Introduction

Most of those involved in the Creation/Evolution conflict are aware of such outright frauds as the Piltdown Man of Sussex, England. From its discovery in 1912 by Charles Dawson until its factual public exposure in 1953, essentially the entire secular paleontology community accepted this fossil as an intermediate between Ape and Man. Over 500 doctoral dissertations were written on its technical place in the lineage of Man (designated Eoanthropus dawsoni, “Dawn Man”); and degrees were awarded from major universities around the world. One of the few scholars who saw through its fabrication early-on was the Oxford scholar Earnest Tolbert (Bull) Adams from Glen Rose, Texas. Upon seeing the famous fossil first-hand, he wrote home to his wife Mable that it was a fake. History later proved him to be correct. But the evolutionary community had accepted Piltdown and other dubious artifacts as concrete evidence to the point that evolution has now become so entrenched as to require no real evidence at all. Evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins famously announced: “We don’t need evidence [for evolution]. We know it to be true.”[1] There is a long list of “altered” or “manipulated” information, but Haeckel’s Embryos illustrate the point very well:

In his The Origin of Species (Chapter XIV), Darwin wrote that “the leading facts in embryology, which are seen as second to none in importance” should be considered “by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of” his hypothesis. Darwin was captivated by Haeckel’s drawings of select vertebrate classes, particularly the astounding similarity that he depicted among their early embryonic stages, and what Haeckel called “the biogenetic law” (or “recapitulation theory”). This simply means that embryonic growth of the fetus within the womb rapidly repeats the entire evolutionary history of the species prior to birth. But what we really see is -

I.  MANIPULATIVE MIS-REPRESENTATION

Prior to Darwin’s The Origin of Species (1859), Europe’s famous embryologist, Karl Ernst von Baer (1792-1876), the discoverer of the tiny mammalian egg cell, had already disproved by careful empirical observation the evolutionary “law of parallelism” – the belief that embryos of “higher” organisms pass through the adult forms of “lower” organisms in the course of their development. Despite von Baer’s anti-evolutionary views, his evidence was manipulated by Haeckel and misrepresented by Darwin. According to Dr. Jonathan Wells “Von Baer lived long enough to object to Darwin’s misuse of his observations, and he was a strong critic of Darwinian evolution until his death in 1876. But Darwin persisted in citing him anyway, making him look like a supporter of the very doctrine of evolutionary parallelism he explicitly rejected.”[2]

II.  PURPOSEFUL PROPAGANDA

“An embryologist, Dr. Michael Richardson [St. George’s Hospital Medical School], with the cooperation of biologists around the world, collected and photographed the types of embryos Haeckel supposedly drew. Dr. Richardson found that Haeckel’s drawings bore little resemblance to the embryos. Haeckel’s drawings could only have come from his imagination, which was harnessed to produce ‘evidence’ to promote the acceptance of evolution.”[3]

III. ILLEGITIMATE ILLUSTRATIONS

The astounding similarity between early stages of different vertebrate classes and orders that so captivated the interest of Charles Darwin is now known to be the result of Haeckel “doctoring” his drawings to make them all appear more alike than the actual evidence would allow. This is readily substantiated…

(a) Censored Samples: “Haeckel’s contemporaries repeatedly criticized him for these misrepresentations, and charges of fraud abounded in his lifetime…there is no doubt that his drawings misrepresent vertebrate embryos. First, he chose only those embryos that came closest to fitting his theory.”[4]

(b) Deliberate Deception: “Surprisingly, after developing quite differently in their early stages, vertebrate embryos become somewhat similar midway through development. It is this midway point that Haeckel chose as the ‘first’ stage for his drawings.”[5]

(c) Designed Distortions: “…the popularizers of evolution…still believe that similarities between embryos are evidence for evolution (common ancestry). But this confidence rests, consciously or unconsciously, on the woodcuts published by Haeckel and reproduced, in whole or in part, in many textbooks since. These drawings are widely believed to bear some resemblance to reality. But apparently no one has bothered to check.”[6] “In some cases, Haeckel used the same woodcut to print embryos that were supposedly from different classes.”[7]

(d) Erroneous Exaggeration: “Not only did Haeckel add or omit features…he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size.”[8] “Richardson and his colleagues also found that vertebrate embryos vary tremendously in size, from less than 1 millimeter to almost 10 millimeters, yet Haeckel portrayed them all as being the same size.”[9]

(e) Falsified Figures: “Finally, Richardson and his colleagues found considerable variation in the number of somites – repetitive blocks of cells on either side of the embryo’s developing backbone. Although Haeckel’s drawings show approximately the same number of somites in each class, actual embryos vary from 11 to more than 60.”[10]

YET THIS FALSIFIED INFORMATION IS STILL USED TODAY! “The Biogenetic law [Haeckel’s Drawings] has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous scholars.”[11]

[1] Richard Dawkins, Washington University Seminar: “Making Sense of Creation and Evolution.”

[2] Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, 2000, p.86

[3] Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Weiland, The Revised & Expanded Answers Book, 1900, p.120

[4] Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, 2000, p. 91

[5] Ibid. p, 98

[6] Ham, Sarfati, and Weiland, op cit.

[7] Wells, op cit.

[8] Science, vol. 277, 9/5/97

[9] Wells, op cit, p. 92

[10] Wells, ibid.

[11] Walter J. Bock, Department of Biological Sciences, Colombia University, “Evolution by Orderly Law,” Science, vol. 164, May 9, 1969, pp. 684-5

Introduction

At the Creation Evidence Museum an entire section is dedicated to displays featuring the “Creativity of Man.” It begins with the construction of the 25-foot Replica by Dale Muska and his assistants; it continues with the creativity displayed in the engineering of the 1904 Oldsmobile, the artistry in the clay statue of coach Tom Landry by artist Robert Summers, the speech employed by Chief American Horse (featuring the actual attire he wore while negotiating peace between the Red Man and the White Man after the Battle of Little Big Horn), and the design in the space exploration instruments constructed by aerospace engineer Robert Helfinstine and his associates. These displays are actually in place at the museum. We should also mention the invention of the Gutenberg Press with movable type. The first book to be printed was the Gutenberg Bible! (The premier replicator of the Gutenberg Press is currently building a full-scale replica for our museum).

I.  The Unparalleled Mind of Man

At the heart of the creativity of man is his awesome mind, designed to reflect the image of the Creator Himself. The human brain’s three pounds represent a mere two percent of the body weight…the quartful of brain is so metabolically active that it uses twenty percent of the oxygen we take in through our lungs…A third of our genes code for one or another aspect of the brain.”[1]

The brain allows the finger to feel vibrations of 8/1000 of an inch…Allows the eye to see 10 million different colors.[2] [T]he brain’s complexity is beyond anything [we had] imagined…the total number of synapses in a brain roughly equal the number of stars in 1,500 Milky Way galaxies![3] At the subconscious level “people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans – all without knowing they are doing so.”[4] This introduces us to the power of the human mind and its amazing creativity.

Scientific American reports: “ [M]ounting evidence indicates that…a large mental gap separates us from our fellow creatures.”[5] “[O]ur species alone creates soufflés, computers, guns, make-up, plays, operas, sculptures, equations, laws and religion. Not only have bees and baboons never made a soufflé, they have never even contemplated the possibility.”[6]

The author lists various intriguing feats that animals accomplish and explains that “animal thoughts are largely anchored in sensory and perceptual experiences…We alone ponder the likes of unicorns, and aliens, nouns and verbs, infinity and God.”[7] The same article lists four unique ingredients of the human mind. (1) Generative computation enables humans to create a virtually limitless variety of words, concepts and things. (2) Promiscuous combination of ideas allows the mingling of different domains of knowledge – such as art,…space, causality and friendship – thereby generating new laws, social relationships and technologies. (3) Mental symbols encode sensory experiences both real and imagined, forming the basis of a rich and complex system of communication. (4) Abstract thought permits contemplation of things beyond what we can see, hear, taste or smell.”[8]

II.  The Ark of Noah

Our 25-foot (1/20 scale) Replica of the Ark is the culmination of over forty years of research, months of working with our draftsman, eighteen months of actual craftsmanship on the vessel itself, and the sacrifice of dear people who contributed to make it possible.   The original Ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high[9]. The cubit is normally considered to be about 18 inches in length. Often the ”royal cubit” was given as up to 26 inches. Our research indicates that the cubit was very close to 20.5 inches. This would make the original Ark 500 feet long, 86 feet wide, and 52 feet high.

III.  The Gutenberg Press

The art of printing originated in China. Emperor Ling of the Eastern Han dynasty inadvertently inspired this invention in AD 175 when he commanded that Confucian classics be engraved in stone. Bi Sheng invented a form of movable print during the reign of the Emperor Renzong of the Song dynasty, between AD 1041 and AD 1048. He took thin pieces of clay mixed with a sticky substance, carved a mirror image Chinese character on each piece and baked it in a kiln. When printing, he placed the characters in proper order on a coated metal plate.

Johannes Gutenberg (c.1395 – 1468) was a German blacksmith, goldsmith, printer, and publisher who introduced printing to Europe. His invention of mechanical movable type printing played a key role in the development of the Renaissance, Reformation, the Age of Enlightenment, and the Scientific Revolution and laid the material basis for the modern knowledge-based economy and the spread of learning to the masses. Gutenberg was the first European to use movable type printing, around 1439. Among his many contributions to printing are: the invention of a process for mass-producing movable type; the use of oil-based ink; and the use of a wooden printing press similar to the agricultural screw presses of the period. His truly epochal invention was the combination of these elements into a practical system which allowed the mass production of printed books. In Renaissance Europe, the arrival of mechanical movable type printing introduced the era of mass communication which permanently altered the structure of society.[10]

[1] Sherwin B. Nuland, op cit, p. 328

[2] Paul A. Bartz, Letting God Create Your Day (Minneapolis: Bible Science Association, 1993) Vol.4, p. 197

[3] E.A. Moore, Human Brain has more switches than all computers on Earth, CNET News, news.cnet.com November 17, 2010

[4] Joseph Weiss, “Unconscious Mental Functioning,” Scientific American, March 1990, p. 103

[5] Marc Hauser, “The Mind,” Scientific American, September 2009, p. 44

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., p. 46

[8] Ibid.

[9] Genesis 6:15, The Holy Bible

[10] Google Information

Introduction

Entomology is the study of insects, and its details leave us in overwhelming awe. The ancient Egyptians were so intrigued with insects that the beetle became their symbol for immortality. In our current abbreviated study we are indebted to the splendid new book, By Design: Evidence for Nature’s Intelligent Designer –The God of the Bible, by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. We highly recommend this work that encompasses numerous fields of scientific investigation.

I.  Ingenious Fly Ear

Author Sarfati points out that the main mechanism for discerning the direction of a sound involves measuring the slight difference in the time of arrival of the sound at each ear, as well as the slightly greater intensity at the nearest ear.[1] The tiny female fly, Ormia ochracea, is able to track a cricket’s chirping in order to lay her eggs on him. To make this possible, a bridge like a flexible lever couples the fly’s eardrums together. The resulting resonance effectively increases the time difference about 40 times, and the eardrum nearest the sound vibrates about 10 decibels more strongly. Also, the fly’s flight programming links to its ear signals. Consequently, the fly can tell directions to within 2⁰.[2]

II.  Incredible Flight of Insects

According to conventional analysis insects generate only about one-third to one-half of the lift needed to carry their weight. Now it has been discovered that leading-edge vortex generates extra lift by lowering the atmospheric pressure in that specific area. In insects LEV’s generate the extra lift needed because the vortex stays “stuck” to the leading edge of the wing long enough for propagation.[3] Author Sarfati adds: “Insect wings have a very complex motion, rotating and changing the camber. It required sophisticated pro-gramming from intelligent design.”[4]

III. Intricate Butterfly Aerodynamics

Two Oxford university professors trained red admiral butterflies (Vanessa atalanta) to fly freely between artificial flowers in a wind tunnel. They reported:

“…[F]ree flying butterflies use a variety of unconventional aerodynamic mechanisms to generate force: wake capture, two different types of leading-edge vortex, active and inactive upstrokes, in addition to the use of rotational mechanisms and the Weis-Fogh ‘clap-and-fling’ mechanism. Free-flying butterflies often use different aerodynamic mechanisms in successive strokes. There seems to be no one ‘key’ to insect flight, instead insects rely on a wide array of aerodynamic mechanisms to take off, maneuver, maintain steady flight, and for landing.”[5]

IV.  In-built Gyroscopes

Most insects have two pairs of wings, but flies (Diptera) have only one. Instead of the other pair, they have little sticks with knobs called halteres. These beat in antiphase to the wings (in reverse direction). The base of the haltere has mechanical sensors called campaniform (bell shaped) sensilla that quickly pass on flight information to the wing-steering muscles. A team led by Michael Dickinson, of the University of California at Berkeley, found that nerves from the visual system connect to the halteres. Thus they immediately respond, and their sensilla in turn pass that information to the flight muscles.[6]

V.  Intercontinental Migrating Monarchs

Shortly after hatching, the spectacular Monarch butterfly flies thousands of miles, navigating unerringly to reach a place it has never seen. Remarkably, they often land on the exact tree their parents came from. They can do this even if they are taken hundreds of miles off course. For the monarch to accomplish this feat he relies on an internal clock, as well as an in-built “almanac” of the sun’s position relative to a date and time. They can use this method even on a cloudy day, because they can also detect the polarization angle of any light. These butterflies also have a built-in magnetic compass, so they can sense directions from the earth’s magnetic field.[7]

VI.  Inverted Ants and Bees

Ants and bees walk upside down because of masterful design. Each foot has a moist pad (arolium) that can stick to a smooth surface like wet paper on a window. This is between two claws, shaped like a bull’s horns. The claws can catch onto a rough surface, and the arolium is retracted because it is not needed. On a smooth surface the claws retract via the claw flexor tendon, which causes the arolium to rotate and extend into position. The tendon also connects to a plate that squeezes a reservoir of fluid, forcing the liquid into the arolium to inflate it, so it presses on the surface.[8]

[1] Sarfati, Jonathan, By Design, Creation Book Publishers (www.creationbookpublishers) , pp. 42,43

[2] Mason, A.C., et al., Hyperacute directional hearing in a microscale auditory system, Nature, 410(6829):686-690, 2001

[3] On a wing and a vortex, New Scientist 156(2103): 56, 2004

[4] Sarfiti, op cit.

[5] Srygley, R.B., and Thomas, A.L., Unconventional lift-generating mechanisms in free-flying butterflies, Nature 420(6916):660-664, 2002

[6] Chan, W.P., Prete, F, Dickinson, M.H., Visual input to the efficient control system of a fly’s “gyroscope,” Science 280(5361): 289-292, 1998

[7] Science News, 27 November, 1999, p. 343

[8] Walter Frederlie, W., et al, Biomechanics of the movable pretarsal adhesive organ in ants and bees. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 98(11): 6215-6220, 2001

Introduction

Mammals cover a vast array of specialized creatures, each designed to function in a unique habitat. The deeper we research, the more we wonder at these created marvels.

I.  Dolphins and Echolocation

Author Jonathan Sarfati calls to our attention the fact that a number of creatures find prey by echolocation.[1] The object’s speed and location are determined by the Doppler Effect, interpreting variations in sound and pitch of the returning signal. A dolphin can detect a fish the size of a golf ball 230 feet way! An expert in chaos theory demonstrated that the dolphin’s “click” pattern is mathematically designed to provide the best information.[2] Evolutionists are compelled to admit that “the ancestors of today’s dolphins had an ear structure that suggests that they could echolocate as well as their modern relatives can.”[3]

The dolphin produces clicks by pressurizing the nasal system, then manipulating air through the phonic lips. The click loudness automatically adjusts for distance. Behaving as a “sound lens,” they have special oil-filled sinuses in the lower jaw that pass the echoes to the inner ear. Accompanying this they have a “melon” fatty protrusion on the forehead that focuses the sound waves into a beam on different lipids.[4]

II.  Bats and Aerial Dynamics

Bats, too, use sonar echolocation, but they also possess unique wing design. The stretchy skin on a bat’s wing interacts with air in a different manner than the firmer wings of birds and insects. This elasticity, combined with dozens of joints (even more than in a human hand) allows bats to generate unusual wing shapes and motions, e.g. ones that give more lift at higher angles of stroke. Their wings can also be folded very close to the body to reduce drag.[5]

Palaeochiropteryx tupaiodon – one of the “oldest” bats, was found in the Messel oil shale pit near Darmstadt, Gemany, and is assigned an age of 48-54 million years (by evolutionary standards). It clearly had fully developed wings, and its inner ear had the same construction as those of modern bats, showing that it had full sonar equipment.[6] This discovery disrupts “evolutionary development” over long periods of time, and instead, demonstrates original masterful design in the bat features from a recent creation.

III. Whales and Humpback Flipper Bumps

The humpback whale has certain features that help it travel through its fluid medium with pronounced efficiency. Its bumpy flipper looks like poor design compared with smooth, sleek flippers. Research at the US Naval Academy using scale model flippers took advantage of these little bumps, called tubercles. In a wind tunnel, the smooth model behaved like a typical airplane wing. But the one with the tubercles has 8% better lift and an astounding 32% less drag. It also resisted “stalling” at a 40% steeper wing angle.[7]

IV.  The Human Spine and Optimal Design

“The inward curve of the lumbar spine – the lordosis – was thought by evolutionists to be a problem, the result of man standing upright…[Actually] the arch of the spine has a beautiful purpose, its like the arch of a bridge, it adds strength. Because of this arch in the lumbar spine, a man with a lumbar lordosis can lift proportionately more weight than a Gorilla with its kyphotic (outwardly curving) spine.

…[T]he bones of the spine have been ‘foam filled’ [‘light and strong’] with cancellous bone (with an open, latticed, or porous structure) surrounded by harder cortical bone since creation…The vertebral bodies increase in cross sectional area as you go further down the spine, because in the upright position the lower ones have to take on more load.”[8]

Numerous studies have hinted at the possibility that the spine is essentially a musical instrument. If so, the spine would incorporate some system of inaudible “sound resonance.” Using powders, liquids or pastes on sound boards, shapes have been sculpted purely by sound. Vibration caused material to take on a life of its own – and in its dance, beautiful symmetrical patters take shape. Some patterns look like rotating spiral galaxies or solar flares, others like flowers blooming or amoebae fusing.[9] “Bone is an excellent conductor of vibration and is therefore capable of resonance..[E]ach vertebra in the spine has a characteristic shape…[I]ndeed each vertebra does have a resonance frequency…[A]pplying the correct vibrational frequency to a vertebra can induce sympathetic vibration that restores the vertebra’s “natural” fundamental frequency.”[10] In addition, appropriate interaction of vibrational frequencies has been shown to increase bone density, thus extending the quality of life.[11] The human spine shows optimal, and incredible, design features.

[1] Sarfati, J., By Design, Creation Book Publishers, www.creationbookpublishers.com, p. 47

[2] Howlett, R., “Flippers Secret,” New Scientist, 154(2088) 34-39, 1997

[3] Perkins, S., “Learning to listen: How some vertebrates evolved biological sonar,” Science News 167(20); 314, 2005

[4] Sarfati, op cit, p. 48

[5] ibid., p.74

[6] ibid., p.75

[7] Miklosovic, D.S., et al., “Leading-edge Tubercles delay stall on Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) flippers, Physics of Fluids, 16(5), L39-L42, 2004

[8] Porter, R., “Standing upright for Creation,” Creation 25(1): 25-27, 2002

[9] Jenny, H., Cymatics: A Study of Wave Phenomena and Vibration, (Newmarket, NH: MACROmedia, 2001)

[10] Wieder, J., Song of the Spine (N. Charleston, SC: Booksurge, 2004)

[11] Rubin,C., Department of Biomedical Engineering, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Nature, 9 August, 2001

Introduction…The Evolution Model begins with Seven Assumptions (none of which have ever been observed in the field or demonstrated in the laboratory):

1. Non-living elements gave rise to living material…
2. Spontaneous generation occurred only once…
3. Viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all related…
4. Single-celled life forms gave rise to multiple-celled life forms…
5. Various invertebrate phyla are related…
6. Invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates…
7. Fish gave rise to amphibians to reptiles, to birds, to mammals, to primates, to man…[1]

In contrast…The Creation Model begins with One Assumption (which is consistent with laboratory experiments in microbiology and life-sciences):

1. The overwhelming complexity found in living systems throughout nature requires a Designer for its origin. (Living material may be re-arranged in its order, but it has never been observed to increase in complexity from the original stock.)

I.  The Living Cell…

“There are more than twenty different sections in a cell…a single flaw in the cell’s protein transport pathway is fatal. Unless the entire system were immediately in place, our ancestors would have suffered a similar fate.”[2] “Only whole cells…contain all the necessary machinery for ‘self-replication’…without the protein-forming machinery nothing can be made.”[3] The chance assemblage of the 60,000 proteins in a single cell is one in 10 to the 4,478,296 power![4]

II.  The Bacterial Flagellum…

The marvelous irreducibly complex Bacterial Flagellum is powered by an electric motor, with the following features: self assembly and repair, water-cooled rotary engine, proton motive force drive system, forward and reverse gears, operating speeds up to 100,000 rpm, direction-reversing capacity within ¼ of a turn.[5]

III.   The Eyes of the Trilobite…

At the bottom of the Geologic Column lies a fossil organism that is so complicated in its structure that it defies evolutionary explanation at its roots. Appearing full-blown in the Cambrian Explosion is the Trilobite with its ecological fitness and its compound eyes, demonstrating ultimate optics in exquisite design.

The lens of the trilobite eyes represents a marvel of design in correcting for “spherical aberration” in its crystalline shape. This problem is seen where light is distorted along the edges of lenses. Rene Descartes and Christian Huygens invented correcting lenses in the 1600’s. But the trilobites already possessed the correct shape from the beginning!

IV.  The Human Brain…

The physical brain is comprised of over 100 billion cells, each with up to 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.[6] This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. Stanford University professors Stephen Smith and E.A. Moore authored a recent study showing that “[T]he brain’s complexity is beyond anything [we had] imagined…the total number of synapses in a brain roughly equal the number of stars in 1,500 Milky Way galaxies!

...Memory patterns and tiny on/off switches, which were long thought to reside in the larger neuron bodies, were instead found to be smaller than the tiny synapse connections. Each of the neurons imaged in the study serves thousands of synapses…One synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and internet connections on earth.”[7]

V.  The Original Earth…

The marvelous design of Earth’s original structure provided optimal benefits to all living systems, especially Man who was placed in charge of the planet. Of special significance was the “firmament” (raqiya) that was divinely set in place on Day Two. It is seen as beginning at the watery Earth and extending throughout space as a universal macrocosm expanse of lattice structure, consisting of charged subatomic particles. These particles formed the structure that would later stabilize the universal arrangement of stellar bodies and various atomic elements.

Simultaneously, in order to focus the benefit of universal radiation, the firmament formed locally as a thin microcosm complex of crystalline structure suspended directly above Earth. Dr. Edward Boudreaux has demonstrated that crystalline materials, such as silicate sugilite, can be held in a suspended canopy lattice by the earth’s magnetic field.[8] The firmament, locally and universally, was essentially one seamless whole in structure.

Conclusion…Intelligent Design is observed in all areas of scientific investigation. Any interpretation of these marvelous phenomena as coming about by natural processes represents a willful disregard for the established laws of science and lack of appreciation for the mercies of the Creator Himself.

[1] G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, (New York: Pergamon Press, 1960) Ch. 2, p. 6

[2] Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: The Free Press, 1996), pp. 103,114

[3] Richard Lowontin, “The Dream of the Human Genome,” New York Review of Books, May 28, 1992, p. 33

[4] Joseph Mastropaulo, “Evolution is Biologically Impossible,” Impact #317 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research)

[5] Jonathan Sarfati, Ibid., p. 136

[6] The Brain, Our Universe Within, PBS broadcast

[7] E.A. Moore, Human Brain has more switches than all computers on Earth, CNET News, news.cnet.com November 17, 2010

[8] Edward Boudreaux and Eric Baxter, God Created the Earth, Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship, P.O. Box 3451, Littleton, CO 80161