NO! This does not imply that science is above the Bible (Scripture). Ellen White invariably stated that the Bible was the only guide “… the unerring standard” (Counsels to Parents, Teachers and Students, 425). We accept that. YES, it does mean that God’s Second Book, the Book of Nature, should be used to amplify Scripture, or in the usage here to elucidate the natural world of the past. “All true science,” she wrote, “is but an interpretation of the handwriting of God in the material world” (Christian Experience and Teaching, 66). We have adopted this approach.
The Bible does not refer to any ice age, but the evidence for an ice age (glaciation) is unequivocal. The ice left its imprint in all temperate regions of the Earth. Great continental ice sheets (often over 2 km thick1) covered Canada, the northern US, much of the British Isles, and northern Europe. The Great Lakes of the US were defined by the movement of the ice sheets, and the highest peaks in north-eastern US were covered. The eventual retreat of the ice sheets left moraines (large deposits of rock debris) scattered over the plains and in the valleys, while giant partially rounded rocks (see Fig. 1), often translocated over hundreds of km by the ice, became bizarre features of the present landscape. The great U-shaped valleys of Scotland (the “glens”) and those in the Southern Alps of New Zealand were carved out by ice sheets.
Writing in the Adventist Review in 1980, the noted Adventist geologist Harold Clark concluded, “the evidence for continental ice masses is overwhelming.”2 Today, the Adventist Geoscience Research Institute (GRI) in Loma Linda, California supports this conclusion.3 The present ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are remnants of the great ice age.
![]()
Figure 1. Yeager Rock (Waterville Plateau, Washington, USA). A glacial erratic weighing over 400 tons, and just one of many in the area. The rock is located on a mound of glacial till (clay and small rock pieces deposited by the ice). Photograph: Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain, adapted.
Many Christians accept that Creation Week occurred about 6,000 years before the present (BP) based on the chronologies detailed in Genesis, and that the entire planet Earth and the universe were created early on day 1 or immediately before Creation Week. These young earth creationists (YEC) consider Gen 1:1 a summary of Creation Week, not a reference to an earlier and separate creation. Creationists initially attributed the moraines and giant rocks (often termed “erratics”) to deposition by water due to the Flood.
Although Swiss geologists presented evidence around the year 1840 for a glacial origin, the aquatic deposition hypothesis persisted into the 20th century, promoted in the writings of the Adventist geologist George McCready Price. When the evidence for a glacial explanation became unequivocal, the ice age described above became a challenge for YEC. How can anyone fit an ice age as described above into the 4,000 years before Christ? The YEC proposed a short post-flood ice age (PFIA) that lasted less than 1,000 years3 or “a few thousand” years.4 This idea was first suggested by Harold Clark (a student of Price), and has been further refined by retired meteorologist Michael J. Oard5 in a theory including numerous assumptions. Oard’s speculative proposal is often referred to in Adventist literature, is given prominence in a recent issue of the Adventist Record4 and is endorsed also by the Geoscience Research Institute.3
Rather than speculate as Oard has done about global conditions following a divinely-caused flood, we instead turn to consideration of how God’s second Book, the Book of Nature, amplified by modern science, could shed light upon whether the PFIA did or might have occurred. This post-flood ice age and YEC theology are intimately linked. With the claims concerning PFIA, YEC theology could stand substantiated or it could fall completely.
We recognize that some may find such discussions unimportant because they appear to be unrelated to the Gospel and salvation. But how can anyone take to the modern world the Sabbath truth as a memorial of Creation, if it is associated with a faulty understanding of Creation? Young Christians often leave the Church and discard Adventist belief because of just such conflicts between science and YEC creation theology. We are discussing important issues here, all related to a PFIA. If the Flood occurred about 2,300 years BC (as proposed by YEC and as they think is in accord with Scripture), then the glaciation of a PFIA should be pronounced or maximal about 2,000 years BC (4,000 years BP).
The assessment of a PFIA involves five fields from God’s Second Book, the Book of Nature, covering: sea level change, ice core studies, glacial moraines, sea floor sediments and lake sediment layers before moving into archaeology and ancient history.
The Search for a Post-flood Ice Age
Change in Sea Level
Sea level and glaciation are intimately linked. When the ice sheets melted after the last established ice age, sea level rose markedly and the increase reached 115 m at 8,000 years BP.6 Similarly, if a PFIA developed, a corresponding rise in sea level would occur about 3,500 years BP when the ice sheets melted. Was this observed? No! Sea level has been determined worldwide for the past millennia, but at 3,500 years BP no change in sea level occurred and indeed sea level has been very constant for the last 8,000 years.6
Ice Core Studies
In Greenland and Antarctica great ice sheets are present and cores have been removed in sections, which collectively reach a depth of 2-3 km. In the Greenland ice cores, annual layers can be counted back to 90,000 years BP and there is yet more ice below. Ice cores provide information regarding past climate, but some YEC (e.g. 4) have criticised their use beyond 2,000 years because they claim erroneously that chronology has not been verified past this time. However, scientists now have been able to extend this verification to 74,000 years BP. Tephra (volcanic ash) from the gigantic Toba eruption in Sumatra has been dated at 74-75 thousand years BP by several methods and was detected in layers of one Greenland and one (but probably three) Antarctic ice cores with layer ages of 73-74 thousand years BP.7,8 Further verification occurred at 8.2 thousand years BP (cold period) by the pollen record of lake varves,9,10,11 at 11.5 thousand years BP (end of ice age and beginning of Holocene) again by pollen records [12,13], at 12.1 thousand years BP by occurrence of dated Vedde ash in ice core layers13 and at about 41,000 years BP by 10Be peaks due to the Laschamp geomagnetic event.14, 15
Ice cores are a very sensitive detection system for climate change; they detected the “little Ice Age” (1600-1760 AD) when temperature dropped by only 1°C and also a short cold period at 8,200 years BP when temperature fell 3°C. In comparison, a very pronounced response was evoked by the established ice age with temperatures about 10°C below present values (see also Fig. 2). However, in the present context, did any of the 19 characterised ice cores (6 in Greenland, 4 in Canada, 9 in Antarctica) record a temperature fall about 4,000 years BP? No, not one, and no significant temperature decline was detected between 10,000 years BP and today.
![]()
Figure 2. The vertical axis shows values related to temperature revealed by a Greenland ice core (delta 18O data) and two Antarctic ice cores (delta 2H data). Within each profile, an increase in negativity on the vertical axis denotes a fall in temperature. Noteworthy features shown on this chart in the Greenland ice core are: A, the transient 8.2 thousand year BP cold event (temperature drop 3°C) consistently evident in Greenland ice cores;B, the warm period (about 2,000 years) that occurred after the last glacial maximum (denoted by C), and preceded the return of glacial conditions (denoted by D, the Younger Dryas) that terminated the last ice age. The last glacial maximum is also seen in the two Antarctic ice cores. N.B. the asterisks (*) denote the time proposed by YEC for the PFIA. No change in temperature is revealed. Chart: William M. Connolley, Wikipedia Commons, adapted.
Studies of Moraines
Moraines (rock debris deposited by glaciers and ice sheets) caused by movement of the great ice sheets of the ice age are scattered over the plains of northern US and Canada. However, valley moraines caused by alpine glaciation constitute a simpler system more readily interpreted and, in the present context, of greater relevance. Furthermore in the South Island of New Zealand, studies of alpine glaciation can be related to studies of ocean floor sediments. Relevant studies of these unique systems follow.
Studies of valley glaciers in New Zealand by international groups of geologists have identified moraines formed during the last glacial maximum (about 30 thousand years BP). Thus, as an example, the Rangitata Valley in South Island contained a 65-70 km long glacier at that time and left a terminal moraine dated at 28 thousand years BP [16]. Glacier retreats and then advances yielded 3 further dated moraines but in 15.8 thousands years BP final retreat began. Was there any terminal moraine about 4,000 years to indicate a glacial readvance and a post flood ice age. No, and no evidence of any occurring in the last 15 thousand years has been found.
The moraines provided a terrestrial record of the last alpine glaciation and this is endorsed and extended in time by a complementary marine record, as indicated below. The Rangitata River and two other similar adjacent rivers (the Rakaia, with a river bed 1 mile wide, and Ashburton) flow eastward from the New Zealand Southern Alps of Mid-Canterbury to the ocean carrying great amounts of sediments, which are layered into the ocean floor. An offshore deep drilling site (ODP 1119) was set up to monitor past climate and the accumulated sediment layers, which were readily differentiated into alternating glacial (ice age) and inter-glacial regions. The former were recognised by appearance, by high potassium content, high gamma ray activity, and high delta 18O values for shells of foraminifera.17 These 18O values denote increased global glaciation. In this way, the recurring terrestrial glacial and interglacial periods were revealed back to 3.9 million years BP18 while the dates for the last glacial maximum and subsequent retreat, as revealed by the moraines, were confirmed by these ODP 1119 studies and also by two further marine cores drilled further to the east of ODP 1119. More recent glaciation (i.e. after 10,000 years BP) was not revealed in these three marine cores from near New Zealand or in any of the 57 other cores drilled worldwide and characterised by delta 18O values indicative of glaciation and temperature change.
Lake Sediment Layers
Layers in lake sediments contain pollen that reveals the identity of the plants growing near the lake at any particular time. Like annual layers of Greenland ice cores, those (termed varves) in lake sediment cores can often be counted visually and in both cases, chronology has been confirmed by ash (tephra) from dated eruptions. Change in climate markedly alters the species of pollen in the lake sediment layers reflecting changes in plant ecology. Very marked changes occurred at the termination of the last known glaciation (11,600 years BP) and even the minor cold period at 8,200 years BP was detected by changes in varve pollen species. However, no change was recorded in numerous lake sediment pollen profiles at or near 4,000 years BP.(c.f. 19, 20)
Relevant Archaeology and Ancient History
In the past, Scotland was almost entirely severely glaciated. However, at the time proposed for the PFIA by YEC, archaeology in Scotland reveals that agriculture with cereal crops and animal husbandry were expanding, stone circles and henges were being constructed and temperature indicated by proxies was similar to that of modern times [21]. Similarly, Finland was completely covered by the Fennoscandian ice sheet almost 2 km thick during the last recorded ice age, but at 2,000 BC agriculture involving dairy farming was being actively developed [22]. Hence, the ice age that left an imprint on the Earth terminated long before the proposed date for the PFIA.
The YEC hypothetical proposal for a PFIA requires formation and dissolution of the great continental ice sheets in about 1,000 years. When compared with about 8,000 years for only the dissolution of the glaciation in the recorded ice age,23 this 1,000 years seems a remarkably short time period and some have extended it, for example, to “a few thousand years."4 However, this leads to an unrealistic situation—a glacial maximum at or soon after the time of Christ when the Romans made a detailed and recorded survey of Scotland and England. No ice sheets were found and archaeology establishes that the ice had melted before 3,000 BC.
Using five different records in Nature and science, we have travelled back in time in search of the PFIA, but no glaciation occurred at the time YEC proposed for the PFIA. Furthermore, no glaciation occurred between 10,000 years BP and today. We can only conclude the PFIA, or any similar ice age, did not occur.
Discussion of Ice Ages in Relation to Creation
Were there Two Ice Ages?
In an attempt to accommodate an ice age in limited time supportive of their theology, YEC adopted the speculative proposal of Oard for a short PFIA, instead of accepting the details of the actual ice age revealed by God in his Second Book, the Book of Nature, as amplified by modern science. A question for YEC now arises. Since there is no evidence for a post-flood ice age, how does YEC “prove” the existence of the great continental ice sheets of the past and explain the formation of the present ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica?
Since the studies of sea level, ice cores, moraines and ocean and lake sediment cores show the glaciation did not occur at Creation Week or after 10,000 years BP, ice sheet formation can only be attributed to the last established ice age (glaciation maximum about 23,000 years BP), which terminated at 11,500 years BP. The ice age preceded Creation Week, which occurred on an “old” earth, which was created not 6,000 years BP, but “in the beginning” (Gen 1:1), eons before.
Thus the possibility of two ice ages has been suggested: one of short duration, was suggested by man and is discussed in YEC writings, but never occurred; the other was prolonged, and was designed by God, and is revealed in His Book of Nature. No ice age is referred to in Scripture, but the chronology and some of the effects of the latter are defined precisely by modern science. Not only was the ice age climate cold, it was also dry and windy.
Discussion of YEC Theology
Two related aspects of YEC Creation theology are being considered here:
First, that the Universe and planet Earth were created at Creation Week about 6,000 years ago. However, this is not supported by Scripture or by God’s second Book. Why do the chronologies of ice cores and marine and lake sediment cores extend back in time to about a hundred thousand years and beyond? Why do zircon crystals from some sedimentary rocks of Western Australia, when dated by modern methods, give ages of over 4 billion years?24 Why do the light years that separate our planet earth from distant stars indicate that the “beginning” (Genesis 1:1, the creation of heaven and earth) was a period long before 6,000 years BP (Creation Week)? Because Creation Week occurred on an “old” Earth created as part of the Universe over four billion years ago. This two-stage view accords with a number of modern Hebrew linguists who state that Genesis 1:1 describes an event that preceded Genesis 1:3-31 (Creation Week). Modern science has given an indication of the time interval.
Billions of years: some will say that means evolution. Not necessarily. It probably means that some aspects of the preparation of the Earth for Creation Week required time to reach the optimum. One of several possible examples is the development of an oxygen-containing atmosphere essential for life, and during its formation the oxygen content was observed to change over three billion years from almost zero to a probable maximum of 33% followed by a decline to a stable 21% (the optimum for man) [25]. When we look at planet Earth, we see optimisation and perfection everywhere, from the genetic code and the structure and function of living things to the geometry of the Earth’s orbit and the tilt of its axis. Evolutionary biologists agree that evolution by natural selection can never achieve optimisation in biology, only a localised solution. In the observed optimisation and perfection, unaccounted for by evolution, and also in the great age of the Earth, we see the signature of the Creator.
He is the Rock, His work is perfect.
(Deut. 32:4)
Then God looked over all that He had made, and it was excellent in every way.
(Gen. 1:31, Living Bible)
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever
Thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even
from everlasting to everlasting, thou are God.
(Psalm 90:2)
Second, the YEC proposal concerning the early Earth for discussion is the idea that a short post-flood ice age caused the great ice sheets of the past. If so then why was this post flood event not detected by science? Why? Because it never occurred. A cornerstone of YEC teaching has been eliminated. Without this ice age, or a similar short ice age after Creation, YEC cannot explain the great glaciation that left an imprint so clearly in God’s book of Nature. Hence, the YEC chronology has no meaning, YEC theology is not credible. Indeed, it is completely demolished! First, by consideration of the age of the Earth, and secondly, by the occurrence of ice ages—two independent lines of evidence discussed above.
There is no dispute, however, between science, the Bible and YEC concerning Creation Week as a recent event. Scientists have shown that earth temperatures after the ice age, normalized about 10,000 years BP. Creation Week was very unlikely to have occurred prior to this time, because the low and highly variable temperatures of an ice age would not be compatible with life in Eden before Man’s Fall when temperatures were “mild and uniform” (Ellen White, “Patriarchs and Prophets,” p. 61). These matters have been discussed previously by the present authors: (Spectrum Magazine: Sept 11, Sept 28, 2015).
To Summarize, according to Scripture and God’s Book of Nature amplified by modern science, the planet Earth was created eons ago, then 6-10 thousand years BP after a long ice age and when temperatures normalised, Creation Week occurred—on an old planet Earth.
YEC Theology in the Church Today
The views of YEC regarding Creation are widely held. They are well established among American evangelical Christians [26-28] who, in support of their belief misinterpret Exodus 20:11 and Mark 10:6 to mean that creation of the universe, planet Earth and everything occurred in six days. This YEC view is prominent in the Adventist Church today and was apparently endorsed at the 2015 General Conference Session in San Antonio, Texas. The General Conference president has stated29, 30 that the Earth is about 6,000 years old and such statements concerning this age often appear in Adventist literature (e.g. 31) reflecting YEC creation theology.
Why the 2015 GC adopted this stance and apparently rejected two-stage creation is not clarified. These opposing views were being discussed by Protestants just prior to the emergence of Adventism and were merely copied into the early Advent Church.32 Elder J. N. Andrews wrote in support of YEC in 1861, a view he emphasised in 1874. Andrews was objecting to the two-stage view published in the Review & Herald 1860 by Elder Uriah Smith.32 Gerhard Pfandl provides details in a scholarly article: “Ellen G. White and Earth Science."33 Pfandl says our early pioneers were discussing actively this very issue. However, Andrews view did not prevail so that Milton C. Wilcox writing an editorial in Signs of the Times in 1898 could say: “’In the beginning.’ When this beginning was, how long a period it covered, it is idle to conjecture; for it is not revealed. That it was a period which antedated the six days’ work [of Creation] is evident.” George McCready Price in 1902 adopted this same view as have modern theologians, both Adventist (e.g. Richard M. Davidson34) and non-Adventist. Most significantly, this is the view established today by modern science. Now in 2016 it appears that this view is no longer valid officially. That is in spite of Pfandl stating that “Many Adventist theologians and scientists today [2003] hold to the two-stage-creation theory.”
Since the GC president has stated his YEC belief is based on the Spirit of Prophecy (by which he meant the writings of Ellen White29), the views of White regarding Creation merit consideration. White stated frequently that 6,000 years had elapsed since Creation Week, but, according to Pfandl,32 only once did she refer to the age of the “world” stating it to be about 6,000 years old. But was this the entire planet earth or just the products of Creation Week (the Earth as man saw it)? This age does not appear to have been derived from a vision and possibly may have been obtained from Ussher’s dates in the margin of White’s King James Bible.32
The YEC teaching that according to Scripture planet Earth and the Universe were created at Creation Week about 6,000 years BP has caused many science-literate non-Christians to completely reject Creation theology and then the Bible, including salvation in Christ and the Advent message. If the PFIA is added, exit from the Church might be even faster. A recent letter to Adventist Today supporters concerned reasons why young people leave the Church. We have amplified one reason, namely, the acceptance by the Adventist Church of YEC views that have no basis in Nature, God’s Second Book.
Even some Evangelical Christians in the US are critical of YEC theology as evidenced below. Young and Stearley (Christian Reformed Church, Calvin College, US) state:
“When presented with the gospel, unbelieving scientists will reckon that, if it is an article of Christian faith that the world was created only a few thousand years ago and that most sedimentary rocks were deposited during Noah’s flood, a religion that tolerates such bogus science is not worthy of further interest. By linking the gospel of Jesus Christ to Young-Earth creationism, Christians place a serious barrier in the way of a person’s acceptance of the gospel. In this sense, modern young-Earth creationism is a hindrance to evangelism.
‘Proving’ the Bible or Christianity with spurious scientific hypothesis does not honor God and can only be injurious to the cause of Christ. We must not defend God’s truth by arguing falsehood on its behalf…”35
Bruce L. Gordon, Houston Baptist University, states:
“Young-earth creationism (YEC) is one of the more peculiar manifestations of broader evangelical culture. It continues to be the most common view of the relationship between science and Scripture held in the evangelical community and, unfortunately but understandably, the view of science most non-Christians associate with evangelicalism. For scientifically literate non-Christians, it presents an obstacle to Christian faith, and for young Christians who have been raised to equate YEC with the teaching of Scripture, it can destroy their faith altogether when its falsity is discovered.”26
The Adventist Church appears indifferent to and unconcerned by the fact that YEC theology has been exposed as erroneous. Nevertheless, Adventist Statement of Fundamental Belief #6, revised at the 2015 General Conference Session, remains equivocal regarding when planet Earth was formed. A clear statement is needed that this occurred eons before a “recent” Creation on planet Earth. Such a statement would dissociate the Church from all YEC belief and an unnecessary obstacle to the conversion of many people—youth in particular—would be removed.
Recognising that “many attempt to judge the Creator and His Works by their own imperfect knowledge of science” (Ministry of Healing, 427), we submit humbly our thoughts for consideration admitting readily that we do not have all the answers. However, we can conclude with some measure of confidence that the impact of the Sabbath as a memorial of Creation is diminished when associated with the fallacy of YEC! We can say that modern science supports the two-stage view of Creation as promoted early by Uriah Smith, and as explained above. It does not support the alternative view that was promoted early by John Andrews when the leaders were discussing such issues.
We cannot understand or explain why Adventists still promote YEC. That we leave to the experts—the theologians and historians—to determine, hopefully unimpeded by administrators. We are very conscious of the fact that 1860 to 2016 represents about 156 years of discussion without any resolution.
In conclusion, it might be helpful to reiterate that this article indicates that God’s Second Book (Nature as interpreted by modern science) can now provide a clear solution to the YEC/Two-stage Creation controversy.
References
P.R. Bierman, et al (2015). Geology 43:1059-1062.
H.W. Clark (1980). Adventist Review, July 24, 1980, pp. 4-6.
Geoscience Research Institute, Frequently Asked Questions, Ice Age (http://grisda.org/resources/faq/ice-age/).
S. Ostring (2015). Adventist Record, March 7, 2015, pp. 16,17.
M.J.Oard (1990). Origins 17: 8-26.
K. Lambeck et al (2014). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sc. US. 111:15296-15303.
A. Svensson et al (25 co-authors) (2013). Climate of the Past 9:749-766.
F. Parrenin et al (12 co-authors) (2012). Climate of the Past 8: 1031-1045.
W. Tinner, A.F. Lotter (2001). Geology 29: 551-554.
S. Veski, H. Seppa, A.E.K. Ojala (2004) Geology 32:681-684.
H. Seppa et al (11 co-authors) (2007) Climate of the Past 3: 225-236.
R.B. Alley (2000). Quarternary Science Reviews 19:213-226.
O.S. Lohne, J. Mangerud, H.H. Birks (2013), J. Quaternary Science 28:490-500.
F. Yiou et al (11 co-authors) (1997). J. Geophysical Research 102: 26,783-26,794.
G.M. Raisbeck et al (2007). Climate of the Past 3: 541-547.
H. Rother et al (2014). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sc. US. 111:11,630-11,635.
R.M. Carter (2005). J. Royal Society of New Zealand 35: 9-42.
R. M. Carter, P. Gammon (2004). Science 304: 1659-1662.
P. E. Tarasov et al (2009). Climate of the Past 5:285-295.
H. Seppa et al (2005). Climate Dynamics 25: 285-297.
J. Downes (editor). Scottish Archaeological Research Framework. Bronze Age Scotland. June 2012.
L.J.E. Cramp et al (9 co-authors) (2014). Proceedings Royal Society B 281: 1-9.
M. Heinemann et al (4 co-authors) (2014) Climate of the Past 10: 1567-1579. See also A.S. Dyke and V.K. Prest (1987), Géographie physique et Quaternaire 41:237-263. The duration of the rise in sea level (8,000 years) after the last ice age gives an overall assessment of the period required for deglaciation (see reference 16).
J.W. Valley et al (10 co-authors) (2014). Nature Geoscience 7:219-223. See also S. Bowring, ibid, 7:169-170.
H.D. Holland (2006). Philosophical Transactions Royal Society B 361: 903-915.
B.L. Gordon (2014). Science, Religion and Culture 1:144-173.
J.D. Morris (2013). The Young Earth (revised and expanded), Master Books, Green Forest, AR 72638, US. pp. 26-40.
Biblical Young Earth Creationism, Northwest Creation Network, Edmonds, WA (contact@nwcreation.net) 2016.
Larry Geraty (2015), "How The Adventist Church Changed its Fundamental Beliefs in San Antonio."Spectrum Online, 7 July, 2015. Retreived 10 February, 2016.
Andrew McChesney (2015). "Delegates Approve Landmark Update of Fundamental Beliefs."Adventist Review Online, 7 July, 2015. Retreived 10 February, 2016.
Stefani Leeper (2015). Adventist Today, Fall 2015; vol. 23: 7-9.
Uriah Smith (1860). Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 16:49. Article transcribed from: W.S. Plumer (1840), The Bible True, and Infidelity Wicked. American Tract Society, New York, 1840, pp. 47-51.
Gerhard Pfandl (2003). J. Adventist Theological Society 14:176-194.
R.M. Davidson, “Understanding the ‘When’ of Creation in Genesis 1-2”, in Bryan W. Ball, (Ed.), In the Beginning, Science and Scripture Confirm Creation, Pacific Press Publishing Association, Nampa, Idaho, U.S.A., 2012, Ch. 7, pp. 97-113.
D.A. Young, R.F. Stearley (2008). The Bible, Rocks and Time. Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, US, pp. 478,481.
D. Stuart. Letham was awarded a PhD (Birmingham, UK) in organic chemistry in 1955. His subsequent research work included the purification, determination of structure and synthesis of the first naturally occurring cytokinin, compounds that induce cell division in plants. They occur in plants at the level of 1 part per billion (see Letham, Annual Review of Plant Physiology 1967, 1983). He is the author of over 190 refereed papers in biochemistry and plant physiology journals. He retired from the Australian National University 1992 as Professor Emeritus.
Col J. Gibson worked in accounting in industry for a decade before taking an academic position as a senior lecturer in accounting at universities in Australia, New Zealand, and the University of South Pacific (Suva, Fiji). As a natural naturalist from an early age he has been active, as a hobby interest, in helping many professional scientists in fieldwork, and now in retirement still acts as a citizen scientist, which includes field observations and bird photography.
Both authors have discussed the Science/Creation subject for the past few years and thought it was time (obviously after reading a particular Record issue as noted in this article) to put some of their thoughts on this interface into the public arena for others to consider and comment.
If you respond to this article, please:
Make sure your comments are germane to the topic; be concise in your reply; demonstrate respect for people and ideas whether you agree or disagree with them; and limit yourself to one comment per article, unless the author of the article directly engages you in further conversation. Comments that meet these criteria are welcome on the Spectrum Website. Comments that fail to meet these criteria will be removed.
