Feedback for March 2002

I will say this, however. I think I speak for the entire talkorigins team, Christians, atheists, agnostics, whatever, when I say that we do not appreciate or welcome "thanks" which deliberately set out to malign and misrepresent some of our most active and valued contributors.

The claims by creationists are mostly false. Haeckel's theory of recapitulation was rejected long ago, so it isn't even an issue; nobody teaches it anymore, although creationists like to pretend that they do. Drawings based on Haeckel's are sometimes found in a few textbooks (but less often than has been claimed), but they are usually used to illustrate a historical point.

The biological concept that is valid is the observation that embryos go through a conserved phylotypic period, in which, for instance, all vertebrates express a set of highly conserved molecules (the Hox genes), and also express certain characteristic morphological characters, such as somites, notochord, pharyngeal structures, and a tail.

You must not be reading the creationist literature very carefully. The most likely source for this claim lately would would be Icons of Evolution, by Wells. One of the more amusing ironies in that book is that while rebuking textbooks for publishing drawings derived from Haeckel's, he also chastises Campbell, the author of the textbook Biology, for publishing actual photographs of embryos exhibiting the phylotypic features.

For a good online discussion of these issues, Zygote has a nice article on Haeckel and the Vertebrate Archetype, that also discusses the recent work of Michael Richardson on the subject.

We have a FAQ on Various Interpretations of Genesis , and your view is similar to the first one listed. However, as the FAQ points out, this still has some serious problems. I will expand on some of the issues here, beyond what the FAQ has to say.

The meaning of the word "day" (in Hebrew, "yom") is not a matter of translation, but of a (presumed) literatry device or symbol. The word "yom" unambiguously means "day", and cannot reasonably be translated as anything else. However, a "day" (in almost any language) can be used figuratively for a longer period; such as if an English writer speaks of "Shakespeare's day". Your interpretation of Genesis is that the bible uses just this kind of figurative meaning, and this is the first of the interpretations of Genesis listed in the FAQ.

On the other hand, there are reasons (one of which you mention) for doubting that "yom" is used here as a symbol for some longer period. Without debating the point, I note that some Christians propose a "gap" model, in which there is a "first day" of creation, and a "second day", and so on, with long periods in between. This is the second of the interpretations listed in our FAQ.

Both these approaches have a much more serious problem with the ordering of events. In Genesis 1, plants are created in day 3, and then the Sun and Moon created in day 4, and then birds and fish and sea monsters in day 5, and then land animals in day 6. This order of events is inconsistent with evolution; and it only gets worse when you look at the details. For example, grass is explicitly listed as one of the plants, but grass has only evolved since the dinosaurs died out.

Also, when you say "God caused mutations", this is rather a theological minefield. Most mutations either have no effect, or else they are detrimental to the organism. Mutations have definite measurable stochastic behaviour. That is, they are random.

When you use the word "cause", it seems to place "God" in the same kind of role as other "causes", as one cause among many. The difficulty with this can be seen by considering weather. Does God "cause" rain, and sunshine, and wind, and so on? Does God decide what kind of weather we will have from day to day? Maybe; but meteorology still will use natural processes as the cause of weather for making forecasts, and biologists gain no scientific insight by considering God as one of the causes of mutations.

You are probably on safer ground, theologically speaking, to say that God has dominion over all of creation and so we cannot single out this event as due to God and that event as due to something else. God is not so much a "cause" like other causes, but a kind of foundation, or a cause in the sense of a "reason for being". In Aristotle's usage, God is a final cause rather than an effective cause.

Some historians (eg, Jaki) have speculated that Christianity has a role to play in the rise of science, precisely because the bible allows for a different model to the ancient nature gods, who cause natural events from day to day. Read about this notion in the provided link. The talkorigins archive does not officially endorse this hypothesis, but I as an individual consider you might find it interesting.

There are four other models for interpreting Genesis in our FAQ, all of which have been used by Christians, and none of which require any correspondence at all between the creation stories and science.

My apologies for a long critique of your much appreciated feedback! I think it is important to recognize that many Christians find no conflict between evolution and their Christian faith, and your testimony to that is appreciated.

Now, to answer the original question which is independent of whether evolution occurred: If there is no God does it still make sense to give children moral guidance? I think it does. Humans are a social species and in every such species where the well-being of each member of the group depends on how well it relates to others, codes of behavior will arise. Some rules reduce social conflicts or make them less dangerous. Other rules help reduce 'cheating' or 'playing the system'. Still others increase group cohesion or extend 'safety nets' of co-operation. Add this to our strong ability to empathize or envision ourselves in another's position, and consider future possibilities, and I think a case could be made for why we create, enforce and perpetuate social mores.

Philosophers have spent a great deal of time thinking of questions of morals and ethics. They haven't made a lot of headway at getting reliable answers, IMHO, but they've at least raised a lot of interesting questions (Asking good questions is 95% of the battle in discovery). You may want to look up a good collection of essays at your local bookstore if you're still interested.

Obviously, our intrepid reader managed not to find this page, which links to pictures of many different hominid fossils. Or this page, which features images of trilobite fossils. There also appear to be a number of images which are currently unlinked. We'll have to see about getting a page for them.

Kenneth Fair point out problems in obtaining photographs for royalty-free distribution in the June 2000 feedback.

Wesley

As for 'follow-through' try reading the most recently published article cited in Tim Thompson's faq: Ray R.D., Bills B.G., Chao B.F. Lunar and solar torques on the oceanic tides. Journal of Geophysical Research - Solid Earth 104(B8): 17653-17659, August 10, 1999

Perhaps the best exposition of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause is from Justice Black's opinion in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between Church and State."

If you have a complaint about this, take it up with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium to explain certain trends in the fossil record regarding species-to-species transitions. It is a part of evolutionary theory, not a contradiction of it. Gould has in fact complained about constant misquotation of his work:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

-Stephen Jay Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"

Evolutionary theory has long had mathematical treatments of various propositions. The reader should check out works by Fisher, Wright, Haldane, Crow, and Kimura. Between them, they covered a good many scenarios involving natural selection and genetic drift.

Ignorance is not a position of strength in an argument.

Wesley

Although it is true that some scientific theories can be expressed in mathematical equations, many cannot. For example, the periodic table of elements gives chemists the ability to predict and understand many properties of those elements. It is an explanatory model for chemists, well-accepted by mainstream science. Yet this theory is not simply expressed in a mathematical equation.

Plate tectonics is another example. The theory of plate tectonics holds that the Earth's surface is merely rigid plates floating on top of molten rock, and that the interaction of those plates causes earthquakes, volcanoes, and other such events. Controversial when first proposed, plate tectonics is now widely accepted. But although math may be involved at various points along the way, there is no simple mathematical equation expressing the theory of plate tectonics.

"Evolution" is a broad label encompassing countless facts and numerous theories. Some of those theories are easily expressed as mathematical equations, as Wesley has pointed out, while others are not. But regardless of this, the theories that make up the core of evolution are judged on how well the evidence supports them. And thus far, the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly on their side.

If all the mitochondria or all the chloroplasts are lost from a cell's lineage, they cannot be regenerated again. That happens because both of these organelles contain their own DNA chromosomes which are necessary for reproduction and which are separate from the cell's other chromosomes in the nucleus. In such instances where organelles are lost in a cell line, the only way to 'replenish' these organelles is through cell fusion and/or reproduction with another cell line that carries them. In plant sexual reproduction, at least one of the two fusing gametes must contain chloroplasts if the future plant is to have them. Plastid inheritance can be maternal, or biparental, depending on the species. Gymnosperms seem to be mostly biparental whereas many [most?] angiosperms exhibit maternal inheritance.

Gene: A sequence of DNA which encodes a product. That product could ultimately be a protein or it could be an RNA molecule that has a function elsewhere.

Allele: A particular variant or alternate form of a gene that can occupy a particular chromosomal locus. Alleles can be slightly longer or shorter than each other or have different variations in their sequences.

In diploid cells (cells that contain a pair of each chromosome) one may have a pair of each gene - One from each chromosomal locus. The loci are called "homozygous" if the genes are the same at both positions and "heterozygous" the they hold different alleles.

Here's more help: Dictionary of Genetic Terms

About hair color: Let's assume that there really is only one gene that affects hair color (not true in real life, BTW). If someone then talks about a "gene responsible for hair color" - and assuming there is more than one hair color - then yes, they are talking about at least two alleles. However...

The hair color phenotype may or may not the result of two genes from the same loci of a chromosomal pair. One allele could produce *nothing at all* because it carries a mutation that makes a non-functional protein, while the other could produce a working protein that makes a pigment. If the one "working" allele is sufficient to produce enough pigment for a hair color then the phenotype really is the result of a single gene. On the other hand, if the one working gene cannot produce enough of the functional protein (so that you get a "washed out" hair color) or if the second allele produces a slightly different product that affects hair color, then one could say that the phenotype is the product of both genes. Thus alleles can be thought of as 'dominant', 'recessive' or something in between.

There are also special cases where a pair of chromosomes may not carry the same loci. A classic example is the 'X' and 'Y' sex chromosomes in mammals. The Y-chromosome doesn't have the same number of genes as the X-chromosome. In males, all those genes 'missing' from the Y-chromosome must come from the X-chromosome and so a single, unmatched gene from the X-chromosome may be responsible for a phenotype in males. Now with females a different situation occurs: X-chromosomal silencing. Because having a 'double-dose' of genes from two X-chromosomes can cause problems, one of the two X-chromosomes in females is inactivated - shut off - to reduce the gene dosage. Which of the two chromosomes is inactivated can vary from cell to cell in a female. (Female mammals are 'mosaics' in this sense - see: Google search for "x chromosome mosaic".) And so again, a phenotype can be the product of a single gene.

More than you were probably asking for, but I hope it helps...

Wells's conclusions have since been criticised by peppered moth researches. For complete details, see our review of his book, Icons of Evolution.

To both of them, I pose this question: time relative to what?

Relative to the local region of space for objects travelling at non-relativistic velocities. This includes you, the earth, the sun & the rest of the solar system, the Milky Way galaxy and other locations a few billion light years outward.

Einstein would have a field day with them.

Einstein knew which frames of reference he was talking about. He would have agreed that the Earth and the universe was billions of years old, as perceived by most of its inhabitants.

If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described. For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible.

Basically, according to Einstein, science can and does answer the questions which our respondent proposes; but religion does not. Religion answers questions in a different domain; not of what is but of what should be.

Indeed all the exchanges on this subject have been cordial and constructive. We appreciate your approach on this matter, and will welcome any further feedback.

As background for other readers: the archive contains an article by Edward Max, Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics, which discusses pseudogenes as evidence for evolution. The side bar contains a link to an open letter from Edward Max to Carl Wieland, and also and also an acknowledgement that Carl had withdrawn an article from the Answers in Genesis site in response to this communication.

Unfortunately, no such acknowledgement appeared in the page showing the letter itself, and so of course people using the search engine to access the page were not informed of Carl's response. The problem is now fixed, and the acknowledgement now also appears on the same page as the letter itself.

What counts as evidence for evolution is the pattern of similarities. Life forms arrange naturally in a nested heirarchy. For example, we recognize separate groups of animals such as arthropods, chordates, and molluscs based on several different characteristics. Each of the groups divides into smaller separate groups; the arthropods, for example, consists of insects, spiders, crabs, etc. The insects include separate groups such as beetles, flies, moths, and so on. This pattern is not something people made up arbitrarily. In most cases, it is easy to see for yourself, and careful analysis of thousands of characteristics supports it. This nested heirarchy is exactly what you would expect from evolution, and it is what you would not expect from design.

I'm not sure where you got your information about Galileo, but it is in error. Flat-Earthism was not the prevailing belief in Galileo's time. The Greeks had demonstrated the Earth to be round, centuries before the time of Christ, and the shape of the Earth was well-known in scholarly circles from then onward. In the early 1600's, Galileo was denounced by the Church -- not for proposing a round Earth, but rather for challenging the geocentric fixed-Earth solar system. Ironically, Galileo was persecuted precisely because heliocentric cosmology disagreed with the then-accepted, literal reading of Bible verses which claimed the Earth to be fixed. Check out a biography of Galileo (for example this one) for more information.

The "circle of the Earth" that you refer to in Isaiah 40:22 is often translated "vaulted roof of the Earth." In the culture in which it was written, it would have been understood to refer to the solid "firmament" that sat like an inverted bowl on top of the (flat) Earth. Anyone reading it as a "definate [sic] statement saying the Earth is round" is reading modern knowledge into it, for that is certainly not what it meant in its original context. See Robert Schadewald's Scientific Creationism, Geocentricity, and the Flat Earth for further information.

It is more than a little ironic for creationists to refer to the (mythical) rejection of flat-Earthism as somehow a parallel for the overthrow of evolution in favor of creationism. They have it exactly backwards. It is creationism that, like geocentrism, was the original widespread belief derived from Bible literalism -- and which was eventually overthrown (despite very vocal religious opposition) on the basis of failure to measure up to the evidence.

Here are some examples. Remember; these folks are serious. This is not a joke.

• G. Bouw (PhD, astronmy). Read all about why Copernicus and Galileo were wrong in his Geocentricity web site. Dr Bouw used to be with the Creation Research Society, but I think he has left since (in his view) they failed to follow the biblical teachings of a fixed Earth.
• Tom Willis, of the Creation Science Association for Mid-America. Mr Willis was instrumental in setting up the revised Kansas science standards which caused such a furor. Look for his thoughts on Copernicus in this issue of CSA news.
• R. G. Elmendorf, of the Pittsburg Creation Society, and author of Heliocentric Humbug. I found no web site, but here is a brief article which also mentions his Hovind-like challenge. Any creationists out there who want to earn $10,000 dollars, you can prove to Mr Elmendorf that the Earth is motion around the Sun (for $5,000) and that the Earth rotates on its axis (for another $5,000).
• Roman Catholic creationist Paula Haigh shows why the Church was right to reject Galileo's absurd ideas, in Galileo's Heresy .

I find it offensive that people try to have things taught as if they were science that as yet have no scientific basis.

If the kids are in a science classroom, they deserve to be told what the science of the origin of life is. They do not need to be told non-scientific conjectures, whether YEC, OEC, or ID flavored.

Is ID a front for getting a certain set of theological concepts into the science classrooms? It sure looks that way to me. The "wedge" document states it pretty baldly. The actions of the Discovery Institute Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture fellows speaks to a socio-political agenda rather than a scientific research program. The writings of those fellows predominantly express the view that science must become, once again, safe for theism. Whether the reader finds it offensive or not doesn't change the facts.

Wesley

There is a basic logical flaw in your reasoning. It assumes that there are only two possibilities, either that the Christian God exists (as presented in the Christian Bible), or that no God, gods or other supernatural forces exist. This clearly does not exhaust all possible realities. It may be that some other sort of god exists and that IT is really, really, unhappy with those that adhere to Christian theology, and doesn’t much care for Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, or Hindus either, but instead has a fondness for atheists, agnostics, and likeminded skeptics who make regular use the critical thinking skills that IT “evolved” into our species (this is just a, tongue-in-cheek, hypothetical, I am not claiming that theists are incapable of critical thinking). If such is the case, and there is no logical barrier to it being so that I am aware of, then Christians and other theists are the ones with EVERYTHING to LOSE. But hey, you’re absolutely sure that you’re right about what you believe to be (just like you were absolutely sure that we wouldn’t post your message) so you’ve got nothing to worry about.

Then there is the question about someone who “believes” merely because they are trying to cover their bases rather than out of sincere faith. Is that a sound theological position in your opinion?

Oh, and also the fact that one can believe that there is a God who created and that Jesus was his son etc. and accept the findings of science (evolution).

All and all I think you better think a bit harder about your gambling problem.

That's very humorous.

You were intending to be humorous, weren't you? I mean, otherwise the page would be espousing a profound level of ignorance concerning the content of evolutionary biology, the ideas of Charles Darwin, and philosophy of science.

Wesley

1. Coincidence. This almost certainly doesn't explain similarities as great as you describe above, but it can account for some similarities, especially in names, that overentheusiastic people sometimes ascribe to other things. For example, the similarity between "Noah" and "Nu Kua" (from a Chinese flood myth) is probably coincidence.

2. Common physical basis. If people in different parts of the world see the same things, it would not be too surprising for them to create similar myths about them. For example, the widespread occurrence of giants in myths and legends probably stems from the fact that all populations sometimes produce people who are unusually tall. See Vitaliano's book Legends of the Earth for examples of flood myths (and other myths) that appear to have been influenced by typical geological events.

3. Common psychological basis. Even in very different cultures, people still think about a lot of things the same way. Their common psychology probably accounts for similarities in attitudes between myths. In particular, the human need for justice may explain why floods show up so often as a punishment. Though unrelated to floods, An Instinct for Dragons by David E. Jones has an intriguing hypothesis about how the dragon motif is part of the human psyche.

4. Spread from a common source. Myths get repeated, and if they're not written down (and sometimes if they are), they change over time with retelling. If a traveller tells them in a different culture, they may be combined with elements from local folklore and, in time, accepted as a local myth. The Hawaiian flood myths are a good illustration of this. In the earliest ones, people survive on a mountain, and the absence of an ark is even noted explicitly. Later, the basic Noah myth appears, but it has local elements such as sacrificing to the god Kane. Spread of stories such as this isn't limited to sacred myths. Westervelt's Myths and Legends of Hawaii contains one 'Hawaiian' legend which is a retelling of the Grimms' tale "The Water of Life," with little changed except its setting.

The spread of myths is the most likely explanation for the similarities you note. The Chaldean and Hebrew myths come from the same region, so it is not surprising they share a common influence. Robert Best's Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic has a chapter that shows how parts of Middle Eastern flood myths are repeated word-for-word in other flood myths from the same region. In more recent centuries, missionaries spread the Noah myth far and wide along with other Christian teachings. Missionary work probably accounts for the similarities in the Zapotec account, hence the references to archangels Gabriel and Michael.

These four types of explanations are not mutually exclusive; all of them probably play a part in at least some similarities. Unfortunately, much of the explaining will always just be speculation. While good cases can be made for the causes of some similarities, others still leave me scratching my head. In a Roman myth, humanity was repopulated by a couple throwing stones behind them; the stones turned into people. This theme shows up again in the Tamanaque myth from South America, only with palm fruits instead of stones. What accounts for this similarity? Your guess is as good as mine.

From my reading of the article it seems to be highly flawed especially in its almost total lack of discussion on the comparative anatomies of living non-human apes, extinct hominids and H. sapiens. This lack of attention to comparative anatomy (and physiology) is typical of anti-evolutionists, leading them to continually talk about the anatomy/physiology of various organisms as if they exist in a vacuum (examples: THE woodpecker or THE bombardier beetle). They focus on some extreme example of organ or system in a particular species as if it is totally unique to that species. The fact is that when one looks at other closely related species one usually finds that there are variations on the extreme example that the anti-evolutionists have focused upon. For instance the bombardier beetle that anti-evolutionists often cite is just one species of a whole group of beetles (family Carabidae) many of which have some variation on a chemical defense mechanism, using the same basic chemicals (which exist in many beetles in varying amounts), but used in differing ways. The specific example that anti-evolutionists cite sprays an explosive mixture out of its abdomen in a fairly well aimed stream at its attackers, however there are other Carabid beetles that spray with less accurate aim, and others that merely excrete bad tasting chemicals out of their abdomens when attacked. There is a whole spectrum from fairly simple to fairly complex defense mechanisms. Anti-evolutionists only talk about the more complex variant.

This discussion of the human knee is another example of this sort of argument in a vacuum.

While I am not an expert in the comparative anatomies of the living non-human apes and humans, as far as I am aware there is no material difference between them. That is, every bone, muscle, ligament, tendon, and cartilage in the human knee has its corresponding representative in the knee of chimpanzees and the other great apes. Yes they are shaped somewhat differently. Yes they are proportioned differently. But as far as I know all the same parts are there.

As for fossil hominids, the knees of more advanced types like H. erectus (which are either "fully human" or "just apes" depending on what anti-evolutionist you talk to) seem to be virtually identical to those of H. sapiens. As for the knees of the more primitive species of Homo (H. habilis) and the australopithecines these become increasingly like those of living non-human apes the farther back in time one goes. Exactly the sort of thing one would predict if humans evolved from an "ape-like" ancestor. The knee of Australopithecus afaresis (which most anti-evolutionists say is "just an ape") retains a number of "ape-like" features but also has characteristics like those of later hominids including H. sapiens. In other words it is an intermediate form in this regard.

See The ICR and Lucy: Bearing False Witness Against Thy Neighbor for some comparative photos, or refer to any good text on human evolution for comparative illustrations.

Burgess does mention living apes briefly but only to dismiss them as being poor bipedal walkers. However this is a problem for his argument for irreducible complexity (IC), at least as I understand Michael Behe's (the person responsible for the recent popularity of this term) definition of the term, in that while the knees of living non-human apes are slightly different in form, and are not as efficient for use in bipedal walking as those of humans, they do work, and they can walk bipedally. If the ancestor of hominids (bipedal apes including H. sapiens), whose knee was essentially identical to the living non-human apes, could walk bipedally at all, then it would be possible for there to be a selective advantage for any slight modifications in their descendants which lead towards an increase in efficiency of bipedalism.

The human knee seems to me to be a poor example of an IC structure.

Some of Burgess' other arguments just seem nonsensical to me. For example he states:

"The knee joint presents a major challenge to the evolutionist because it is unique, and because there are no intermediate forms of joint between a condylar joint and the other two limb joints found in animals and humans - the ball and socket joint and the pivot joint."

I fail to understand Mr. Burgess' challenge here. Knee joints did not evolve from elbow, shoulder, or hip joints. Rather knee joints have been knee joints since their origin in the first tetrapods. The same applies to the other types of joints. So why would we expect to find "intermediate forms" between them?

It is a curious thing that Behe's principle of IC as an argument for design turns traditional arguments from design on their heads. No longer are those features of organisms that seem perfectly "sculpted" to suit their needs necessarily evidence for design. No longer are the features of organisms which are well designed from an engineering point of view necessarily evidence for design. Now, under Behe's IC principle of design, it doesn't matter how clunky, ungainly, and poorly designed from an engineering point of view something is, it only matters that it is supposedly irreducibly complex.

Apparently the "Designer" under this new design “theory” is a (supernatural) cosmic Rube Goldberg.

Carbon dating

Theory

Grand Canyon fossils

Invertebrate marine fossils are especially abundant in the chert beds of the Thunder Springs Member.
[Stanley Beus, in: Beus & Morales, eds., 1990. Grand Canyon Geology. ISBN 0-19-505015-0. See p. 124, Chapter 8: "Redwall Limestone and Surprise Canyon Formation."]

Creationism and accusations of lying

However, someone should have known better. Those who are representing themseves as scientists have a responsibility to do solid research and accurate work. Whatever the underlying reason, the fact remains that the "scientific" output of creation "science" is riddled with error.

If you can, as you claim, "prove correct" your assertions... I'd like to see your "proof" on the lack of fossils in the Grand Canyon. If you wish to "be ashamed of your fellow men," perhaps you ought to start with whoever originated that whopper.

Nope, sorry, no can do. There is no survey that shows such a thing, since virtually all scientists who have had significant training in biology accept evolution.

Here are some relevant links on the subject of the Archaeoraptor fraud:

• New Birdlike Dinosaurs on View: Could T. Rex Have Had Feathers?
• Archaeoraptor Statement
• Archaeoraptor liaoningensis [Nomen Nudum]
• All mixed up over birds and dinosaurs
• Feathers, Fakes, and Fossil Dealers: How the Commercial Sale of Fossils Erodes Science and Education

There have been claims by anti-evolutionists that Archaeopteryx is a hoax, however these have no basis in fact. See On Archaeopteryx, Astronomers, and Forgery by Chris Nedin here on the Archive for more on this. Chris also has a detailed discussion on Archaeopteryx in All About Archaeopteryx.