Featuring scientific and biblical evidence for young earth creation.
Sylvia Baker is a biology graduate of the University of Sussex and the University of London. She accepted the evolutionary theory put to her at school and at university - until the pressure of evidence forced her to rethink the whole question.
Professor Harrison joined the University of St Andrews as Professor of Pathology in May.
Philip gained extensive experience in cell culture techniques, new drug screening, routine light microscopy of all cancers, lymphomas and leukaemias, investigating cytotoxic drug resistance and cellular apoptosis. Some highlights:Postscript: Philip’s long-standing interest in the uses of co-culturing a cancer patient’s normal and malignant cells in order to establish an ex vivo therapeutic index (see tech. abstracts 4 and 9), led to him co-authoring two major papers on this subject in 2002 and 2004 (see tech. secular papers 7 and 8 below), while working full-time as a creationist speaker and writer.
1990–1994—A strong work focus was the research and development of new assay techniques. With a colleague, co-developed a novel in vitro technology to aid in micro-cell culture and cytology (OCTOSPOT; now patented and commercially produced), which was funded by two £100,000 S.M.A.R.T. Awards (1992, 1993) from the UK’s Department of Trade and Industry, (see technical abstracts/conference proceedings 7 & 8 below).
1994–1996—primarily involved in research into chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and clinical drug resistance, involving the writing of papers (see technical secular papers 1–4, below). The significance of this work is shown by the fact that papers 1 and 2 are the major support for one arm of the UK MRC (Medical Research Council) 4th National trial of the treatment of CLL (Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia; sponsored by Leukaemia Research Fund)—see references 8 and 9 on page 28 of the protocol: <www.icr.ac.uk/research/research_sections/haemato_oncology/4459.pdf.>
1996–1998—Single-handedly designed and conducted a project on drug-resistance in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma; this was work towards a PhD (done while working full-time) but finished prematurely when funding was curtailed. Philip subsequently left research and retrained as a school teacher. Nevertheless, the first year’s work towards his PhD led him to author two papers (see tech. secular papers 5 and 6), one of which has become the definitive paper on a particular monoclonal antibody to the B-cell receptor CD79a, for distinguishing blood cells of an aggressive, poor-prognosis lymphoma from the very similar cells of the much more indolent chronic lymphocytic leukaemia—widely cited by all immunobiological suppliers of this antibody worldwide, e.g. http://www.acris-antibodies.com/SM1161F.htm, http://www.millipore.com/catalogue/item/cbl538, http://www.antibodies-online.com/antibody/118795/CD79a FITC Human/, http://www.serotec.co.uk/catalog/datasheet-MCA1298.html, http://www.antikoerper-online.de/antibody/118795/CD79a FITC Human/,
This paper is also referenced in the 7th edition (2005) of the standard text Williams Hematology, Chapter 92: Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and related diseases. It appears as reference no. 297 here (on p. 1373 of the book):
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xk3bkH-84lIC&pg=RA3-PA1373&lpg=RA3-PA1373&dq=bell zl7.4&source=web&ots=6FpJaNK3L1&sig=3Uwl0R0iR4HOTglSRW3vhe2xAzw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result
Papers:
Perspectives and other articles:
- Apoptosis: cell ‘death’ reveals Creation, Journal of Creation 16(1):90–102, 2002.
- The Non-evolution of Apoptosis, Journal of Creation 18(1):86–96, 2004.
Book Reviews:
- The Portrayal of Creationists by their Evolutionist Detractors, Journal of Creation 16(2):46–53, 2002.
- Pattern of Programmed Cell Death in Bat Wing Membrane—Support for Evolution? Journal of Creation 21(1):3–4, 2007.
- Evolution for Dummies, Journal of Creation 16(1):36–40, 2002. Review of Why Elephants have Big Ears. Understanding the Patterns of Life on Earth, by Chris Lavers (2001).
- Contentious Fossils, Journal of Creation 17(2):29–33, 2003. Review of Bone of Contention: Is Evolution True? By Sylvia Baker (2003).
- Magnifying Evolutionary Problems, Journal of Creation 18(3):41–45, 2004. Review of Evolution under the Microscope, by David Swift (2002).
- Debunking the Molecules-to-man Myth, Journal of Creation 19(3):45–50, 2005. Review of One Small Speck to Man, by Vij Sodera (2003).
- Atheist with a Mission, Journal of Creation 21(2):28–34, 2007.
- Book review: The magic of reality by Richard Dawkins
Back to Other biographies and interviews of interest
Dr George Marshall [GM]: I pointed out that the principal reason as to why the eye cannot be regarded as being wired backward (as some evolutionists claim) was hidden in a footnote in your article.
Then what do you think of the idea that the eye is wired backward?GM: The light-detecting structures within photoreceptor cells are located in the stack of discs. These discs are being continually replaced by the formation of new ones at the cell body end of the stack, thereby pushing older discs down the stack. Those discs at the other end of the stack are ‘swallowed’ by a single layer of retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells. RPE cells are highly active, and for this they need a very large blood supply—the choroid. Unlike the retina, which is virtually transparent, the choroid is virtually opaque, because of the vast numbers of red blood cells within it. For the retina to be wired the way that Professor Richard Dawkins suggested, would require the choroid to come between the photoreceptor cells and the light, for RPE cells must be kept in intimate contact with both the choroid and photoreceptor to perform their job. Anybody who has had the misfortune of a hemorrhage in front of the retina will testify as to how well red blood cells block out the light.
Dr George Marshall,
an eye-disease researcher from
the University of Glasgow,
Scotland
The notion that the eye was wired backward occurred to me as a 13-year-old when studying eye anatomy in a school science class. It took me two years of lecturing on human eye anatomy to realize why the eye is wired the way it is. The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy.How do you react to the notion that the human eye is the product of evolution?
The more I study the human eye, the harder it is to believe that it evolved. Most people see the miracle of sight. I see a miracle of complexity on viewing things at 100,000 times magnification. It is the perfection of this complexity that causes me to baulk at evolutionary theory.Can you give our readers some idea of just how complex the eye is?
The retina is probably the most complicated tissue in the whole body. Millions of nerve cells interconnect in a fantastic number of ways to form a miniature ‘brain’. Much of what the photoreceptors ‘see’ is interpreted and processed by the retina long before it enters the brain.A computer program has allegedly ‘imitated’ the evolution of an eye. Do you accept this?
Those who produced this model would acknowledge that the model is such a gross oversimplification that it cannot be cited as a proof. May I quote a colleague’s reaction [Dr John Hay, B.Sc.(Hons), Ph.D., M.Sc., C.Biol., F.I.Biol.]:What exactly does your work involve?
‘Computer simulation of evolutionary processes such as that described have three important flaws. First, the findings imply that the development which is being measured over so many generations is independent of development of other structures which are necessary for function. Second, the changes observed from the simulation are dependent on the original data input which clearly is consequent to human design of the sequences/regions to be worked on and also the program(s) which are used for the simulation. These are not, therefore, random. The third aspect of all this is that there is translation error in such simulations involving computer hardware/software. This can take the form of electronic error in single bits which are coding for a particular digit. Over many loops in this performance, intrinsic error can be magnified considerably. Was the simulation repeated using different PCs etc.? One feels that these three arguments are essential to any computer simulation package of evolutionary processes.
‘My first point indicated that even if there is an eye, it will be useless unless the organism has the neural and/or the mental processes to utilize information perceived by the eye. How can a chance mutation provide this complexity in several different structures? The argument has usually been that there is a plausible intermediate series of eye-designs in living animals, e.g. Euglena has an eyespot; other organisms have a “cup” which acts as a direction finder.
‘However, the organism which defies this evolution is Nautilus. It has a primitive eye with no lens, which is somewhat surprising considering that its close relative, the squid, has one. This organism has (apparently!) been around for millions of years but has never “evolved” a lens despite the fact that it has a retina which would benefit from this simple change.’
Lecturing to doctors in medicine who have specialized in ophthalmology and are attempting to gain fellowship with the Royal College of Ophthalmology (FRCOphth). However, my main remit is research into eye diseases using a combination of transmission electron microscopy and immunocytochemistry—a technique that uses antibodies to locate specific proteins such as enzymes.Do you believe that accepting creation as portrayed in Genesis is essential to your Christian faith?
Yes! On not literally accepting the Genesis account of creation one is left with a major problem—what Scriptures do you accept as true and what Scriptures do you reject as false? Only by accepting the whole of Scripture as the inspired Word of God does one avoid this dilemma. There are Scriptures that are a source of stumbling to the intellect. My practice is to ‘pigeon-hole’ them temporarily and never allow them to be a stumbling block to my faith. It’s amazing how many of these knotty problems have subsequently resolved themselves. Thus Genesis creation may initially appear to be hard to accept, but it strikes me that evolution is equally if not more problematic to believe.How useful do you find Creation magazine?
Its principal value is that it challenges what is uncritically accepted. Watch any TV program involving nature and you would think that evolution is an established fact. People get bombarded with this so often that they accept it without thinking. Creation magazine makes people realize that it is only a proposal and not fact. There are numerous places in my hospital where I can leave copies on coffee tables to get people to think for themselves.What advice would you have for Christian students, or for Christians in a science course or teaching situation?
First, recognize that science can become a ‘religion’ in its own right. Scientists say something, so the general public (the ‘worshippers’) accept it without question. Scientists are much more cautious about one another’s findings. Second, science is not static. The science of today is quite different in many ways from the science of yesterday, and will probably bear little resemblance to the science of tomorrow. People once believed in ‘spontaneous generation’ which could be ‘proved’ by putting an old sack and a few bits of cheese in a dark corner. Mice spontaneously generated out of the sack. We laugh at such notions, but I suspect that in a hundred years’ time people will laugh at some of our scientific notions. Third, one can still become an eminent scientist without accepting evolutionary dogma; the ability to produce sound science in the laboratory is not diminished by one’s stance on creation.Dr Marshall, thank you very much.
http://edinburghcreationgroup.org | Did humans evolve from apes? Zoologist Dr Marc Surtees examines the evidence.
