TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for October 2004

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Hi, My daughter just sent me a web site called http://www.discovery.org/csc I'm a retired Zoology teacher and this site looks like a creation group pretending to be a science-based website. Do you know anything about them? Thanks, Don Gatton
Response
From:
Response:	Well spotted. The Discovery Institute's "Center for Science and Culture" is the major advocacy group for "intelligent design", a modern form of antievolution. Where the ICR simply whited-out "God" and "Bible" to get from "biblical creationism" to "scientific creationism", the ID advocates apply still more white-out to cover up telltale references to age of the earth and such to come up with their antievolution. Otherwise, ID uses mostly the same old arguments that you are likely used to seeing. There are several FAQs on this site concerning "intelligent design". Use the search function for "behe" and "dembski" for several. Also, check out our sister site, http://talkdesign.org , which is specifically geared to critiques of "intelligent design" arguments. The "Panda's Thumb", http://pandasthumb.org , is also a valuable resource for ID criticism. And, of course, the National Center for Science Education has many resources on ID (see http://ncseweb.org ).

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	An advanced syllogism using both Thaxton's specified complexity and Dawkins idea of god ("River of Eden"?) might be: DNA processes are carried out by an intelligent agent. God is an intelligent agent. Thus, DNA is GOD DNA doesnt care about suffering because DNA does't care about anything DNA is God God doesn't care about suffering, or anything. Copyright Eric Peterson 2004 I believe this argument is sound and valid. What does your staff think? If you publish this, include my name. Truly Eric Peterson, Phoenix AZ, BA Philosophy-Eastern Michigan Univ.
Response
From:
Author of:	Evolution and Philosophy
Response:	Strictly, Dawkins discussed God's Utility Function in River Out of Eden, concluding that His goal was to maximise the survival of DNA, not that DNA was itself God...

Feedback Letter
From:	Christine
Comment:	I am a Christian and as such, I am greatly disturbed by what I have been reading here this evening. I desire truth, not just whatever seems to support my beliefs. I seek out opposing views to see if I can back up what I believe, if not, I do the research to find the truth. Unfortunatly, this is not the case with all Christians. I am sorry. As a Christian, I appologize to everyone who has had to listen to lies from the mouths of Christians. The truth is of ultimate importance. Believing something is of no value unless it is the truth. Thank you for pointing out the inconsistancies and outright lies of those in leadership, I hope that it will cause more Christians to use their heads and not just to believe whatever is told to them.

Feedback Letter
Comment:	Hi there, I am a person who believes in God and that He knows what he is doing. I have been surfing many websites on the discussion of evolution/creation. What I find is mostly the same thing I would find if the subject was being debated by polititions. Now I am sorry, but I don't find fossils to be convincing enough to shake my beliefs. By their nature, they can't ever prove a transition. It's a little too much like connect the dots. I know it gives us a lot to think about, without a lot of good responses, but none of it can be said to disprove the biblical account of things. Plus I find it interesting how some evidence seems to negate other evidence. Sure the fossils are good, but how do you explain overcapacity of the human brain. I seem to remember scientists going on and on about how little of our brain we use. In fact there has been new evidence which implies that previous figures weren't even close. Also, in certain tests crows showed a supior capacity to make and use tools than apes. Plus, let us not forget the scientific facts brought to human attention by the bible such as the earth being a sphere and that dead bodies were unclean to touch or be around MANY centuries before science even had a clue. We might not have a great response to your fossil evidence yet, but you have had a lot longer to work on those other problems and I haven't seen any decent responses to them yet either. (Sorry for the poor spelling, I am an MS Word baby).
Response
From:
Response:	One issue desperately needs to be addressed here: that of fossils disproving the account of creation in Genesis I. If you accept radiometric dating (and there is no reason not to) Genesis I is disproven. This is because fossil plants and animals appear at times widely separated in the planet's history. They were not all created within a 7-day period. Humans certainly came on the scene very recently, not in the same week as fish. You have heard a garbled account of brain function, I am afraid. In fact, most of the human brain is active all the time, even while sleeping. The human brain uses little of it's capacity for conscious thought perhaps- but that's not even close to the same thing. Look here for an explanation of this urban legend. Crows have demonstrated remarkable learning and tool-using ability. I recently read one paper that even showed crows making tools, as opposed to simply using things found in their environment. This, however, still pales besides the abilities of Great Apes. Consider Koko and her intellectual descendents using American Sign Language to communicate (Koko has a toothache). Finally, these complaints are apparently based on a faulty assumption- one that classifies Nature as a ladder, with humans at the top. Life is a branching bush, and there's no "best life form".

Feedback Letter
Comment:	Science is under attack today by the religious fundamentalist conservatives who do not understand the prinicples of science. I work in a school where I have to hear the theory of evolution routinely misrepresented. In a time when science education is so important your web site is critical! Thanks for all you do! Keep up the good work.

Feedback Letter

From:

Chris

Comment:

When are you people going to give it up?!? Evolution is an unsupported religion. Macro evolution is a lie. The earth being more than ten thousand years old is a lie. We did not evolve from apes. You can try and deny it all you want, but one day your going to wake up and realize the simple truth: I just tricked you into believing I'm a young earth creationist.

Come on, admit it, you thought I was a young earther.

In all seriousness, thank you for this site. It pwns or roxors or whatever the popular internet terminology is that expresses the idea of overall ownage.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Okay, I'm a Bible believing Christian, I'll let you know that up front. But I wanted to leave some food for thought since it seems the author of the bombardier beetles (and others)are not. Let's say that that evolutionists are right, there is no "designer", no God. Then when we die, we turn to dust, fertilize the ground, no big deal. But if the Bible is right, your soul's destination is at stake. See the difference? So even if (and from a Christian point of view the Bible is right) the Bible were false, we have no fear of death either way, because we either do go to heaven by our faith in Jesus, or we cease to exist. Evolutionists have to hope he doesn't exist so that they won't be sent to hell by rejecting Jesus, therefore just ceasing to exist at death. So they have a 50/50 chance of actually going to hades if you think it in odds terms. Is it worth the risk?... I'll be praying for you all, God bless
Response
From:
Response:	This argument begins from faulty premises: accepting evolution does not require atheism. In fact, most scientists, including biologists, are religious, and in the USA at least, they are predominantly Christian. So your contention is meaningless. You should also do some research on Pascal's Wager, since you present a version of it. Look here for a nice explanation of its flaws.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	I stopped reading [Darwin's Black Box: IC or Irreproducible Irreducibility] at the mouse trap ... you assumed there was a floor to staple the other pieces into ... Behe obviously meant that there are no other parts around ... none You lack understanding, but if you send a response please send me to other scientists that oppose intelligent design. Thanks, Cecil
Response
From:
Author of:	Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
Response:	Then Behe's ideas do not apply to real biology, where there are always other parts around. Scientists who oppose intelligent design are common. You can start with those in the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Feedback Letter

From:

Karin

Comment:

Hi! This is just a little correction. Sorry for my sometimes crappy english, I'm from Sweden.

The week does not come from Norweigan mythology. It's origin is in Babylonia or Egypt where they at the time knew only 7 planets, and had a religious belief about the planets being gods who ruled over the months, hours and such.

The norweigans AND swedes adapted this when it spread over europe and replaced the planet names (the sun, the moon, mars, mercury, jupiter, venus and saturn.) with their own gods.

The jews took this over when it spread and made it a religious thing with the friday as their holy day.

In some places in Africa, they had four days as a week, in old Greece they used 10 as a week and the romans used 8 days.

Feedback Letter
From:	creationist
Comment:	Many people like yourself take offense to having a "god in the gaps". I propose that you have a "god in the gaps". Darwinian evolution has a creator, it's death- by death comes life, survival of the fittest and natural selection. This whole theory of evolution is an "atheists" (which there isn't really any atheist, people are agnostics at best) religion. Here is why you try so hard to defend it. Let's face it, if there is a creator then you have to be accountable for your actions. Otherwise, if there isn't a creator you are god and you don't have any moral obligations, free thought, and anarchy at best. Since there is a God and a creator (otherwise matter, time, energy and space wouldn't exist) we are accountable for our deeds. And since Genesis 1:1 talks about all such objects of reality you are without excuse. If you'd look into the scientific knowledge the Holy Bible contains you'd have to concur (e.g. dinosaurs existed with man, light moves, hydrologic cycle, stars having radio waves, formation of fossil beds, knowledge of germs et al). The fact you have a conscience of right or wrong tells me there is a creator. Lets see if you can recognise your conscience- Do you think its ok to kill weaker people or people that have disabilities? Darwin says yes, your conscience says no. Is it ok to lie to get ahead? Darwin says yes your conscience says no. Is it ok to steal wives from your neighbor? Darwin says yes you say? That is only three of the commandments of God. Is your conscience still active or is your smoke detector's batteries dead? God speaks to your conscience through creation and tells you you are created. For example-a mother and a child bond, a wife and husband bond, a friendship bond all are beautiful and all are destroyed by sin. Now, by microscopes you have the information written on DNA to tell cells how to function. It is a fool that pretends to know there isn't a God-do you know how much gold is in China? Ok, so you don't know everything then. Even if you knew 1/1000000000000th of everything, God might exist in the other majority of knowledge you are devoid of. The hypocrites of religion have spoiled the truth of God-thou shall not kill, lie steal are still in effect despite hypocrite extreemist religious activities. But if you seek God you'll know that His commandments are love and you are in debt to his eternal justice, a fine is due. Since you are convinced as guilty of breaking His commandments your plea could change from innocent to guilty and plead for mercy. Mercy is there but you cannot claim to have the knowledge to cancel out His rightful place and still ask for mercy. Guilty, Guilty Guilty! In particular you are guilty! And you have no excuse for breaking His commandments. What are you going to do on the day of Judgement? What are you going to say? Repent now, I entreat you. And turn from your cheap disguise, your thin mask, your narrow sheild. Turn. Turn from your wicked ways to your creator.
Response
From:
Author of:	Ancient Molecules and Modern Myths
Response:	I can hardly believe that you are a real creationist and not some science partisan writing in such a way to make creationists look foolish. But then again, this would be an almost too perfect satire. It is so difficult.

Feedback Letter

From:

Comment:

Dear Sirs,

I would like to point out a mistake in "29+ Evidence of macroevolution", part 5. You say "One example is the west European raven and the Asian hooded crow which have distinct ranges meeting in a narrow hybrid zone". In fact, it is the hooded crow (Corvus corone cornix) and all-black, westernmost European carrion crow (Corvus corone corone)that hybridize in a hybrid zone extending through the Western Europe. Raven(Corvus corax) does not hybridize with hooded crows.

I have found the Talk.origins site extremely resourceful, thanks!

Greetings,

Mr. Antti Rönkä

Oulu, Finland

Feedback Letter
From:	Rickeye
Comment:	Darn, I really liked my analogy comparing evolution to artwork, though admitedly I am horribly biased. Bummer it did not make the cut (but swearing, biased, rude "neo-cons" did?). Oh well....

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	I thought you might like to know - in fact, might want to add it in somewhere, as an attempt to mitigate damage to this man's reputation, perhaps. ICR.org have their online list of "doubting scientists" - well, I got curious and started trying to locate these people. One of the easiest to find was Dr. James Allan (although his PhD was Zoology, not Genetics) at the University of Edinburgh, top of the "Additional listings" at the bottom of this page: http://icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalscientists.html Well, I called him this morning (afternoon for him). He was absolutely livid at having been put on this list or associated with the ICR in any way. He wished to make it clear that he is NOT a "creation scientist" nor does he have any doubts about evolution; furthermore, he has no idea how or why they got hold of his name, and they certainly didn't consult him on it. I consider the ICR's actions in this regard libellous, and he seemed to as well; he may take further action. The interesting thing, in my mind, is - did they deliberately include the mistake about his PhD subject so that, if challenged, they could try to claim it wasn't him that they had named? Just a thought - how many other names on their list are there without the individual's knowledge or consent or philosophical sympathy in any form? Some "evidence of doubters." Huh. Meg
Response
From:
Author of:	Evolution and Philosophy
Response:	Skepticism is due most urgently when considering anything the ICR claims is true, in my experience. Well chased down, that woman... Editor's note (added December 19, 2004): The observation of "Meg" is incorrect. See a reply in November 2004 feedback for details.

Feedback Letter
From:	Jessica R. Keiser
Comment:	Dear AIG, I've recently read all of your "arguments" against Dr. Kent Hovind and Dr. Carl Baugh. I must admit that this ministry bashing is causing me great concern - haven't you learned to eat the meat and spit out the bones? One of the things that I appreciate so much about Dr.Hovind is his willingness to share the facts without benefit for himself. He does not copyright his material,and he encourages people to copy it and give it away. To my knowledge,AIG has not taken this remarkably unselfish stand. Please inform me if you intend to do so. Creation scientists have much more important things to do than bash other creation scientists over minor details. We have a battle to fight,and the wise generals will not destroy their own reinforcements. I am also disappointed to learn that AIG does not take a solid stand on the King James Bible. Perhaps this oversight is simply due to ignorance in this particular area. Please consider studying New Age Bible Versions and In Awe Of Thy Word by G.A. Riplinger. I challenge you to display my letter on your website,as I would like others to see some of these facts for themselves. Thank you very much for your time. Respectfully yours, Jessica R. Keiser
Response
From:
Author of:	Dino Blood and the Young Earth
Response:	I so wish that I had the eloquence fitting this moment. Jessica, this is TalkOrigins. Like you, we to find much to criticize at "Answers in Genesis." Again, like you, we hope that the errors commonly promoted by "Answers in Genesis" are the honest product of ignorance. But, I think that you will find, as have we, that "Answers in Genesis" is impervious to correction. To this end, I recommend you look at the many articles here on TalkOrigins Archive refuting "Answers in Genesis" such as my small paper linked above. Respectfully yours, Gary Hurd

Feedback Letter
Comment:	if scientist believe their so smart and came up with such a STUPID theory called evolution can they answer this when some one dies were do that person go?
Response
From:
Response:	No. Science does not address the supernatural. Why do you think religion should address the natural?

Feedback Letter
Comment:	More fitting term for anti-evolutionists is "evolution deniers". Like Holocaust deniers, evolution deniers don't understand the concept of "convergence of evidence". And, of course, they also misquote, also lie, also misrepresent, etc.

Feedback Letter
From:	Sam
Comment:	I am a Christian that believes in creation! Evolution cannot explain Spontaneous Generation, how DNA came into existance, why the age of the world/universe is continually changing, the flaws in the carbon dating method, the lack of transitional fossils, and the laws of thermodynamics (which contradict the evolutionary theory). Like I said, too many holes! Even if the Evolutionary theory was true, HOW did it all start? Certainly not the Big Bang theory because then you have to justify the Spontaneous Generation with the already present chemicals/molecules. Evolution is based on the notion that EVERYTHING is an accident that adapted to our environment.
Response
From:
Response:	This is the tactic used by creationists in their staged debates- too many lies, not enough time. It does not fare so well in a written debate: 1. Evolution is not concerned with spontaneous generation. Evolution only address what happens after life arrives on the scene. For all evolution cares, life could have been poofed into existence by anyone. 2. The ages of the earth and the universe change as we refine our analyses of the data. We get more and more precise in our estimate. In contrast, some creationists have held to the 6000 year old earth despite all scientific advances. That's just silly. 3. DNA evolved from RNA. Probably. You want our best estimate or you want a song and dance? Ah, you listen to creationists; you want the song and dance. 4. What flaws in carbon dating? I bet you can't substantiate them. 5. There are plenty of transitional fossils. Some of them are documented here on this very web site: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html If you don't read, you won't learn. 6. Thermodynamics has nothing to do with disproving evolution. That argument is long debunked: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html Other questions?

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Creation happened. Most every serious thinking and open minded person who looks at the FACTS would agree. Evolution will forever remain a theory because it does not have that with which it's propoents judge everything else, namely evidence, and so it remains a belief by faith for it's followers. Followers of evolution fail to recognize the most fundamental problem to their theory; it cannot explain how the first living cell came to be. More and more unbiased science holds that there was a point in time from which everything began, the Big Bang; this is the creation, with all the complexity of life present that we still see today. The history of the world and man, as told in the gospel record still stands today as fact, never proven to be in error - not even once. Evolution?, it would be embarassing for it's followers to list all the misrepresentations, lies and half truths perpertrated in support of such a wild and ridiculous theory...Haeckels drawings? Java man?...do you want more???
Response
From:
Response:	Evolution concerns the origin of the diversity of live, not the origin of life. Evolution is an emergent property of life, and thus anything that happened before life began logically is not part of evolutionary theory. The origin of life is no more a problem for evolutionary theory than is the origin of Beethoven a problem for music theory.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	I have just read, The Age of the Earth by Chris Stassen. I just wanted to say thank you for articulating an arguement against the creationists' dogma that is masquerading as intelligence.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Ancient hobbit-sized human species discovered Find 'rewrites knowledge of human evolution,' scientists say http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6346939/ THIS IS HUGE!!! This is the first site I thought about going to after I read the news about the new human species. I wonder what the creationists will say about this one!
Response
From:
Response:	See also reports from Nature, which is publishing the description of Homo floresiensis and related archaeology in its 28 October issue. Yes, this is an astounding discovery. But keep in mind that, in science, the initial report is only the start of the story. I look forward to the analyses and further explorations that will certainly follow. The creationist spin will come soon enough, so I won't bother speculating what they will say.

Feedback Letter
From:	Bill Paley
Comment:	Regarding young-earth creationist Jed Jones’ September feedback: I'm appalled at the cynical way you treated this obviously loving and sincere truth-seeker. Just because he’s a committed fundamentalist Christian, rejects evolution, and doesn’t seem to know spelling, grammar, punctuation, logic, facts, arithmetic, natural history or much of anything else, is no reason to put him down with an egoistic know-it-all “chuckle” and imply that this obviously heartfelt plea for some modicum of truth was written by a prankster. Wesley R. Elsberry, shame on you!
Response
From:
Response:	Well, I did get an email from the prankster taking credit for it, so I won't be feeling much shame for having correctly called it.

Feedback Letter

From:

Comment:

First of all...I want to comment your excellent work with respect to this website. I find the information well laid out and very complete.

It astounds me how so many people cannot see Creationists for the outright liars that they truly are. The overwhelming evidence for the many theories associated with evolution should leave little doubt in the mind of any person willing to take the time to critically examine it.

I recently read an article on a new group of hominid fossils that have been recently found in Indonesia on the island of Flores. Apparently this hominid lived until 12,000 years ago and is a dwarf version of H.Erectus.

Another cousin on our family tree and another example of Common Descent.

The really frightening thing for me is not that some people foolishly believe in a literal interpretation of one version of the Bible...to each his own...what scares me is that these people want nothing less than the total destruction of modern science and the complete suppression of any knowledge that contradicts their narrow [and incorrect] interpretation of the Universe.

Jesus warned us of false profits....Creationists fit the bill nicely.

Feedback Letter
From:	David
Comment:	I have seen creationist philosophy pushed in some strange places, but recently on a trip to Las Vegas I spotted a poster display denouncing evolution and old earth at the FREMONT STREET EXPERIENCE! Possibly intoxicated tourists will be indoctrinated, but I informed the young men making the presentation that I was not interested. Are creationists getting desperate?

Feedback Letter
From:	kim boone
Comment:	i'm a Belgian philosophy student, and I plan to write a thesis on the scientific differences between evolutionary theory and creationism/ID,and the psychological differences between the proponents of the two. I want to thank you for broadening my detailed knowledge on evolution. The most important articles for me were 29+ evidences of macro-evolution (nice to see the vulnerability in the possible falsifications, scientific mentality at its best), and also the article on genetic drift (a mechanism i wasnt aware existed before). If you reply, could you include some helpfull sources on my thesis themes above? (sorry, no e-mail for now)
Response
From:
Author of:	Evolution and Philosophy
Response:	I suggest that you begin by reading Robert Pennock's Tower of Babel. Pennock is a philosophy professor and he gives a good overview of the philosophical issues. You might like also to see the FAQ mentioned above on Philosophy and Evolution.

Feedback Letter
Comment:	Just a quick comment on John Wilkins' first response in the September feedback: Honeybee drones (males) do not sting in defense of the colony, much less at the expense of their life. The work of defense, like pretty much everything else, is performed by workers (nonreproductive females.)
Responses
From:
Response:	Thanks. My mistake.
From:
Response:	Congratulations. It isn't often that anyone catches Dr. Wilkins in an error of fact.

Feedback Letter
Comment:	It seems to be my day to pick on Mr. Hopkins. I always hate to see an otherwise coherent argument diminished by lousy editing. In your response to Mark Borders: "cowardess" --> "cowardice" "adviced" --> "advised" I believe that these are the standard spellings in Australia, as well as the U.S. :)
Response
From:
Response:	Mr Hopkins is American. Dr Wilkins is Australian. While Dr Wilkins has been known to spell words as he (or at any rate, his fingers) damned well pleases, we cannot burden Mr Hopkins with that fact...

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	you should put some credits on this website (as in who created this site, when it was created, etc). i love the articles and i want to cite some of this as a source in a paper!!! thanks
Response
From:
Response:	Each author is prominently listed at the top of each article. To cite them, follow the usual style for essays citing URLS: MLA Style This page lists some good style advice

Feedback Letter
Comment:	Having looked through your feedback section several times, I am continually drawn to your replies that mention members of your staff believing in God. Out of curiosity (rather than a "You Christian idiots!" or "You godless evolutionists!" standpoint), how do you reconcile a belief that depends on faith with adherence to the scientific method?
Response
From:
Response:	Although not a Christian, allow me to comment. Aquinas once wrote that faith perfects reason. On this account, the knowledge one has by science is added to by the knowledge (in this case of God) one has by faith via revelation. To someone in this tradition (which is catholic - universal - rather than Catholic - Roman communion) faith is the knowledge one has of things one cannot find out about through the exercise of human reason and science. In particular, that of salvation, which is not in any way dependent upon factual information and empirical evidence. Now I do not think this is true for one minute, but equally, I cannot show it is false. In particular it is not something that is in conflict with science, almost by definition.