Controversy and Objections

Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences

Earth Science Associates P. O. Box 12067 Knoxville, TN 37912 March 22, 2000

Dr. Bruce Alberts, President
National Academy of Sciences
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20418

Dear Dr. Alberts:

On page ix of the 2nd edition, Science and Creationism, A View from the National Academy of Sciences, you state: "Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence." On page 7 of the 1st edition, we find: "The hypothesis of special creation has, over nearly two centuries, been repeatedly and sympathetically considered and rejected on evidential grounds by qualified observers and experimentalists."

I assume you and other prestigious Academy members are open to changing your views on this topic if you become aware of validated scientific evidence supporting the Genesis creation record. I am therefore inviting you, and as many of your Academy colleagues that you wish to bring or send, to my 7:00 pm. presentation, at Wichita State University on March 30. There I intend to review: (i) the scientific evidence for Earth's rapid creation, evidence which I published in Science, Nature, and Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science during my thirteen-year-long Guest Scientist position in the Chemistry Division at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, (ii) how the ACLU failed to refute this evidence during my testimony at the Arkansas creation trial in December 1981, (iii) how the highest echelons of America's scientific establishment have worked to suppress this evidence from further dissemination since that trial, (iv) the contradiction between, on one hand, the Academy's claims of having rejected the evidence for the Genesis creation on evidential grounds and, on the other hand, its deafening silence concerning my widely published and unrefuted scientific evidence for Earth's rapid creation, and (v) the fact that the Academy's silence about my results cannot be due to ignorance because some of the authors of both editions of the Academy's booklets were aware of my participation at the Arkansas creation trial.

I am genuinely hoping that you and your colleagues will respond positively to my invitation and do all in your power to come and explain exactly why the Academy has rejected the published scientific evidence for the Genesis creation, which has now stood unrefuted in the open scientific literature for over twenty-five years. With all the power of the world's most eminent evolutionists to call upon, you certainly shouldn't have any difficulty finding any number who would be most happy to do this, if it can be done. This will he a most opportune time to present your case and then see if I have a valid scientific response to your objections. Be assured that the Academy's absence will speak volumes. In that case I intend to challenge the media to arrange for the Academy to meet me on a live, prime-time TV special to settle this issue publicly. If, as I believe the evidence shows, God left irrefutable scientific evidence, in accord with the Fourth Commandment, that He created the Earth ex nihilo in six literal days (Exodus 20: 8-11), then it is also time that America's taxpayers ask Congress to determine why the Academy continues to suppress free and open scientific inquiry, into what may be the greatest scientific question of our time.

Cordially,

Robert V. Gentry

Geology Professor at University of Tennessee Claims Granite Can Be Made in a Week

This is a portion of our April 13, 1987, presentation and question and answer session at the University of Tennessee, entitled, "Should Creation Science Be Taught at the University of Tennessee?" During the presentation a UT geology professor publicly made the claim that he could make granite in his laboratory in just one week. We told him to let us know as soon as he was successful in doing so, for we wanted to be present at the publicity event announcing this accomplishment to the world.

Though over 19 years have now passed since he made his claim, this UT professor has yet to call us, for he has not yet succeeded in synthesizing a granite. Repeatedly the attempt has been made to synthesize a granite, and thus falsify our evidence for creation, but every such attempt has failed. Thus, rather than falsifying our evidence, such experiments have falsified evolutionary theory. For if evolutionary theory be true, granite synthesis should be easily done using today's advanced petrological laboratory equipment. See the portion of our presentation in which this UT geology professor makes his claims, and the interchange that followed:

View this video using Windows Media Player now - select speed/quality.

Debate between Dr. Robert V. Gentry, Nuclear Physicist, and the RATE group from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) concerning whether or not certain granite rocks are primordial (did they exist from the beginning of creation?)

Preface

ICR's November 2002 Impact article #353 (to view, click HTML or PDF), authored by my good friend Andrew Snelling, has successfully refocused attention on the origin of granite and has brought the topic to a very high level of prominence to a very wide audience by virtue of Andrew's claimed disproof of the primordial origin of granite and their enclosed polonium halos. According to #353 this disproof rests squarely on Andrew's claim of having discovered unequivocal evidence that granites are secondary rocks whose origin can be traced to the melting and cooling of fossil-bearing Flood rocks. In their public promotion of a secondary origin of granite Andrew and ICR proceed to claim this is indirect evidence that polonium halos in granites must also be secondary.

Scientific protocol requires these claims be carefully evaluated, for they deny my decades-long series of publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals, containing results which show why polonium halos in granites are primordial, and hence that the host granites must themselves also be primordial. The failure of any scientist — atheist or agnostic, evolutionist or creationist, including Andrew — to respond to my widely published challenges over the last twenty-five years to refute these results and publish their findings in the same peer-reviewed journals, constitutes scientific proof that this remarkable evidence for Earth's recent fiat creation remains as immovable as the granites themselves. This is no surprise, for when God called planet Earth into existence on Day 1 of creation week, He made it impossible for man to overturn or account for His Fingerprints of Creation by any natural processes.

Introduction

In November 2002 ICR used its private publication, Acts & Facts to call into question my widely published scientific evidence of Earth's young age and rapid creation. In early 2003 someone informed me that ICR's Vice President, Larry Vardiman, had sent him a report, authored by Andrew and Mark Armitage, which claimed to falsify various aspects of my results on the primordial origin of polonium halos in granites. It was marked "confidential," so as to prevent my viewing it. I was informed it was to be presented at the forthcoming Fifth International Conference on Creationism. This is a déjà vu of events leading to the Second ICC in 1990, when its organizers and their chosen editors selected two highly adversarial evolutionists to criticize my work without giving me opportunity to reply. The evidence now in hand suggests that ICR and the Fifth ICC organizers, and their present editors, are planning a repeat of 1990. This document will be enlarged to respond to that paper. [read more]