Feedback for September 2005

I have read Mustafa Akyol's testimony at the Kansas Hearings. I am a Turkish resident and I think Mr. Akyol did not tell the truth in his testimony. Quote:

Q. And how does the Turkish school-- public schools teach origin science?

A. They don't have as much focus as you would have here, as you could find in the Kansas summits, but there is a fair approach. The school curriculum talks about the theory of evolution, Darwinism, methodological materialism, and it says it will present other views of life scientists that life is designed. So there's, you could say, a fair approach.

That's not correct. Not one public school or any publication ever mentions about creationism or I.D. The conversation follows:

Q. Do they teach criticisms of evolution and essentially teach both sides of the evolution controversy?

A. You can say that. I mean, since they acknowledge that there's another theory held by some scientists and according to some scientific evidence, and there's also mentioning of the abrupt appearance of some species and lack of transition forms between different taxa, they mention that. I mean, there's a more-- I could say that there's more emphasis on Darwinism, but it's also saying that there's an alternative understanding and it has scientific evidence, and they also mention that scientific evidence as well.

There's no such debate in Turkey. In biology books there's no mentioning of such "abrupt appearance" or whatsoever. There's no mentioning of creationism or intelligent design.

Only one radical islamist group pioneers the creationism idea, the science research foundation, which is long ago discredited with their illegal activites.

Duane

Thank you for your great work. Fantastic site. The one tiny thing bothering me though, is your undertitle. Debating the 'creation/evolution controversy' is fantastic propaganda for creationists/ID. They trap people into thinking that there's something controversial going on, which is plain nonsense.

There is no controversy and we should never give it that name.

Petr Dolezel

The Talk.Origins Archive is an excelent source of knowledge and is very useful for me. But I have one question. In "Index to Creationist Claims" I have found one confusing information. In the claim "CB910" you said that Culex molestus has speciated from Culex pipiens in London's Underground. But in the following websites is said that Culex molestus lives in Australia. How it can be possible? I think that one species cannot evolve in the same way on two different places of the Earth. Can you explain that? Thank you very much.

• Mosquitoes of Australia
• CSIRO Entomology

I've seen Dr.Kent Hovind debate evolutionists. Just to see so many anti-Hovind websites means he is winning the debate.

Amanda Savage

I have noticed that evolution theory still requires the earth to be over millions of years old. If it is this age, then why does the moon that you propose is about the same age of the earth, has only a small amount of cosmic dust compared to the meters that should cover it according to the theory of cosmic dust falling onto the moon and the eart. And what about how sedimentary rocks can not be used to date either because the same formations were made in less than a year by a volcanic eruption. What about the 2nd law of thermodynamics? What about how sedimentary layers are actually formed vertically but settle horizontally? What about the simple experiment of mixing finer sand with coarser sand and watching it settle in layers?

Please explain.

Many thanks!

Many thanks for your page. I'm currently enrolled in a biology class where we must post a current event weekly. A student responded to this week's current even regarding evolution with the following:

Well what I am trying to understand is, is the Theory of Evolution fact or a theory? You know it will be a great day for sure when we all accept God as the creator. Until then I recon that since no human was there in the beginning that both any answer to origin of our species will be considered a theory. You know though, it has been explained by the creationists and the traditional scientists that there is a difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution. There is really no argument that Microevolution exists. We can all see that. But to say that we all evolved from a chance of mixed gases and stuff is up for debate. You know I can certainly see the logic behind every living thing evolving from a single cell but I don't believe it. Instead I choose to believe that all living things here on earth came from the ground. That is why we all have the same elements and compounds in our bodies as all creatures on the Earth. God formed all the animals and all human beings out of the ground. There hasn't been a single fossil found that represents a transitional animal, an in-between phases, missing link. It has been speculated but never found. We should see those everywhere. Lizards with wings and fish with legs and stuff. I know there are some weird animals out there like the duckbill platypus and stuff but these appear to be entirely unique animals and not transitional animals. I don't see the scientists explaining just how all those dinosaurs got so big near as well as the creationists. The Bible speaks in Genesis about there being water above the sky and below the sky. It has been explained that the water that orbited the Earth in the form of Ice or whatever blocked out allot of UV and helped to hold in a higher atmospheric content of Oxygen. It is obvious that there was quite a bit different world wide climate going on in the dinosaurs time. I mean plants were huge!! Animals were Huge!!!! Nothing like today. Isn't it kind of a coincidence here that modern day scientists are coming up with schemes such as putting solar mirrors in outer space to block the sun so it will slow down global warming? A layer of ice or water orbiting the earth would have done that. That protective layer falling down to earth would have caused a massive flood too. That might explain how all the animals disappeared about the same time and wound up embedded in sediment layers too

I'm sorry but I could not find an article on your site about how evolution believes the earth came into existence. I am doing a research paper for school contrasting and comparing evolution, creationism and intelligent design. so that is one question i have, how does evolution believe the earth originated? Another comment i have from your site is the article about the peppered moth. The moth did not evolve into another color. in the 1850's, several trees in england were covered with this kind of mottled gray lichen, the lighter colored moths were camoflauged but the darker ones were seen and eated by the birds. then when the air pollution destroyed the lichen on the trees, the lighter colored moths were seen and eaten. thank you for your time.

Adam Klawitter

Why is it that whenever a creationist writes in with their "facts," criticizing you guys for your lack of research/intelligence,their spelling is always atrocious? Do creationists not believe in spell check, either?

I read your introductory essay explaining evolution and it's mechanisms. I found it most helpful for my school biology assignment. However i was disappointed when your essay turned from being objective and well presented to being highly subjective when you wrote about scientific creationalism. I have no problem with you disregarding this branch of science as a fairytale however I think you could have expressed your view more articulately so that it alligned with the rest of your essay, and not allowed your personal views to affect it's professionalism

Jan

At first, great site, extremely useful for discussions. On some Dutch/Belgian site I came upon a quote of Dr Colin Patterson:

"Question: could you tell me one thing about evolution, something that is true, no matter what? I asked this question at a meeting of the Gelogical Staff of the Fieldmuseum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence.

I tried this question at the Evoltionary Morphological Seminary of the Chicago University and all I heard was a long silence, untill someone said: I now one thing for sure - It shouldn't be tought on high schools.

Dr. Colin Patterson (Head Paleontology, British Museum of Natural History London)"

Has he really said this? I could not find anything in the quote mining?

Michael Z. Williamson

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/stumpers.html

I would add, "Does your faith require physical proof of its claims in order to survive? Would your faith be destroyed by proof that any of the claims you present is false? Why?"

Nicholas Flores Martin

Greets,

I'm a 2nd year Biology and Chemistry student planning to further my studies in evolutionary biology. I have never encountered a site with a vaster treasure of information and answers than this. Its an excellent tool for debating any creationist, or help explain the finer details of evolutionary theory to a non-scientific person.

Gotta love your FAQ to creationist claims, it helped me shut the stupidly squaking beak of many a creationist, who astonishingly believe anything with enough pseudoscience to garnish it as fact.

Rock on, this site is a beacon of light in a dark sea of creationist stupidity,

Nicholas Flores Martin, Malta

krish

I I Just read the analysis on Noah's ark. Wonder what made you delve on it in such detail. Whatever a person believes in , nobody would be so dumb as to believe the Noah story (or other similar ones) in all its literal entirety. Everyone can make out an allegory when he sees one. Have some faith in the intelligence of your fellow humans!

Daniel Calleri

As one who is emerging from the fog of a PhD in evolutionary biology, I am thrilled to see your website, and the balanced manner in which it approaches such an important topic. I hope to use my degree to educate people about evolution and why understanding its various mechanisms is so important. Thank you for maintaining such an important bastian of clear-headed thinking.

David

The comments by David Schulenburger at Kansas University attributing their drop in national ranking to faith based Anti-Evolution is an adumbration of the future decline of the Nation as a whole if the Neo-Creationists are allowed to dictate education standards. ("Lawrence Journal World", August 30, 2005)

Allowing amateurs, including polititians and religeous proselytisers, to force their views on the rest of us will drive the USA into a Dark Age. As we have found, control of our minds concerning Evolution is just the beginng of an attack on science as a whole. We cannot afford to let this happen.

Roeland

So...which is it?

Claim CA001:

Evolution leads naturally to ethical principles such as the Golden Rule.

Claim CA002:

Evolution is descriptive. It tells how things are, not how they should be.

Oliver

After reading the FAQ's on the age of the earth, I put to a prominent creationist the rebuttals of the 'evidence' for the helium in the atmosphere, the minerals in the oceans, the moondust, and the decaying magnetic field arguments.

He admitted that the moondust argument had been thoroughly refuted but provided the following counter-argument to the atmospheric helium argument from Milton's "Shattering the myths of Darwinism":

...

If you will notice, Dalrymple quotes Banks and Holzer to bolser his argument about Helium 4. "There are two things that make Banks and Holzer's finding unsuitable for the purposes to which Dalrymple tries to fit them. The first is that the figure he cites for escape may be great enough to account for the production whose figures he gives, but that is only because he has selected a low estimate for production. In reality the escape rates he cites are not remotely great enough to account for the amount of helium 4 that must have been created and lost--remember we are looking for more than 10**20 grams of missing helium. This means that if the Earth really is 4,500 million years old, then its atmosphere would have to lose helium at a rate somewhere around 10**16 atoms/cm**2 sec., or some ten orders of magnitude faster than Dalrymple's figure, to account for the missing helium.

The second objection is that the figures he uses come from a time (nearly 30 years ago) when most space scientists assumed that the Earth was moving through the vacuum of space--that the atmosphere was surrounded by nothing but empty space. At that time it was believed that light hydrogen and helium atoms would either escape or be dislodged into the void.

More recent studies have suggested that far from losing helium, the atmosphere may actually be gaining quantities of this gas. As it orbits the Sun, the Earth moves not through empty space but through a thin solar atmosphere, which consists principally of hydrogen and helium resulting from nuclear processes within the Sun. Measurements in the upper atmosphere have suggested that the Earth is gaining helium by this means.

In his 1987 book "Gaia: A New look at life on Earth," space scientist James Lovelock writes, 'The outermost layer of the air, so thin as to contain only a few hundred atoms per cubic centimeter, the exosphere, can be thought of as merging into the equally thin outer atmosphere of the sun. It used to be assumed that the escaped of hydrogen atoms from the exosphere gave the Earth its oxygen atmosphere. Not only do we now doubt that this process is on a sufficient scale to account for oxygen, but we rather suspect that the loss of hydrogen atoms is offset or even counterbalanced by the flux of hydrogen from the sun."

Of course Lovelock is writing about hydrogen not helium. However, helium is four times heavier than hydrogen and it is plentiful in the Sun's atmosphere since it is the principal product of the Sun's nuclear fusion process. If hydrogen is not lost but gained, then the same will be true for helium.

...

I would be interested to know what the scientific community have to say in response. Unfortunately, "more studies" to which Milton refers are not referenced. I would also be interested to know if the argument in the final sentence holds any water - I do not why "it's true for hydrogen so it must be true for helium" is a valid step.

A defence of the other two rebuttals has not yet been forthcoming.

Yours,

Oliver

Tim West

An editorial piece appeared in The Guardian Newspaper in the United Kingdom dated 8th Sept 2005, penned by John Allen Paulos, a Professor of Mathematics at Temple University, Philadelphia.

The piece attempts to debunk the creationist hypotheses of irreducible complexity using an analogy of free-market economics to explain how complex organisms evolve, and have not been ‘designed’ or ‘created’ for the singular reason that they are too complex.

The clear analogy struck a chord with me and I thought it would make good reading in the Feeback pages of the comprehensive Talk Origins archive, if indeed you deem it appropriate.

An excerpt:

What is more than a bit odd, however, is that some of the most ardent opponents of Darwinian evolution - for example, many fundamentalist Christians - are among the most ardent supporters of the free market. They accept the market's complexity without qualm, yet insist the complexity of biological phenomena requires a designer.

Daniel Gordon

Hi, I’m a curatorial assistant at the Hancock Museum here in Newcastle in the UK. I was researching woodpeckers for our website last year when I stumbled on a strange page asserting that woodpeckers' tongues projected through the middle of their foreheads. This was my introduction to the bizarre and disturbing world of creationist websites. It was with growing horror that I realised just how much of this stuff there was out there. Some of the assertions seemed so irrational and silly I couldn’t think how I should go about responding to them. It reminded me of the time someone came into the museum with a ‘fossilised baby’ he’d found in his garden. Then I stumbled on your 'evolution of the woodpecker's tongue' essay. What a relief! I went straight to the osteology room and took out a woodpecker skeleton to have a look for myself. We are re-developing our galleries soon, and I will make sure that the woodpecker and its remarkable hyoid bones are featured in the new skeletons display. Thank you Talk.Origins, for providing such a fantastic resource. Please keep up the good work!

Harold

I recently read the following comment on "http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/evolutionaryProblems.htm":

Remember the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption? It occurred on May 18, 1980. That was less than twenty years ago. As a result of that catastrophe, a new lava dome was formed on the site. Not long ago, it was “dated” by the radio-metric method. Guess how old it turns out to be? It yielded a date of 2.8 million years! If that does not demonstrate that the “clock” is broken, then what would?

Is there any truth in this? Please explain if so. Thanks, Harold

please list on your web site the amounts and sources of all funding your organisation has received from any foundations to date. Thank you.

In order for your website to argue agianst the Bible, you must FULLY understand its contents. Not going on unproven ideas of what it might mean. For example the bible does not argue the fact/theory of the age of the Earth. The first five verses in the Bible brings out "In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth ....". It gives no amount of time during this period. Second, the seven creative days are not proven to be litteral 24 hour periods. In fact reaserch into the wording brings out that this is reffering to seven periods of time, only equall to each other. These seven periods could have easily have been several thousands of years long, if not longer.

stephen passage

Sirs, Recently, I built a simple speadsheet that really opened the eyes of a young man who was certain that evolution was true. I took the current population of the earth and doubled it. Then on the cell below it. I reduced it by one half of one percent. Then I repeated this on each cell below it until I get to the number one. The row numbers next to the calculated number would be the number of years ago. This calculation shows that even with the worlds population being doubled and with a one half og one percent annual population growth rate, that evoltionary theory of how long man has been on the earth is mathematically preposterous.

Andy

Hello,

You really need a FAQ on Beowulf. I have heard it used several times lately as proof that dragons were dinosaurs. Specifically, I have heard that Grendel was a T. rex, because Beowulf was able to rip its arms off. I've heard this from both people quoting Hovnid and from a tour of the ICR museum. But as far as I know, Beowulf wasn't a real person, no more than any of the Greek myths described real people. Grendel was a monster-like human, and not a dragon. It is one thing to use bad science to justify creationism, but it is a new low when lies about a myth as used a scientific evidence.

Law of Angular momentum(no big bang)!

Hello sir, Earlier in the year I had somewhat of a email debate with you about the creation days in the bible and you quit responding to me after you couldnt explain how plants could live without pollinization for millions of years. I remember you had your years and days mixed up. I have noticed you have become more distraught since the last time I saw your website. Im not here to badger you although it would make for a good response. Im here to test you. I would like to say though you keep saying that there is tons and lots of evidence for intermediates species but you only present a few skulls which could be classified and fully human or fully ape. And you only gave one example of a bird to a dinosaur which can be classified as fully bird. You know birds found today have tailbones, go ahead look it up, RIGHT NOW! Now why dont you cut the bull and give me the evidence of species changing from one kind to the other because darwin said himself there must be numberless intermediate varieties, where are they? Not in the fossil record! I already know what your response is going to be, you cant prove the bible, well I know that but you need to admit that evolution is also a religion that fits your lifestyle so you can tuck god into a little box and use him only when you need to. Quit being so damn stubborn Man just come to the truth of a young earth like the bible clearly states and jesus verifies. We could use someone like you with huge amounts of dedication and ambition on the lords side. I dont have much time to debate with you to busy educating those about the falsehoods of evolution Thanks for reading, Joseph Jerde

PS. I used to believe in evolution its never to late to change. Ci yodea elohim

David Campbell

Africa is the home of all homo sapiens according to credible evolutionists. Geology and weather were the main forces driving us to leave Africa. These two subjects are not very well documented, Therefore most evolutionary theory is lacking credibility. When and how was the sahara formed? What was the continents drainage system and why didn't more rivers drain it? What made the rain stop falling over northern Africa and when? Did the various species,homo sapiens, homo erectus etc; leave Africa when the Sahara let them ?

Ellery Schempp

Whoever does this site deserves applause. Just for fun...

I came across this text on http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo10.html

"MR. CALVERT: Okay. I think that in our-- what we-- what Dr. Harris said we proposed to do in these hearings was to show that there is a genuine scientific controversy about origins. And I don't see how anybody can deny that, given the testimony that you've heard during the past three days. There is a clear and undeniable scientific controversy about the origin of life....

"Secondly, we have shown that the controversy unavoidably impacts religion. The side of the controversy that supports the idea that man is the product of an unguided evolutionary process, that side which is the evolutionary biology, supports but does not require one kind of religious belief and conflicts with theistic religious beliefs. So we saw an example of that, in spades, in the Humanist Manifesto. The secular humanism was decided in the Schempp case in, I believe, 1987. It was a fascinating case. It involved books in a school that were charged to be promoting secular humanism. By the way, none of the books involved science books or biology textbooks. "And so the Court had to make a decision: Is secular humanism a religion? Because if it wasn't, then, there wouldn't be an issue regarding the books. And the Court took an enormous amount of testimony [hmm--which court? The SC takes no original testimony!] and concluded ultimately that secular humanism is a religion. It found that it was a religion because the tenets of secular humanism is that there is no reason to believe in the existence of a Creator. Well, why is there no reason to believe in the existence of a Creator? It's because an evolution unguided process is perfectly capable of producing life as we see it, and so there's no reason for us to even imagine one. Given the lack of any reason to believe in a Creator, we can ignore traditional religion, and we use human reason to decide our ethics and morals..."

-------------

I am amazed at Mr Calvert's ignorance. The Abington vs. Schempp case was decided in 1963--Calvert is off by 24 years here (and quite likely about 4 billion years in the history of the earth, so 24 is miniscule). This error, however, shows a lack of concern for getting simple facts right. "Secular humanism" is a phrase that nowhere--NOWHERE--shows up in any of the text of the decisions, concurring opinions, and the lone dissenting opinion. Neither does it appear the Engel v. Vitale case of 1962. Schempp did not "involve[d] books in a school that were charged to be promoting secular humanism. In fact, the case was about required Bible-reading and "morning devotions" in the public schools. The SC ruled that such practices violated the establishment clause. Calvert seems to have no clue. I happen to know about this. In fact, I am on record as stating that one of my motivations as a teenager in 1956 was that I did not believe that the Bible was literally true, that I found the stories in Genesis about creation and Noah's flood were myths that did not make sense scientifically, and that reading these tales as part of "morning devotions" was unacceptable to my scientific understandings. The SC's decision agreed that these practices were unacceptable to the First Amendment. Obviously, Calvert has no idea what he is talking about and making stuff up as he goes along. Thanks to talk origins for your really great efforts.

Best regards,

Ellery Schempp

Michael Ressegieu

Question, not a comment. Is there a book out that covers the material found at this site? If so, want to buy it. Where do I go?

Bradley Dodd

I am a physical scientist so I had little knowledge of evolution or creationism, although I have always been a supporter of evolution. But having some distant relations who are creationists has made me search the web for an evolution/creationist discussion/rebuttal. By chance, I saw your website referred to in an article by Richard Dawkins. Now I am learning fast! I would like to congratulate all those associated with the development of this site and its web links!

Ken Ranney

Can you be sure that mutations are not caused by God? Ken Ranney

Joshua Zelinsky

In the most recent Feedback the following question was asked: "I like your site. Since many creationists have been known to take quotes out of context, or use straw man arguments, the question I ask is why? Why are deceitful tactics used if their main book, the bible would discourage it? Is there anything in creationist literature that actually encourages deceitful tactics or teaches how to use them when applying creationist arguments?"

Mark Issac's response ignores what is (in my opinion) the most common cause for creationist quote mining. Creationists are used to being able to quote proof-texts and/or verse citations from their holy texts. For the literal minded creationists, it is understood that the original context has little revelancy to the quoted text. Quote-mines occur when the creationists attempt to apply their standard hermeneutic procedures to other texts, such as science journals.

Warren Whitaker

Hi again, I am tired of those who write telling you that you are bashing Christianity. There are plenty of reputable Bible commentaries available that attest to the errancy and non-literalist content of the Bible. These commentaries are written by Bible scholars, not self-proclaimed experts ( televangelists ). The Bible was written by many different authors and over a looong period of time. These authors were a product of their time and expressed world views that have been out-dated. Many Bible commentaries, especially "The Interpreters Bible", point out all kinds of discrepencies, repeated stories, inaccurate histories, bad math, name changes, legends, mythology and much inconsistent data. The Bible is a religious book, not a science book nor a history book. Most of archeology does not support the Bible. This is all OK as long as people read the Bible for it's intended purpose. Besides, Christianity does not stand on the stories of the Old Testiment, nor even the Ten Commandments. Christianity stands on the idea of love for your fellow man as proposed by Jesus. Try reading Micah 6:8 and see how important it is to believe those old stories in the Bible. Yours, Warren Whitaker retired HS Biology Teacher Faculty, Ohio U-Chillicothe, OH Presbyterian since 1937

Elijah

Do you agree with the statement on evolution by the American National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT): "The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments."

Doesn't this statement, by using the words "natural" and "chance", preclude a Creator from being involved in the entire evolutionary process? How then is it possible to reconcile Christianity (or Judaism or Islam) with evolution? It seems as though the Designer must be reduced to little more than an uninvolved and disinterested observer since everything was left to chance. In other words, by chance, things could have turned out much differently than they did - with apparently no concern from this "Creator".

Also, what is up with Antony Flew? Did he become an ID advocate? Did he really switch sides? Please fill us in with the details.

R. Bence

I have read through most of this excellent and well organized/maintained web site as well as about 2 years worth of your feedback archives.

I certainly offer my heartfelt commendation though I suppose in these times that is not much consolation considering I am also very much one of the choir.

This is a more interesting and constructive 'forum' than most because you exercise a little editorial 'free will' and no doubt excise a huge amount of absolute codswaddle that never the less has to be waded through by someone. I very rarely post anything to any forum, newsgroup, etc. anywhere but in your case its impossible to remain silent. Thank you for sparing those of us who are curious and willing to be informed by good scholarship, reasoning and science.

I'll try to be as brief as possible but I think just a smidgen of backgroud is justified for context, my freshman high school 'biology' class in 1965 never mentioned evolution, theory, or otherwise, lucky for me in a way becase it gave me the impression that biology was a 'soft science' incapable of really doing much so I ultimately wound up a geologist because I was luck enough to land in a great department with a killer researcher as an advisor just at the time geochemistry and mineral chemistry became quantitatively 'easy'. I went into exploration work because I visited Africa several times and because I felt and indescribably deep awe in the experience of trying to contribute something to the understanding of nature, through addressing a very specific and somewhat urgent problem. I have worked in a lot of places that would make most people's bad dreams seem like a holiday and a few other places that would make other people's best dreams seem like a soap opera. Science is an enormously powerful tool, I apply it in every aspect of my life that I can, though admittedly its requisites make that very unreasonably except in the most pragmatic sense, at least outside the realm of my greatest expertise. (For example it wasn't until I got Malaria the first time that I every read and of the biology literature. Believe me, as soon as I got over the initial week of delirium and other symptoms, I spent two days in the UCLA library and got educated quickly, it has saved my life probably once or twice since.

Too much bio I know, sorry.

The one thing that I want to relate that I think is a contribution to your efforts is this, and perhaps I can understand why you do not want to take such a generalized view, but I really thing you should embrace it as I will explain.

Creationism, ID or whatever the propaganda flavor of the month is at any given time is not just anti-evolution or pro-religious brainwashing, it is entirely anti-science per se. Across the board, no holds barred, to hell with science. Scientist=atheist=satan= eternal damnation etc. etc. etc. (Brings to mind a nice quote from Milton which might not be 100% - '...but for me, 'tis better by far to reign in hell than to serve in heaven...') This would be fine if it were kept on a philosophical level, but when it becomes political and smacks of theocracy there is danger on the horizon if not the doorstep.

Science in all its profligate and amazing forms has utterly transformed the world in under 300 years, some might say under 100. Without the accomplishments of science, my guess is that 1/10th the present population of this planet would be able to survive and they would be scrambling to a much higher and more desperate degree than we are to maintain subsistence. Everything we have and use, everything we eat and drink, everything we build and design, everything we humans implement to leverage our biological advantage (the brain, hand, etc.) in one sense or another, comes from this planet of ours we call earth. The two most endangered commodities on this planet are clean water and unpolluted air. Atop those substrates stands an enormous pyramid of industrial minerals and commodities that we as a species consume at rates that make locusts look like lichens. Petroleum is a case in point.

If the kind of twisted and depraved thinking that tries to refute the whole scientific paradigm prevails, here in the U.S., somehow manages to prevail and fool a titular majority into supporting their fantasies, then its just possible that we as a planet will win the 'Darwin award'. I don't claim that the U.S. is necessarily all that significant in the world per se, but economically and in terms of resource consumption, obviously we are the kind pin, so we shoult behave in our own and the planet's best interest if at all possible. That would be a moral way to address reality.

Instead we find people who are no doubt conviced and self-earnest advocating the teaching of 'scriptures' which are only now becoming as persuasive as Disney cartoons. The evangelicaly pious minority, in their zeal to impose their beliefs on the vulnerable and distracted masses, the billions who live from hand to mouth... overlook one thing. They will bring upon themselves and all 'creation' the wrath of their 'god'. The wanton uncaring, utterly indifferent consequences of defying nature, and pretending, like any witch doctor in the bush to dispence magic that will protect you from the bullets, or the viruses, or the monocultural scourages of crops, or the dissocaiton of ozone, or the finite availability of petroleum, or molybdenum, or .... I could go on for a long time.

I find this idiocy mildly amusing because I have no investment in the future, no children. I had the foresight not to condemn another sentient being to the holocaust that may be lurking in the near future, because of stupidity and belief.

And I for one, am quite comfortable, though my experience of life has not been without certain setbacks.... because I have at all times and in all ways tried my best to live and be productive to the greatest extent possible. It kind of galls me in a way that I provide the commodities that these mendacious believers rely on to prostelitize.

To those whose hopes are bet on heaven, I have one piece of advice... play the cards you hold...

This web site is an important resource for the masses, I hope they will realize it and support you, I already do, I help provide your electrons.

Cheers mates,

[one last thing I have to say which is irrelevant to the above in most senses, but pertains to you; back in 94-95 when I was reading sci.geo.geology regularly it was a tremendous and rich resource, I could communicate with colleagues almost anywhere in the world. Today it is a homeopathically diluted vestige of its former self, overwhelmed by the rantings and ravings of evangelists for something which is indeterminate but a priori, stupid. The aim of these people seems to be to shout down any reasoned and informed discussion. The evolutionary irony is that only through science could these fabulously mal-adapted minds, hope to avoid ultimate extinction. That the whole of human intelligence on this planet must accompany them in that fate is a debateable and perhaps inconsequent issue, though I would not bet on it.]

Bryan Trim

I have been using your site to expand my knowledge of evolution and biology for some time now. It has only been over the last year that I have been using it as a resource to combat creationist and catastrophist misinformation. The Quotes list has been particularly helpful. I am amazed at how many self proclaimed religous people can sleep at night after telling and retelling so many "pious lies." Keep up the good work.

Nathan Tessier

You wish you knew what was the truth? Where has all your scientific mummbo jummbo been proven without a doubt? Do you have a time machine? Can you go back and prove one way or the other? How come you think your way is the truth? Have you been smited? Were you made to feel inferior to someone else based upon there obivious unique interpretation of life based upon our only cronological existence? Why do you fight the truth? Are you like a salmon, fighting the stream according to instinct? I feel so sorry for people that can't have a belief in a creator. Who else could make something so perfect? If you don't think we are of grand design, relish in the fact we are an accident and good luck waiting for someone to rescue you from your island of unique thought, based upon nothing, its like asking for help without believing in anything!

Nick

My question is do you think evolution has become similar to a religion for many people and if so, do you think that is a wise approach? A religion being defined as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" from Merriam-Webster online dictionary. Now faith may be the arguable word there, but doesn't it take as much faith to believe in Evolution as a religion. Both have facts supporting themselves historically and/or scientifically. Being that Evolution is still a theory in the strictest sense of the word and if it was a fact I don't believe there would be such a debate by intelligent people (I don't think you can honestly say that ALL ID believers are incomptent). It would sound from many comments from your web-site that people use evolution as a means of defining much of their life. They are also zealous in their fervor to maintain the integrity and claims of evolution. So, please correct me if I am wrong in my thinking.

John Vanko

Have you seen this? Your really need to take a look at "Hurricane Reconstruction May Require Intelligent Designer" at http://swiftreport.blogs.com/news/2005/09/hurricane_recon.html#more

Every now and then it's important to temper your yeoman's work with a little levity.

Andrew

Hey guys, I just wrote to you not even an hour ago, but I thought of something else. If dinosaurs lived and died millions of years ago, then why have T-Rex's been found with soft tissue still attached to it's body with red blood cells still visable under a microscope? Based on the rate of decay, what could possibly survive more than a few thousand years, even tissue locked underground in an enviornment virtually devoid of any oxygen? Would you at the least be able to say that perhaps T-Rex and other dino's died out much sooner than previously believed?

Amy Lea

This is in response to Jeremiah's letter in the August 2005 feeback. I thought it deserved a longer, more detailed answer. One problem, Jeremiah, is that talk-origins is primarily concerned with scientific thought, not theological thought. Which means this may or may not get published, but I'll write it anyway.

"I don't see the compatibility in someone who believes in evolution and being a "devout Christian", as you labeled some of your staff. One feedback response by one of your staff even stated that God "had a part" in evolution (a magnanimous gesture for sure). Which part do you think he had a role in?"

Well, I can't say for sure, but any place where there is a random process, it is certainly feasible that God could "nudge" it in the direction He wants. So all or some of these "random mutations" could have an invisible mover. Note that this does not imply design: this is more like giving a push in the "right" general direction. One might also argue that God set up the natural laws that are at work in the universe, including in evolution. God might also have "nudged" the appropriate molecules together so that life could begin, or guided the comet carrying the first lifeforms, as some scientists now suggest life did not originate on earth. If you want a larger, more direct role for God, He could have wiped out entire species (say by a flood) that were interfering with His ultimate goal. Or He could have sheltered certain species from random catastrophe. So long as there is an element of randomness in an event, there is room for God to have a hand in it.

"Either ALL living creatures - from protozoa to man - have a spirit or NONE have a spirit based on your view that they are descended from the same primoridial slime. ... Or, perhaps, man uniquely evolved a spirit somewhere along the way."

Okay... I think you're trying to think scientifically about spirit here, but since science has no way of measuring spirit, I don't follow your assumptions. You say either (1) spirit was in the first lifeform and was passed down into all other lifeforms or (2) there is no such thing as spirit. You snidely mention (3) that spirit could have evolved. First off, I don't see why you have avoided mentioning God. Spirit itself is not defined in terms of the physical, scientific realm, so far as I know. If your definition is different, I would like to hear it. So if spirit exists, presumably it comes from something outside of science, call it God. Well, with no way to measure spirit, we have no way to constrain when, where or how it may have appeared. In addition to your suggestions, (4) God could have waited until a sufficiently advanced creature appeared and then bestowed spirit on it; (5) God might have set the system up so that at a certain stage, spirit would appear automatically; (6) God could even have said, "Ooooh, those apes are funny. Okay, they and all their descendents get spirit." Without a way to measure spirit (and find it in the fossil record), we have no way of knowing. In all practicality, when and where spirit should appear will depend on your particular set of theological assumptions.

Science places constraints on the physical processes, because those can be observed and measured. No one has produced an instrument to measure spiritual processes, so there are no scientific constraints there. But when you say, "Science can't handle the thought of the supernatural and so that must be rejected," you are making a very common logical fallacy. You are assuming that lack of proof for A implies that A is does not exist. Science cannot prove the existence of spirit. Neither can it disprove it. What science does say is that most phenomenon do not require a supernatural explanation. That is, a rational, scientific explanation is sufficient. Perhaps you object because God is not a necessary condition. But if God were a necessary condition, why would faith be important?

detrevni28

Evolutionists have yet again ignored the inerrant truth of God for the atheistic humanist lies of “science” falsely so-called. Adaptation occurs but not evolution! Read the Bible and you will see the truth. Jacob made his cattle copulate before striped rods, and wouldn’t you know but the babies came out striped! From this Biblical evidence, we can safely say that polar bears emerge from brown bears because they are conceived amid all that white snow. Similarly, peacocks probably were big-tailed birds that spent a few generations among colorful flowers while some sharks adapted their coloration from the dark water beneath and sunlight above. Test it for yourselves! However, you should ensure that a righteous man like Jacob performs the experiment, as evolutionists will falsify the data so they can continue living in sinful debauchery without being held to God’s rules. I dare you to post this because it thoroughly disproves your pet theory!

Pete

Hi. I have a few questions, but I'll try to keep it short:

1. Why is there no "law of evolution"? I know you've answered similar questions many many times before, so let me clarify. As I understand it, in science jargon, a law describes an event while a theory explains it. The theory of evolution explains how life evolved, but there's also the fact of evolution, the fact that life evolved from a common ancestor. Couldn't this evolution-as-fact be considered a law? Why not?

2. I'm more a philosopher than a scientist. I never really understood much about the sciences, and a lot of what's on these pages goes over my head. Do you know of any resources that can explain the workings of evolution as if I were a ten year old?

3. I discovered this site a few years back, and I'm still learning. The more I learn, the more I realize how ignorant I really am. I have come to the realization that those who believe they have the most knowledge generally know the least. I have also learned that the first step to learning is accepting the possibility that you might have it all wrong. Why are so many people unable to take that step, that leap of doubt, if you will? Why do so many people cling to their ignorance? It's as if their delusions of wisdom are precious to them, even moreso than real wisdom.

Justin

This website is awesome, obviously, but I get mad sometimes that everyone gets so wrapped up in describing evolution as a biological theory, when we could just as easily describe it as a component of discrete math. I haven't had a lot of time to explore the site in great detail, but I would like to see you direct more IDevotees and creationists to information on stochastic cellular automata, metasystem transition theory, or shannon's information theory. As far as I'm concerned intelligence itself is an evolutionary process via memetics, so ID is such a lame argument against evolution. I know it would be asking a lot of creationists, but it seems like if we shifted the conversation to more atomic truths we would have a lot less to argue about. Thanks for all of the hard work, and I would love to get involved in some capacity if you need any help.

Justin

mike

I need help with a subtle philosophical problem. (It is not covered in John Wilkins' FAQ). The problem is that evolution's 'watchmaker' is blind and this makes it impossible to predict what organisms are going to evolve. Instead we have to wait and see what evolution produces.

However, this procedure logically requires us to exist before the evolved organisms. Our pre-existence allows us to see what organisms have arrived and we can write their names in The Book of the World's Real Objects.

That's OK for most of the evolved objects in this world. But what about man himself? He cannot pre-exist to be the seeing agent that sees his own evolutionary arrival!

I gave the answer that things don't need man to see them into existence - instead they 'self-exist' ('in themselves'). The reply I got was 'Yes, God self-exists too'!

In other words, if we delete man's observation role from evolutionary theory, we've got to make real scientific accommodation of objects that have never been seen and are unpredictable-in-principle - but which might exist 'in themselves'. Please help!

Eric Vance

While reading your website may be a case of the choir listening to the preacher (to paraphrase), I simply felt the need to thank the people that worked on creating this site. Your hard work means that those of us who believe in evolution but are not as organized or congnizant of the arguments can better understand the evolution/creationism debate.

Chris Buckner

The first law of thermodynamics states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. The second law states that the total quantity of energy is constant but that the available amount of energy is constantly decreasing (entropy). Matter did not create itself and this universe is progressing from order to disorder, not the other way around. (evolution)

claude prater

The Book of Genesis in The King James Version of the Holy Bible, adopted and accepted in its entirety by the Christian Church, gives a very vivid description of the beginning of all life on Earth, including mankind. How could anyone accept the precepts and doctrines of Evolution and yet profess to be a Christian? You must accept one or the other - not both.

Darren

Hello, these are just questions so you might not want to publish them. Do you have any more information about the Meganthropus? Why is it placed under h. erectus despite its enormous size? Is it considered to be variation within h. erectus? I'm also somewhat confused about the number of subspecies. For example, do ergaster, erectus, and georgicus fall under the same species?

A few months ago, i read a report saying that Homo erectus and other early hominids may not be that different from us and a certain Wolpoff considers us a "highly variable species" with a history going back several million years. As such, there was a debate over whether we and they were in fact a single and same species. What is talkorigin's position on this? thx

Dar

Do you think these Flood Myths were based on a Megaflood like the one on PBS http://www.pbs.org/previews/nova_megaflood/ ?

Amazing site. just one tiny suggestion, if it's not too difficult would mind creating print friendly versions of many of your featured articles. the recent article on information theory is a great read, and I'd like to read it on the subway without first printing x amount of pages. Please keep up the great work, talkorigins is a beacon of light

Luis Cruz

Frequently I hear creationists arguing about the Cambrian explosion as proof that life was too complex to slowly evolve. Therefore the need for a Creator, Designer or whatever. Although there is an evolutionary explanation for this event (Cambrian explosion) I would appreciate if you can point me to a site where I can find this information. Or better yet you can give me the answer, short version :-) Thanks