolutionist who claimed granite synthesis was seen on TV? Prior to the UT forum, he also wrote that certain geologists and others had found problems in my work. Thus I invited him to come to the forum so their objections could be publicly examined. But along with other invited evolutionists, such as Carl Sagan and Stephen J. Gould, he failed to appear.

The UT forum made it evident to the American Humanist Association (AHA) that this growing controversy concerning the Po-halo evidence for creation was rapidly eroding away the very foundations of atheism. How could the AHA counter this evidence when, for over two decades, it had remained unrefuted in the premier scientific journals where it was published? Their only defense was to print the views of the evolutionist who failed to come to the UT forum in their own magazine, Creation/Evolution [XII, 8, no. 1, 13 (1988)]. This article (i) ignores the UT forum results showing the claim of granite synthesis on TV is false, (ii) assumes, without producing any supporting laboratory evidence, that granites and Po halos can form naturally, and (iii) pictures the region near Bancroft, Ontario — a site where I have reported Po halos in the micas — as explainable only by evolutionary processes. To obtain this result the article first quotes geologists to establish an apparent evolutionary history of the Bancroft region, and then it concludes that the Bancroft rocks were formed exactly as these geologists imply — a clear example of circular reasoning.

However, to those unfamiliar with geological terminology, such reasoning can appear superficially plausible if quotes are selected that closely interweave the factual mineralogical descriptions of the rocks with evolutionary theories of their origin. This mixture of fact and supposition can easily leave the impression that the presumed evolutionary origin of those rocks is as scientifically valid as the mineralogical descriptions. Unfortunately, this combination of scientific fact and evolutionary theory produces a [p. 203] deceptive maze which continues to confuse geologists and others concerning my views, as is shown by two quotes from the C/E article:

Since Gentry’s God can do anything, he concludes that God created the region to have the features of age and activity that it exhibits and that [H]e made “Genesis rock” look for all the world like a recent intrusion, thereby fooling thousands of geologists. . . . (C/E, p. 30)

Still we must give Gentry his due. Nothing in geology fully explains the apparent occurrence of the polonium halos as described by Gentry. They do remain a minor mystery in the field of physics. But this does not mean that no explanations are possible or that it is time to throw in the towel and invoke the “god of the gaps.” . . . (C/E, p. 31)

I appreciate the Creator God as One who cannot lie or deceive; so He cannot be responsible for deceiving geologists into thinking that instantly created rocks formed over long ages. Geologists should look to their own assumption of uniformity as the reason for their confusion about the origin and age of created rocks. Moreover, there is nothing “apparent” about the occurrence of Po halos in granites and their associated rocks. Their existence is beyond question, having been experimentally confirmed in published scientific reports for over two decades. But why did the Creator leave unambiguous evidence they originated with primordial polonium? Why did He scatter these halos throughout a type of rock that a 39,000-foot drill hole in the Kola Peninsula has revealed (Appendix, p. 322) are the foundation rocks of the continents?

Consider that God created primordial Po halos to command the attention of scientists — especially physicists and geologists — that they might understand this marvelous record of instantaneous creation is etched within those rocks that the Bible expressly designates (Appendix, p. 323) as the “foundations of the earth.” Such consistency between science and Scripture affirms the accuracy of the entire Bible, in contrast to the numerous contradictions that Po halos present to the evolutionary framework. Those who ignore these contradictions will doubtless continue to err when examining my published evidence for creation and a young earth, as is evident in two letters sent to an archaeology journal. My reply (Appendix, pp. 339-352) is relevant because it shows why Pb (lead) and He (helium) retention in deep granites provides strong scientific evidence consistent with an approximate 6000-year age of the earth. This evidence is to the age of the earth what primordial Po halos are to its creation. Evaluation of other related comments is also included in this edition (Appendix, pp. 331-338).

Continuing Censorship at Science

In 1989 two geologists reported mainly on three giant halos in quartz [Science 246, 107 (1989)] and, as an aside, suggested that Po halos in mica resulted from U/Th beta decay instead of Po alpha decay. Since data in my 1968, 1971, and 1974 Science reports refute this idea and since Science traditionally grants scientists an opportunity to correct errors it prints about their work, I sent a letter of correction. But Science’s editors determined to prevent their readership from learning that the Po-halo evidence for creation is still valid. After my first letter of correction was rejected, I sent a revised response to them, and it too was rejected (Appendix, p. 32 7-329).

Confirmation of Science’s intent to censor the implications of this evidence came in a cordial letter from one of the geologists who authored the above report. This letter (Appendix, p. 330) contains two important facts: First, it states their idea of a beta-decay origin of Po halos was made without actually having acquired a Po halo themselves; second, it states Sciencehad made a direct request, prior to their report being published, that they omit any reference to “instantaneous creation” as a possible explanation for Po halos.

Likewise, Brent Dalrymple’s recent treatise “The Age of the Earth” (Stanford University Press, 1991) — which he admits was initiated because of the creation science controversy — completely omits any discussion of my scientific reports supporting creation and a young age of the earth. The reason given in his Preface (p. x) is that he has dealt with the “scientific” arguments for a young age of the earth elsewhere. Actually, he has been silent on my young earth evidence and his arguments against the “tiny mystery” of creation were refuted in 1984 and in 1986 (Appendix, pp. 268-303). Are Science’s actions and Dalrymple’s silence consistent with Dr. Press’s criterion (Appendix, p. 324) to “consider all the evidence” relating to Earth’s origin and age?

Do Science’s editors and others perceive Creation’s Tiny Mystery as the Achilles’ heel of evolution? Have America’s highest scientific echelons decided to black out this “tiny mystery” while at the same time presenting to the media the idea that evolutionists would “flock to the sites” of any data that question their theory? But what will happen if the media decides to probe the misuse of power that has kept this blackout in operation? Would this arouse the public to what Creation’s Tiny Mystery reveals about our roots? The decades ahead may provide many answers.

In any event, my intent is not to cast aspersion on those who continue to accept the evolutionary model of origins. To trace the handiwork of creation, as I have endeavored to do, is an end in itself; to try to duplicate the handiwork of the Grand Design is in another realm altogether.

The Grand Design

In the Overview I indicated that by the end of the book the reader should have sufficient information to decide whether the scientific evidence favors evolution or creation. I have presented new evidences for creation and given the reactions of these evidences by prominent scientific organizations, both governmental and private, as well as media representatives. The scientific community, by and large, has not accepted even the possibility that these evidences could be fitted into a creation model of origins. Historical considerations have some bearing on this attitude.

During the early nineteenth century the uniformitarian principle and its corollary, geological uniformitarianism, were becoming accepted as the basis for reconstructing the history of our planet and solar system. With the publication of Darwin’s Origin of the Species in 1859, it appeared that the unifying link between geology and biology had been found. Uniformitarian biologists and geologists agreed that one factor—a vast expanse of time—was an absolutely essential prerequisite for evolution. It could not be otherwise. Events which the Creator could accomplish in moments, days, or months would take eons of time if explained on the basis of natural processes observed today. The creation event was one of those special periods when the uniformity of physical law was superseded. Likewise, the fall of man and the worldwide flood marked other special periods, characterized by the miraculous intervention of the Creator.

With the exception of the Big Bang event, the theory of evolution excludes any deviation from the premise of complete uniformity of the fundamental laws of the universe throughout endless time—past, present, and future. This view has been accepted by more and more influential scholars in each succeeding generation. Today, the majority of society accepts that evolution is true, not by knowledge gained from independent study, but rather from books which have pictured evolution as the only scientifically credible explanation of earth history.

The challenge I have presented in this book to the uniformitarian principle includes evidences of an instantaneous creation and a young age of the earth. Thus the essential time element needed for the geological evolution of the earth as well as the biological evolution of life on it vanishes, and the entire evolutionary scenario is devastated.

These conclusions perplex many scientists, who for decades have been conditioned to accepting evidences for evolution based on the uniformitarian principle. They feel to depart from this cherished assumption would be equivalent to regressing in time to the period of the Dark Ages, when superstitions and traditions molded scientific theories. To avoid that extreme, they have presumed to shift their thinking 180° and have concluded all religious foundations are unscientific. Actually, their conclusions are based on a false premise. Instead of excluding all religious concepts from science, they are only assisting in the establishment of a new order, antithetical to biblical foundations. This new order—evolutionism—has spread to the Western world in the form of theistic evolution. Under the guise of science, it has found acceptance in academic institutions throughout civilized societies.

In view of these historical influences within academia, few scientists realize that the biblical record provides a broad, expansive framework of earth history, capable of incorporating an almost unlimited variety of geological data. Invariably, I have found that “arguments” and/or “problems” proposed against the biblical framework as a model of earth history are ultimately those which result from imposing unwarranted constraints. As mentioned before, the deliberate or unwitting acceptance of the uniformitarian principle is the most profound example of such constraints. There is no obstacle in correlating Earth’s geologic history with the biblical record once it is understood that the Creator is not governed or restricted by that principle.

But those who accept uniformitarian concepts, such as a worldwide geologic column and its counterpart—radiometric dating—should never expect to find that correlation. Those holding such views often insist that they have found evidence contrary to the biblical record, yet at the same time they generally fail to mention that their evidence is based on uniformitarian assumptions. Thus, in the last analysis, they have only confirmed that the biblical record of creation and the flood cannot be reconciled with a uniformitarian geological framework. Perhaps they should reflect on the inspired words spoken to Job, “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding” (Job 38:4).

Evidently, many scientists are willing to accommodate God into science, provided His presumed activities can be fitted into their evolutionary framework. However, when unambiguous scientific evidence is discovered, which is incompatible with evolution and can only be attributed to God’s creative power, there is a different reaction within the scientific establishment. Now we have creation science — something the National Academy of Sciences says has been scientifically invalidated, and hence should not have a place in the science curriculum at any level. The Academy has a right to its opinion, but this book has shown that when the Academy was confronted with the opportunity to prove its claim about creation at the First International Conference on Creationism and the UT forum, it signally failed to meet the challenge. Nothing could have more effectively unmasked the Academy’s spurious claims about creation than did its deafening silence on these occasions. And nothing could have more clearly pinpointed its contradictory position on the Affirmation of Freedom of Inquiry and Expression. On one hand, the Academy uses the Affirmation to defend the academic and civil liberties of foreign dissidents. On the other hand, it promotes the exclusive teaching of evolution in public schools notwithstanding that, as definitely implied in Lane’s letter (pp. 94-96), this practice has involved the persecution of some American “dissidents”—students who have the courage to stand for their religious convictions.

The Academy and others opposed to creation science should have realized long ago that for some Americans the imposed study of evolution is a moral issue. The philosophy of evolutionism directly contradicts their conviction that the literal six-day creation account given in Genesis, and explicitly reaffirmed in the Fourth of the Ten Commandments (partly quoted at the close of this Epilogue), represents the correct description of earth history. Again I say, this book has demonstrated that valid, scientific evidence exists to support this biblical creation model. Therefore to eliminate the present discriminatory practice in the classroom against those students opposed to evolution, why not allow all public school and state university students the option of studying either a creation or evolution-based model of origins in their science courses?

In my opinion, no one, evolutionist or creationist, should be forced into a course of study that violates his conscience. After all, the freedom to choose — as long as our choices do not infringe adversely on the rights of others — is the essence of our democracy. If we fail to uphold that freedom for public school students on this critical issue, we open the door for coercion — the unmistakable hallmark of totalitarian governments — to gain the ascendancy in all phases of American society. What is at stake is religious and academic freedom for all Americans. Should science education prohibit the teaching of certain evidence just because of its philosophical setting? Science is the knowledge obtained from a quest for truth and can be illustrated by the “Parable of the Grand Design”:

Long ago, a master artist conceived a mural which he wished to use as an illustration of the Grand Design of nature. Much time and effort were spent in completing this enormous task. Tragically, before it was unveiled, an accident occurred, shattering the mirror-like mural into innumerable fragments throughout the face of the earth. Later philosophers became interested in reconstructing the Grand Design. Most were aware of the ancient outline left by the master artist, but many came to question the authenticity of the outline, choosing instead to construct their own version, based on the pieces they found in the earth. After many years, the consensus of wise men and philosophers was that they had developed the basic skeletal framework of the Grand Design, even though there were large gaps in the center and many pieces which could not be reconciled with the overall Design. Nevertheless they propagated this skeletal framework as absolute truth until governments and universities everywhere provided the funds they needed to continue their work. There were still a few remaining artists who believed that the ancient outline was the blueprint for the real Design used by the master artist. They carefully pointed out that all of the collected pieces would also fit into this ancient outline. And most importantly, the millions of recently discovered microscopic pieces, which did not fit into the skeletal framework, were found to perfectly fit into the ancient outline. Some were convinced that they should redirect their study and use the ancient outline as their model for the Grand Design, but the great majority never accepted its validity. Someday the truth would be evident to all, for the master artist promised to return and restore the magnificent Grand Design to its original beauty.

Until that day, which I believe is imminent, Creation’s Tiny Mystery will stand as the Rock of Gibraltar against the tide of evolution.

Nearly 6,000 years ago the Ruler of the Universe engraved an indelible record of creation in the Genesis rocks of our planet just as He later inscribed the Ten Commandments on tables of stone at Mount Sinai, including the words,

“For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day . . .” (Exodus 20:11)

In a single stroke, the Master Artist irrevocably blended the Genesis record of creation and the moral law into His Grand Design.

  1. Gentry, R.V. 1968. “Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Variant Radioactive Halos.”Science 160, 1228.   [p. 223]
  2. Gentry, R.V. 1970. “Giant Radioactive Halos: Indicators of Unknown Alpha-Radioactivity?” Science 169, 670.   [p. 226]
  3. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1973. “Ion Microprobe Confirmation of Pb Isotope Ratios and Search for Isomer Precursors in Polonium Radiohalos.” Nature 442, 282.   [p. 230]
  4. Talbott, S.L. 1977. “Mystery of the Radiohalos.” Research Communications Network, Newsletter Number 2.   [p. 234]
  5. Gentry, R.V. 1974. “Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective.”Science 184, 62.   [p. 238]
  6. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1974. ” ‘Spectical’ Array of 210Po Halo Radiocentres in Biotite: A Nuclear Geophysical Enigma.” Nature 252, 564.   [p. 244]
  7. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1976. “Radiohalos and Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification.” Science 194, 315.   [p. 247]
  8. Hower, J. 1977. Letter to R.V. Gentry dated July 11, 1977. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.   [p. 252]
  9. Todd, E.P. 1977. Letter to R.V. Gentry dated September 15, 1977. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.   [p. 254]
  10. Johnson, F.S. 1982. Letter to R. S. Walker, House of Representatives, dated June 17, 1982. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.   [p. 255]
  11. Johnson, F.S. 1983. Letter to R.J. Lagomarsino, House of Representatives, dated February 14, 1983. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.   [p. 256]
  12. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1982a. “Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment.” Science 216, 296.   [p. 257]
  13. Sasser, J. 1982. Letter to W.S. Heffelfinger, Department of Energy, dated May 18, 1982. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Senate.   [p. 261]
  14. Heffelfinger, W.S. 1982. Letter to U.S. Senator J. Sasser dated June 14, 1982. Washington, D.C.: Department of Energy.   [p. 262]
  15. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1982b. “Differential Helium Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment.” Geophysical Research Letters 9, 1129.   [p. 263]
  16. Clark, S. 1982. Letter to D. Bumpers, U.S. Senate, not dated. Little Rock: State of Arkansas, Office of the Attorney General.   [p. 265]
  17. Gentry, R.V. 1984. “Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective.” Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science 1, 38.   [p. 267]
  18. Dalrymple, G.B. 1985. Letter to K.H. Wirth dated March 26, 1985. Creation/Evolution Newsletter 5, No. 3, 12.   [p. 296]
  19. Gentry, R.V. 1986. Gentry Responds to Dalrymple’s Letter to Kevin Wirth.   [p. 299]
  20. Gilbert, C. 1985. Letter to D.R. Humphreys dated August 30, 1985. Washington, D.C.: Science.   [p. 304]
  21. Merkel, P. 1981. Transcription of Robert V. Gentry’s Cross-Examination from Audio Tape. McLean vs. Arkansas State Board of Education. Little Rock: Tape recorded by P. Merkel, Official Court Reporter, U.S. District Court.   [p. 305]
  22. Gentry, R.V. 1987a. “Radioactive Halos: Implications for Creation.” Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism Vol. II, 89.   [p. 311]
  23. Earth’s Foundation Rocks Revealed by Super Deep Drill Hole in Kola Peninsula.   [p. 322]
  24. Biblical References to the Foundations of the Earth.   [p. 323]
  25. Press, F. 1987. Letter to R.V. Gentry dated April 6, 1987. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.   [p. 324]
  26. Gentry, R.V. 1989a. A Tentative Creation Model.   [p. 325]
  27. Gentry, R.V. 1990a. Letter to the EditorScience, dated March 29, 1990. Response to Odom and Rink (Reports, Science 246, 107, 1989).   [p. 327]
  28. Gilbert, C. 1990a. Letter to R.V. Gentry dated March 7, 1990. Washington, D.C.: Science.   [p. 329]
  29. Gilbert, C. 1990b. Letter to R.V. Gentry dated May 19, 1990. Washington, D.C.: Science.   [p. 329]
  30. Odom, A.L. 1989. Letter to R.V. Gentry dated October 27, 1989. Tallahassee, Florida: The Florida State University.   [p. 330]
  31. Gentry, R.V. 1989b. Response to “Radioactive Halos: Geologic Concerns,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 25, 176.   [p. 331]
  32. Gentry, R.V. 1992. Comments on Geological Objections.   [p. 334]
  33. Gentry, R.V. 1990b. Creation’s Tiny Mystery Explored.” Response to letters sent to Archaeology and Biblical Research, Supplement to Vol. 3, No. 3.   [p. 339]

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). “Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos,” Science Vol. 160, pp. 1228-1230, June 14, 1968, by Robert V. Gentry. Copyright © 1968 by the AAAS. “Giant Radioactive Halos: Indicators of Unknown Radioactivity?”, Science Vol. 169, pp. 670-673, August 14, 1970, by Robert V. Gentry. Copyright © 1970 by AAAS. “Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective,” Science Vol. 184, pp. 62-66, Photo and Table I, April 5, 1974, by Robert V. Gentry. Copyright © 1974 by AAAS. “Radiohalos in Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification,” Science Vol. 194, pp. 315-317, Photos, October 15, 1976, by Robert V. Gentry et al. Copyright 1976 by AAAS. “A Response to Creationism Evolves,” Science Vol. 214, pp. 635-636, 638, November 6, 1981, by R. Lewin. Copyright © 1981 by AAAS. “Creationism on the Defensive in Arkansas,” Science Vol. 215, pp. 33-34, January 1, 1982, by R. Lewin. Copyright © 1982 by AAAS. “Where Is the Science in Creation Science?,” Science Vol. 215, pp. 142-144, 146, January 8, 1982, by R. Lewin. Copyright © 1982 by AAAS. “Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment,” Science Vol. 216, pp. 296-298, April 16, 1982, by Robert V. Gentry et al. Copyright © 1982 by AAAS. All of the above articles were excerpted or reprinted by permission of the AAAS.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. “Farewell to Newton, Einstein, Darwin . . .” by Allen Hammond and Lynn Margulis, and “The Genesis of Equal Time” by John Skow, Science 81, December, pp. 54-60. Copyright © 1981 by the AAAS. Excerpted by permission of Science 84 Magazine.

Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective,” Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, AAAS, Evolutionists Confront Creationists, Vol. 1, Part 3, pp. 38-65, April 30, 1984, by Robert V. Gentry. Copyright © 1984 by the Pacific Division of the AAAS. Reprinted by permission of the Pacific Division of the AAAS.

American Geophysical Union. “Differential Helium Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment,” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 9, pp. 1129-1130, October 1982, by Robert V. Gentry et al. Copyright © 1982 by the American Geophysical Union. Used by permission of the American Geophysical Union.

American Institute of Physics. Letters, Physics Today Vol. 35, October 1982, pp. 15, 103 by J. Willits Lane. Copyright © 1982 by the American Institute of Physics. Reprinted by permission of J. Willits Lane and the American Institute of Physics.

Annual Reviews, Inc. “Radioactive Halos,” Annual Review of Nuclear Science Vol. 23, pp. 347-362, by Robert V. Gentry. Copyright © 1973 by Annual Reviews, Inc. Reproduced, with permission, from the Annual Review of Nuclear Science, Annual Reviews, Inc.

Associates for Biblical Research, Inc. Supplement to Archaeology and Biblical Research Vol. 3, No. 3, Summer 1990, response by Robert V. Gentry. Copyright © 1990 by the Associates for Biblical Research, Inc. Reprinted by permission of Associates for Biblical Research.

Creation Research Society. Response to “Radioactive Halos: Geological Concerns,” Creation Research Society Quarterly Vol. 25, March 1989, pp. 176-179, by Robert V. Gentry. Reply to Letters, “Granite Intrusions,” Creation Research Society Quarterly Vol. 26, March 1990, pp. 153-154, by Robert V. Gentry. “Critique of ‘Radiohalo Evidence Regarding Change in Natural Process Rates,’ ” Creation Research Society Quarterly Vol. 27, December 1990, pp. 103-105, by Robert V. Gentry. Copyright © 1989, 1990 by Creation Research Society. Reprinted by permission of the Creation Research Society.

Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA. “Radioactive Halos: Implications for Creation,” Proceedings of the 1986 First International Conference on Creationism Vol. II, pp. 89-112, by Robert V. Gentry. Copyright © 1986-87 by Creation Science Fellowship, Inc. This section was reprinted by permission of the Creation Science Fellowship, Inc. Copies of the full Proceedings may be obtained by writing to ICC, Box 17578, Pittsburgh, PA 15235.

Doubleday & Company, Inc. The Great Monkey Trial, p. 432, by L. Sprague de Camp. Copyright © 1968 by Doubleday & Co., Inc. Used by permission of Barthold Fles Literary Agency, New York.

Loma Linda University, University Relations, Loma Linda, CA. “Evolution Model” graphic adapted from drawing by Glenn Thomas. Used by permission of University Relations, Loma Linda University.

Macmillan Journals Limited. “Ion Microprobe Confirmation of Pb Isotope Ratios and Search for Isomer Precursors in Polonium Radiohalos,” Nature Vol. 244, No. 5414, pp. 282-283, August 3, 1973, by Robert V. Gentry et al. Copyright © 1973 by Macmillan Journals Ltd. ” ‘Spectacle’ Array of 210Po Halo Radiocentres in Biotite: A Nuclear Geophysical Enigma.” Nature Vol. 252, No. 5484, pp. 564-566, December 13, 1974, by Robert V. Gentry et al. Copyright © 1974 by Macmillan Journals Ltd. These articles were reprinted by permission from Nature.

National Academy Press. Science and Creation: A View from the National Academy of Sciences by the Committee on Science and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences. Copyright © 1984 by the National Academy of Sciences. Used by permission of the National Academy Press.

Research Communications Network. “Mystery of the Radiohalos,” Research Communications Network Newsletter #2, February 10, 1977, by Stephen L. Talbott. Copyright (1977) by Research Communications Network. Used by permission of Stephen L. Talbott.

Science Service, Inc. “Superheavy Elements,” Science News Vol. 113, pp. 126-238, April 15, 1978, by Kendrick Frazier. Copyright © 1978 by Science Service, Inc. “Evolution at the AAAS,” Science News Vol. 119, p. 19, January 10, 1981. Copyright © 1981 by Science Service, Inc. “They Call It Creation Science,” Science News Vol 121, No. 3, pp. 44-45, January 16, 1982, by Janet Raloff. Copyright © 1982 by Science Service, Inc. The above articles are excerpted with permission from Science News, the weekly news magazine of science.

Stony Brook Foundation, Inc. “The Elusive Scientific Basis of ‘Creation’ Science,” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 21-30, March 1985, by Eugenie C. Scott and Henry P. Cole. Copyright © 1985 by Stony Brook Foundation, Inc. Excerpted by permission of The Quarterly Review of Biology.

University of California—Santa Barbara, Television Services. “Creation Model” graphic adapted from videotape, Confrontation: Creation/Evolution, Part IV. Used by permission of Television Services, UCSB.

%d bloggers like this: