Feedback for May 1997

The theory of evolution, like all scientific theories, requires no faith. The theory of evolution says nothing about "everything that exists came from nothing". Order *can* arise out of chance, as a simple glance at a snowflake will verify.

Evolution is not a religious belief because, unlike religion (a) it does not address the existence of supernatural beings (b) it makes testable predictions that have been verified (c) it makes no normative judgments about proper conduct.

Where I disagree with Michael Behe is his idea that his argument really proves that God is out there.

What makes me curious, however, is that you have implied agreement with Mr Behe. Michael Behe accepts the idea of common descent -- the notion that all life on earth is related by common ancestors, including the claim that humans and apes have a common ancestor in the distant past. Based on the tone of your letter, I would assume that you do not accept the idea that humans and apes (and cats, dogs, salamanders, etc) share a common ancestor.

Whatever Michael Behe may have done, he certainly hasn't shown that biologists are wrong to claim that populations evolve, that many modern species are descended from now-extinct species, or that Darwinian mechanisms play no role whatever in the process of evolution. I understand that many people who do not like the idea of evolution are happy with any challenge to established biology, especially if God is introduced into the discussion -- but if what you are concerned about is the mainstream view of life history, Michael Behe does not really help you any.

Talk.origins is a busy - some would say noisy - newsgroup, and a newsreader that supports filters is recommended if you are to be able to keep up with what interests you.

On whether evolutionary theory involves disorder and randomness, see Mark Isaac's FAQ Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution" and the discussions in my FAQ Evolution and Chance" and Loren Haarsma's Chance from a Theistic Perspective".

On how you can be both a Christian and accept that evolution occurred, see Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub's "God and Evolution" and my "Evolution and Metaphysics".

On the so-called "Paluxy man tracks", see the FAQ for a rigorous debunking.

In fact, you would do well to just read through the main FAQ and follow the links there, if you are actually interested in the answers to your questions.

The 'creativity' you mention is the effects of changes in the genetic and epigenetic systems of organisms. These are investigated daily by molecular biologists and developmental biologists. They are observed, and their effects are being documented almost by the minute. The 'randomness' you mention is not 'uncaused', it just doesn't arise as a result of the needs, now or in the future, of organisms in their environments. See the FAQ Evolution and Chance for a discussion on this topic.

Dawkins is not the last word. He is a well-informed, but partisan, populariser whose view have raised enormous debate within the evolutionary community. Do look at his Climbing Mount Improbable, though; it's more accessible than many of his other works.

I am very envious that you were able to see and hear Huxley - he was a great man. However, even he was wrong on some topics, and his views on progress would be rejected by most if not all evolutionary scientists. There are no final authorities in science.

The best response I've seen to a question like this is, "Sure, and wouldn't it be nice to learn what God did?" Many people have the misconception that the sciences, particularly cosmology, geology, and evolutionary biology, require a disbelief in God. For more information, see the God and Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.

As for overturning all doubt, it's unlikely that science can ever satisfy all doubters. After all, there are still people who believe that the Earth is flat. However, the evidence in support of evolution is large and overwhelming. The evidence was substantial enough for the scientific community to accept evolution as the explanation for biodiversity in the late 1800s, and the support has only deepened and broadened since then. For more information on the evidence behind evolution, see the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ and the rest of the Talk.Origins Archive.

You seem to be making the assumption that either (1) Creation occured as described in the Book of Genesis, or (2) It occurred completely by chance. The possibility that The Genesis account is wrong is arbitrarily rejected. However, evolution, like all science, does not involve itself in matters of philosophy or religion, and hence takes no position on whether or not God had a hanc in the process.

There are two things to consider: (1) Living things obviously exist. (2) If your argument is applied equally to all models of origins, it would, if true, eliminate the possibility that living things could come into existence. Therefore, your argument does not appear to have much validity.

I would suggest that you objectively consider the evidence for evolution vs. the evidence for special creation. To do so, peruse the talk.origins archives.

The questions that are posted here are not under the respondents' control. People post their questions to an automated system, which we access to add our responses. We can do little to stop "crackpots" from making their comments, and I'm not sure how willing we are to exercise much editorial control over their posting here. I'm willing to edit posts for spelling, format, and grammar, as I did yours, but I don't know how willing I would be to delete posts entirely, had I the power to do so.

It is hard to answer (as you requested) your "questions" on carbon dating, because you did not supply references. This makes detailed research of the claims impossible. (It would also have helped if you had supplied your E-mail address. We are discouraged from making lengthy feedback responses. Since I couldn't E-mail the following text to you, I had to either bend the "response" rules, or else not reply to you at all.)

I had not heard the "rat" story before, but it could be true. In some cases, creatures obtain carbon from sources whose ¹⁴C level does not match the atmospheric level; as a result they give carbon dates which are up to a few thousand years too old. This is not a problem for most plants (which get their carbon directly from the atmosphere) and animals (which get their carbon either from plants or from other animals which ultimately got it from plants). It is a problem for creatures in a few environments, mostly marine ones. It would be possible to "grow" a rat to yield a bogus carbon date by feeding it a specially prepared diet -- but that does not represent a good argument against the reliability of carbon dating under normal circumstances. Also, if the story is true, it would be useful to see the actual measurements that were made in obtaining the date. Other assessments such as "delta¹³C" can be made on that data. It is quite possible that these other tests would indicate that such a specially "prepared" rat would not be suitable for carbon dating anyway -- in which case the method really isn't "fooled."

As for the dinosaur bone, I'd guess that it is a somewhat garbled retelling of a CSREF (a creationist organization here in Ohio) escapade. If so, CSREF's claims have been answered by Brad Lepper (1992). (The part about "retesting" is probably untrue; carbon dating is not capable of yielding results in the millions-of-years range.) Carbon dating is fairly reliable when applied carefully and properly. Unfortunately, CSREF did not do so. In fact, prior to an actual date being computed, the U. of Arizona lab told them that: (1) the fossil bone contained no collagen (meaning that all of the original bone material had been replaced and any resulting date could not possibly represent the time of death of the animal that the bone came from); and (2) it was loaded with shellac "and other contaminants" (meaning that it was known in advance that the resulting date would not be valid). CSREF told the laboratory to go ahead and perform the date anyway. Obviously CSREF wasn't interested in an honest test of carbon dating; they misrepresented the source of the material and ignored checks which indicated its unsuitability for dating. As Brad Lepper said:

"Such deliberate disregard of the warnings from both the Carnegie and Arizona suggests not mere ignorance of the limitations of radiocarbon dating nor even simple incompetence, but a premeditated intent to deceive. CSREF researchers must have known the radiocarbon dates on the Carnegie speciments would be hopelessly compromised by the contaminants. They knew the "dates" would be meaningless, but they also knew they would appear recent."
1992, p. 8

However... other than exposing the very shoddy research involved in a creationist "assessment" of dating methods, CSREF's claims (and Brad Lepper's response) really don't matter much. Carbon dating is limited to the most recent 50,000 years even under optimal conditions, and it is therefore not very relevant to either evolution or the age of the Earth. If you wish to learn about the age of the Earth, I recommend that you check out the Age of the Earth section of the archive. The Age of the Earth FAQ would be a good place to start.

Reference:

Lepper, Bradley T., 1992. "Radiocarbon Dates for Dinosaur Bones? A Critical Look at Recent Creationist Claims" in Creation/Evolution 30 pp. 1-10. (Available from NCSE)

You might also get up to date information at the Sydney Morning Herald site if you search on Plimer. At the time of writing (7 May 1997), the case was in recess for deliberation.

Many of us don't hold that belief. You can't resolve the issue by condeming those who don't hold your religious views. Read Matthew 7:1,2.

Most fossils are not polystrate fossils--fossils that can be found in multiple layers of rock--but those that are have natural explanations. See the Polystrate Fossil FAQ for more information.

More information on the case can be found at Ian Plimer Trial.

You should read Chris Colby's Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ and browse through the rest of the archive to clear this up. I also recomend reading some more detailed books.

Judging by your commentary, the web site which you reference must be somewhat misleading. Apparently you weren't told that halos are found in formations which are not part of the Earth's "foundation" -- ones which creationists consider to be "Flood desposits." Or that halos are only found for isotopes of polonium in the decay series of long-lived uranium/thorium, and only found in association with deposits of those elements which produce those isotopes of polonium even today.

It should be noted that even Gentry's own SDA church isn't overly impressed with his claims. See the review of his book in their science periodical Origins 15 32-38. They say that Gentry's line of argument "has some serious problems," and urge readers to "be cautious in accepting its argumentation and claims of evidence for ex nihilo creation."

As to what makes a "true" Christian, I would only admonish you to judge not, lest ye be judged.