Feedback for May 1999

The idea that there are no transitional fossils is as false as saying there are no fossils at all. Your son won his debate with a lie. Similarly, the rest of creationism's anti-evolutionary agenda is equally devoid of facts. This situation was, sadly, a creationist ploy to slip religion into your son's science class. They apparently succeeded.

It would have been different had the creationist side presented positive support for special creation... but they have none. Had they gone in with the Vapor Canopy hypothesis, your son's creationist side would surely have lost. But since they come in with only negative arguments, attacking evolution with lies, is the outcome really any surprise? Also, do you think the students came up with all these creationist arguments by themselves?

If you feel inclined towards activism, you might contact the teacher, principal, superintendent and school board (in that order), to inquire about this situation. You might also contact the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) representative in your area. This was an intrusion into the public school system by Fundamentalist Christianity, and has succeeded in eroding those kids' confidence in real science. I see it as a tragedy.

Thanks for the kind words.

As to "bias", the archive is careful to state precisely what viewpoint is stored here. In addition, the archive's list of links is extensive and includes a large number of links to anti-evolutionary sites. One might ask those who claim "bias" to substantiate an actual and specific inaccuracy, and also to compare and contrast the number of links their own preferred WWW sites make to sites giving opposing viewpoints. I think that you will find thatyour correspondents will do quite poorly in responding to both questions.

I have discussed the "sea slug" example before. See my post at DejaNews for discussion and some references.

Wesley

I only wish to comment upon the mention of the theory of Punctuated Equilibria made by the reader. The description given above is a caricature that is false in many respects. I suggest that those interested in learning more about Punctuated Equilibria will visit my PE FAQ and read the original papers that I reference there.

Wesley

2) It is rather irrational to conclude that different reports of dragons indicate contemporary existence of dinosaurs, when a far more reasonable explanation is that people all over the globe have unearthed their huge skeletons. The discovery by primitive people of dinosaur skulls and bones is the explanation.

3) This question indicates that you don't know how natural selection works. True, behavior learned by a parent does not become encoded by the genes. Certain learned behavior in say, primates, MUST be passed on by the parent directly to the offspring by teaching. BUT certain behaviors are not learned, but are a result of "brain wiring". These behaviors are subject to selection- gazelle that leap when they run are more likely to survive and leave more offspring than those that do not leap when they run- hence after a time all gazelle will leap when they run. Gazelle do not "teach" this behavior to their young-- it is "hard-wired" in the brain. A gazelle separated from it's mother will leap anyway.

4) Strange you should ask that question... the fact that all land vertebrates have (or had) 4 legs is one of the indicators that all land animals evolved from a single vertebrate species that came out of the ocean. Thank you for pointing that out.

5) Rather a pointless question. It may have taken 50 million years, or 150 million years, I don't really know. I could look it up if I was interested enough. But I'm not. The point really is, with those who dispute that there isn't enough time for evolution to take place, is that they claim the world is less than 10,000 years old-- a blatantly ludicrous and unsupportable notion. Whatever the length of time it took, it clearly happened, and there is plenty of time during the duration of the earth's existence for it to occur.

6) It accounts for it by the simple fact that nature is parsimonious (works economically), and that similar body plans are likely to arise in similar circumstances throughout the world. But why would a supremely ingenious designer make marsupial and placental versions of the same type of creature?

7) Glaciers are slow, creeping things... not the sort of terrifying, catastrophic event that makes for a good flood myth. There are indeed hundreds, if not thousands of flood myths from around the world. But they are all different, some so different that they cannot be connected at all to the Noachian flood. And then there are the notable absences of flood myths from major cultures-- Chinese and Egyptian, for example. A global flood never happened.

This so-called "sampling of questions of those who dispute current explanations given by scientists" represents the kind of non-scientific, not-so-well-thought-out thinking that forms the basis of creationism.

As for Kent Hovind's challenge, I have already written a detailed examination of his offer and shown why it is a fraud, in response to a feedback letter last September. I will reprint it here:

First, to the issue of Mr. Hovind's $10,000 challenge for anyone who can "give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution". There are many such challenges that circulate among creationists; all are cleverly worded so as to avoid any possibility of having the challenge met. Of all of the monetary challenges of this sort I have seen, Hovind's is the most blatantly unmeetable. To begin with, he defines "empirical" as "relying or based solely on experiment and observation rather than theory". And rather than defining evolution as biologists define it, he adds several superfluous and even irrelevant statements to the definition. He ends up with the following definition of evolution:

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves. 2. Matter created life by itself. 3. Early life forms learned to reproduce themselves. 4. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms

It is clearly impossible to offer empirical evidence - that is an expirement or observation - that shows that "time, space and matter came into existence by themselves" or that "matter created itself out of nothing". The event is over and cannot be observed, nor can the creation of matter be reproduced in a laboratory expirement. Historical science rests on inference, not direct observation. To make things worse, Hovind sets up an incredibly absurd standard by which to judge such evidence even if it could be offered. He says that in order to collect the $10,000, one must "prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the process of evolution (option 3 below) is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence." He reinforces this in his challenge when he states, "As in any fair court of law, the accuser must also rule out any other possible explanations." So not only must one show evidence for this invalid definition of evolution, one must prove that this is the ONLY POSSIBLE way it could have happened. I would suggest that there is no statement that could be made about any historical event whatsoever that could even hypothetically meet such an inflated and nonsensical standard of proof. Gravity cannot be shown to be the "only possible" way that the planets stay in their orbits - it is of course possible that they are held in their orbits by angels, devils or invisible orange leprauchans. There is ALWAYS a hypothetical alternative that can be offered to any proposition. Lastly, he provides no details on who the "committee of trained scientists" are that would judge this pointless effort should someone be foolish enough to take him up on it. In short, Hovind's money is quite safe - he designed the challenge to insure that this would be the case. I would gladly make a one million dollar challenge to Mr. Hovind if he could prove ANY historical claim within the boundaries of such criteria.

You wrote: "I thought it was a well-known fact that fossil records are OFTEN found out of order, and in fact top paleontologists agree that it is so!"

What makes you think it's a well-known fact? You read that information from the likes of Henry Morris, Kent Hovind, and the hoard of other popular creationists, who do no research of their own, but simply read each others' books and material.

I won't humor you. I ask you for proper scientific references to support your assertion that fossils are OFTEN found out of order, and that "top paleontologists" agree that it is so. What you might find, if indeed you are brave and studious enough to check, is that there are no such instances or expert's statements. It is yet another example of a creationist falsehood that has been perpetuated.

Seriously, you are asking us for the entire history of life from micro organisms to human beings. That is a bit too much information for the Feedback section to handle. You can find it throughout this website, by clicking the "Browse" button. You might also try my site for the scientifically impaired.

A few things that might surprise you: Humans did not evolve from monkeys. We don't know that monkeys aren't changing now... they probably are. Evolution does not stop, because environments are in a state of continuous change, and DNA is subject to genetic drift. Also, individual organisms do not evolve- you are right that they remain as they are born; but species do evolve. Something else that may surprise you: many of us have indeed read the bible, and some of us are Christians.

I hope you will read up on the subject and find out just how solid it actually is.

(Not to mention the problem of who had the tapeworms.)

And NO, the "missing links" (transitionals) for each species SHOULD NOT still be alive. No, the species that humans evolved from should not still exist. You need to get your facts straight.

Lucy is not a hoax. That is a falsehood perpetuated by creationists, who think it is okay to lie in order to "save souls". Look at A Creationist Exposed, Missing Supernova Remnants as Evidence of a Young Universe? A Case of Fabrication and Creationist Whoppers.

As to your strata claims, they're just nonsense. You were lied to.

Here's a sample of the "polite and methodical reasoning" employed by Ted Holden, who is prominently mentioned in the page last accessed by the reader.

The plural form of the word "scientist" is, of course, a sort of a mistake. There was only one scientist (or scholar or anything like that) present (Velikovsky) who was allowed to speak; the others were merely a collection of dweebs and dorks with advanced degrees; it isn't quite the same thing.

-- Ted Holden

There is only science, and non-science. There is no "orthodox" science and "unorthodox" science.

If students leaving science in "droves", then they are heading toward psuedoscience and "new agism", with which you are apparently acquainted. James Randi's efforts are to impose genuine scientific conditions on the claims of mind readers, spoon benders and other supernatural claptrap. If his million dollar reward is not sufficient to make them submit their "powers" to scientific tests, what will?

I don't know where you get your information, if you think that evolution teaches that there should be no laws. More emotional creationist claptrap to scare their followers with. You should start reading some correct, honest and scientific material, not creationist propaganda, which is none of the above.

The fossil record does indeed support evolution. In fact, there is no other rational explanation for the fossil record. The flood hypothesis surely does not work. Click on the seach button at the top or bottom of your screen and type in "Cambrian Explosion" and please get educated.

As far as the quotation from David Raup, please state the source. One must be extremely careful in accepting any quotation offered by a creationist, as they routinely lie, fabricate and twist, as I myself discovered. Also see Creationist Arguments: Misquotes for more creationist misquotes.

If Raup says the following (1983, p.157) it is unlikely that he said or meant what you claim.

"[t]he practicing paleontologist is obliged to place any newly found fossil in the Linnean system of taxonomy. Thus, if one finds a birdlike reptile or a reptilelike bird (such as Archaeopteryx), there is no procedure in the taxonomic system for labeling and classifying this as an intermediate between the two classes Aves and Reptilia. Rather, the practicing paleontologist must decide to place his fossil in one category or the other. The impossibility of officially recognising transitionary forms produces an artificial dichotomy between biologic groups. It is conventional to classify Archaeopteryx as a bird. I have no doubt, however, that if it were permissible under the rules of taxonomy to put Archaeopteryx in some sort of category intermediate between birds and reptiles that we would indeed do that."

As far as Piltdown Man, for the thousandth time, it was evolutionary scientists, not creationists, that uncovered that unscrupulous hoax. Science weeds out mistakes and frauds. For Pithecanthropus, see Creationist Arguments: Java Man. The necessary rebuttal is far too extensive to include in feedback.

What is typical here is that you throw out statements like "what about giraffes with short necks" as if you think that is a problem. If you were truly interested in finding out (which you obviously are not), you would have done a simple search. Here is the answer, found by clicking the search button and typing in "giraffes":

Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx. The first giraffids were Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia (one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe.

I'm tempted to say quit wasting our time, and find out for yourself, but I won't.

Micheal Behe's book is a worthless argument from incredulity, and is dealt with in several places, such as Behe's Empty Box.

There is overwhelming evidence for evolution. The fact is that most of it is not easily accessible or understandable to the general public. Fortunately, there is the Talk Origins Archive. But you must do the research.

I snipped your long bible quote. People can look it up for themselves. This is not a theology website, and there are many Christians who support and research evolution. And I don't need to be told again how wicked I am for accepting what reason tells me. The implication of that passage is completely false, naive and insulting. If you wish to discuss it, email me, and I can be more candid.

If the theory of evolution does not make sense, then perhaps you might try browsing through this website. Why do you think evolution is not happening now? It is. Are you aware that it takes a LONG time for evolutionary changes to manifest themselves in long-lived species (like large mammals)? You won't see any humans growing thick fur coats in cold regions (not unless you live 100,000 years). But humans don't need to evolve fur because we can wear coats and live in warm houses, so there is no selective pressure to have fur. We won't die without it.

This, and the rest of your whole post, indicates that you don't know enough about evolution to be arguing against it this way. You are wrong about the original darwinian theory, and wrong about the modern theory. You need to do some research.

It must feel good knowing how right you are, and that tens of thousands of scientists and professors are all wrong... how'd you do that?

I think the best way to answer this one is by letting others do so.

"Armies of Bible scholars and theologians have for centuries found respected employment devising artful explanations of the Bible often not really meaning what it says."

J.S. Bullion Jr.

"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means."

George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

"No theory is too false, no fable too absurd for acceptance when embedded in common belief. Men will submit to torture and death, mothers will immolate their children [for] beliefs they accept."

Henry George (1839-1897)

"Every religion has for its foundation a miracle -- that is to say, a violation of nature -- that is to say, a falsehood. No one, in the world's whole history, ever attempted to substantiate a truth by a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of miracle. Nothing but falsehood ever attested itself by signs and wonders. No miracle ever was performed, and no sane man ever thought he had performed one, and until one is performed, there can be no evidence of the existence of any power superior to, and independent of nature."

Robert G. Ingersoll

I personally know fundamentalist believers who are also riotously funny, so it's hard to generalize, but fundamentalism--and this is true of other religious categories, not just Christianity--tends to attract those who see the world in black-and-white, "you're either for us or against us" terms. Showing any sign of dissent, which humor often requires, puts the jokester in the "against us" slot.

Check out my draft Scopes' Trial FRA.

Ray Ginger documents the boosterism and rivalry between Dayton and Chattanooga as it relates to the Scopes' trial in "Six Days or Forever?"

Wesley

It's the price we pay for being right, I guess.

Care to discuss some evidence? If so, I'll see you on the talk.origins newsgroup.

Wesley

Nothing you wrote has any bearing on the theory of evolution. The following information comes from religioustolerance.org:

Scientific Creationism: (44% public support). God created the universe during 7 consecutive days less than 10,000 years ago, precisely as stated in the Biblical book of Genesis. All of the various species of animals that exist on earth today (and those like dinosaurs which once existed but are now extinct) are all descendants of the animals that God created during creation week.

Theistic evolution: (39% support). The universe is over 10 billion years old; the earth's crust developed almost 4 billion years ago. Humans evolved out of lower forms of life under the direct guidance of God. God used evolution as a mechanism to guide the development of new species.

Naturalistic Evolution: (10% support). Same beliefs as for theistic evolution, except that God played no part in the processes. Evolution was driven by purely natural forces. Although this is is a minority belief system, most scientists, from astronomers to paleontologists, regard this as the best representation of reality.

Source: 1997 Gallup Pole

So, 49% of Americans accept the theory of evolution as fact. The great majority of them are Christians. In light of this, your message is misdirected.

Your statement that it takes more faith to "believe" in evolution than in God is false. Evolution does not need belief. It has evidence. Why should we have faith that gravity will hold us to the earth? We should not.

Your statement indicates that you do not know enough about evolution. You might take a look at Evolution for Beginners.

In order to disprove macroevolution, critics must show that the sorts of changes to organisms that it involves cannot occur. This will be hard, since we have observed, in our time, speciation happening, and the genetic and morphological (shape) changes are understood and in some cases reproducible.

The reason why evolutionary biologists (and indeed all other biologists) think that greater change occurred in the past is that it is the best explanation for the range of biodiversity we observe, and the distribution of characters between related species. In short, it explains why organisms are similar and different, which is something no other hypothesis yet developed can do. To give that up, biologists would need to have very great reason, which is not yet forthcoming.

Verbal debates aren't a good idea. Here's why:

"Tell us, Mr. Evolutionist, why you continue to use the discredited example of horse evolution? The American Museum of natural history removed its evolution display when they realized it was false. It seems after the fraud of Lucy's knee and Archaeopteryx, and the hoax of Piltdown Man, evolutionists would learn not to try to fool the public. And all those supposed missing link skulls are either true humans or apes. After all, evolution is only a theory, and Charles Darwin even recanted it on his deathbed.

You have one minute to respond."

See what I mean? It takes them ten seconds to say it, and us 2 hours to answer it. It is impossible. Debates should be done on the internet, where the can't get away with that stuff. But, since you're already committed to it, let's address it. (These "debates" seem to me to be a way that creationists are infiltrating the public schools with their psuedoscience. Who's suggestion was it?)

Do you know if they are going to present a young earth (<10,000 years) or an old earth (4.5 billion years old) position? If you find out they're not going to argue for a young earth, you can save yourself a lot of time and effort by not preparing geological arguments. However, if they do argue for a young earth, you need to be prepared with geology as well as biology.

They will not be presenting any positive evidence in favor of creation. That's because there isn't any. They will be attacking the credibility of evolutionary science. You will need to be familiar with the most common creationist anti-evolution arguments (they never change). Check out these important sources:

This one: Frequently Encountered Criticisms in Evolution vs. Creationism is well organized and easy to use.

The General Anti-Creationism FAQ is also very good.

Also, make sure you go to Frequently Asked Questions and their answers.

The best tactic is to quickly dispatch their attacks and turn the tables, insisting that they do something other than mudslinging. Ask them for the evidence that supports their position.

Also, check out Frequently asked but never answered questions for creationists. And while you're at it, ask them why some whales have hip bones. And ask them why major groups of organisms appear in the fossil record in the exact order that is predicted by evolution.

Good luck.

They suppose that humans could live for 900+ years, because of a supposedly increased oxygen content in the atmosphere, and because of a decreased UV ratiation level, all supplied by this Vapor Canopy.

They should attempt to raise a mammal in a duplicate environment, and see if its lifespan increases tenfold. I'd like to see the results.

Populations of organisms may be split by geographic, environmental, reproductive, or other forms of isolation and then subjected to different environmental stresses. One population may evolve in one fashion, another in another.

To put it another way: Life is a branching tree, not a straight stick. A population of organisms may evolve over time together. A population may fractionate, with each of its subpopulations evolving in different "directions." A population may not be able to evolve quickly enough in response to environmental changes and become extinct. Any combination (and more) of these events may occur.

Please name one instance of creationists exposing the fraud of other creationists... I myself recently uncovered a creationist fraud. But I have yet to see creationists expose their fellows. They turn a blind eye to it.

If you want to believe that people were created from dirt by magic, instead of by understood genetic processes, that's up to you.

You might, however, do a web search on astronomy, or get a good science book.

More to the point, it isn't even relevant whether Darwin "renounced" evolution. The strength of evolutionary theory does not come from the say-so of Charles Darwin or any other individual; it comes from the theory's ability to make predictions and explain observations. It is the confirmation, not the assertion, that makes it science.

The human population argument does not establish a young age of the earth, any more than a count of bacteria in your gut tells what your date of birth was.

I have critiqued the Population Argument before in detail.

Wesley

It does no good to argue obscure population arguments when the physical evidence speaks so loudly against the occurrence of the flood. It didn't happen.

I have put together a web page that lists over 30 pieces of positive evidence that could be used to support a global flood... none of which have been observed. If creationists were really interested in promoting their notion of a global flood, and not just in trashing real science, they would look at this list of evidences and find real examples of them.

Here is the web page.

• The FAQ you mention doesn't refer to carbon dating alone. There are many more isotopic dating techniques, each with its own strengths, limitations and useful range. It is a common mistake to assume that all isotopic dating is "carbon dating" -- I've even seen that slip in a high-school biology textbook. Admittedly the "stumper question" is a little vague and could be written with more detail and references. One useful book on correlations between isotopic ages and the geologic column is Harland et al.¹
• The ¹⁴C level in the atmosphere fluctuates because the factors which influence its production rate also vary in strength. For example fig. 14.9 on p. 367 of Dickin² shows correlation between ¹⁴C level and strength of the Earth's magnetic field. The ¹⁴C level of the Earth's atmosphere has been measured to fluctuate both upwards and downwards in the last few hundred years (fig. 22.4 on p. 392 of Faure³), and therefore it cannot possibly be far from equilibrium as young-Earthers sometimes claim.
• Minor fluctuations in ¹⁴C level do not really support the young-Earthers' desired dismissal of old carbon ages. The dendrochronological scale indicates that the ¹⁴C level might vary by about 10% above and below current levels. To compress the oldest ¹⁴C dates into the traditional young-Earth post-Flood period of about 4,500 years, the current ¹⁴C level would have to be over 100 times (10,000%) higher than the level present right after the Flood. There is no evidence to support a fluctuation of that magnitude.
• I'm skeptical of the claim of an "original intent" of a 2,000-year limit for the method. Libby's landmark book which introduced the carbon dating method was published in 1952⁴. In that book Libby demonstrated a useful range of at least 5,000 years for his new method. Regardless of original intent, isotope assessment capabilities are much better today than they were in the early 1950s. This makes it possible to measure much smaller amounts of remaining radioactive ¹⁴C, which extends the useful range of methods based on ¹⁴C decay to 50,000 years or more. (Note that folks still sometimes use older procedures which are limited to a shorter span of time. This is done because it is less expensive, and sufficient in many cases.)
• It is not possible to "exaggerate" carbon ages because they are a straightforward computation involving only empirical isotope assessments and the measured half-life of ¹⁴C.
• Some young-Earthers have proposed to "compress" carbon dates. They produce an equation which "maps" carbon ages to smaller "real" ages, in attempt to accomodate old carbon ages into their short time-scale. But these "transformations" do not fit well with the observed evidence. For example, one particular ancient dead tree has about 1,000 rings and a difference of about 1,000 years between the carbon ages of its first and last rings. But the "compression equation" proposed by a young-Earther placed the "real age" of the first and last rings about 50 years apart. That tree would have had to average about 20 rings per year (one ring per 18 days) for a very long time if the young-Earth argument were correct. Creationists would have to reproduce that sort of apparent growth (say, grow 120 rings in six years on the same species of tree) before I could swallow that proposition.
• You certainly have "expressed your views." Instead of "going on and on" I'd recommend that you pay more attention to quality of arguments than quantity. You should understand that pulling unsupported "answers" (some of them demonstrably false) out of thin air is not a very convincing rebuttal to the referenced FAQ.

References:

1. Harland, W.B. et al., 1990. A Geologic Time Scale 1989.
   New York: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-38361-7.
2. Dickin, A., 1995. Radiogenic Isotope Geology.
   New York: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-59891-5.
3. Faure, G., 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology Second Edition.
   New York: John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 0-471-86412-9.
4. Libby, W.F., 1952. Radiocarbon Dating.

For the record, I do think that - as a philosophical not a scientific point - all processes that occur above the species level are vector sums of processes that occur below it. I also think that all processes that occur at the organismic level are likewise vector sums of within. This is not to say that there are not downwardly causative determinations of lower level or component systems by higher level or inclusive systems. Of course environmental and historical factors affect macroevolution.

This gets into the issue of reductionism, and its too big a can of worms to touch upon here. Maybe one day, when I'm more bored than I am now.

If you believe in a higher power, please continue to do so. There is nothing about science or evolution in particular that will require you to cease believing in a creator. However, if you feel that evolution, as an explanation, is inadequate, you need to educate yourself. I suggest the Evolution Education Resource Center, if the Talk.Origins Archive has proved too difficult for you.

Shouldn't evolutionists criticize creationists when they are lying or misleading people? Should we allow their errors, falsehoods and fallacies to go unchallenged? Like the one you just wrote about the dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing plant. To say so ignores all of the processes of evolution. Do you deny that organisms pass on traits to their offspring? Do you deny that the potential of genetic diversity exists in each creature? Do you deny that creatures which are better-suited to their environment survive in greater numbers than poorly-suited ones? If you just answered no to all three of these questions, then congratulations, you are an evolutionist!

Quite a number of questions there. I don't think I can get them all briefly, but perhaps I can cover a few.

While a mismatch in chromosome number often is a bar to breeding between two individuals, it is not always a complete isolator. There are some reptilian species complexes where diploid and triploid individuals can successfully interbreed. Other examples of mismatched karyotypes not preventing interbreeding are known.

Conversely, there are instances of sibling species whose apparent genetic differences appear to be quite minor, but which have complete reproductive isolation.

Yes, quite a lot of evolutionary change can happen in the absence of changes in chromosome number. However, a increase in chromosome number could also provide duplication of genes which are then free to diverge into other representations.

Wesley

Now, the hard part... time to ask you for the evidence in support of this idea. Did this idea come from the examination of the physical world, or by pondering on the words written in a book? Can you give any reasons for people to agree with your opinions?

Until then, keep that and smoke it in your own pipe.

You should send this message to Internet Infidels instead.

CS Lewis dealt with the problem of life on other planets from a theological perspective in his Perelandra series. Have a look at them (I'm not saying I agree with him or that it solves your problem, but do read them).

The idea that God makes nothing in vain is an old notion called "The Principle of Plenitude". It was abandoned with respect to biology in the early 19th century (by Christian biologists). See EO Lovejoy's classic book The Great Chain of Being for a historical review.

No.

A deist conception of history could well credit God (or aliens, in the case of directed panspermia) with the introduction of the first self-replicator on earth, after which no further intervention need be postulated.

Whether or not a biologist considers himself a deist, panspermist, or other, the question of the diversification of life following the introduction of a self-replicator is a separate and separable issue from the mechanics of how that self-replicator came into existence.

Wesley

1) We assume things were the same as they are today unless there is a good reason not to. Can you provide any evidence to suggest that the Koala's diet was any different a mere 6000 years ago?

2) Evolution explains the fossil record perfectly. The fossils are not "mixed" in a way discordant with evolution. It's not true that "dumber" animals would be on the bottom. Slower creatures would be. Turtles and sloths should all be on the lowest levels. I suggest an experiment along those lines. Take a large area, several acres, of hilly terrain, and fill it with many varieties of animals, and then flood it. I think that if you took 40 days to do it, you would find that ALL animals had gotten to the highest peaks.

3) Wrong again. WE do not treat the bible as a science book. Creationists do. We are not refuting the bible per se. We are refuting creationism's claims about the bible.

4) Seashells on the tops of mountains is the result of plate tectonics pushing up mountains of of sea beds. Coal and oil are the result of decaying organic matter. These are processes that are well understood. They do not support your assertion that the world was somehow different 6000 years ago. What makes you think so?

The Book of Psalms is not a science book, as you yourself pointed out, so if it says that God raised the mountains and sunk the valleys, that is not a scientifically supportable statement. Where is the evidence for valleys being sunk? If the deeps of the ocean were flatened out before the flood, what about Gen 1:10 "And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas, and God saw that it was good." He made "Seas", and he saw that it was "good". Also Gen 1:20 "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life..." and Gen 1:21 "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly..."

How does this conform with ocean basins that are flat? It doesn't. It is an ad hoc explanation. How could oceans support "abundant life" (every living sea creature, including great whales) if the ocean basins were lifted up to sea level? That's just stupid.

And if the world was smoothed out as you suggest, then how were the ocean basins formed? By your explanation, the ocean basins were carved out by the tumultuous downpour. But if that's the case, how did the flood waters cover the mountain tops? Flood waters carving out ocean basins prevents the water from covering the land!

Think these things through before just accepting them, people. We can assume that the same processes that operate today operated in the past because there is no reason to think otherwise. To suggest that processes were different, without any evidence to support this, is an ad hoc explanation.

5) After telling us not to view the bible as a science book, you are asking us to figure in miracles into a scientific hypothesis. No, it is not acceptable to conclude that a god made all the animals hybernate. That is a nonscientific, unsupported assertion. Sure it would "solve a lot of problems", as you say. That's how creationism uses miracles... to solve unsolvable problems.

6) Again, after chastising us for viewing the bible as a book of science, you want us to factor God into a scientific theory. In science, for it to be science, you must leave gods and devils out of the picture.

Clearly you don't know what words like science and empirical evidence mean. Any true scientific endeavor would not include the assumptions you have stated above. If you think they should, you need to educate yourself on what science is. Science does admit all opposing arguments. But scientists should not continue to grant their attention to ideas that have long since been discredited, such as creationism.

Bottom line: we didn't NEED to be there. No one has ever been inside a volcano, yet we understand the processes of vulcanism. No one has visited a supernova, yet we understand the processes of stellar evolution. No one has ever seen a Giant Redwood grow from seed to full-grown tree, yet none doubt that it occurs. No one saw O.J. murder 2 people, yet most Americans are of the opinion that he did it.

Things that happen leave traces. That is the bottom line. The "You weren't there" argument is childish and ignorant. Sorry, just being honest, here.

The reason that most cultures have flood legends is that most early civilizations were settled near rivers and flood plains. Rivers and lakes flood... that should come as no surprise. The flood legends exhibit too many differences to all have sprung from a single event.

A global flood never happened. If it did, it would leave unmistakeable evidence, none of which has been found. Look at this link to read my web page on the subject.

There are Christians who have written articles about evolution on this website, and who help answer feedback. You can accept evolution no matter what your religon, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Shintoism, Hinduism, Wicca, Satanism, Native American, or you can have no religion at all. It does not matter. But you cannot continue to believe the accounts of creation written in the sacred books, if they do not agree with what we know to be true about the physical world.

Genes tend to be grouped into more or less functional units. Changes to a single gene will have dramatic effects in some cases because of the product of that gene and how it affects the cell and the growth of the organism, while other times that gene may be one of several genes that do similar things, and changing one gene will not have a lot of effect.

So, the idea that the impact of a mutation is in proportion to the size of the gene within a functional unit is perhaps true overall, but not in specific cases.

The idea that genes are "information" is a bit misleading sometimes. One definition of genetic information is the amount of non-redundant material - what can not be deleted and still function. Another is the "compressibility" of the sequence of nucleotides. Still another is the "aboutness" of the genes - what do they "code for"? Etc. Talking about genetic information in anything other than a very technical sense is fraught with trouble.

However, it is true that some think that genomes were less constrained earlier in evolution (say, until the Cambrian period) and that the linkages between individual genes (epistatic linkages) were not then so tight. As a result they think that evolution was faster and more "creative" than since. I personally believe, with only minimal knowledge, that what happened is that genes which work well together were selected in favor of, so that more complex genomes evolved. The more complex the genome, the less change it can tolerate, within fairly well-defined limits.

Anyway, I hope this is thought provoking. It certainly isn't gospel.

People are cutting and pasting material directly off his website. Again. The same arguments, the same mistakes.

There is not a single shred of evidence that supports a global flood.

The faults of evolution have been scrupulously weeded out during the last 150 years of meticulous scientific research. Science is a self correcting process. The faults of creationism are disguised to look like credible data, and usually fool the general public, as well as satisfying the believer.

We are not biased against the entire idea of creation. Show one scrap of evidence, and let's see where it takes us. All that has been offered up until now are inaccurate and fallacious attacks on legitimate science.

There are many instances of the bible being proved factually wrong. But since this is not a Biblical Errancy website, I will list only one. This one is dealt with extensively throughout this web site. The world-wide flood of Noah never happened. Never. Click here and learn why.

Our intentions are to shed some bit of scientific reason onto the misguided. We have indeed, at least in your case, failed miserably.

That also implies that people of faith cannot be scientists or seekers of knowledge. That is untrue.

The truth has no need for any faith.

A true book need not be divinely inspired. If it is true, it does not matter whether it is inspired or not. The label of "inspired" is used when the book would not be believed otherwise.

• It is unsurprising that many cultures should have flood legends. Flood plains provide fertile land, where agriculturally-based civilizations flourish. But those flood legends differ widely from culture to culture. The only ones similar to the Genesis story are from cultures in the Middle East, and both they and the Genesis story are derived from the older Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh.
• Some solutions to the problem of ark storage have been advanced; none is convincing physically, and all of them make unbiblical assumptions. It is far more convincing to think that the Genesis story describes a severe local flood than a global flood in terms of loading the ark. See the Problems with a Global Flood FAQ and the Review of John Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study".
• The surface of the Earth is not smooth, nor is there any geological evidence to think that it once was, and a whole bunch to show that it wasn't. Moreover, the circumstances needed to raise the mountain chains of the world in one year or even 1000 years would be catastrophic; yet no mention of them is made in the Bible, nor are they mentioned in contemporary Egyptian or Chinese writings, which fail to mention a global flood entirely.
• Claims of Ark sightings to date have been incredible, to say the least. Moreover, they don't make much sense. If you had just survived a year-long flood that had wiped out everything and covered everything in mud, would you leave the ark sitting around, or would you take it apart and use the lumber to build a new house?
• A large number of mountains contain sedimentary rock, though some do not. However, the hypothesis that sedimentary rock in high mountains was caused by a global flood was considered and rejected in the early to mid 1800s, as those rocks show signs consistent with long depositional times and inconsistent with rapid flood deposition. Instead, sedimentary rocks in high mountains were once ocean bottoms that have been uplifted through plate tectonics. For example, the Himalayas are due to the collision of the plate containing the Indian subcontinent into the rest of Asia, pushing the mountains up.
• People choose not to believe in a global flood because there is no physical evidence for it, and quite a lot of physical evidence against it. This includes both nonbelievers and believers of many faiths, including fundamentalist Christians.

Henry Morris' claims are mentioned and he is quoted in several places on this site, for example on moon dust, racism, errors, and fossils. You can use the archive's "search facility" to find these and many others. You might also be interested in a USEnet article that I wrote in 1996 which points out quite a few errors in one of Morris' books.

In general we don't bother to point out the religious beliefs of the "evolutionists" that are quoted here. Whether or not they are Christians is not really relevant to the scientific issues at hand (the direction that the data points and what positions it supports) and those are the main focus of this archive. Several of the FAQ files on this site were contributed by "Christians who believe in evolution" (I think it is more accurate to say: "Christians who accept evolution as the best fit for the evidence").

I agree that some of the writing on this site is pretty harsh. But I don't think that the reason is that "we" feel "personally offended" by creationist views. For example, I am sometimes a little hard on creationists because I find their "scientific" work to be inexcusably sloppy, and much of their non-technical work to be misleading or erroneous. As a result, many well-meaning but non-technical folks end up repeating outright falsehoods that they have picked up from creationist literature. Those folks can be excused, but the authors of the works should have known better. In my opinion, authors of sloppy works deserve to take some "heat" for failing to do sufficient research.

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.

You ask: "Instead of becoming so steamed up about creationism why don't you ask scientific questions and set about creating experiments to verify or disprove them." You think that hasn't been tried? Creationists refuse to play ball. If they have evidence to support their claims, you'd never know it. They offer no positive arguments to support their case... only negative attacks against real science.

You can really browse through this website and then make the accusation that we are just being emotional? That amazes me. The claim that we "believe so strongly in evolution because you don't want to admit to the possibility of a higher intelligence" ignores the fact that there are many Christian and religious evolutionists, and it is an ad hominem argument in any case, attacking people rather than the issues themselves.

The answers to your questions are right in front of you. The black boxes at the top and bottom of your screen contain the words "Browse" and "Search". I suggest you click them.

There are "deeper cosmological principles involved that 20th Century scientists know nothing about", but YOU think that they exist. I would ask you why you believe such a notion.

"And if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does." -- Groucho Marx

You say that design requires a designer. Certainly. Now you have to explain what evidence you have to require that the world was designed. The world is in fact complex, and complexity requires an explanation, not a designer. Evolution does not specify that humans came from dogs... what a strange thing to say. You criticize evolutionists for claiming that life came from a rock (which is untrue, by the way), but feel comfortable in the belief that Adam came from dust. Whatever.

Those questions you pose are merely a few from the extensive list of His Holiness Kent Hovind. You can read the complete list, and my responses, right here. A similar list of questions that I am working on is from the Center for Scientific Creationism, is Let's Play 20 Questions.

The belief that when a new species evolves, it must replace the original species is a misunderstanding of the evolutionary process. It's just like you and your brother... you both 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? And just because you descended from your father does not mean that your father is dead. Dogs surely evolved from wolves, and there are still wolves.

If the new species gives the original species too much competition, the original species could be driven into extinction and be replaced by the new one. But there are many reasons why the new species might not replace the old one... such as relocating away from the old species, a change in the type of diet, an abundance of food. The original species can still continue as long as it can make a living. Sometimes the new species replaces the old one; sometimes the old and new species both continue to exist. 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 streams should go in the same direction. For more on this, check out this article by John Wilkins.

It's great that you put your hand up and were counted as an evolutionist.

These other worlds, therefore, have nothing to do with humans. The biblical passage which states that the celestial bodies were created for the use of man as for signs and seasons is therefore rendered false.

The hypothesis which you present bears no evidence.