Feedback for September 1998

For future reference, readers may send reports of HTML errors to .

1. The bombardier beetle argument has already been refuted in the archive.
2. The mutation argument has been addressed in many places including in a talk.origins post by Colin Peters. Incidentally, the alleged inability of mutation to generate "new information" would be a huge problem for creationism, which postulates a post-Flood world with as little as two animals of any particular "kind" to repopulate the planet. These animals would have a maximum of four alleles for any given gene. However, there are many genes for which dozens of alleles are known. If these alleles could not be generated by a mechanism such as mutation, then the story of Noah in the Bible would be utterly refuted by this. (A strictly literal reading of the story of Noah is, instead, refuted by a mountain of other facts.)
3. The transitional fossil argument has already been refuted in the archive.

As for Malachite Man, this has been debunked by Glen Kuban. Malachite Man, it turns out, is just a recycling of the discredited "Moab Man" claims.

Richard Dawkins discusses the evolution of vision in his book The Blind Watchmaker and in more detail in his book Climbing Mount Improbable. E.T. Babinski neatly summarizes the eye argument on the talk.origins archives under Cretinism or Evilution? No. 3: An Old, Out of Context Quotation. Mickey Rowe has provided a detailed description of The Evolution of Color Vision. Other resources can be found by searching the talk.origins archive using the search term "evolution NEAR eye".

The reader should also look at Publish or Perish: Some Published Works on Biochemical Evolution, which lists abstracts of published articles that explain the evolution of all of the "irreducibly complex" examples Behe discusses, including both blood coagulation and vision.

The "dead horse" metaphor is catchy, by the way.

AAAAAAAAAA and AAAAAGAAAA.

These sequences share a 90% homology, because they only have one different nucleotide in one position out of ten possible positions. If there were two differences then the sequences would share 80% homology. If the sequences were 100 positions long instead of only 10, two differences would mean they would share 98% homology. In essence, saying that chimps and humans share a 98% homology means that on average you would expect a gene or a protein to have two differences for every hundred nucleotides or amino acids; the rest would be identical between the two species.

The reason why this helps to establish the recent common ancestry of humans and chimps is because the more distantly related two species are, the less homology they would share. Humans share less homology with monkeys because the common ancestor of all apes diverged from the monkey line earlier than humans and chimps diverged from their common ancestor.Mammals diverged from reptiles even earlier, so humans share even less homology with reptiles than they do with any mammal. And so on. As such, in a relative sense, you can determine how closely related two species are by determining their percent homology. However, knowing where the differences occur in the gene or protein also allows you to say how and even roughly when the two species diverged in relation to other species. This allows you to construct what is called a phylogenetic tree that can trace the evolution of a related group of species from some common ancestor.

Speaking only for myself, I have seen Hovind's web page. I have also attended his seminar, read most of the material and viewed many hours of videotape put out by his organization. I have also had the unfortunate experience of trying to arrange a debate with Mr. Hovind, one that he initially challenged me to participate in, and then found several reasons to back out himself. Let's deal with one claim at a time.

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

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

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

Now, as to your claim that Hovind has a "doctrine degree in archeology". I assume you mean a doctorate degree. In point of fact, Mr. Hovind holds a D. Min. in education from Patriot University. Patriot University is a school in Colorado with no faculty and no real academic standards. It is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that will accredit any school for $100. The Christian Distance Learning Directory lists Patriot as a diploma mill. Frankly, Hovind's degree is a fraud. It isn't worth the paper it's printed on. It should also be noted that if Mr. Hovind held the degree that you believe he holds, it would not make his claims regarding the age of the earth or evolution any more credible. Even Nobel prize winners must still support their claims. The fact would still remain that Hovind's claims, especially in the area of archaeology, are absurd and unsupportable.

You thirdly claim that Mr. Hovind has had 27 debates against "highly respected scientists" and has lost none. I am curious to know on what basis you could make such a claim, since it is unlikely that you have seen more than one or two of these debates yourself. Mr. Hovind claims not to have lost any of them, of course, but then Mr. Hovind also claims that the Great Pyramid of Giza was built by either Adam and Enoch or Noah and Shem and that AIDS was invented in a laboratory in Maryland. The fact that Hovind claims something to be true does not exactly fill one with confidence in the claim. I myself had the experience of trying to arrange a debate with Hovind last year. I had initially contacted him via e-mail, asking some questions about several of his proofs that the earth is only a few thousand years old and his defense of flood geology. He replied that he did not participate in written exchanges, but would be glad to debate me in public on the subject. After a few weeks, I accepted his offer and proposed a time, place and format for the debate. He agreed to all three, but wanted me to defend the statement "There is convincing scientific evidence that matter can create itself from nothing, life can come from non-living material." Since that statement does not reflect my position on the matter, I refused to defend it. I then offered to have the debate formatted in such a way that both of us would have positive statements to defend, thereby providing an equal burden of proof, and I insisted on sticking to the narrow subjects of the age of the earth and flood geology, the subjects on which I had originally questioned him and he had originally challenged me to debate. We then held several phone conversations, during which he came up with a list of various reasons not to hold the debate. The first was that he should not debate against me because I do not hold an advanced degree in a scientific field; I reminded him that neither did he. I finally got fed up and sent him one last message outlining a place, format and two proposed times (both when he would be in my home state). I even offered to pay his expenses. He responded that our debate didn't fit into his schedule, but he would be willing to send someone else from his office in his place. Frankly, I don't know why he did so. He had initially agreed to either the last week of June or the last week of September, as he would be in my home state both those times. Suddenly, it didn't fit into his schedule. For the record, I would still be very interested in holding a debate with Mr. Hovind on the subjects that he initially challenged me to debate, the age of the earth and flood geology. Mr. Hovind is a good speaker and is very polished in his presentation, but his positions, especially regarding the two areas on which I initially questioned him, simply cannot be defended.

For that matter, I'm not sure how one "wins" or "loses" a public debate.

And I'd like to see Walt Brown try to defend his various conjectures on the talk.origins newsgroup. Better yet, Walt could try to formulate his conjectures in such a way that he got them published in peer-reviewed journals. Dr. Brown is not really taken very seriously even within the ranks of young-earth creationists.

The fact of the matter is that a free exchange and consideration of ideas is not the point of a debate. A debate is about rhetoric and making a convincing presentation, not in determining truth. As such, putting effort into debates is usually counter-productive for those who have other, more effective, means of communicating ideas and receiving substantive criticisms of those ideas.

Wesley

The FABNAQ list is primarily for reflection and study, to outline some of the problems facing creationist explanations of origins. However, if the reader feels he has new or innovative responses to these questions (and not just the same old arguments rehashed from a pamphlet), he is invited to address them to the talk.origins newsgroup, where the participants will be eager to discuss them.

Macroevolution (evolution at or above the level of species) has been directly observed, both in the lab and in the wild. Moreover, common descent is well-established in the fossil record, and is confirmed by genetic, immunological, embryological, and morphological evidence.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not the "law of increasing entropy," despite popular misconceptions. Neither is there a "law of universal decay and disorder." See the Thermodynamics FAQs for more information.

A "half-developed wing or half-developed lung" provide precisely the advantage that one thinks they might. A creature with a glide surface, no matter how small, is less likely to die from a fall than one without. Similarly, one with a small ability to breathe out of water is more likely to survive in tidepools or other shallow waters than one which cannot. Consider the modern-day examples of the flying squirrel and the lungfish.

As we don't yet know all of the steps which brought about the first cells on Earth, any calculations of probability in that respect are meaningless. Even so, no one is proposing that the first cells occurred by chance; rather, they came about through the operation of chemical reactions. (See the Interim Abiogenesis FAQ.) And even if the first cells appeared on Earth by magic, aliens, or the divine power of God, that would have no bearing on the theory of evolution, which is concerned with what occurred after the first cells appeared. The reader should also consult a book such as Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable, which explains how complex organs can arise from simple steps.

The reader's statement that "supernatural creation is too threatening to contemplate" is simply false. Evolution is accepted because it explains more facts than any other theory yet proposed. Plenty of people who accept supernatural creation also accept evolution. See the God and Evolution FAQ.

"Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers." Ephesians 5:23 (KJV)

Velociraptor mongoliensis is one of the dromaeosaurs, a small clade of theropod dinosaurs which all share a forelimb with a grasping claw good for seizing prey. Deinonychus antirrhopus and Utahraptor kirklandi are also dromaeosaurs. See this page at the University of California Museum of Paleontology for more information on dromaeosaurs.

The Talk.Origins Archive is not a Web site of paleontology, though paleontology is discussed here. We do have FAQs on Archaeopteryx, as it is often brought up in origins discussions. You will find information on dinosaurs, including Velociraptor, on a number of other sites, such as:

• Yahoo's directory of dinosaur sites
• National Geographic: Dinosaur Eggs
• Newton's Apple: Dinosaur Extinction
• Jonathan's Utahraptor Page

The rest of your letter does not deal with issues that are within science's purview. Science does not deal with "why's" of a religious nature.

It is true that most Christians would disagree with the proposition that Genesis is intended to provide a scientific description of the universe. However, some do believe exactly that, and it is precisely those people that Mr. Babinski is addressing with his newsletter. The reader evidently does not share those beliefs, so perhaps his time would be best spent addressing those who do.

Chance is not the reason we are here. That is a straw man argument. Read the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology page. If evolution were absolutely random, it wouldn't work.

The bible cannot be used as scientific evidence.

The evidence is more than claimed- it exists. If you are going to take the word of those who support your religious zeal that the evidence does not exists, then no one here can help you.

Your arguments that how could the universe exist forever, and how could intelligence come from non-intelligence also apply to your biblical God.

You need also to look at the Transitional Fossils faq.

Ad Hominem attacks on Richard Leaky or anyone else do not falsify (or even weaken) the theory of evolution.

Probabilty arguments are worthless, because you must assume that the organism in question is the goal of the process, and not simply the result. There is no reason to think that we needed to be, and that things must have turned out the way they did (other than biblical faith).

Evolution is strengthened month by month, supported by new evidence and new findings constantly. National Geographic magazine has a major article nearly every month on evolution, school boards are adding evolution to their science cirriculum standards, more and more people are coming to accept it as the explanation of how we got here.

NOT WHY we are here. That you can leave to religion.

Many readers ask why we do not present creationist arguments on this site. There are two reasons why not. The first is that creationism is a many-headed hydra; we wouldn't know which views to present. The reader makes an error common to those who have not spent much time examining the origins debate, and that is to assume that there are only two "sides." There is a continuing conflict at the least between young-earth and old-earth creationism (see the Gish-Ross debate), and some would or would not include people like Michael Behe, who accepts common descent, into the ranks of creationists. Invariably, we would be accused of bias no matter which side we presented.

The second, perhaps related reason, is that we feel it is better that creationists present their own views. That way, creationists cannot claim that we are distorting their views. As such, we maintain an extensive list of links to creationist Web sites. Feel free to peruse them, then examine our site, and most importantly, read the literature references in our FAQs. By all means, don't take our word for it alone.

Finally, the reader is wrong about science. Science is most decidedly biased. It is biased towards arguments that are supported by substantial, independent lines of data.

Here is the disclaimer, since you apparently overlooked it the first time:

DISCLAIMER:

This article is not advocating flat-earth theory, nor is it attempting to show that most or even many creationists believe in a flat Earth. It simply illustrates that there are still real people who interpret the Bible so literally that they think Earth is flat. The Talk.Origins Archive does not support or endorse the views of the International Flat Earth Society. Clicking the "Feedback" button above sends feedback to the Talk.Origins Archive, not the International Flat Earth Society. Please do not send us feedback to tell us that the Earth is a sphere; we are already aware of this fact.

"Scientific" creationists claim to have positive scientific evidence for a Creator. Therefore, these creationists postulate a God that we can, in fact, understand.

Some creationists have argued that evolution is incompatible with God because evolution is so cruel, involving so much death. A benevolent God, these creationists argue, would never use something so awful as evolution to create Man. These creationists affirm (implicitly, at the very least), that the nature of God is discernable in His Creation. Given this premise, it is appropriate for Bartelt to point out what a false appearance of antiquity for a young Earth would imply about this God.

If one believes that God created all that exists, and if one also accepts your argument about the inability to know God, then it would appear that one would conclude that the there is nothing that can be known scientifically with any amount of certainty. This is clearly not what the creationists believe. Rather, most believe in personal relationships with God. God, to them, is knowable. If one accepts this as a premise, Bartelt's statement is a valid argument.

However, your presumption that proponents of alternative theories are treated as "crackpots" is not at all correct. There are a number of well respected, and serious scientists who have suggested that gravity may not work as thought. In February a Russian group reported observations which implied that the universe was expanding too fast, and therefore that gravity was weaker over long ranges than standard theory would have it [see "At The Border of Eternity", Science, 279(5355): 1321-1322 (27 Feb 1998)]. A group from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory has suggested that spacecraft tracking data may show that gravity in the solar system does not behave as expected either.

Crackpots are those who suggest ideas for which there is not only no supportive evidence, but there is evidence to the contrary as well, and then refuse to budge. Some alternative theories are crackpot, but not all.

The Age of the Earth FAQs The General Anti-Creationism FAQ

"Desiderata" was written in 1927 by Max Ehrmann (1872-1945). In 1956, the rector of St. Paul's Church in Baltimore, Maryland, used the poem in a collection of mimeographed inspirational material for his congregation. Someone who subsequently printed it asserted that it was found in Old St. Paul's Church, dated 1692. The year 1692 was the founding date of the church and has nothing to do with the poem. See Fred D. Cavinder, "Desiderata", TWA Ambassador, Aug. 1973, pp. 14-15.

DISCLAIMER:

This article is not advocating flat-earth theory, nor is it attempting to show that most or even many creationists believe in a flat Earth. It simply illustrates that there are still real people who interpret the Bible so literally that they think Earth is flat. The Talk.Origins Archive does not support or endorse the views of the International Flat Earth Society. Clicking the "Feedback" button above sends feedback to the Talk.Origins Archive, not the International Flat Earth Society. Please do not send us feedback to tell us that the Earth is a sphere; we are already aware of this fact.

For example, describe the mechanism by which the vapor canopy formed. Describe a prediction that is implied by the existence of the vapor canopy- a prediction that can be tested. Describe the mechanism by which water is spouted up in oceanic volume from the crust of the earth. Describe the mechanics that caused the vapor canopy to release the water onto the surface of the earth. How can any part of this hypothesis be tested? What observation could falsify the vapor canopy supposition?

You can't just make mere assertions that explain certain bible verses and claim that you have a scientific theory. You must substantiate it! Scripture cannot be used as scientific support of a hypothesis.

I can't critique his biochemistry, but my personal impression of Behe's argument on evolution is that he is saying:

1. Things sometimes don't work when you take large pieces away, and
2. I don't understand how some things could have evolved.

"And Jesus answered and he said unto them, 'Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many.'" Matthew 24:4-5 (KJV)

Saying creationism is science is another matter. There are several reasons why creationism is not science. One is that all "evidence" is used automatically to support the biblical creation story, and nothing ever is allowed to contradict it. This statement is easily supported with one question: "What evidence would falsify the doctrine of creationsim?" The answer given by creationists is always "nothing". That's because creationism is a direct manifestation of religious faith, not science.

Another reason it isn't science is that to have a scientific theory, creationists would have to offer up testable, falsifiable predictions of their ideas. They do not do so. They offer only things which are unfalsifiable or untestable, appealing in the end to divine intervention. That is not science.

Most of the time, they offer nothing at all in support of their hypothesis. Instead, they attempt at every opportunity to discredit evolution by any means, even falsehood, misrepresentation, misquotation, and fabrication. The goal in mind is to cause enough doubt and confusion in the minds of the non-scientific public that a general outcry is raised against the teaching of evolution in public schools.

It is not science, it is an inquisition.

Science cannot provide answers to your quesitons, however. It cannot speak to the methods, purposes, existence or otherwise of God.

There are some sites and texts available for younger readers:

Try:

BBC Education: Evolution homepage

Discovery Channel School has several texts tied in with its programs:

Evolution of the brain

Animal adaptations

Origin of Species

Also, have a look at the "Let's Find Out" Encyclopedia site and do a search on "evolution".

Many creationists, such as Henry Morris, assert that evolution is the foundation of racist thinking. Of course, even if acceptance of evolution were the source of racist beliefs, this would not mean that evolution was necessarily false.

However, there is an irony in the Morris' charge. Henry Morris' own writings (as well as, of course, the Bible) contain material that is easily (and, possibly, correctly) interpretted as racist.

The real point is that almost anything can be interpreted by racists to support a racist agenda. Certainly evolution (or something that resembles it) can, and certainly Christianity (or something that resembles it) can. (I should mention that I am not trying to imply that evolution and Christianity are necessarily contradictory.)

So, forget all the racism goofiness and concentrate on real science. Of course, you seem to have already gotten that message. But you didn't seem to read it into what I wrote. This is probably my fault. I will add a concluding paragraph to my portion of the FAQ that summarizes this so that it is not misunderstood.

I realize that I have only responded to a single example of something that you feel is a general problem. However, it is the only specific example that you mention. I'm sure there are other places in the archive that could use some clarification. Readers should feel free to provide additional specific examples.

Ah, the "burn in hell" argument. On the talk.origins newsgroup, this would be cause for point-taking and high fives.

There is no essential bar to someone having religious faith and also accepting that evolutionary biology is a well-grounded scientific field of inquiry. See the God and Evolution FAQ for an extended discussion of this.

The "depart from me" quote seems to be utilized out of context, in that the complete context has Christ warning those who complacently believe themselves to be doing Christ's work that they may be in for a rude shock. On the other hand, some who did not recognize that they were doing Christ's work are promised salvation. Elsewhere, Christ has some comments on making judgements of others, but I don't recall precisely what was said. Anyway, the purpose of this archive is not for the discussion of scripture, but rather to examine the scientific issues.

It is true that some people do believe that evolutionary biology supports atheism as a lifestyle. Others find that belief in their God can be reconciled with evolutionary biology. Some believe that faith and evolutionary biology cannot be reconciled. Contributors to this archive typically come from the first two groups. If after seeing the FAQ referenced above you have further comments, it would be good to post them to the talk.origins newsgroup.

Wesley

One passage where Jesus comments on judging others is Matthew 5:22- "Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire."

So, obviously you should be careful when calling others fools, no?

David confuses two different concepts here. A modern bat that develops a problem through injury, developmental pathology, or congenital defect is at a competitive disadvantage relative to its conspecifics. This is a situation distinct from consideration of how various steps in evolutionary development of bat sensory systems might have come about.

Not all bats utilize the same degree of specialization in their auditory systems. Comparative studies of bat auditory systems reveals quite a range of adaptation from a presumably typical mammalian common ancestor. These differences in modern bats can be taken as evidence that the stages that the more specialized bats must have passed through were possible and permitted populations to be maintained over time.

The extreme capabilities of biosonar as seen in bats and dolphins actually are not so far removed from other mammals. Humans have been shown to perform on a level comparable to dolphins on certain acoustic discrimination tasks when echo returns are time-stretched to fall within the human audio range, and humans have no specializations for biosonar. Many of the capabilities that we regard as special in bats or dolphins are simply modifications from what mammals in general have in the way of an acoustic sense.

I have a message that covers the dolphin biosonar issue.

Wesley

In order to satisfy your requested test, just finding an exposed column would not be sufficient. You would have to find exposed column where many of the formations were suitable for isotope dating (in general sedimentary formations are not) and whose geological history was fairly simple. As far as I know, no such test-on-one-location has ever been done blindly. However, there is a large body of literature on correlations between isotopic ages and position within the geologic column (for example see Harland's A Geologic Time Scale for isotope ages from all over the globe on formations from all geologic periods). These are not subject to "circularity" criticisms because the relative order of the formations is fixed indepedently of isotope dating. I'm not sure what you mean by "calibration issues" because most isotopic ages are straightforward calculations on direct empirical measurements.

DISCLAIMER:

This article is not advocating flat-earth theory, nor is it attempting to show that most or even many creationists believe in a flat Earth. It simply illustrates that there are still real people who interpret the Bible so literally that they think Earth is flat. The Talk.Origins Archive does not support or endorse the views of the International Flat Earth Society. Clicking the "Feedback" button above sends feedback to the Talk.Origins Archive, not the International Flat Earth Society. Please do not send us feedback to tell us that the Earth is a sphere; we are already aware of this fact.

The first response of a scientist when confronted with evidence contradicting a well-established theory is to question the evidence. Quite often in the practice of science, one is confronted with anomalies, things that don't fit in right. These anomalies can usually be explained by faulty equipment, misidentification of samples, erroneous data-taking, or other mechanical or human failures. Much of science is concerned with the location, quantification, and elimination of error.

Once all sources of error have been eliminated or explained and anomalous results still remain, then scientists will make adjustment to theories. Of course, some individual scientists become invested in a theory, especially if it is one they helped construct. But science is a self-correcting process. The surest path to scientific fame and fortune is to demolish or modify a well-established, highly-regarded theory.

Well-established theories are very rarely discarded completely in science. That is not because science or scientists can't handle the truth, but because the well-established theory became well-established by passing tests. A mature theory such as evolution has passed thousands of tests and explained millions of observations. Any theory that would supplant evolution would not only need to explain observations that evolution didn't, it would also have to explain why evolution is as good as it is at describing what it does.

A state board of review had determined that the ICR's "science" degrees were far below the generally accepted requirements for a Master of Science degree. The department of education therefore asked that ICR stop calling its degrees a "Master of Science". There was no request that they teach evolution, or stop teaching creationism. The ICR could teach whatever they liked, so long as they did not call it a "Master of Science" degree. Thus it was not a matter of censorship, but of truth in advertising, because the ICR degrees did not meet the requirements of an M.S.

The ICR fought the decision and unfortunately had it overturned when the state government refused to defend its employees against the ICR's lawsuit.

Jim Foley