Feedback for March 1999

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wesley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need more like him!

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of this is absolutley false. Specific enough?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could go on and on.

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

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

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

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

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

Chris

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

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

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

Glad you responded back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice manners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's my explanation.

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

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

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

I would also like to make a rebuttal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Abiogenesis FAQ

Probability of Abiogenesis FAQ

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

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

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

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

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

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

But notice that this means that those who post to talk.origins are not necessarily scientists either - for example, I'm not. The behavior of participants in talk.origins or any other forum is not the justification or disqualification of their views. What makes a view worthwhile or not in science is the evidence, formal structure, and usefulness of that view.

Moreover, diverging from the "party line" is not necessarily evidence of an open mind. Very often (not always) the party line is the party line for good reason - because it has stood the test of time and investigation. Adopting a creationist stance is not a valid option in science for anybody. It may be that some varieties of anti-Darwinism are still valid.

However, and I have said this before, many evolutionist-minded folk do tend to think that disputing some of Darwin, or even raising questions, is evidence of creationism, and to attack that view I have prepared an FAQ on Varieties of AntiDarwinism that you might find useful.

Much of the problem lies in the volume of creationist-inspired stupidity (I use the word advisedly) that sees the same old canards repeated ad nauseum no matter how many times they are debunked. Tempers fray and patience wears thin. Many times, people get called creationist because they manage to hit a trigger phrase or idea, often unknowingly. Bear with us. We're only human.

A god of some sort may exist. If he did not want to be detected, he may have the power to resist discovery. So far, he's doing a good job of avoiding detection and leaving no trace of himself. Such a deity could not be disproven. However, specific (biblical) claims have been made that can be tested, and certain logical contradictions can show that certain varieties of gods are unlikely or impossible, like the mutual exclusivity of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. (That is my opinion and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Talk Origins Archive. There are some Christians associated with this site).

If a god did create life on this planet, he did so using evolution, in a way that looks completely natural, and he wiped his fingerprints off, leaving no trace. Evolution cannot be overturned with scripture, if that's what you mean. Evolution is a scientific theory that does not need to be held on to. The evidence either supports it or denies it... and right now it supports it very clearly.

Many religions accept evolution, and believe that it was the process by which god put life on this planet.

This post leads me to an interesting point.

We are often accused of being closed-minded. We have closed off our minds to the Word, they say. But I for one am not close-minded. What would convince me of the existence of a deity? Unambiguous physical evidence. Something I could not mistake. Probably a personal, physical visit. So, I am saying that there is a chance I could be wrong. I think it's a slim chance at best, but I'm willing to say that the possibility exists.

How about you? To all the fundamentalist creationists out there-- what would change your mind, and make you reject the idea of a literal interpretation of Genesis? Are you willing to say that you might be wrong? Or are you... close-minded?

I have just got my pages up: "Evolution for Beginners". While it is not exactly a summary of every subject, it is a good overview of many subjects, written just for you!

I am not a "qualified" evolutionist, as I do not have a doctorate, so I could not engage in Walt Brown's debate. I have, however, issued a counter-debate, one without his restrictions and limitations.

The best I can do at the moment is to rebutt his "Questions for Evolutionists".

I am also working on rebutting Kent Hovind's quesions.

Each of these lists, not to mention the both of them, involve a staggering amount of material, and are very time-intensive. Real scientists shouldn't be bothered with such trivialities. They have more important things to do than to bicker with biblical creationists.

If you are interested in seeing the results of evolution/creation debates, here are the results of one debate, and here is another.

No pythons are livebearing, but all boas are; so are many vipers ["viper" is basically from "viviparous" or so I recall...]. Actually lots of familiar and not-so familiar snakes and many lizards are live-bearing: garter snakes, water snakes, boas, most pit vipers, some skinks, some horned lizards, some spiny lizards, some european lizards... There have been any separate evolutionary origins of ovovipary and vivipary from ovipary in squamate reptiles; sometimes egg-laying vs live-bearing varies between populations of one species.

In some cases there is a substantial amount of placenta-like maternal nourishment of the growing young, so the live-bearing then counts as truly viviparous, not just ovoviparous [there will probably be a range of intermediate conditions...]

(See Message-ID <6pf12s$2b2$1@news.duke.edu> on DejaNews.)

Think of a species of snake that lives in an environment with lots of egg-stealing predators. Natural selection will favor species of snakes that protect their eggs in some fashion. One way might be to produce lots of eggs and hope that some survive. Another might be to hide them. Another might be to create thicker shells so the eggs are harder for predators to eat. Another might be to keep the eggs in the womb a bit longer so that they're not lying out in the open as long.

Each of these strategies has costs, and the costs depend on the rest of the environment. For example, in an environment with lots of snake predators as well as snake egg predators, a mother snake that hauls her brood around with her for a long period of time risks slowing herself down and losing not just her entire brood, but her own life as well. She might be best off laying a lot of eggs, even though that is wasteful of her resources.

On the other hand, if there are lots of egg predators but not many snake predators, her best bet is to keep the brood with her as long as possible. Over time, then, selection will favor snakes that keep their eggs for a longer period of time before laying them. After long enough, the eggs remain in the snake long enough to hatch before they are released.

But think then: if the snake isn't releasing her eggs into the wild, why build up all that protective shell? After all, that takes energy and resources and weighs the snake down unnecessarily. Why not make a thinner eggshell? And so on. I'm sure you see where this is going.

(In fact, we do see all of these variations, and more, in modern snakes.)

I've trimmed most of La Velle's feedback down to the quoted bit about Darwin. The appropriate place for long discourse of that sort is in the talk.origins newsgroup, where one may expect a number of lively responses to all points within the complete essay.

As to Darwin and the fossil record, I find La Velle's approach to be somewhat facile in nature. Take the "numerous species" passage, incompletely quoted by La Velle above. Let's see what the original said, shall we?

The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists, for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and by none more forcibly than by professor Sedgwick, as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection. For the development of a group of forms, all of which have descended from some one progenitor, must have been an extremely slow process; and the progenitors must have lived long ages before their modified descendants. But we continually over-rate the perfection of the geological record, and falsely infer, because certain genera or families have not been found beneath a certain stage, that they did not exist before that stage. We continually forget how large the world is, compared with the area over which our geological formations have been carefully examined; we forget that groups of species may elsewhere have long existed and have slowly multiplied before they invaded the ancient archipelagoes of Europe and of the United States. We do not make due allowance for the enormous intervals of time, which have probably elapsed between our consecutive formations, — longer perhaps in some cases than the time required for the accumulation of each formation. These intervals will have given time for the multiplication of species from some one or some few parent-forms; and in the succeeding formation such species will appear as if suddenly created.

It can be seen that La Velle did not appropriately quote Darwin, even in the small snippet that Le Velle retained from the original passage. There is a difference between "theory of evolution" and "theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection". La Velle also failed to indicate by any means that Darwin actually had an answer for the objection that Darwin acknowledged. The complete passage shows that Darwin brings up geographical distribution and ecological factors as possible explanations for sudden appearance of species in the fossil record, and those considerations are part of the modern theory of puntuated equilibria. La Velle quotes again from the same passage in Darwin, but characterizes it as showing that the fossil record disappointed Darwin in "another way". How so? The quotes come from the same paragraph. The previous quote La Velle used can be seen to closely follow La Velle's later quote, and to be addressing the very same issue.

I have elsewhere analyzed what expectation of proportion of transitional sequences can be derived from Darwin's commentary.

As I have previously stated upon occasion, the existing links that we have in hand are far more problematic for literalist conceptions of fiat creation than "missing links" are for evolutionary biology.

Wesley

As H. E. Wood has remarked, the argument from absence of transitional types boils down to the striking fact that such types are always lacking unless they have been found.

In this case, it is "nothing complex comes out of the less complex", and it is also established as a principle of logic, which it is not. The way in which anti-evolutionists define "complex" may make for a formally correct argument, but it has very little to do with the actual structure and processes of living things.

"Functional" just means "something that contributes to the persistence of a system". If process A contributes to the continued existence of that type of organism, but process A', which is slightly different in its parts but may generate very different outputs, contributes even more to the continuation of those sorts of organisms, then A' will replace A, or perhaps even coexist with A.

It takes a very sparse imagination not to be able to see that. Organisms have duplicates of genes that end up coding for slightly different proteins all the time. And those proteins can have similar but not identical roles in the life of the organism type. If that is too hard to understand, then Behe ought not to be a biochemist.

I think that Keith did a good job deaing with Behe's logic and not getting caught up in the complexities of biochemistry, which would not be sophisticated enough to convince the specialists and would be too complex to help the nonspecialist, but perhaps some better examples could be found.

Here is one site that has some fresh paleontology, Discovery Online.

Here is another (this one is better) Science Daily.

I'm sure someone else will put something up for you.

The second law says that if a system that is thermodynamically isolated makes a transition from one state of thermal equilibrium to another state of thermal equilibrium, then a state variable called entropy will show a change that is greater than zero if the transition was irreversible, and zero if the transition is reversible. It is the definition of entropy that creates the link between the second law and the concept of order and disorder, but the link is ambiguous at best. In statistical thermodynamics, the entropy is defined in terms of the probability of finding the system in a given state. Probabilities are related to certainty and uncertainty, and so give an ambiguous connection to "order" and "disorder", which are not objective concepts anyway.

The first thing to note is that the restriction that the system be isolated at all times, and that the entropy be measured while the system is in equilibrium is a hard restriction that cannot be passed over lightly. So in a strict sense, the second law does not even apply to any natural system since no natural system is truly isolated. But natural systems can certainly be "isolated enough" to conform over a characteristic time period to second law restrictions. Those systems are observed to obey the second law.

The biosphere is not even approximately isolated, and is in a thermodynamic state far from equilibrium. Life processes are also very un-isolated, and very far removed from equilibrium. Since the biosphere & life do not meet the basic restrictions, the second law cannot be applied to them in its usual form in any case. This pulls the rug out from under the creationist argument and exposes it at once as a chimera.

The correct procedure is to apply a form of the second law that is used in nonequilibrium thermodynamics. This procedure subdivides a given system into regions that meet the restrictions of equilibrium "enough"; it cannot make isolated subsystems. The entropy is then handled independently for each of the approximately equilibrated subsystems, with care to handle the flow of entropy between them. This methodology is quite complex in practice, but relatively straight forward in principle. But there is no indication that anything related either to life or the prcocesses of evolution violates any known thermodynamic law.

Specifically, the statement the "all real processes go with an increase in entropy" is flatly false; it is in fact inconsistent with a proper statement of the second law.

Evolution is based on observational evidence. This is different from creationism, which selectively uses evidence to support its position. In other words, evolution comes from evidence, while creationism uses evidence to support an unverifiable, pre-existing source (the bible).

Creationism is not science, because it relies completely on miraculous interventions (the flood and the creation itself, not to mention just about all the rest of the book)-- things that cannot be used in the formulation of a scientific theory. Since miraculous events cannot be tested, repeated, nor can the processes by which they operate be described, they must be taken on faith. Creationism is an expression of religious belief-- not science. There is a huge difference.

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

If you have trouble fathoming the study of events that happened millions or billions of years ago, perhaps you should read further. Is paleontology to be doubted? Should archaeology be thrown out? Is geology a religion? Is all of history suspect? There are real reasons behind the science of reconstructing the past.

My favorite analogy is forensic science. A man can murder someone (with no witnesses), and scientists can reconstruct the scene with such accuracy as to pinpoint the guilty person- with such accuracy as to cause that man to receive the death penalty. Evolution is much the same- reconstructing the past through examination of the evidence. Creationism does no such thing. Creationism has yet to produce any evidence.

It's true that not every theory withstands the test of time and goes on to be considered a fact by nearly all of the scientific community, but evolution is one that has. Evolution is biology-- it has about as much to do with faith as does chemistry, geology, physics and math.

Live with it.

This site is concerned with evolutionary biology and geology, and not cosmology, so it's no surprise that you can't find the answers to those questions here.

To pursue those questions adequately, you need at least a partial knowledge of particle physics, quantum physics, and general relativity. Unfortunately, these aren't subjects which you can assimilate in a few minutes.

You should start by reading a few books. First, read A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. Next, read The Whole Shebang, A State of the Universe Report by Timothy Ferris. Try ordering them at Amazon.com. That is, if you are really serious about pursuing this subject.

You can try this link to a page I made that looks at this question. It may not be as definitive as you want, but that is the state of those sciences. The conclusions you seek have not yet been reached.

You should also try this site.

And the reader's assertion is clearly contradicted by even a cursory examination of this site. For one, we have a larger list of links to creationist Web sites than most creationist Web sites do. And quite a few of the articles, such as Glenn Morton's review of John Woodmorappe's Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Brawley's Evolution's Tiny Violences: The Po-Halo Mystery, and our critiques of Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe contain direct links to rebuttals by the people whose work is being critiqued or their supporters.

We want our readers to examine creationist arguments. We encourage them to do so.

That Patterson quote is garbage- utterly worthless. See Patterson Misquoted A Tale of Two 'Cites' to read what the REAL quote says. This is just one example of hundreds of deliberate misquotes which are propigated by unscrupulous creationists. Are you comfortable associating yourself with such dishonest people?

The rest of your post is just plain wrong. Here's why. The fossil record demonstrates unambiguously the continuous evolution of life. In the oldest and deepest levels of rock there are found no fossils at all. Above that are found the simplest forms of life- bacterial fossils and invertebrates. Then above that are found vertebrate fish, and above that more complex creatures. Within the strata that contain the most primitive reptiles, you find NO mammal or bird fossils- ONLY reptiles, fish and invertebrates. In the strata that you first find mammals, they are found to be small and rodent-like... NO large modern mammal types can be found. In the strata that contain Archeaopteryx, NO types of modern birds are fossilized. In the level of the Australeopithecene hominids, you can't find any Neandertals. Where you uncover homo erectus, there are NO modern human remains. It is very clear. There are no fossils found that conflict with our understanding of how life evolved over the ages. Sure, we could have more examples of transitions, and I'm all for putting more paleontologists in the field to discover them. But consider this- in the big picture, nearly every species is a transition to another. Crocodiles haven't evolved much in the last 200 million years, but that's rare to find a species so well-fitted that it does not change. In this sense, nearly every fossil ever uncovered represents a transition to another species, accept those species which resulted in extinction.

The fossil record mirrors the genetic record. A biblical flood could not have genetically sorted millions of species in this way. Can creationism explain how the biblical flood sorted these creatures into respectively close layers via their DNA? It took humans thousands of years to come up with DNA comparison testing, but it took those muddy violent waters no time at all to sort species after species after species after species, all according to their DNA! Any scientific explanation for this? How about the common sense answer that all the fossils were not laid down in one big flood?

Duane Gish is hardly an expert to comment on anything scientific. You should double check everything he says. Take the following examples:

"Uniquely bird-like teeth"? Excuse me? As in... which species of bird? Name a species of living bird with teeth, please. Gish just shot himself in the foot with that one.

"The long tail is supposed to be a reptilian feature, but, of course, some reptiles have short tails, while many have long tails." Okay, fine, but no living species of bird does have a long bony tail. That's the point! That's why it represents a clear transition. There is no living species of bird that has a long, bony, reptilian-type tail. Anyone who thinks swans have a long bony tail the length of its body similar to Archaeopteryx needs glasses.

"A number of modern birds have claws on their wings."
No, one species of modern bird as vestigial claws on its wings, the Hoatzin (Opisthocomus), and then only for the first few weeks of its life. It loses these claws when it reaches adulthood. Is he intentionally trying to mislead people, or just dense? Or do the ends justify the means, and he is willing to say anything to 'save a soul'?

You want to try again? You might research the material you lifted out of a creationist book (or website) a little better next time before wasting your efforts.

That's a great idea! It is very important to get both sides of an argument.

You might want to check out the Center for Scientific Creationism's 20 Questions for Evolutionists, and the information of creationist Kent Hovind.

Good luck.

Gentry did not find evidence of variable decay rates. What he did find were halos which he claims are caused by the decay of extremely short lifetime polonium isotopes. But his evidence is ambiguous at best, for several reasons. For one, he is unable to tell the difference between what he calls polonium halos, and halos caused by the decay of radon, which has a much longer lifetime. This is consistent with the observation that his halos always manage to show up only when uranium is around to provide the radon. Gentry's "evidence" is weak and unconvincing, and has no bearing on decay rates even if it were true. See Evolution's Tiny Violences - The Po-Halo Mystery, here in the talk.origins archive; Polonium Halos and Myrmekite in Pegmatite and Granite, and The Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery".

Your statement that helium cannot escape from the Earth's atmosphere is a fairy tale. Of course it can, and it does. Helium escapes both by thermal process, as well as ion outflow along polar magnetic field lines. The rate of production and the rate of escape from the atmosphere are known to be in equilibrium. See Helium Escape from the Terrestrial Atmosphere - The Ion Outflow Mechanism, O. Liesvendsen & M.H. Rees; Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) v101(A2): pp2435-2443 (1996 Feb 1).

Your link to Creation Science is already in our list of other web sites, under the heading of pro-creationism.

Radiometric dating works just fine, and there is no evidence of significant variability in decay rates to affect dating results. I have compiled a radiometric dating resource list, which includes considerable criticism of arguments from young-Earthers, as well as considerable detailed material on how radiometric dating works. I suggest you visit and browse. You might learn something.

Sure, most early scientists believed in a creator in different forms-- they had no reason not to. They had no plausible alternatives. Benjamin Franklin was a deist who rejected Christianity (as was Thomas Jefferson). You are right- there were many important god-believing scientists who contributed major findings... BUT they did not use their religion in formulating their scientific theories! That part is of the utmost importance. Can you imagine Isaac Newton explaning gravity by vague miracles and by quoting scripture? He knew the difference between science and theology.

Creationism does not follow the scientific method. Never has.

Why do less scientists believe in a creator now than in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? Well, back then no one had yet proposed a viable alternative to the creator hypothesis. A satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life had not been proposed. The origin of the universe was even a bigger mystery. Things are different now.

There are scientists today, even evolutionists, who believe in a creator. So what? If they disregard scientific methodology, and let their prejudices and secret hopes rule over their interpretations of evidence, and use scientific-sounding arguments and fabricated observations to support their biblical literalism, then they are no longer practicing science. But if they remain objective, and accept what the evidence implies, no matter how disconcerting or damaging to their pre-existing theology, then they have maintained their integrity.

Evolution has been observed. The mechanisms are well described. No scientific or educational institution doubts the occurrence of evolution (except those with a competing religious dogma to protect). There is every reason to accept evolution, and no good reason to reject it. The fabricated, mistake-filled "evidence" of fundamentalist creationism that is supposed to "overturn evolution" does no damage to evolution, no matter how loudly they shout it.

Creationism requires faith because its processes are unknown, and no theory is offered to explain those processes. Evolution requires no faith because its processes are well known. The explanatory theories hold up, time after time. The evidence, both fossil and DNA, appears exactly as we would expect it to, if evolution is true. Creationists, in their egocentric desperation not to be lowered to the level of animals, stick their fingers in their ears and squeeze their eyes tight-- willfully ingnoring what the rest of the world knows to be true.

However, the authors of the study, and those who preceded them, make the explicit point that "You can clearly be a scientist and have religious beliefs." But they go on to say that you will not likely be a "great" scientist.

I think the methodology is flawed, because the questionairre must ask a vague question ("Do you believe in God?", or some similar question) and they are drawing an exact conclusion. It would have been better to ask something that is a little less culturally relative and a bit more unambiguous, but that's just my opinion.

The point is that from a purely philosophical perspective, there is no direct contradiction between believing in God and doing science. It is even likely that being a "great" scientist (ie, succeeding) involves having a certain amount of hubris that sits uneasily with American religious traditions.

You brought up an important point that has been on my mind recently.

You mention your position is based on you beliefs. It seems, based on my experiences with people of you position, that belief implies an unconditional, unquestioning acceptance of specific sources (the bible, and what is told to them by their church leaders and/or creationists). To have strong faith, to accept what you are told without questioning or doubt is hailed as virtuous. To doubt or question is derided as sinful, and you are told that it harms your chances of salvation. (How welcomed would a constantly doubtful, questioning skeptic be in your church?)

You (and all creationists) should understand something about the way scientifically-minded people come to accept an idea as true. We accept things as true, not based on an automatic assumption of truth, but after careful consideration of all evidence, weighing all sides of an issue, after skeptical criticism and asking a lot of questions of all positions.

In our circles, people who exhibit "blind faith" are regarded as credulous and naive, and those with a healthy dose of skepticism are considered careful and judicious. We think differently, you and I.

So, when creationists accuse us of willfully turning our backs on God, we have in fact made an informed decision based on a careful skeptical scrutiny of all the available evidence, and have come to form an honest opinion. Belief for us is not a matter of choice. We don't believe as we will, we believe as we must. I could, for example, proclaim that "I believe everything the bible says", ten times every day, but I would be lying, and any god that did exist would know that. My opinions are not a matter of choice. If you wish to change my opinions, provide the evidence that will do so.

What if my understanding of the world is wrong? Well, to quote Ingersoll:

"Why," they say to me, "suppose all this should turn out to be true, and you should come to the day of Judgment and find all these things to be true. What would you do then?"

I would walk up like a man, and say, "I was mistaken."

"And suppose God was about to pass judgment upon you, what would you say?"

I would say to him, "Do unto others as you would that others should do unto you." Why not? I am told that I must render good for evil. I am told that if smitten on one cheek I must turn the other. I am told that I must overcome evil with good. I am told that I must love my enemies; and will it do for this God who tells me to love my enemies to damn his? No, it will not do. It will not do.

You, self-admittedly, have limited scientific knowledge, and hold to the "belief" of the creation "mainly because, of course, a detailed account is given in the bible." But the bible is not evidence, because it cannot be externally verified. Geology does not support the notion of a worldwide global flood, and an earth age of around 6,000 years. It just doesn't. I would recommend that you increase your scientific knowledge. Question everything, whether evolution or creationism.

The bible nowhere supports the idea of a round earth. It speaks several times of situations that can only be explained by a flat earth, such as climbing to the top of a mountain and seeing all the kingdoms of the earth at once. It mentions "circle of the earth", but a circle is not a sphere, and this is based on the Babylonian idea of a flat, circular earth, like a pancake. The bible has many factual errors, is internally inconsistent, and is historically suspect. I don't say this to be aggressive or cruel; it's based on evidence.

I don't use evidence to support my position. My position is formed from the evidence.

Just like creationism uses [fabricated] evidence to support its biblical position, and evolution is formed from observational evidence.

No, the facts don't support both sides. Creationist "facts" aren't facts. They are a bunch of willful misinterpretations and fabrications.

The delay between feedback submission and posting is an unfortunate necessity. Submissions must be held open long enough for several folks to find time to review them and pick out ones matching their expertise/interest. Since these folks are answering feedback in their free time without compensation, it's reasonable to give them a little while to get around to it.

I think the only ones who understand where he's coming from are him and his followers.

You can find out what I (and others who contributed) think by visiting my rebuttal page in progress: The Wild, Wild World of Kent Hovind. It's a hoot.

Permission to use that in the Talk Origins glossary as the official definition?

Just kidding.

The indoctrination of the gullible, by the ignorant, in the absurd?

The constant assertion that evolutionary science falsely claims to have evidence, but only makes statements such as "the evidence exists", is rather disappointing.

This is like Mr. Goodwin standing outside on the steps of the main branch of the New York Public Library, and saying "They say they have books in there, and since these statements are made as though fact, many don't question them". Until you actually GO INSIDE, you will never know if there is evidence. Instead of blindly believing in the creationists claim that there is no evidence for evolution, you should question THEIR claim.

This goes for everybody who says there is no evidence for evolution (because we get this a lot): On the top AND bottom of every page on the Talk Origins Website, there are links directly to "Browsing" the evidence for evolution, and "Searching" the website on ANY topic... just type in a word. TRY IT SOMETIME.

Of course, all of the information on this site is biased, because it is all written by (gasp) scientists... professionals who just happen to be working in fields related to biology.

Most of your (long) feedback message is mere parroting of old creationist objections. Did you just buy a book and get fired up? Or did you come across one of their websites? Until you know what research HAS been done, it's rather pointless to throw up baseless objections to it.

Such quotes you give are appeals to authority. Since many or most of them are probably quoted from some creationist apologetic like "The Handy-Dandy Evolution Refuter" or "The Collapse of Evolution" or the like, the accuracy of the quotes should immediately be suspect. Creationists are NOTORIOUS for misquoting and quoting out of context. Their quotes always need to be verified.

Even if the quotes are accurate, they are the opinions of people. Some of them are rather old, too, and have no bearing on the current state of the sciences. Such opinions provide no facts, no results, no real support for your position, they are merely human biases. Physicist and mathematicians are about as qualified to speak on evolution as a garbage man, (UNLESS they are schooled and familiarized in evolutionary biology and its related sciences).

The reason why certain "fire and brimstone" type of Christians refuse to accept scientific findings is because they need a literal Adam and Eve to support their notion that all human beings are born totally depraved with Original Sin, and therefore in need of Salvation through Christ-- in fact, that was the whole reason for the crucifixion. If you replace Adam and Eve with Homo Erectus, the idea of the Fall of Man and Original Sin is a little hard to reconcile.

As far as the idea of a creator, you are free to believe what you like. But this is not an area for science to enter. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. Here's mine.

To quote Carl Sagan in Pale Blue Dot, p. 57:

The evidence, so far at least and laws of Nature aside, does not require a Designer. Maybe there is one hiding, maddeningly unwilling to be revealed. Sometimes it is a very slender hope.

The significance of our lives and our fragile planet is then determined only by our own wisdom and courage. We are the custodians of life's meaning. We long for a Parent to care for us, to forgive us our errors, to save us from our childish mistakes. But knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth, than a reassuring fable.

If we crave a cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal.

An immune system by definition is the system that maintains integrity between the self and non-self. Without a self (that is, an integrated multicellular organism), there can be no immune system. All organisms have some defence mechanisms against predation or parasitism, even single cell organisms, and when multicellular organisms are about, and they evolve, it follows that these mechanisms will be optimized.

The first cells reproduced by a process known as fission, that is, dividing down the middle after duplicating all the internal machinery. Genders occur in some single cell organisms (eg, algae and some bacteria). They do this by alternating in the way they contribute genetic material. The need for genders has something to do with the evolutionary stability of the species. Clonal species are short-lived, probably because sex stores more variation than clonal lineages can, and so sexual species can adapt more quickly to environmental challenges.

"True" evolution is observed all the time. The most recent nice example is the evolution of luminescent suckers on a deep sea octopus. Happening now at a benthic shelf near you.

Why is the theory of electricity taught in schools? Why is the theory of gravity? Why is science (a collection of theoretical explanations) taught at all? Go figure.

All these, and the rest of your "objections", are dealt with in the appropriate FAQs on this site. Go to the search button below and type the key words. You'llbe amazed... and educated.

You admonish us to use our brains, but I would recommend that you do the same...

Your first point: You should know that the idea that men have fewer ribs than women is an ignorant myth. That blows the credibility of your whole message. Please do some research.

"Humans normally have 12 pairs of ribs, with one pair extending from each of the thoracic vertebra. The vertebrae are the 33 individual bones that comprise the backbone, or spinal column. The upper seven pairs of ribs, called true ribs, are connected to the breastbone by the cartilage at the front of each rib. The remaining five pairs are called false ribs. The upper three pairs of false ribs are attached to the backbone, with each rib connected to the cartilage of the rib above it. The last two pairs of false ribs are called floating ribs because they are attached only to the backbone, and not to the breastbone or any other rib."

"Rib," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Your second point: Your second point is meaningless. Humans are the only species (that we can confirm) that have the cognitive ability to wonder about our origins. There is no evidence that this cognitive ability occurred by any other means than biological evolution. That we have a desire to know our origins has absolutely nothing to do with either proving or disproving the theory of evolution.

Your third point: Such articles as you describe are used to show the absurdity of a literal interpretation of Genesis. That's the point! Those articles are aimed at biblical literalists... if you aren't a literalist, then the article isn't for you. At the current count, there are at least 10 million species on earth. For evolutionists to insist that creationists take into account the loading of a mere 16,000 onto the ark is not an unreasonable demand.

See "Little Creek Exotics: Zebra" for a simple overview, the "Zebra Home Page" for a detailed overview of zebras and links to more detailed information about zebras and other odd-toed mammals can be found from "Odd-toed Hoofed Mammals". Alternatively, do a web search on the term "zebra equus".

I'll take you up on that. I'll bet I find an inaccuracy within one week of when you send me my copy.

Wesley

Of course it can be tested. What, precisely, does the reader believe that evolutionary biologists have been doing for the past century? Just sitting in their offices, twiddling their thumbs?

No one has witnessed the life cycle of a star. Yet we understand how a star is born, lives, and dies. We know this from looking at millions of stars in various stages, comparing and contrasting them, and applying what we know about physics to the results of our examinations.

No one has been inside an erupting volcano. Yet we understand the geologic processes that cause them to form and why some slowly spew forth lava while others explode catastrophically. We know this from examining many volcanoes, both active and long-extinct, looking at the cores of ancient volcanoes whose exteriors have eroded away, and applying what we know about geology to the results of our examinations.

Similarly, although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested heirarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunologies and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.

If the theory of evolution was false, it would have been disproved over a century ago. There were more than enough tests performed and evidence collected by the days of Herbert Hoover, The Great Gatsby, Al Capone, and Prohibition for there to be no significant doubt in biology that the theory of evolution accurately describes the diversity of life on Earth.

We don't ask that astronomers re-create supernovas in the lab before crediting them with doing science. (I would hope that they would content themselves with observational techniques.)

Evolutionary biology as a field of research is not dependent upon the truth or falsity of abiogenesis. Whether the first self-replicator at the base of the tree of life appeared due to self-organization of chemicals or through direct intervention of an intelligence makes no difference to the history of life that followed.

Over time, non-evolutionary creationism becomes more and more like evolutionary biology. The theological principle of plenitude was an early casualty of the fossil record. Plenitude meant that extinction was not a real phenomenon. By the time of Smith and Cuvier, it was apparent that extinction was real. Then there was the principle of special creation, or that each species was the product of a separate creation event. Nowadays, anti-evolutionary creationists adopt some evolutionary change as being consistent with their stance, but only to the point where larger-scale transitions are not overwhelmingly documented. Where "kind" or "baramin" is described, it tends to sound like a "clade" from evolutionary biology. Anti-evolutionary creationists today hold out for a multiplicity of "kinds", but as time goes by, expect to see the number approach the evolutionary asymptote of one.

Evolutionary biology includes direct observation of many phenomena. We can see small-scale adaptation happening, such as beak morphology changes in Darwin's finches and antibiotic resistance in bacteria. We can see speciation happen, both in the lab and in the wild.

Indirectly, there is evidence of many more phenomena. The fossil record shows that processes of adaptation and speciation took place in the past, as well as providing evidence of higher-level transitions. Sequence comparisons in modern organisms reveals a pattern of relationships that would be expected from common descent. The existence of a canonical genetic code for all life on earth is another strong evidence for common descent.

Theologically, if a creator is responsible for the origin and diversity of life on earth, one can make a couple of inferences from the evidence. If that creator did not use evolutionary processes as a method of creation, the creator went to a lot of effort to make the result look just like it was done via evolutionary change. Many people object to such a concept, for such a creator appears to have engaged in deception.

Wesley

One of the primary critiques that I personally have of creationism, in fact, is that it is not just poor science, but also poor theology. Biblical literalism is a relatively recent doctrine in Christianity; certainly it does not reflect what the majority of serious Christian thinkers have espoused over the past two millenia. One must take into account that many events described in the Bible were not put down on paper (or parchment) until sometimes decades or centuries after the fact. Other portions of the Bible are clearly allegorical, and were understood to be so by the people of the times in which the stories were first being told. I invite the reader to undertake a fuller examination of his faith in order to come to a richer understanding of it.

Debates are not mechanisms of finding truth. For scientific inquiry, scientists rarely engage in debates with each other, and when that is done, it is usually for pedagogy, not as a means of deciding between hypotheses.

Objectivity is not a matter of revelation. Humans have wrangled over how to approach objectivity, and in the sciences the preferred mechanism has been publicly disseminated written exchanges, where scholarship and careful evaluation by the community of interested researchers helps in the refinement of techniques and hypotheses. It is a cumbersome and imperfect method, but one which seems to work.

Our knowledge is not static, so the issue of timeliness of information is of real concern. Most of the essays in this archive include contact information for the author or authors. Specific criticisms cocnerning outdated material should be brought to the attention of the author of the work in question. Some time ago, I received word that the ICR had corrected some errors in their "Brainwashed" pamphlet that is the subject of one of the essays here. I made sure that the new information got to the author, and that information is now part of the essay.

I haven't done a debate on the topic of creationism, but I have presented at a conference concerning naturalism and theism. I readily admit that I am far better at written exchanges than at coming up with just the right phrases on the spot and in real time. I don't view that as a big drawback, though. Being careful and paying attention to details in a written exchange can reveal far more than one can hope to do in a debate format.

I invite Brad to come over to the talk.origins newsgroup and try his hand at written exchanges with the evolutionists there. It might make for a nice break from all that talking. I would be interested in learning what Brad thinks about the second Gish-Saladin debate.

Wesley

We are glad you found our site helpful.

Last I checked, A.E. Wilder-Smith was dead. If there is some concept that Wilder-Smith left behind that the reader finds of interest for discussion, he should post it to the talk.origins newsgroup.

Wesley

Helium Escape from the Terrestrial Atmosphere - The Ion Outflow Mechanism By O. Liesvendsen & M.H. Rees Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) 101(A2): 2435-2443 (1996 Feb 1)

Abstract: We have computed global He+ escape fluxes for a range and a variety of diurnal, seasonal, universal time, and solar activity geophysical conditions. We average over the short-term variables and compute the globally averaged escape flux for a range of cutoff latitudes, which separate regions of open and closed field lines, during one solar cycle. The global escape flux averaged over a solar cycle was computed, and we find that a cutoff latitude of about 60 degrees or lower is sufficient to balance the outgassing from the Earth's crust.

The testable evidence for evolution fills this website. Click the button at the top of the screen that says browse, and start browsing.

You submit a testable theory to replace evolution? How is any of that stuff testable? If you can't test something, you must accept it on faith, and then it is not science in any sense of the word. Where is your physical evidence of your so-called theory? You have, in fact, done no better at providing a creation theory than all the creationists since the beginning of history.

Plus, creationists use those phrases just as much, if not more, than evolutionists.

From Kent Hovind's creationism website:

Today the world is 70% water and the oceans separate the continents. Also, some animals only live in a few selected locations. The Bible teaches that before the flood the water was gathered into one place (Genesis 1:9). There was probably one ocean and much more landmass. Also, if the climate was more temperate animals could live in all types of places which means Noah did not have to go gather animals from all over the world.

Except when creationists use such conditional phrases, they don't bother to state the evidence that leads them to those conclusions... maybe because there isn't any??

So criticizing real scientists for the use of phrases like that is inappropriate if creationists can do the same thing, with a total lack of accountability.

I understand that subjects like biology, geology and the like can be very complicated and technical, and sometimes pretty boring too. Reading up on these topics can seem like too much to handle. Talk Origins attempts to be brief and simple, but sometimes it too can be too complicated for the average reader.

You might try my web page, Evolution for Beginners. It has very little technical terminology, and is written for the high-school level reader in mind.