A farewell editorial by Dr. Ariel Roth, who has been editor of Origins since its inception in 1973, and Director of the Geoscience Research Insittute since 1980. Published in Origins v. 23, n. 2.

A collection of short commentaries of scientific papers published in 1996, covering topics such as biogeography, Milankovitch cycles, turtles, degeneration by mutation, fossil sharks, fossil bird, ichthyosaurs, speciation rates in cichlid fish, plate tectonic anomaly. Published in Origins v. 23, n. 2.

People in positions of power or influence may take advantage of the ignorance of their listeners or followers and lead them to unwise conclusions or actions. Published in Origins v. 23., n. 1.

Most science is conducted under the philosophical assumption of naturalism. A few scientists are developing an alternative paradigm, here called interventionism (generally called theism). Published in Origins v. 23, n. 1.

Literature Reviews

A review of the book, Darwin's Black Box. Published in Origins v. 23, n. 1.

Darwin's theory is in crisis. The academic ball is in its court. What will the Adventist ministry speak in response? The general community, for the time being at least, is listening.

Scientific activities can be classified in a number of ways, but the suggestion here is to compare science with a naturalistic presuppostion, science with a creationist presupposition, or "methodological science," meaning inquiry open to either naturalistic or supernaturalistic explanations. Published in Origins v. 22, n. 2.

Two ideas from philosophers of science are discussed: paradigm and falsification. A paradigm is a useful tool for research, but it would be good to test the paradigm occasionally by attempting to falsify seme aspect of its structure. This might be done by considering "the weight of evidence" relating to the paradigm. Published in Origins v. 22, n. 1.

A review of the book, Dreams of a Final Theory. Attempts to explain all of creation from a naturalistic perspective have limited success. Published in Origins v. 22, n. 1.

Coconino Sandstone research has demonstrated how catastrophists can use their theory to develop specific hypotheses about a geologic feature (the Coconino Sandstone), and successfully carry out scientific research to test that hypothesis. This is one criteria that science used to determine the scientific value of any theory.

A review of the book, The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. An extremely useful work which goes a long way toward dispelling many of the commonly accepted myths about creationists. Published in Origins v. 21, n. 2.

*updated edition

Pseudogenes are DNA sequences that resemble genes but do not appear to have a function. Similar pseudogenes in humans and chimps have been used to argue for common ancestry. However,if pseudogenes have a function in gene regulation the argument for common ancestry would be greatly weakened. Published in Origins v. 21, n. 2.

Arguments that unexplained phenomena must be due to God's direct activity are called "god-of-the-gaps" arguments, and are regarded as bad arguments. However, if God is truly active in nature, we can expect to find some phenomena that truly point to God as a cause. Just because some appeals to God's direction action have been abandoned does not mean there are no such appeals that are valid. Published in Origins v. 21, n. 1.

A review of the book, The Book of Life- An Illustrated History of the Evolution of Life on Earth. Published in Origins v. 21, n. 1.

This paper proposes that mutation and natural selection can produce biological change, but are not sufficient to explain the origins of biodiversity and complexity. Instead, the authors argue that genetic complexity is the result of intelligent design, and was at a maximum when life on Earth first came into being. Published in Origins v. 20, n. 2.

A review of the book, Blueprints: Solving the Mystery of Evolution. The book presents a rather uninformed critical response to creationism. Published in Origins v. 20, n. 1.

Several ideas have been proposed over the past two centuries to explain how organisms could have evolved through naturalistic processes. None of them seems viable, and it seems reasonable that creation should be considered as an explanation. Published in Origins v. 19, n. 1.

Readers are invited to submit their reactions to the articles in our journal. Please address contributions to: Origins, Geoscience Research Institute, 11060 Campus St., Loma Linda, California 92350 USA.

A recent survey shows about 9% of the population accepts the viewpoint of naturalistic evolution, about 40% accept divinely guided evolution, about 47% accept a recent creation of humans, and about 4% registered they don't know. These results are nearly the same as a similar survey taken three years before. Published in Origins v. 18, n. 2.

Dates calculated from radiocarbon and amino acid racemization show conflict. Analysis of the discrepancies and use of a radiocarbon conversion published earlier, some inferences are drawn regarding the cooling of the earth after the biblical flood. Published in Origins v. 18, n. 2.