Feedback for March 1999

We know that the Big Bang happened, regardless of its origin. As we look out into space, the farther away something is from us, the faster it is moving away from us. That observation, in combination with other evidence such as the microwave background radiation, leads to one inescapable conclusion: Since everything is moving apart now, a long time ago, everything was really close together. It's just like running the film backwards.

As to the origin of the matter in the universe: One hypothesis that remains to be rigorously demonstrated is that (very loosely speaking) the "positive" energy of matter is balanced by the "negative" energy of gravitational pull, making the total mass-energy of the universe zero.

Whether that's true or not, there's certainly nothing to stop a person from believing that God "detonated" the Big Bang. After all, that was the view of Georges LeMaitre, the Catholic priest who first proposed the Big Bang.

• Cosmology Tutorial From UCLA professor Ned Wright. A tutorial on basic cosmology, also includes a FAQ file and a "cosmological fads and fallacies" file which addresses the weaknesses of many anti big bang arguments.

• Introduction to Cosmology From the pages of the Microwave Anisotropy Probe, scheduled for launch in the fall of 2000. This is an outline explanation of the big bang, and the MAP mission.

• Big Bang Nucleosynthesis An explanation of how nuclei are synthesized in the early stages after the big bang banged. Maintained by the Astrophysics Theory Group at Ohio State University.

• Big Bang Nucleosynthesis Homepage A discussion of current research in the area of big bang nucleosynthesis. Also maintained by the Astrophysics Theory Group at Ohio State. Includes links to other cosmology references.

• Big Bang Nucleosynthesis An outline of the history of the theory, with a link to a more detailed explanation from Joseph Silk. Maintained by the University of California at Berkeley.

I would suggest trying Macfadden's book on the topic, Fossil Horses : Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolution of the Family Equidae. It is $33.95 in paperback. Check it out from a library first to make sure it has suitable illustrations.

Wesley

"Why doesn't the archive contain any articles that support creationism?"

The Talk.Origins Archive exists to provide mainstream scientific responses to the frequently asked questions and frequently rebutted assertions that appear in talk.origins. The archive's policy is that readers should be given easy access to alternative views, but those who espouse alternative views should speak for themselves. Hence, the archive supplies links to relevant creationist web sites within many of its articles. It also maintains a frequently updated and extensive list of creationist and catastrophist web sites so that readers may familiarize themselves with anti-evolutionary perspectives on scientific issues.

We have never claimed to be neutral. We have a very strong bias: towards good science.

Evolution has indeed been "proved" as well as any other scientific theory. We can be confident that is has actually happened (and it continues to happen). Evolutionary biology is conventional science. If this is unclear, if you are unaware of why evolution is so solid, perhaps you should take a look at my Evolution for Beginners webpage.

Many creationist arguments suffer from this misconception, namely the "fallacy of the excluded middle." That is to say, even if creationists were completely 100% accurate that evolution is completely 100% incorrect, that would not in any way prove the truth of creationism. There is always the possibility that both evolution and creationism are false.

Honest creationists recognize this and spend less time attempting to debunk evolution and more time trying to demonstrate creationism. (Actually, honest creationists have stronger faith and don't require physical evidence to support their faith in God, i.e., they aren't creationists.)

For example, please think of a way to test Creationism. Every test that scientists have come up with to test creationism has been sidestepped by creationists through a miraculous intervention by God.

This test: the distance of stellar objects further than 10,000 light years disproves the idea that the universe was created less than 10,000 years ago.
Creationist solution: God created the light from these distant objects in transit. How can we prove this? We can't. We don't need to. God can do whatever He wants. He used methods which are not understandable to humans, and operated by processes which are no longer in use within the universe.

This test: there is not enough water on the earth, now or in the past, to cover all the mountains as specified in the biblical flood.
Creationist solution: Again, God can do whatever He wants, without having to explain it to us-- if He wants to create enough water to flood the globe, then make it all disappear afterwards, He has the power to do so. God made it look that way to test our faith.

As long as creationists offer up this crap, they will continue to get the ridicule and derision that they deserve. That is not science, not even close. So any falsification, any test, any request for specifics-- all of these are side-stepped by this appeal to the supernatural. In no way can the supernatural be part of a scientific theory.

It's not enough to say that it's real because we can't disprove it. The party making the claim must substantiate it. You must provide some tangible, demonstratable evidence. You need a theory that is testable, has repeatable elements, and is potentially falsifiable. How could we falsify the hypothesis of a special creation origin?

You mention "natural evidence" in regards to a supernatural creation. If you have such evidence, you should come forward with it quick! The Creationist Movement really needs it! They have been unable to provide any evidence for their position in all the years that they have been trying! Let's hear it!

To say that we can't prove (substantiate) the Big Bang Theory or the Cambrian Explosion because they can't be observed is a sadly underinformed position. Maybe you should find out more about those subjects. There is substantial physical evidence to support both events.

You make some very valid points regarding the nature of world views, but I think you have gotten off track as to the actual evolution/creation debate. At the heart of the debate lies objective interpretation of physical evidence, and objective inferences drawn from genetic and taxonomic evidence. You have come to realize the non-objectivity of creationist biblical literalism, and have the integrity to recognize that evolution represents the best explanation of the biological diversity of life on this planet. I am glad to see that.

End of debate. You have obviously opted for Theistic Evolution, as is your right, and nothing more needs to be said. As to whether an individual chooses to accept a naturalistic or theistic evolutionary view, science has no say in the matter. Science cannot substantiate what cannot be tested, directly observed, falsified, or has left no physical trace.

The rest of your feedback, on the preference of either a theistic or naturalistic evolutionary perspective, is not really a topic suitable for the Talk.Origins Archive. However, I feel compelled to respond to a few of your points which, I feel, do not correctly represent the naturalistic viewpoint. I will keep this as brief as possible.

In all discussions of "chance", one must remember that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant if it can be shown that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process.

It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to an unseen designer. If you or any I.D.er's have evidence that something shows signs of being designed (something that could not have arisen naturally) please come forward with it. To date, no one has. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. Intelligent Design advocates are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims. The whole "irreducibly complex" argument is deeply flawed. Please follow this link to learn why. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of. And those answers do very well.

The "incredibility argument" is not a valid one. What people expect and what they regard as common sense means little, if anything, in science. If it were so, then we should have thrown out Einstein's theories of General and Special Relativity a long time ago, not to mention that weird Quantum Mechanics nonsense (That's sarcasm, folks). If people have trouble accepting or believing something in science, then it is not the fault of science. I, for one, find nothing about naturalistic evolution which offends my common sense or expectations. Scientists don't have to explain why intelligent design is not the most reasonable explanation. Intelligent Design advocates must supply some evidence, some testable examples, as to why they think that the products of nature MUST HAVE BEEN DESIGNED. To date, they have not done so. They have merely offered bad analogies and metaphors that appeal only to lay people.

The laws of nature must act some way... they happen to act as they do. So what? Do you have any evidence that they could act any other way? You also mention "unsolved mysteries of evolution". Please state what those are. I'm not aware of any profound mysteries that in any way threaten the theory.

I did not have atheistic tendecies when I learned of evolution. I was open minded, curious, and questioning. I, like you, went from a literal creation scenario to theistic evolution. The more I learned about evolution, and astrophysics, and cosmology, the less I saw for a creator to do, and the more unlikely his existence became. I studied the bible for answers, and realized that it offered none, and in addition was internally inconsistent, flawed, contradictory, and full of highly immoral and offending passages.

You say also that "the mysteries of life cannot and never will be explained in naturalistic terms". What "mysteries" of life? This is more poetic than actual. If humans can replace hearts, clone mammals, and work at synthesizing life, I don't know what "mysteries" you are talking about. I have no doubt, based on past achievements, that humans will someday create life in a test tube. Just because something is not known, does not mean that it will never be known. That statement seems to be at the core of Intelligent Design. It ignores the entire history of science.

I have no faith in the "naturalistic" explanation of life. Every discovery in the history of science has had a naturalistic explanation, even those that were formerly thought to have a supernatural cause. I see no reason why the evolution of life should be any different. Should the subtle and complex formulas of calculus cause us to deduce an intelligent designer of mathematics? I have no faith in math. I have no faith in chemistry, or geology, or astronomy. Things are as they are.

You are right that each individual must decide for themselves what to believe. Everyone has that right. Then you go on to make some blanket statements about atheists. As a humanist, I do have an ultimate purpose for my life. I have assigned it to myself, and it is as real to me as any purpose that a believer has. The things I do don't have to matter ultimately, they only have to matter to myself and those I love.

No, I do not think there is such a thing as ultimate morality. And if you look at the history of Christianity, you will realize that neither does the Church. The deeds that they condemn now are the same ones that they performed in antiquity. No institution in history has changed its moral stance as much as the Christian Church. Your straw man caricature of humanistic morals is rather offensive. Humanistic ethics are based on compassion and reason, and are far more moral than those based on the bribery of future reward or the fear of future torture. Would you want your child to do the right thing because he knew it was the right thing to do, or because he wanted a reward and feared a punishment? If your interested, What I Think of the Pope and What is Morality? are essays I wrote dealing with this topic.

As an atheist, my existence is anything but "terribly bleak". It is full of adventure, love, fulfillment, wonder, joy and prosperity. I live for this life, not for some imaginary afterlife that will never happen.

Anyway, I wish you as much. Please continue searching for your own answers.

We need more like him!

One specific evolutionary fact:
First of all, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for. It is a fact that there is genetic variation within species. It is a fact that this genetic variation is passed on. That, essentially, is evolution. It is a fact that the earth is billions of years old, and that the oldest known microfossil is 3.8 billion years old. That leaves a lot of time for genetic variation to be shaped by selective pressures.

Are you looking for the fact that species are observed to evolve into new species? (also Some More Observed Speciation Events). Or are you looking for the fact that there are tons of transitional fossils, showing the transformation of species?

Here is a one good example out of hundreds you can find on these pages:

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

This is an example witnessed in nature, not a laboratory (not that it makes much of a difference). Yes, we're talking about plants here. But it doesn't matter if we are talking about plants, flies, bacterium, dogs or humans-- the biological process is the same-- it makes no distinction. Remember that the shorter the lifespan of the organisms, the easier it is to witness evolution in action.

There are hundreds of clear examples to choose from. You can look at Evidence for Evolution for more examples.

...

One specific biblical falsehood:
Gee, how to narrow it down to just one... Here's one that is hard to argue with.

In at least three places in the bible it states that the earth has a "foundation" and does not move.

"For the foundations of the earth are the LORD's; upon them he has set the world." 1 Samuel 2:8 (English-NIV)

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?" Job 38:4 (English-NIV)

"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Psalms 104:5 (English-NIV)

This last one, by the way, contradicts: "He shakes the earth from its place", Job 9:6 (English-NIV), but that's to be expected.

The earth has no foundation. It just doesn't. The idea of a foundation is analogous to building a house, and comes from the notion that the earth is flat, which the bible supports in numerous passages. The earth is not resting or sitting on any pillars or foundation. The evidence? I hope you don't need to ask. The earth is (obviously) is a sphere caught in the gravitational field of our star, passing through space at thousands of miles an hour. It does move! But the writers of the bible didn't realize that, because they couldn't feel the motion, and thought that they were standing on a flat world (Dan 4:11 NRSV), in some places square (Revelation 7:1), in some places disc-like (Isaiah 40:22, Prov 8:26-27, Job 26:10), resting immovably on a foundation. They thought God would even "turn it upside down, and scatter abroad the inhabitants thereof." (Isaiah 24:1 KJV)

All of this is absolutley false. Specific enough?

It's really hard to stop at just one. The problem is that you'll probably say that's an example of a metaphor, even though there's no reason to suppose that, and there's every reason to think they were speaking literally.

So, in case you try to weasel out of that, here is another, one that is addressed extensively on this website.

The bible speaks very explicitly about a global flood that covered all the mountains. The geological record speaks quite clearly that such an event never happened. The evidence is overwhelming. In addition to all that information, here is a new page about what we would expect to see if a global flood really did occur. But it didn't.

The bible also states that there are winged creatures that go about on 4 legs (Lev 11:20-21). There aren't. See-- it's hard to keep it to just one. The bible also states specifically that rabbits chew their cud (Deu 14:7). They don't. Jesus states that there were some standing there listening to him speak who would still be alive to see his second coming (Mat 16:28)... obviously untrue.

He also stated that the world would come to an end during his generation:
Jesus is talking of signs that will happen before the end of the world to his disciples. (Notice: Jesus probably thought the stars were little lights attached to a solid rotating sky dome like everyone else at that time. Imagine just one star "falling to earth"!)

(Mat 24:29 NRSV) "Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; *the stars will fall from heaven*, and the powers of heaven will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see 'the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven' with power and great glory.

(Jesus now says to his disciples that their generation will not pass away before the end of the world)

(Mat 24:34 NRSV) Truly I tell you, *this generation will not pass away* until all these things have taken place.

(Their generation did pass away, but the world didn't end) The evidence is the current existence of the world.

I could go on and on.

Ezekiel predicted Babylon would conquer Egypt and was wrong. It never happened, and can now never be fulfilled.

In Luke 1:26, the angel who appears to Mary to foretell the birth of Jesus says that Jesus will be given the "throne of David", that he will reign over Israel. It never happened, did it?

Here is another factual error. "The love of money is the root of all evil." (1 Timothy 6:10) This is obviously untrue, and a blatantly ridiculous statement. There are sources of evil other than the love of money. Racism, sexism, jealousy, pride, shame, hate-- all these things are evil and can drive someone to murder. I am sure you can think of more, if you try.

Sorry, but hey- you asked for it. If you need more, let me know.

The land immediately to the north of the Solnhofen area in the Late Jurassic probably contained semi-arid gymnosperm scrub and had seasonal freshwater ponds, but no trees. Trees would have been found further north still. _Archaeopteryx_ probably lived in the wooded areas to the north of the Solnhofen area and either fell into the sea while flying over it, or was washed in by periodic river flow.

Chris

But biological systems use external energy to grow. DNA, by way of chemical processes, can grow more complex over time. The earth, as a system, receives energy from space in the form of sunlight and cosmic gama radiation, and therefore can increase in complexity.

None of the processes which are responsible for evolution (birth, death and genetic variation) violate the processes of which you speak. They all can operate within scientific laws.

Also, scientific laws are not like "laws" we are familiar with in everyday life that must not be broken. A scientific law is simply a human description of a physical phenomenon.

Glad you responded back.

I haven't finished Dennett's book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, and I haven't come across those statements yet, so I can't comment on them. I certainly think that parents should be able to teach their children anything they want, be it that the earth is flat or at the center of the universe.

As to why evolutionists care about what non-evolutionists think... Remember that not all evolutionists are atheists... there are plenty of Christians around here. What we care about is that a completely real, honest, factual branch of science is being publically misrepresented and attacked with non-scientific, fallacious nonsense and lies called creationism.

Of course we are different from the other animals. But that does not mean that we aren't animals too. Our intellect is responsible for our morality. At what point did it become immoral to steal your neighbor's banannas? When someone decided that it was.

On the Holocause issue, you said, and I quote: "Please don't say it's important to understand the facts about religion because of all the damage that believers have done over the years(the inquisition, etc) - I can make as good an argument that the Holocaust was darwinism in action - survival of the fittest."

I don't think I was off base in assuming that you meant that you could back up the statement that the Holocaust was darwinism in action. That statement implies that darwinism caused the Holocaust. It sounded to me, and still sounds, as if you think you can and would make such an argument.

Carl Sagan writes: "...the Darwinian insight can be turned upside down and grotesquely misused: Voracious robber barons may explain their cutthroat practices by an appeal to Social Darwinism; Nazis and other racists may call on "survival of the fittest" to justify genocide. But Darwin did not make John D. Rockefeller or Adolf Hitler. Greed, the Industrial Revolution, the free enterprise system, and corruption of government by the monied are adequate to explain nineteenth-century capitalism. Ethnocentrism, xenophobia, social hierarchies, the long history of anti-Semitism in Germany, the Versailles Treaty, German child-rearing practices, inflation, and the Depression seem adequate to explain Hitler's rise to power. Very likely these or similar events would have transpired with or without Darwin. And modern Darwinism makes it abundantly clear that many less ruthless traits, some not always admired by robber barns and Fuhrers - altruism, general intelligence, compassion - may be the key to survival." (Sagan, 1995, 260).

But how can the Inquisition (and the Witch Hunts) be attributed to anything other than religious zealotry? And which religion was at the heart of this zealotry? Which religion's laws were directly used to bring about the deaths of tens (or hundreds) of thousands of people? From what book did the requirement for the deaths of witches, blasphemers and nonbelievers come? I'll leave you to answer that for yourself.

This is getting way off topic of this website, so I'll stop here.

1. False, probably taken from Walter Brown's incredibly bad analysis of the Earth-Moon tidal interaction. The current rate at which the Moon moves away from the Earth (confirmed by lunar laser ranging) is about 3.7 cm/year. The current average distance between the Earth and Moon is 384,400 km. If we assume (incorrectly) that the 3.7 cm/year rate of recession is constant over time, for 4,500,000,000 years, that's 166,500 km. Now 384,400 km - 166,500 km = 217,900 km. So the Moon would have been 217,900 km away, much too far to erode the continents away. But in reality, the recession rate would have been lower (not higher) in the recent past, as determined both by observation and theory. A proper analysis, such as that by Touma & Wisdom [Evolution of the Earth-Moon System, Astronomical Journal v108(5): pp1943-1961 (1994 Nov); Resonances in the Early Earth-Moon System, Astronomical Journal v115(4): pp1653-1663 (1998 Apr)] clearly show that the current recession rate is abnormally high, due to the peculiarities of the tidal response of shallow ocean basins and the arrangement of the continents. This is confirmed by G.E. Williams [Precambrian tidal and glacial elastic deposits: implications for Precambrian Earth-Moon dynamics and palaeoclimate, Sedimentary Geology v120:(1-4) 55-74 (1998 Sep)], who observes from the tidal rhythmite record that the rate of retreat of the Moon from the Earth over the last 620,000,000 years has averaged 2.16 cm/year, about 58% of the currently observed rate of retreat.

2. True & False. True that Sirius appears in several ancient records as a red star. False that Sirius is now a white dwarf; Sirius is a blue giant star (spectral class A1Vm, surface temperature about 10,000 Kelvins), with a white dwarf companion. It is possible for Sirius to have evolved from red to blue, but highly unlikely. The color of Sirius remains a minor mystery in astronomy, with the most common suggestion being that an interstellar dust cloud moving between us and Sirius might have caused the color change [The Stellar Field in the Vicinity of Sirius and the Color Enigma, J.M. Bonnet-Bidaud & C. Gry; Astronomy and Astrophysics v252(1): 193-197 (1991 Dec)].

3. False. The abundance of ⁴He in the Earth's atmosphere balances quite well with the rate of outgassing from the mantle [Helium Escape from the Terrestrial Atmosphere - The Ion Outflow Mechanism, O. Liesvendsen & M.H. Rees; Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) v101(A2): pp2435-2443 (1996 Feb 1)].

4. Who Cares? You are right, Niagra Falls is probably not much more than 10,000 years old. The last period of ice age glaciation in the area of Niagra came to an end about 11,000 or 12,000 years ago. Niagra Falls is certainly not older than that. So what? Since when does the age of Niagra Falls constrain the age of the Earth it's sitting on? This is not a young-Earth argument, even though some deluded individuals (notably Kent Hovind) think that it is.

5. False. Sorry, wrong again. The famous Lost Squadron landed on a flowing glacier, not in a stable ice field. They were covered in a dynamic flow. Their situation is therefore quite irrelevant to the question if ice-layer dating. [Also See the Greenland Expedition's Lost Squadron webpage, and the Girl's Story webpage, Glacier Girl being the nickname for the one aricraft rescued from the ice thus far].

What we have here is another collection of typically brain-dead young-Earth arguments, collected blindly from the pages of typically brain-dead young-Earth creation "scientists" like Walter Brown, Kent Hovind and others. These are not "evidence of creation". They are evidence of the foolish carelessness of people who call themselves creation "scientists" so they can impress the easily impressed. So long as this is the best the young-Earthers can do, you can bet your money on an old Earth for a long time.

Some think that the origins of life is a "protoDarwinian" or "preDarwinian" process of evolution much like chemical evolution (which is not based around replicating entities as Darwinism seems to be). For myself, I think that at some point early in the prebiotic process, natural selection begins to take purchase, and the origins of living things is Darwinian.

In other words, I think that natural selection operates even on non-living things, if they exhibit the right properties of reproduction and ecological interaction. It is for this reason that simulations on Turing machines can be called "Darwinian". In the abstract realm of information, these systems exhibit the right dynamics. But Darwinism is not founded on these systems, nor on the origins of life.

Since the development of life from non-life is largely speculative to date (although we get more and more hard data almost with each issue of the relevant journals), tying Darwinism as a theory to the origins of life is to leave it open to easy "refutations" by the ill-willed. Since the evidence for the accuracy of Darwinian evolution on living things is so vast, it makes sense to not confuse matters by dealing with the technical and conjectural world of the first living things.

But not to creationists. They would sidestep the problem by stating, without any evidence to back it up (as usual), that the Creator made the stars, galaxies and intervening space and light from said stars and galaxies, in there present configurations. All this was done, presumably, to give the appearance of a very old, vast universe, and therefore to mislead scientists (and the rest of the rational world) to the spurious conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.

Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words? Something to think about...

Nice manners.

Instead of spouting vague, unsupported claims, why don't you state some specifics? What evolution lies and conspiracies? It seems you have bought into the elaborate fabrication of creationism. Who is your mentor?

I think debates ARE important... although they do NOTHING to advance science. Nor do they do ANYTHING to convert the true believer. But they do EXPOSE the lack of science in creationism, the dishonest tactics, and they do demonstrate to the public that real science has nothing to hide. Debates should be held.

I have witnessed public e/c debates, and I am firmly convinced that they are a mistake. Debates should only be held on the web, where one side asks a question via email, it is posted to a webpage, then the other side answers it, and it gets posted on the page, and then gets to ask a counter-question, and so on.

There are several critical reasons for this. For one, the evolutionist is usually a professor or scientist used to speaking to biology students or other professionals, not to pews full of believers. When an evolutionist answers a question from a creationist, he or she gives a technical, complicated explanation that the creationist and their audience CAN'T UNDERSTAND. It's way above their heads. I have seen this happen... as the evolutionist explains, the audience's attention starts wandering, and then they are lost. Then when it's his turn, the creationist steps up, thumps on his bible to wake everybody up, and gives his metaphoric rebuttal ("If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" type of thing), and the crowd goes wild. On the web, charts, graphs, photos and graphics can be used more easily, as can hyperlinks to various explanations and sources from experts. This may not solve the problem, but it is better. (A good education would solve the problem).

Along that line, creationists frequently use this tricky debate tactic: They'll drop a quick, one-line statement which seemingly does damage to the evolutionist, but in reality, the statement poses no problem at all, but the answer is a long and technical one, and it is not possible for the evolutionist to answer it in the allotted time. I've seen this happen several times. The creationist throws in a lot of statements, each requiring a lengthy and complex answer-- and then claims victory because the evolutionist can't address them all. (Have you ever used this underhanded, misleading tactic, Brad?)

But on the web, that wouldn't happen. In a web-based debate, evolutionists can go over every word with a fine-toothed comb, and not let the creationist get away with anything. An evolutionist could take a few days to properly research and respond. BUT, creationists realize this, and know that they only chance they have to look good is in a public debate, not a web-based debate.

I have offered to engage in a web-based debate several times with noted creationists. But I have never been taken up on it. I want a no-holds barred debate, with NO restrictions on material whatsoever, NO restrictions on rebuttal length, NO restrictions on use of hyperlinks, and a five day rebuttal period.

Some topics, such as politics, can be publically debated.
Science, which is a discipline of information, cannot. It is misleading and dishonest to insist that it can.

Why do creationists always insist on a public debate? If they will engage in a written debate, all of their offers carry heavy restrictions. Why, I wonder? Could it be that they are... cowards?

Considering NBC's airing of Sun's Mysterious Origins of Man, however, I have little faith in NBC's ability or interest in distinguishing real science from pseudoscientific twaddle. Real science, after all, doesn't generate as much advertising revenue as incredible claims.

My explanation is that you have accepted the faulty claims of creationists without adequate investigation. Your complete lack of scientific education and understanding has led you to accept those ludicrous ideas without even questioning them. Also, your faith in a literal intrepretation of the bible is so strong that you perceive real science as an attack on your beliefs, and are looking for "scientific" reassurance that your beliefs are still valid. Your beliefs (especially of the eternal afterlife) are so important to you, and you are so terrified of losing them, that you are willing to accept the nonsense that creationists spout without checking that any of it is factual.

That's my explanation.

In fact, since you have come this far, it would do you good to actually read some of the archived material before embarrasing yourself by repeating other people's inane arguments. I recommend that you go through the Age of the Earth section, which archives a number of solid refutations of young-Earth carelessness

Imagine a person who doesn't like the concept of gravitation. That person could point out that gravitation can only be directly observed on a very small scale, and the rest is either inference or a "circular" assumption of gravitation. For example, our gravitation-skeptic could point out that we've only known about Pluto's existence for about 70 years, about ¼ of its supposed orbital period. If we haven't watched even one complete orbit, and we've never been there or sent instrumentation... how do we "know" that the Sun's alleged "gravitational attraction" plays a significant role in Pluto's movement? Other than the "assumption of gravitation," what reason do we have to even believe that Pluto orbits the Sun?

Our "graviation-skeptic" could quite easily dismiss the concept of a general force of attraction between masses as a "mere theory" or even a weak inference. And, yet, in reality that very thing is considered a fact -- because it explains a wide range of data in many different areas and on many different scales, and because all of the data we can collect points that way (even though much of it is indirect).

I would also like to make a rebuttal.

There is the phenomenon of gravity, which you can feel. It is a fact that you feel it, and that bodies caught in a gravitational field will fall towards the center.

Then there is the theory of gravity. (Theory: a scientific explanation built up from observation, physical evidence and experiment). Einstein's General Theory of Relativity replaced the less accurate gravity theory of Newton, which was the first complete mathematical theory formulated which described a fundamental force. Newton's theory replaced the earlier partial theories of Kepler and Galileo.

There is the modern theory of evolution, neo-darwinism. (Theory: a scientific explanation built up from observation, physical evidence and experiment). It is a synthesis of many scientific fields (biology, population genetics, paleontology, embryology, geology, zoology, microbiology, botany, and more). It replaces darwinism, which replaced lamarckism, which replaced the hypotheses of Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather), which expanded the ideas of Georges de Buffon, which in turn expanded upon the classification of Karl von Linne. Neo-darwinism represents the state of the art in biology. Like it or not, universities and labratories across the world are engaged in research that explores evolution, not creationism.

Then there is the FACT that species change- variation as you call it. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can change into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They give no reason for this fabricated limitation. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of the bible. But there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species. The process (simply stated) involves the potential of many different types of individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual organisms, and the deaths of those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the total environment as other individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited individuals allows for the increased reproduction of the better suited ones, and initiates a shift in the appearance and function of the species. Without limitation.

Yes, evolution is a fact, as real as gravity. The fact that all species alive today have descended from a common ancestor can be denied, but not refuted. We know it happens because we can observe it directly in short-lived species, and for longer lived species there is genetic and fossil evidence that is unambiguous. There is no other scientific explanation for the diversity of living species. Creationism IS NOT a scientific explanation-- it is a religious one, and a religious explanation is not interchangable with a scientific one.

Even though you don't accept it, I would ask you for your explanation of the evolutionary process. Could you provide one? I think that it's you who are in over your head. I suspect that your understanding would be less than adequate. Just because you don't understand evolution does not mean that it did not happen. I also suspect that your denial of the fact of evolution has nothing to do with it being scientifically unsound... and everything to do with upsetting your literal interpretation of the bible.

If Talk Origins is too complicated, I recommend my site The Evolution Education Resource Center. It is written for the general public.

Radiometric dating is accurate. But don't take my word for it. Listen to the Affiliation of Christian Geologists in Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective:

Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the earth was created a very long time ago. Many Christians are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent, and they are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating. This paper describes in relatively simple terms how some dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes some misconceptions prevalent among Christians today.

(Click the link above to browse the full website).

I also note that, according to the feedback thingy, the last file you visited was the Fossil Hominids FAQ. Keep in mind that, since radiocarbon dating does not extend much past 50,000 years ago, there are lots of homind fossils that are just too old for it. They are dated by other techniques, capable of measuring older ages.

What it appears you have agreed with is the catagorical rejection of evolutionary biology for non-scientific reasons, based on the acceptance of creationist's unsupported, evidence-free, used-car-salesman arguments. How sad that the intelligence you clearly have, based on your chemical and medical background, was not applied in this case. You take care as well.

It is true that scientists adopt views for all kinds of personal, social or ideological reasons, individually. But no view in science will survive for long if it isn't backed up by hard evidence and testing. If Darwin got his notion of natural selection from Adam Smith's "hidden hand" in economics, for example, so what?

However, I'd challenge your view that Darwinism has mass appeal. In my experience, the views of evolution that do have mass appeal are the older progressionist view of Lamarck, Geoffroy or the reworkings of those views by Teilhard and company. These views of evolution are in fact incompatible with Darwinism.

I'd also challenge your claim that the flaws of Darwinism have been overlooked. You cannot have much acquaintance with the literature if you think that. Readers of the New York Review of Books a while back will have seen that there are some deep internal criticisms made by evolutionary biologists about the shape of evolution. The Boston Review site will give you some of the flavor of these debates.

Tests of plausibility in science are a bit more than personal choice. There are agreed standards, background information and a range of experimental and technical methods used to assess these things.

The notion of spontaneous "conscious" engineering by cells of evolution sounds to me like the very old and mystical notion of panpsychism - the idea that the whole universe is in some way conscious. If you mean anything else by that, it certainly hasbn't come up in any scientific model of which I am aware. Metaphors aren't models.

The rest of your post would be best sent to the talk.origins newsgroup forum, where it can be debated and discussed in detail. I must make one further comment. To the best of my knowledge, quantum mechanics doesn''t rapidly proliferate into numberless laws. In fact, as I understand it, QM is pretty simple, although, like any law, it has many complex implementations.

There is no major explosion of laws of physics such that we do not know the rules any more. But there is a lot of hard work being done on understanding how specific cases (such as terrestrial biology) operate.

The issue of the origin of the universe is nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of biological evolution. And the origins of life, while a precondition for evolution to occur, is nothing to do with the history of life since, which is what Darwinian theory deals with.

The Abiogenesis FAQ

Probability of Abiogenesis FAQ

No really, all the animals came from a rock. It was a piece of granite. It was about 9 pounds. It was gray with white specks. Don't you believe me?

Actually, evolutionists don't say that we all came from a rock. But creationists REALLY DO say that we all came from dirt. [ref. Gen-2:7]. Does that make you feel any better?

NASA does not support creationism. Here is the NASA Origins page. See for yourself.

I browsed the website you offered. It contained the names of Woodmorappe and Baugh, individuals not noted for their scientific acumen (or integrity). Click on the search button at the top of your screen and type in their names to discover what I'm referring to.

The site you suggested offered nothing new. The same old fallacious claims, nonsense and lack of real science that has been the creationist mainstay for decades. Every claim of theirs is firmly laid to rest here on Talk Origins. All you have to do is perform a word search or browse the FAQs.

On this site you will find an extensive list of links that connect you to creationist websites, including the one you submitted.