Feedback for February 1999

It is not about the label, it is about the content. Specifically, the lack of scientific content. No matter what you call it, it still isn't science.

Setting aside the fact that creationism contains no science, the issue of state/church seperation in this case is a real one. In creationism, you cannot escape the fact that at some point you will have to invoke miracles, and otherwise inexplicable acts of God, to account for the origins of things. This creation account is based on Genesis specifically, and cannot be introduced as a fact because not everyone shares that particular religion. Imagine the feelings of Hindu parents whose child comes home and tells them that their gods didn't create the world as they taught. I know several Hindus who are American citizens- and they cherish their religion as much as you cherish yours. You might say, "Who cares about them? They are such a small minority and this isn't a Hindu nation anyway."

Well, this isn't a Christian nation either. This is a nation where everyone can believe as they will. The Constitution is a secular document that guarantees freedom for everyone. The Bill of Rights is not about protecting the rights of the majority- it is about protecting the rights of the individual from the majority.

If you had equal time for Judeo-Christian creationism, you would also have to allow equal time for Hindu creationism, Native American creationism, Shinto creationism, Native African creationism, etc. All this in science class! Would you want your child to be taught that Shiva, Indra and Brahma are all just as real as and equal to your God? Can you see why creationism has to stay out of public school?

There are 350,000 churches in this country- that's where creationism belongs. We don't need to subsidize all those churches with our school system. And we certainly don't need the public school system (an arm of the federal government) telling us which god to believe in, or to believe in any at all. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, the government's responsibilty extends to people's actions only, not their opinions.

Should evolution (taught by qualified scientists) get equal time in churches?

Evolution DOES NOT stipulate that there is no god. It makes no determination on that issue. There is room for any deity to claim dominion over the forces of natural selection and mutation.

For example, I have yet to read a theory that addresses the question:
"How did humans originate?"
Where is the theory?

"How did each species originate?"
Where is that theory?

"How did species come to be so finely adapted to their environments?"
Where is that theory?

What they have are not theories, but literal readings of Judeo-Christian scripture instead. You say "Creationism, to one that does not have faith in the Bible, is still a valid theory..."

No, there is no creationism without the bible. What kind of case would creationists have if you took away their bibles, and told them they could never again make any reference to it? They wouldn't even have the shaky foundation that they have now!

"It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the *facts* of science can contradict the Bible."
-- Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey

After reading that, how can anyone say that creationism is anything like science? It is a desperate attempt to substantiate the fantastical stories of biblical mythology by dressing up biblical scripture in scientific-sounding terminology, but since there is such a lack of material there, even more of their energy is directed in desperate attacks against evolution with psuedo-scientific mis-direction, fabrication and willful errors.

You have just assumed that everyone in the world is a christian, and accepts a strictly literal interpretation of the bible.

Being saved is a priority to you, because you believe that you need to be. You can be as wary as you want about "man-centered" doctrines. But are you suggesting that scientists should curb their studies because it infringes on holy scripture? Should they halt their pursuits because it conflicts with your religion-- even if your religion was held by 99% of the population? I think, sadly, that you are suggesting this...

Nothing is more dangerous than the man who thinks he has the god-ordained truth. In the words of Ingersoll:
"Whoever imagines himself a favorite with God holds other people in contempt. Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God, there is in that man no spirit of compromise. He has not the modesty born of the imperfections of human nature; he has the arrogance of theological certainty."

Perhaps you should consider that there are others who wish to exercise their rights of freedom of belief, even if it is in opposition to your own. Your descriptions of light mean something to you because you believe in the doctrine, but what has that got do to with science?

P.S. The evolution/creation controversy is not a complex question logical error. Understanding Logic and Fallacies.

Well, Mr. Anonymous, not all evolutionists are atheists. Some are devout Christians who have enough intellectual honesty to accept the findings of science, and have found a way to maintain their faith in the light of science. I'm sure they do not appreciate your misguided condemnation.

Have you ever stopped to consider that we accept the inescapable conclusions drawn from the physical evidence that life has DESCENDED through millions of years from a common ancestor? We accept evolution because that's what the evidence unambiguously tells us, and for no other reason.

If you have any new scientific data on creationism, you should come forward with it. Everything so far submitted by creationists has been completely lacking in evidence and totally unsubstantiated. Science is the subject of this website, not theology.

That was on-topic. Now, to go slightly off...(since YOU brought it up):

Personally, I find your comments and self-righteous attitude extremely offensive.

You have taken it upon yourself to call me dishonest, based on your theology. Well, we all have a right to our opinions. Mine is that it is better to be brutally honest and take the world as it is, rather than to believe myths just because they are comforting. Wishing thinking does not make something true.

If you are right, then God knew before my birth what I would and would not believe. He would know every influence that formed my opinions. He would know that beliefs are not voluntary (one cannot just start believing something that does not convince one's rational mind. I could say tomorrow that I believe, but He would know I was lying.) He would know my logical nature, and know quite well my choices in life. So, I AM honest with myself.

Knowing all that, God created me anyway (at least according to you). Knowing that I would not believe, He created me (and most of the humans ever born) for the sole purpose of damning me to the infinite pain of hell. You may say that I still have free will, but an all-knowing God would always know beforehand what I would choose. Why would your God, if indeed He is all-loving, all-good and forgiving, create me only to damn me to His eternal revenge, with no chance of pardon, because of an honest opinion? Think about that (if you can).

You say I will be held eternally responsible for my actions? How could God, a hypothetically infinite being, be in any way inconvenienced by the actions of a finite human being? Why would He assign infinite consequences to the acts of finite beings? As to what I think about Jesus sacrifice, here is what I have to say (offsite).

I would rather opt for eternal, unwaking sleep, thank you.

Since the questions are posted already at the above link, why don't you pick one at a time and submit your answers at your leisure.

If the reader feels that our articles do not reflect the views of mainstream science, then he should point to a specific fact and contrast it against the primary literature cited in that FAQ. If, on the other hand, the reader's dispute is with the conclusions of the underlying science, then I'm afraid we cannot be of further service.

The debunking of creationist claims, while indeed amusing, are not intended to offer proof of evolution of thousands of species. That information is contained in other articles, such as An Introduction to Evolutionary Biology, and check out the different FAQs regarding evolution.

Consciousness needs to be properly defined for this discussion. Will you admit that consciousness is found in species other than human, and that there are varying degrees of consciousness? I gave a hypothetical explanation of the origins of consciousness in the December feedback. But to demand the concrete explanation of something which left no fossilized trace is unrealistic and unreasonable.

If the existence of the laws of nature strongly suggest to you that there must have been a lawgiver, then to you there is a lawgiver. But that does not equal evidence. The existence of "natural laws" (human descriptions of natural phenomena) do not suggest a lawgiver to everyone.

Matter and energy must behave somehow... and they happen to behave like they do. The fact that they do does not mean they were necessarily designed to do so. If you feel that the properties of nature require that they have been designed, please provide evidence of such.

Scientists do not have to substantiate the idea that consciousness evolved naturally. Design advocates have to show some evidence of design, not just say that the fact that we can think means our minds were designed to do just that. Natural selection would not permit the continued evolution of a mind that produced nothing but random, unrelated thoughts. Such a species would rapidly fall to extinction. Surely this is obvious.

As for the initial development of life on Earth, that appears to have taken place according to natural processes, too, such as physics and chemistry. The dividing line between "life" and "non-life" is not so clear as one might think, especially on the very small scales of cells, viruses, and DNA. At that level, life is just the operation of certain chemical reactions. There is, however, still much we don't know about this realm yet. See the Interim Abiogenesis FAQ.

Even though natural processes led to the diversification of life on Earth, there is nothing to prevent God (or any other deity) from having a hand in the process. See the God and Evolution FAQ. I urge the reader to work over time towards a richer understanding of not just biology, but also religion.

I want to make a point or two:

First, if he and his collaborators are right about reverse transcription from soma to germ line, they have indeed challenged the general validity, not of Darwinian thinking, but of the Weismann Barrier, which says that Darwin's theory of pangenes (information about the body being packed back into germ cells) was false. In fact, if Steele et al are right, they are affirming Darwin, at least in part.

Second, none of this is in opposition to neo-Darwinism as such, for although it denies the germline sequestration theory, it does not affect questions of selection, drift, or adaptation. Somatic and cytological inheritance has been known for some time, and is reviewed in the (orthodox Darwinian) book

Jablonka, Eva, and Marion J. Lamb. 1995. Epigenetic inheritance and evolution: the Lamarckian dimension. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

If his views prevail they will be interesting and perhaps revolutionary, but I doubt they will shake the foundations of the evolutionary world. That is rhetorical flourish and should be understood that way.

Failing that, they are trying to show the "problems" with evolution, by using fabrications, speculations, out-of-context quotations, bad science, straw man arguments, and the like. (What wouldn't they do to save a soul? The ends justify the means). They honestly don't have a case- I've never seen ONE of their claims prove true so far, and I've been following them for about 15 years.

They are trying to undermine the theory in the eyes of the public- by causing doubt and confusion. (They don't even need to produce any real scientific data to do this... they just make generalized "one-liners" like: "evolution says rocks to humans", and their followers are dancing in the aisles.)

They certainly have a right to their opinions, and to worship in the manner that they see fit, but they don't have the right to insert their religion into public schools, and to undermine legitimate science with their nonsense. Their psuedo-scientific attacks on evolution won't go unchallenged. THAT is what we are fighting about.

Faith can serve as an armor, to protect belief. The more fragile the belief (the more it contradicts rational thinking) the stronger the faith needs to be. The armor that your faith provides must be strong indeed, if a degree in biology cannot pierce it. An obvious case of compartmentalization-

It is possible that a person can scrutinize facts for a living, perform complicated equations, think critically about complex issues, and yet when it comes to certain subjects, the critical powers of scrutiny are reigned in, steered clear, and are robbed of their ability to perform. The claims of creationism are considered “hands-off”, and are placed safely behind a wall of faith, hidden in some part of the brain into which scrutiny cannot tread. This process is called Compartmentalization- sectioning off parts of the brain so that certain subjects, like creationism, can be protected from rational, critical thinking. The underlying motive for this behavior has little to do with intelligence. It has far more to do with emotions than I.Q.

Your rejection of evolution comes from the "Argument from Personal Incredulity"-- in other words, "I just can't believe it, therefore it could not have happened." Solid scientific findings are ignored, evidence is ignored. You give no specific arguments against evolution- just vague, non-scientific objections.

It doesn't matter if the "vast majority of the population" believes in creationism. The truth is not a democratic process. 500 years ago, 99.9% percent of the population believed the earth was flat- but it continued to be round. (From what I have read, more and more people are moving to the belief of Directed Evolution/Theistic Evolution).

Your comments "evolved from chimps or out of pond scum 190,000,000 years ago" leads me to suspect the sincerity of your acceptance of evolution. Where did you get your degree?

Please go on believing that the Lord created you. That is your right. No one here wants to convince you otherwise. Everyone has the right to their own opinions-- no one has the right to their own facts.

Try to teach creationism in public school, and you better be prepared to lose your job when some concerned parent finds out his child has been forced to learn the Judeo-Christian Creation Myth as a scientific theory.

DNA can be explained by purely natural processes, without the need for any divine intervention. But it isn't possible to say that God DID NOT design DNA-- He might have designed it in a way that it looks completely natural, and "wiped His fingerprints off it", so to speak. There is no way to ever know that. If you want to believe in all that, that is your right.

Considering that the "staff" of this archive are unpaid volunteers, I doubt there'll be much enthusiasm by anyone to conduct detailed studies on the impact of this archive. (After all, I thought that's what this feedback was for!) Although the reader's criticism is welcomed, it would help us more if the reader provided specific detail to a FAQ author or to the archive about how a particular article might be improved.

The reason why, form a biological systematics perspective, one would classify races is to mark some difference that is so marked we cannot proceed to treat the entire species as a whole, but must mark out parts of it. One reason is indeed that there are medical differences such as susceptibility to lactose intolerance, sickle cell anemia, or particular enzymes, and so forth.

The problem is that these do not answer to the categories of race. Not all African subsaharan populations carry the sickle cell anemia gene in equilibrium. Not all morphological characters, such as nose shape or hair, or skin color, or bone and skull shape, which were used to "define" races are unique to those groups.

Race is a social construct. There are no "negroes", no "whites", no "Asians". There are some geographical variant populations, but they don't match races in any of the standard typologies, a point that was first noted in the 1750s by the comte de Buffon. It is for this reason that the various anthropological associations around the world have effectively abandoned the use of the term. It is political, not biological.

The alternative view was promoted mostly by Darwin's friend and mentor Charles Lyell, and assumed that the causes of the geological record were the same as in operation today, and Whewell called it "uniformitarianism".

As it happens, modern scholars think Whewell got it wrong. Lyell was making a point about the causes of geology, but Whewell interpreted it to mean the rate of change - a view better called "gradualism". Darwin accepted Lyell's views that the causes in the past had better be the same as the causes operating today or we could not know anything about the past. Many thought that this meant Darwin was committed to gradual evolution, despite clear comments to the contrary in the Origin of Species.

Over the course of the century, catastrophes got smaller and uniformities got more variable so that by the time the Origin came out, there was little difference between them other than terminology and rhetoric.

Recently, in 1972, a view was revived in "orthodox" evolutionary theory about the variability of rates of change in evolution and called "punctuated equilibrium theory". Many anti-Darwinians thought that this was a fundamental challenge to Darwinism because, and this is the relevance of the FAQ comment, Darwinism had to be "uniformitarian", that is, "gradualist". Of course, it doesn't, and did not need to be, but at the time the view was proposed, many paleontologists did indeed tend to assume that the change was slow and gradual. See the Punctuated Equilibria FAQ for more information.

One of the myriad young-earth arguments is that the earth's atmosphere has too little helium. The argument is that helium is too heavy and does not escape from the earth's atmosphere; if the earth were billions of years old there should be a lot more helium. But the argument is pretty bad. For one thing, the young-earth creationists fail to properly account for the escape of ionized helium along the earth's polar magnetic field lines. Current observation shows that the escape rate is essentially in equilbrium with the radiogenic production rate [see Helium Escape from the Terrestrial Atmosphere - The Ion Outflow Mechanism, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) 101(A2): 2435-2443 (1996 Feb 1)]. Besides, since atmospheres in general are in a constant state of evolution and are quite variable with time, one cannot measure the age of the earth that way, even in principle.

But I have never heard the argument that you have related here, which is an extremely bad one, even by young-earth creationist standards. The only isotopes of Lithium that occur in nature are ⁶Li (7.59%) and ⁷Li (92.41%). But both are stable isotopes, and make up essentially 100% of natural Lithium. The only way to get Helium from Lithium is by proton emission from ⁵Li to ⁴He, or by proton emission from ⁴Li to ³He. But both of those isotopes of Lithium are so rare that they could never account even for the Helium we have now; not only are they less than 1% of Lithium abundance, but Lithium is already one of the least abundant elements in nature anyway.

I would not say that what they believe in is "science". Science is self-correcting, and in science nothing is sacred accept the method. If a finding genuinely contradicted what we think is true, say, human skeletons found at the level of dinosaur fossils, scientists would have to reject either part or all of the current theory. Here I have posed a hypothetical situation that would overturn evolution. Try asking a creationist to do the same thing with their hypothesis! In 'creationism', NO OBSERVATION would EVER be allowed to overturn their biblical account of Genesis, and they will be the first to tell you so.

This is why creationists are not practicing science. They are using scientific sounding terminology to support their creation mythology. And since there is no evidence to do so, they spend 99% of their time attacking evolution with deceptive, misleading psuedo-science in order to sway the non-scientific public and create an atmosphere hostile to science. In nearly all cases, the creationists/anti-evolutionists are not scientists at all, but preachers.

Underneath all the techno-babble you will find that their objections to evolution have nothing to do with science. They have to do with humans being reduced to the level of animals, living with no moral constraints, rejecting THEIR version of God and creation, and the elimination of Original Sin and Atonement. And (in the spirit of "the ends justify the means") they are willing to do or say anything to 'save the souls' of us evilutionists and eradicate this dangerous idea from society-- they want evolution out of schools. The the more radical ones are willing to de-fund (eliminate) the public school system in order to do so. (That is also because of sex ed.)

No, creationism has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with narrow, totalitarian theology (or should I say theocracy?)

Is it possible to keep emotions out of such debates? Of course not- we are emotional creatures. But do emotions "control" science? I don't think so. What is science? A body of knowledge? A world view? No- it is a method of uncovering why things are the way they are, and for it to work, it has to remain as objective and dispassionate as possible.

You ask: "What is the truth?" It is reality.

Then you ask: "Can scientific investigation give the truth when it has not reach that level to improve it?" I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'improve', and what 'level' science must reach, and why... these vague statements convey nothing to me, even though they may have personal meaning for you. Science can surely uncover reality- the universe is full of such examples.

In the words of Galileo:
"Facts which at first sight seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which had hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty... I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments and demonstrations."

You say science cannot represent the truth... but that is a vague, non-scientific statement that you have not bothered to support. Why do you think so, and what specific examples lead you to this belief?

The planet Venus did not "come from" anywhere to "join" our solar system, but formed out of the spinning cloud of dust and gas that coalesced under the force of gravity over eons to form the Sun and the planets. As such, it is roughly 4.5 billion years old.

As Kenneth has already pointed out, Venus did not come from anywhere to join the solar system; it has been here all along, just like all of the other planets. There are several physical facts which make it very difficult to argue that Venus only "recently" took up its post between the earth and the sun. One of those facts is the near tidal lock between Venus and Earth; the two planets are synchronized, such that from the earth we always see the same side of Venus at each inferior conjunction. This kind of near tidal lock can happen only when the two planets are in the same orbits relative to each other for very long periods of time, many millions of years at least. Another strong point is that the eccentricity of the orbit of Venus is 0.0068, the most nearly circular of the elliptical orbits in the solar system. Orbits get circularized by tidal friction, which is once again a very time consuming process. if Venus had been injected into its current position only relatively recently, it could not have achieved an orbit so nearly circular in such a short time.

The evidence rather strongly suggests that Venus is old, and that it has passed all that time right where it is in the solar system.

Such a belief is just fine as a matter of religious faith. But how can you prove such an idea scientifically? To do so, it would have to be repeatable. You have to admit that building such a big boat is hypothetically repeatable... so why haven't the creationists tried it?

You have just hit upon the fatal flaw of "scientific" creationism. As long as you must appeal to divine intervention for the explanation of an event, that event can never be provable (or even comprehensible), hence it can never be part of any scientific theories.

Too much of creationism relies completely on such miraculous interventions (the flood and the creation itself, not to mention just about all the rest of the book), that it cannot be used in the fomulation of a scientific theory. You can believe it all you want, but it must remain outside the realm of science. It can only be accepted as true based on things that never be verified, or even speculated about!. For example, how can you (or any creationist) even speculate about the methods used by a creator god in the crafting of the earth from nothing? How about the formation of man from dirt? Any ideas on how he did that?

Of course not. Because of this glaring flaw, "scientific creationism" is an oxymoron- a self-conflicting and contradictory term.

Some creationists have realized this, and introduced a new tactic. It goes something like this: "Okay, creationism is a religious belief, and we can't have it in public schools. But so is evolutionism- it is an atheistic/pagan religion that must be removed from schools."

'Fraid not. Evolution is science most pure, devoid of any religious concepts whatsoever. It is non-theistic, but it is not necessarily atheistic. You can opt to include the deity of your choice as the directing force, as long as you are willing to admit that the ancient writings of primitive desert wanderers is metaphorical (Genesis), and that they did the best they could to describe their understanding of origins. Can you do that?

1) What would falsify creationisms hypotheses?
The answer, of course is nothing.

2) Is there any chance that you could be wrong, and that Genesis is false?
And here the answer is a resounding NO.

Until they admit the potential of falsification (and list the circumstances which would falsify creationism), and admit the possibility of error and incorrectness in creationism, it can not be considered science.

Creationists start with the bible, not observations, and use scientific-sounding terminology to describe how things might have happened. They offer no testable theories, make no predictions, and have no evidence for any of their claims. They state quite plainly that no observations, no scientific facts, could ever contradict the bible. Having no data, theories or evidence to furnish, they instead set about attacking evolutionary biology at every opportunity, using falsified data, errors, heresay, out of context quotations, misdirection, out of date information, and scripture. They are terrified at the thought of evolution being taught in schools, and direct every effort at removing it. It is, in a word, "crap".

Now for your second point. While on the surface it may seem like you have a valid point, let's use a close analogy. What if astrologers had submitted articles to Scientific American for years, and the editors of that magazine knew quite well what it was that those articles contained... psuedoscientific nonsense. Should peer-review publications take this stuff seriously?

For one thing, how many creationists, if any, are out in "the field", making discoveries, digging fossils, doing genetic research? Do you really think that if creationists had an actual, bona fide, earth shattering discovery which overturned the theory of evolution, that they could keep it to themselves? Of course they couldn't. But they have no such information. All they have is, well, crap.

As for Milton being in Mensa, so what? High intelligence is no protection against compartmentalizing one's brain so that certain ideas are protected against rational scrutiny.

Do legitimate, mainstream scientists have a bias against psuedoscience? I sure hope so. Otherwise they'd have every brand of nonsense cluttering their desks. If creationism wants to lift itself off the dunghill of pseudoscience, it needs to come up with something new, and real.

Scientists are objective with factual data. They are skeptical of claims that fall far outside the norm, and will view the data critically. Why have creationists failed to persuade? Because the whole scientific world, across the globe, are involved in some materialistic conspiracy? Do you believe that would even be possible?

Or are they all, in different universities and labs, different disciplines ranging from genetics to zoology to paleontology to botany to embryology to geology, in different countries and cultures, just plain wrong, and they don't know it?

Nothing at all, as long as the concept of "God" includes the belief that God's creation of two humans de novo was done in such a way as to make it look just as if humans had evolved from other primates.

Specifically, humans share a general morphology that places us in the primates. Our DNA and molecular makeup show close relationship to other primates, and are consistent with humans being in the same hierarchy of life that we see here on Earth. Ethologically, we share many behaviors with other primates. If humans are due to a separate creation event, then the Creator of humans went to a great deal of trouble to make it appear that human descent by evolutionary processes is consistent with the available evidence.

Wesley

Let's explore your alternative of Human Origins, using scientific thinking. God, a sentient, all-knowing all-powerful non-physical entity who apparently has no beginning (but that's another subject) decided, for some reason, to create at a specific point in time (why that moment, instead of sooner or later?) the universe, and in one teeny tiny little corner of it, a small, ordinary world, and place humans and animals on it. He did this by the sound of His voice, apparently, by a process we can never even begin to speculate about. Supposedly He created the entire vast universe for this tiny little microbe of a world, which you can't even see if you travel a little way from it, for one specific species out of millions.

He supposedly needed the company of humans. Why? If God is infinite, He is infinitely happy and infinitely complete. How can the presence of little, finite humans increase the happiness of a infinitely happy being? Can humans help Him in some way? Is He in need of our assistance? How does the pitiful sound of human worship fulfill an infinitely complete being?

He created those tens of millions of other species just so that ONE species could use and abuse them at will. Why create deep sea fish that man will never eat? Why cave crickets that never see the light of day? Why create beetles in the deep jungle that humans will never know about? What purpose could they possibly serve?

He allegedly made the first human from dirt. Why so? He made no other creatures from dirt. Does dirt have some special quality for making sentient beings? (Maybe God originally came from dirt Himself). Why didn't He make man from nothing, like everything else? Did He use any moisture to hold the dirt together (because dry dirt would be very hard to form a figure from)? Did He use mud? Did He use His "hands" to make him? How could mud suddenly take shape into different organs and tissues? Why didn't He make more than one? Why not make the Human Race all at once? Why make Adam and Eve at all, if He knew in advance that He would destroy the human race with the Great Flood, and Noah and his family would have to populate the earth? Why not just start with Noah? Everything before was just a waste!

Why make Eve from a rib, instead of mud, or from thin air? What is so special about a rib, instead of say, a finger bone? Why did He chose to create Adam and Eve without the knowledge of good and evil? To have unwitting, unthinking slaves? How could two individuals, with their limited genetic resources, populate the whole world? Do you think that event could be repeated- if we took one man and one woman, put them on an island, and left them alone to populate it? What would the population look like in 3000 years?

Why did He need to "rest" on the seventh day? Did He get tired? Did He have muscles that became fatigued? How can an ALL-POWERFUL GOD get tired? What does it mean when God rested? Did the universe come to a standstill? What did He do? Sit back and kick His feet up? What happened on the eighth day? Did He get back to work? Cound anybody notice that He went back to work?

Why did He create all this and leave no physical trace of His handiwork? Why did He make it all appear that life arose naturally and evolved by understandable means? Knowing everything in advance, He knew how it all would look to us. Why do 93% of scientists not believe in Him? Certainly He knows what science is all about, and how the world will be perceived.

No wonder parents tell their kids to shut up when they ask hard questions, and to just believe. Belief is easy. Knowlege takes effort.

The only thing offered as evidence for your creation account is a book. Words, admittedy written by human hands. These humans were pre-technological, primitive, bronze-age tribe-like wanderers. Every other major idea from that age has been overturned. (The flatness and geocenteredness of the earth, everything made of 5 elements, the heart as the seat of thinking, demons cause mental illness, gods cause lightning and earthquakes, the planets as wandering gods, etc. etc.) What reason can you give that will exclude your creation account from this scrapheap of dead ideas?

The bible is internally inconsistent and scientifically incorrect. To give authority to this creation myth, it is claimed that the book is "inspired". The only reason it is claimed to be inspired is that no one would believe it otherwise. If something is true, it doesn't matter if it is inspired or not. It is said that the bible is true because it is the word of God, and that God exists because the bible says so.

This is one creation myth out of hundreds. All societies have their creation myths. What distinguishes this one from the rest? Why is yours true and theirs false? What right do creationists have to impose their particular creation myth on anyone else?

I am not attacking Christianity, only questioning biblical literalism. Do these questions make you uncomfortable? Someone once said: "You can take the bible literally, or you can take it seriously."

Is there any way that you can keep the good parts of your religious beliefs and still accept the scientific truths of evolution? Do you think that you could still be a good person?

I have a suggestion. To illustrate that Noah's Ark is not a complete and utter fabrication, creationists should duplicate the construction of the vessel- 450 feet long, using comparable materials and similar primitive techniques, with the same amount of manpower, under similar conditions and time frames.

Then load it with two of everything.

Then you'll have my attention.

Moreover, in the United States, juries convict people of crimes based on the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard every day, and many of those convictions are based on a piece-by-piece reconstruction of past events from currently existing physical evidence. Yet I see little call to completely eradicate the U.S. criminal justice system and release all prisoners convicted on physical evidence alone. I leave it to the reader to decide why this double standard might exist.

I would suggest that you tackle just two subjects, namely, the creationist theory of formation of the Grand Canyon, and the falsehood that evolution REQUIRES creation by mere chance. As you may already know, the Grand Canyon is at least a hundred miles long, is cut into a solid rock horizontal plateau consisting of about 20 horizontal layers of different kinds of rock: limestone alternating with sandstone. It is several miles wide, a mile deep, with walls that are generally almost vertical. It is a branching system, with several tributary branches. It has a meandering configuration, with actual U-turns in several locations. Creationism teaches that this magnificent formation was formed in less than a year, as the result of a catastrophic Genesis flood. The obvious conclusion that the formations were formed over millions of years and that the Colorado River acted as a "conveyor belt" to carry the eroded material into the Gulf of California is rejected simply because it doen't conform to creationist religious dogma.

There is nothing in evolution that requires creation by mere chance. Evolution merely states that present life forms are descended from primitive ancestors. It does not rule the possibility that God directed the process. However, evolution does not take a position on matters of religion.

"Is Evolution a fact or a theory?
The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world. Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

Why isn't evolution called a law?
Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur. Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science."

As for there not being any "missing links", assuming you mean transitional forms, the reader is badly misinformed. (I wonder what kind of "mineral" missing links he expects). He is likewise uninformed regarding radiometric dating methods.

Creationists have contributed nothing to science, either as a body of knowledge or a method of discovery. They have advanced no testable theories, but they claim to have all the answers. The darwininsts are the ones saying: "We don't have all the answers. Knowledge is tentative."

To you, neither explanation has more proof than the other. But the theory of evolution has a body of supportive evidence which creationism lacks. As far as evolution is concerned, it is not a matter of belief. Either the facts support evolution, or the facts don't. The facts happen to support it (otherwise there would be no such thing as darwinism). Creationism, like all religions, requires belief.

Creationism tries to answer the question of where we came from with Genesis, without the slightest regard to that book's scientific accuracy. Creationism has consistently ignored the reality of the physical world in favor of the literal adherence to an ancient myth, all the while using the language of science.

Evolution is science, and as such, is presented in it's proper place and in proper perspective with every other branch of science. And it always will be.

Evolution is biology-- it has about as much to do with religion as does chemistry, geology, physics and math. It is a scientific theory, and a good one. It isn't religion in any sense. It does not have a deity, it does not claim to be incapable of error, it is falsifiable, is based on observation and evidence, has no unchanging dogma, does not persecute those who disagree, and is compatable with any other belief. How does it qualify as a religion?

As far as my last hours, what business is that of yours?

You need to take a look at the Abiogenesis FAQ. Of course, there is no way to prove that a creator did not create the first spark of life. There is no way to prove that aliens didn't seed the earth with extra-terrestrial DNA either. There is no way to prove that a meteor did not hit the earth, bringing life with it. All of these scenarios make a lot of assumptions. A creator could have caused life, but then you make the assumption that it's possible for such a being to exist-- then you have to speculate about his method of creation. I prefer using Occam's Razor, and devoting my attention to the possibilities that make the least assumptions.

I could also, with fairness, ask you the same question regarding the eternal creator. If life only comes from life, in your words, then where did the eternal creator come from? How could a sentient being have no beginning? Is that reasonable? You seem perfectly comfortable asking this question of Talk.Origins, why have you not asked it of yourself?

Nobody knows how the first living cells appeared, but it is widely thought that they arose by successive modifications of more primitive protocells. There is good reason to think that many of the constituent parts of a modern cell (such as the mitochondria perhaps) were once independent living organisms on their own, but became absorbed into the more complex cell, perhaps as part of some symbiotic process, or as part of a colony.

Does creation still have to exist? Have to? No, not "have to". It might, but I see no reason why it must. We do not know what brought "the spark of life" to inanimate matter; it may have required some form of supernatural cause or not, but we are still far too low on the learning curve to assert that this could not possibly have happened by purely natural means.

Read through the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ to get a better idea of what evolution is.

Post of the Month Coordinator

You express the belief that a when a new species evolves, it must replace the original species. This is a misunderstanding of the evolutionary process. When one segment of a species adapts to certain survival pressures, and (over thousands of years) changes to better take advantage of its environment, there is no reason that the original form of the species needs to make the same changes. Why should it? It's just like you and your brothers... you all do not necessarily share the same fate, do you? If your brother moves to another country, do his actions and descendants have any affect on you and yours?

If the new species gives the original species too much competition, then the new species could replace the original one. But there are many reasons why the new species might not replace the old one... such as changing location away from the old species, a change in diet, an abundance of food... you get the idea. The original species can still continue as long as it can make a living. The concept is called Cladistics.

Another way to think about it is that a species is like a river. If that river branches off, there is no reason that both should go in the same direction. For more go Evolution and Philosophy: Why are natural kinds supposed to stay fixed?.