Evolutionists commonly claim creation is unscientific and should be excluded from science. However, scientists study phenomena for which the mechanism is not known, science itself is not clearly defined, and evolutionists use science to try to disprove creation. These points suggest the agenda driving opposition to creation is more philosophical than scientific. Published in Origins v. 11, n. 2.

Species in the same family or genus may have very similar chromosomal banding patterns, but with apparent rearrangements of parts of some chromsomes. Such rearrangements may contribute to speciation in mammals by interfering with meoisis. Published in Origins v. 11, n. 2.

Life is a property of precisely ordered biopolymers maintaining a non-equilibrium state. The ordering requires information, and this, with the chemical state of non-equilibrium, are conditions not available to natural processes, and point to the existence of a Creator. Published in Origins v. 11, n. 2.

A review of Chapters 3 and 4 in the book, Scientists Confront Creationism. Creationism is roundly criticized for poor arguments. Published in Origins v. 11, n. 2.

It is regrettable that the inquiry into the fundamental question of origins has degenerated to such an emotional level. Attitudes must be improved, and efforts now devoted to name-calling should be redirected towards good scholarship. Published in Origins v. 10, n. 2.

Creationism can be structured as a biblically-based religious doctrine, or as a method for exploring the world that is open to the possibility of creation. It would be inappropriate for religious creationism to be taught in public schools, but a scientific approach that considers the possibility of a creator need not be excluded. Published in Origins v. 8, n. 2.

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.

The Smithsonian Institution is being sued for promoting humanistic religion in the form of evolution. The court has ruled in favor of the Smithsonian, and the suit is unlikely to win on appeal. Published in Origins v. 5, n. 2.

This book is one of the few recent attempts to present both sides in a logical, understanding manner so the reader can be informed on the issues, regardless of the position for which he opts. Published in Origins v. 5, n. 2.

Review of the book, The Creation-Evolution Controversy. This may be the best comprehensive treatment of scientific creationism that has become available prior to mid-1977. Published in Origins v. 5, n. 2.

Review of the article, Biologists, Help! An appeal by a secular scholar for evolutionists to explain why so many fundamental suppositions of evolutionary theory are so poorly supported by the data. Published in Origins v. 5, n. 2.

A review of the book, Puncuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered. The new theory of punctuated equilibria acknowledges the gaps in the fossil record used by creationists as evidence against evolution, and explains them as due to the nature of the speciation process. However, the new theory applies only to gaps between species, and does not help with the problem of gaps between higher taxa. Published in Origins v. 5, n. 1.

A review of the book, Variation and Fixity in Nature. The nature of created kinds (baramins) is discussed and evaluated. Published in Origins v. 4, n. 2.

The claim that evolution is a "principle of science" is refuted by its lack of prediction, its status as unfalsifiable, and the logical circularity of some of its most important claims. Published in Origins v. 4, n. 1.

A review of the book, Scientific Creationism (Public School Edition). A science textbook with creationist sympathies would be a valuable contribution. This book, although many will find it useful, comes short of the goal. Published in Origins v. 4, n. 1.

The Third National Creation Science Conference offered much excellent material, but the creationist movement must set and follow the highest scientific standards and screen out questionable or needlessly controversial material if it is to gain the attention and full respect of sympathetic non-creationists. Published in Origins v. 3, n. 2.

Similarities in structure, or homologies, are what one would expect if all of life had been designed by a single Creator. Homologies are not evidence for evolution. Published in Origins v. 3, n. 2.

Several scientists have acknowledged that the evidence for evolution is deficient, and new approaches and information are needed. Published in Origins v. 3, n. 1.

Evolution is not primarily a scientific theory, but a comprehensive metaphysical world view that implicitly and explicitly has frightening implications in all of the most important categories of human existence. Published in Origins v. 3, n. 1.

A meeting of the Bible-Science Subcommittee was held at Prineville, Oregon, where papers were read and discussed. Published in Origins v. 3, n. 1.