T  W  I  N       C  I  T  I  E  S       C  R  E  A  T  I  O  N       S  C  I  E  N  C  E       A  S  S  O  C  I  A  T  I  O  N

From: Ross Olson [ross{at}rossolson.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 1:16 PM
To: Journal of Creation (journal{at}creation.info)
Subject: Quantum Mechanics

I was very disappointed that Dr. Jonathan Sarfati ("Should creationists accept quantum mechanics" Vol
26, No. 1) made no mention of alternatives to QM. On the contrary, stating that there are no
alternatives and maintaining that QM is no threat to the gospel, he discourages creationists from
"opening a second front."

In the first place, there IS a far better explanation for all the phenomena thought to require QM, the
work of Lucas and Bergman available through www.commonsensescience.org . The rotating ring
model of the elementary particles explains that the electron is a particle which absorbs and emits
waves and does it in quanta because a stable wave on a ring must be in whole numbers of oscillations.
Because of the magnetic field generated by a moving charge (and vice versa), the particles will find
stable locations within the atom and will also resist acceleration within their own fields but in stable
motion will be moving with their fields.

And while it is possible to have a Christian interpretation of QM, the acceptance of paradoxes and
logical impossibilities as axiomatic naturally leads to anti-rationalism and New Age thinking. This is the
danger to the gospel, the attack on thinking itself. And as to two fronts, we are already fighting on
multiple fronts, intelligent design AND age or the earth (and we have plenty who tell us to give up the
latter). We are fighting for the proper interpretation of Scripture. We are also fighting the
misinterpretation of the US Constitution and the indoctrination model of education now in force. We
are fighting for the right to share our faith and to inform public policy with Biblical principles. Individual
Christians who are creationists may also be involved in the fight for traditional marriage and the
exposure of the dark sides of both abortion and homosexuality. Should we give all this up since they
do not reflect directly on creation?

Out of fairness, Journal of Creation needs to invite Dr. Lucas, Berman and Collins to write an article,
presenting their model and its advantages.

Ross S. Olson MD