Creationists who want to use the scientific method need to develop and test theories based on creation, and not to be satisfied merely to show that some phenomenon is designed. Published in Origins v. 7, n. 1.

Reactions to the articles, Questoins on the Methodology of Geology, and The Interpretation of C-14 Dates. Published in Origins v. 7, n. 1.

Recent planetary exploration by unmanned satellites has expanded significantly our solar system. It was hoped that these explorations would unify the concepts regarding the cosmology of the solar system. The reverse has occurred. Published in Origins v. 7, n. 1.

It is important to consider Genesis 5 and 11 in view of: 1) their unique nature and function in the book of Genesis and in relation to other genealogies, 2) their textual history, and 3) their interpretation. It shall be the purpose of this paper to reflect on the first two of these areas of importance. Published in Origins v. 7, n. 1.

A bill in the Georgia state legislature mandating the teaching of creation when evolution is taught was passed in both houses of the legislature but differences in the two versions prevented it being passed into law. Supporters hope to see it passed in the next session of the legislature. Published in Origins v. 7, n. 1.

A review of the book, How to Think About Evolution and Other Bible-Science Controversies. Written for creationists, the book mainly addresses questions of speciation and change, and proposes that conflict between creationists and evolutionists is often due to failure of communication, and both sides should be regarded as engaged in honest attempts to discover truth. Published in Origins v. 7, n. 1.

A recent Gallup poll showed that about half the U.S. population believe in the creation of Adam and Eve as the first humans. University education tends to reduce belief in creation, suggesting a pattern of indoctrination during university education. Published in Origins v. 7, n. 1.

I maintain that there is no biblical basis for any date in the B. C. scale for a biblical event preceding the birth of Abraham.

Exclusion of the supernatural by science has restricted theories of origins to purely naturalistic processes. Large numbers of people are looking for broader explanatory approaches that accommodate their own experiences of love, morality and beauty. Published in Originsi v. 7, n. 1.

Reaction to the another reaction to the article, The Unity of the Creation Account. Published in Origins v. 7, n. 2.

This study has shown that the majority of both graduate and undergraduate students favor the two-model approach for the teaching of origins. Published in Origins v. 6, n. 2.

The normal accumulation of organic debris and the subsequent formation of humus and true soil which proceeds relentlessly on modern growth surfaces does not readily account for several of the phenomena seen in the organic levels of Yellowstone. Published in Origins v. 6, n. 2.

Lack of academic freedom is claimed by students who want both creation and evolution taught in biology classes at Iowa State University, and is reflected in several Darwinian-based publications. Published in Origins v. 6, n. 2.

A review of the book, The Structure of Geology. Geology differs from sciences such as physics because it is largely "retrodictive", inductive, and historical. Published in Origins v. 6, n. 2.

Coral reefs take time to grow, and some have questioned whether certain coral reefs could have grown to their present size in the time since the Flood. Evidence reported here indicates that rates of coral reef growth are quite variable, depending on water temperature, carbonate concentration, and depth. At the surface, ultraviolet light inhibits coral growth, so surficial measurements of coral growth are not a good basis for estimating rates of growth. Under ideal conditions, coral is capable of growing fast enough to produce present coral reefs in the time since the Flood. Published in Origins v. 6, n. 2.

We should be careful to present our views in truthful and informed ways because it is more important to find truth than to defend our ideas. Published in Origins v. 6, n. 1.

A reaction to the article, The Unity of the Creation Account. Differences in the sequence of events in Genesis 1 and 2 should be addressed. Published in Origins v. 6, n. 1.

Analysis of the literary structure of the Flood narrative shows that it is the product of a single author, and not a compilation from various sources. Published in Origins v. 6, n. 1.

A number of factors could affect the relation of C-14 concentration to real time. The author discusses the effects on C-14 dates of cosmic ray intensity, geomagnetic field strength, water vapor concentration, and dilution by the biosphere carbon. Published in Origins v. 6, n. 1.

Creationists are using the courts to try to get creation theory included as a theory of origins alongside evolution, while evolutionists are using the courts to try to prevent this. Published in Origins v. 6, n. 1.