Feedback for April 2004

Having the discussion with my coworker prompted me to visit Mr. Hovinds website and leave a few comments. I was surprised to see that he answered my email but would not discuss any thing that had to do with the debate in writing. He continuously requested that I call him. Eventually his secretary sent a note stating he was going to read my email on his radio show and I should feel honored. My reply was that I had complete faith that Mr. Hovind (at this point she tried to tell me he should be addressed as Dr.) would distort my words and dam me to hell or some other such nonsense. I asked that she tell Mr. Hovind (I noted that a fake degree does not require respect) that I could care less if he read my comments on his radio show.

Having jumped into this debate I am surprised at the lack of common sense people have in this. Here we have entered the 21st century and the faith of millions is threatened by something like evolution! In my humble opinion what we know about the age of the earth or facts that dispel the nonsense of evolution being anything other then the truth are only going to grow and the endless repeating of old outdated material does nothing for the creationist but make him or her look a bit stupid.

Religions around the world help humans live a good life by giving some foundations for being good. But they can also be so distorted by men that the religion becomes a reason to kill or hurt others in the name of “insert the being you want here”. By this reasoning religions can also cause weak-minded persons to regard anything but “the word” as false or untrue. It surprises me (although it should not) that these weak-minded folks use every bit of technology they can and still say that science is wrong about evolution or the creation/age of the earth. When I pointed this out to my neighbor (a fundamentalist creationist) he took the Kent Hovind (he did not know of him however) approach and told me that if I did not believe the bible as factual then I was dammed to a life in hell.

I’ll not ramble on any further but say that I enjoy your site and applaud the work that you guys do!

Karl Denton

http://www.bigpicnic.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=707&mode=nested&order=0&thold=-1

The whole argument reminds me of being taught in my unquestioning Christian childhood that certain kinds of music were evil. I've sense learned that these claims were based on mostly untrue evidence and it allowed me to form a scepticism of what the church told me. They only hurt themselves when they take positions that are based on Christian agendas.

I especially appreciate the non-judgemental, noninflamatory tone of your website. Eventually, creationists will find a way to incorporate science and common sense into their beliefs as they've done with other descrepencies over the last few thousand years. I believe these things happen naturally because of honest people like yourselves.

Keep fighting the good fight!

Sincerely,

Michael T. Dunleavy

The Standard (St. Catharines) Saturday, April 3, 2004 Page: A1 / FRONT Section: News Byline: Grant LaFleche Source: The Standard

Glaring back at her from where it was scrawled across the page, the words of God struck with the sting of an open-handed slap to the face.

"I couldn't believe it. I was just stunned," Miriam Richards says. "It was totally unexpected."

Richards, an evolutionary biologist at Brock University, asked her third-year students to explain the origins of life on Earth as part of a written exam.

For five students, the answer began with the words, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

"I was so surprised. Here I am teaching a third-year course on *evolution*, and these students were quoting Genesis. It really threw me," she says. "I suppose I should have asked them for the scientific explanations for the origins of life."

That students would use the Bible to answer a question during a science exam was a reminder the argument over the theory of *evolution* is far from over.

Richards isn't the only Brock professor answering questions from students who smell brimstone in the pages of evolutionary textbooks.

"They rarely challenge me in class, but they are out there," says professor Fiona Hunter, who teaches first-year courses on *evolution*. "They e-mail me or visit me after class. But they are challenging *evolution* with biblical arguments."

Still, Hunter is not particularly troubled by the questions and tries to provide answers without insulting a student's religion. What does concern her is the level of ignorance of evolutionary theory among first-year students in the biology program.

"They don't really know. They have a vague notion of a bloody struggle to survive. But that is not *evolution* at all."

Part of the problem, some teachers suggest, is the current high school curriculum that tucks *evolution* in a single Grade 12 course most students will never take.

"I was horrified when I found out how *evolution* was dealt with in the curriculum," Richards says. "Most students will never learn about the theory that is the absolute foundation of everything else in biology."

The virtual absence of *evolution* has prompted Joe Engemann, a Brock University education professor, to launch a provincewide study.

"My question is: Is *evolution* being taught?" says Engemann, a former high school science teacher. "I firmly believe knowledge is power and *evolution* is a key part of our knowledge of how the world works."

Having recently received approval for the study from Brock's ethics council, Engemann hopes to visit Ontario teachers and students when school resumes in September.

"This hasn't been done before. We don't actually know what the situation is yet."

Two years ago, the high school science curriculum was rolled out after the then-ruling Conservatives at Queen's Park had consulted with parent and teacher groups over a period of years.

It is a busy curriculum, and while teachers' groups such as the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation were consulted by the Ministry of Education, many have serious issues with it.

"That there is too much there, too many expectations, so that teachers have to just rush through it, is a common complaint about the curriculum, " says Peter Lipman, director of educational services for OSSTF.

Others, such as Ridley College biology teacher Bob Malyk, question the curriculum's very content.

"I hate the current curriculum," says Malyk. "Things are left out of the biology curriculum that just drive me crazy. I sometimes wonder if they ever consulted a biologist."

While students are introduced to concepts related to *evolution* in parts of the science curriculum -- such as the Big Bang theory or genetics -- it is only taught as a complete subject in one unit in an advanced biology course for students who will take biology in university.

In that respect, the curriculum changed very little from its previous incarnation when high school included Grade 13. Under the old system, *evolution* was only taught in a single course.

"I don't see why the ideas couldn't be introduced earlier, even as far back as in elementary school," says Kerry Farrell, a biology teacher at Holy Cross Secondary School in north St. Catharines. "But right now, the curriculum is so full that it is really hard to see where you could add something."

Malyk says it's a challenge, but it can be done to some degree.

"I cannot avoid *evolution*. In biology, *evolution* is everywhere," Malyk says. "So I slip it in wherever I can. Not as a discussion of the complete theory, but to get the students really thinking about it before they get to the Grade 12 course."

When the government revised the science programs and *evolution* remained isolated to a single unit, there were media reports suggesting the curriculum was designed to avoid trouble.

"Most Ontario students will go all through elementary and high school without being taught about *evolution* because of a new curriculum designed to avoid controversy," says an article from the Ottawa Citizen published in October 2000, shortly after the new curriculum was written.

Queen's Park declined to discuss the issue at the time and the current minister of education, Gerard Kennedy, did not answer repeated requests for an interview from The Standard.

Since the 1859 publication of The Origin of Species, *evolution* has been sparking intense and often highly emotional debates.

Darwin knew it would happen and sat on the idea for years. He might never have published had another naturalist not hit upon the same notion. Faced with the possibility someone else might publish first, Darwin went public. Every copy of The Origin of Species sold out during its first day of sale and a battle between science and religion began that has yet to end.

Part of the reason for the longevity of the debate, says Richards, is that an idea Darwin knew to be dangerous did exactly what its religious detractors said it did -- it created a universe where God wasn't necessary.

"I believe there is no other explanation that is as good as *evolution*, but I don't know that *evolution* is especially comforting," Richards says.

"Survival of the fittest" is the axiom often used to sum up *evolution*, but as Darwin conceived it, the process was more about survival of the best-adapted.

At the genetic level, every individual organism within a species is born slightly different from the rest. Some of these differences, say a resistance to a particular disease, allow some of them to thrive while others do not.

These survivors pass their genes onto the next generation. The process is called "natural selection" and it acts as the engine that drives the evolutionary process, Richards says.

After these small changes build up over millions of years, says Richards, an organism is no longer what it started out as. Enough successive adaptations lead to the emergence of a new species.

Species may look totally different, but their genetics can show common roots, says Malyk, who points to similarities between humans and chimpanzees.

"People get upset because they think Darwin said man came from monkeys and if God created man in his own image, does that mean God is a monkey?" says Malyk. "What Darwin said is that man and apes came from a common ancestor."

Some 98 per cent of genetic material is shared between humans and chimps.

"Over the last 12 months, there has been a move to reclassify chimpanzees and put them in the genus 'homo,' " the same classification that applies to humans, Malyk says.

For Malyk, Darwin provides the explanation for how life works. But it's not a universally shared feeling.

"What Darwin did was to make atheism fashionable," says Richard Fangrad, chief executive officer of Answers in Genesis, a Waterloo-based faith group that provides churches with material to defend the faith against evolutionary theory. "If you don't want anything to do with God, you still have to explain the world around you. Darwinism lets the atheist do that."

For Fangrad, the Bible provides all the explanation he'll ever need.

Fangrad accepts animals change over time. During the creation, some 6,000 years ago, according to Fangrad, God placed biological templates on Earth that have since developed.

"He put a dog on the earth and over time from those first dogs we get all the different types of dogs we see today," he says. "But a dog is a dog. It will never change into something else."

Evolutionary theory, he says, is based on guesswork that cannot hold water in light of the Bible, which is "the only accurate record of the past we have."

This kind of interpretation of scripture led to fierce debates over *evolution* in America. In 1999, for example, *evolution* was stripped from Kansas high schools. A court ruling brought it back.

Skip Evans, project director of the Oakland-based National Center for Science Education, a grassroots organization that defends the teaching of *evolution*, says creationism was unable to hold its ground in American schools.

"The debate has shifted. First they tried to ban it, but that didn't work. Then they wanted equal time given to creationism in science classes and that didn't work either," Evans says.

Recent challenges in American schools have not come from creationists per se, says Evans, but from a related school of thought called "intelligent design."

This idea says life is so complex it must have a guiding intelligence behind it. The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based public policy think-tank, and the Ottawa-based Centre of Cultural Renewal, insist the theory is scientifically valid.

In 2001, the Centre for Cultural Renewal, a group dedicated to promoting religion in society, held a symposium to discuss the introduction of intelligent design into Canadian classrooms.

Both groups say God is the guiding intelligence, but the Bible is not an active part of the idea.

The Discovery Institute, a vocal proponent of intelligent design, says the theory is not quite ready for classrooms.

"But there is a growing number of scientists who are questioning Darwinism and we want to see that in the classroom. Teach the evidence for and against *evolution*," says Robert Crowther, the institute's director of communications.

Richards, who regards intelligent design as repackaged creationism, says there has always been debate over evolutionary circles. Darwin himself dedicated a chapter in The Origin of Species to difficulties with his idea.

"Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered," Darwin wrote. "But to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to the theory."

Richards says the hot debate among biologists is how the mechanisms of *evolution* work. "Physicists argue over how gravitation works, but no one has provided an alternate theory that can replace gravity," she says. "I can come up with three hypotheses when studying the *evolution* of something, and they might even be contradictory ideas. But it is absolutely clear that *evolution* is at work."

Compared to the U.S., where opponents to *evolution* are well funded and organized, the debate in Canada is almost non-existent. So it puzzles some teachers why *evolution* is treated the way it is in Ontario's curriculum.

At Holy Cross, Farrell says the basic layout of the curriculum that introduces the basics of genetics before discussing the theory of *evolution*, isn't that bad.

"When I talk about *evolution*, I have to discuss genes and the role they play in heredity. So they need to learn about that first," Farrell says.

But unless students take the Grade 12 biology course, they won't be exposed to the theory of *evolution* in school.

*Evolution* shouldn't just be for students who will take biology in university, says Richards. Today's students will be tomorrow's decision-makers.

"There are those that believe *evolution* has ended, that we are not impacted by it anymore. But that isn't the case," she says.

Diseases such as AIDS adapt and change at astonishing rates. Industry is changing the environment and genetic engineering provides powerful tools to manipulate the building blocks of life.

"All of these things could have an evolutionary effect. We are reaching the point where we might be impacting our own *evolution*," she says. "You cannot make decisions if you don't understand the theory." Idnumber: 200404030121 Edition: Final Story Type: News Length: 2029 words Illustration Type: Black & White Photo COLOUR PHOTO Illustration: Photo: Grant LaFleche, The Standard / Ridley College biology teacher Bob Malyk holds the skull of Australopithecus, an early hominid. Photo: Hunter Colour Photo: Denis Cahill, The Standard / Brock University professor Miriam Richards feels high school students should receive more exposure to the theory of *evolution*.

There are those who justified slavery from the authority of the Bible. In the same way, there are those who defend spontaneous generation with the smokescreen of unimaginable epochs of time and the authority of science.

If you start from an irrational premise, that is, the universe is a happy accident, you cannot help but arrive at an irrational conclusion: that life itself is a happy accident.

One's hatred for God is not disguised by a "scientific" facade. Why would an honest scientist have no interest in the most fascinating Being in the universe?

P.S. The only way to start off your Christian life the right way is to go to church!

One of them is whether or not mutations are able to create new genetic information. It is a common argument among creationists that they cannot, but there is no definition of “information” by which this claim is true. Someone who posts at Christian Forums by the name of caravelair posted an excellent explanation of the problems with creationists’ argument about this at http://www.christianforums.com/t110746 .

Another topic that I think deserves to be covered here is endogenous retroviruses. You have a few articles that mention them in passing, but they provide such strong evidence for common ancestry that I think they deserve to be covered in much greater detail. There is a nice article about this at Christian Forums by WinAce at http://www.christianforums.com/t96639 .

A third topic is the ancestry of birds. There is a brief description of the similarities in their forelimbs at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html#morphological_parahomology , and your archive has a great deal of information about Archaeopteryx, but the transitional animals between dinosaurs and birds other than Archaeopteryx are not described in much detail. Some of these fossils demonstrate the stages through which feathers evolved before reaching their current form, as well as how the avian wing-stroke and lung system evolved. I find it rather disappointing that at the moment True.Origin has a more thorough description of these animals than your site does.

I am aware of the many mistakes made in the article about this at True.Origin, and I know enough about this topic that I may submit something to you about it at some point in the future. What I am not sure is whether or not I will have time for this—I am currently a full-time college student, and I may be occupied with other things during the summer.

The last topic is not specifically about science, but it is still very significant to evolution. I think it would benefit your site to have some information about Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, who was both a zoologist and supporter of the theory of evolution, and possibly the most widely-respected Christian theologian of the past 200 years.

This is significant for two reasons. One is that it provides the strongest evidence I know of against the false dichotomy presented by some creationists between evolution and religion. The other is that there is no reason for someone like this to accept evolution except on the basis of the evidence to support it. Certainly it could not have been an alternative to Christianity or a way of attacking it for him, since the majority of his life was devoted to defending the divine authority of the Bible. I provided some more information about him at Christian Forums in this thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t93608 .

I know a fair amount about B. B. Warfield, but I don’t think I know quite enough to write an article for your site about him—the only area for which I think I may be qualified to do that is the origin of birds. I have tried to persuade my father to write something for you about him, since he is fascinated by Warfield and has been studying him for several years, but he has the same limitations on his time that I do.

I hope my suggestions are useful to you. I or my father may submit an article to you at some point about one of these topics if either of us has time for it, but it is my hope that your archive could provide some more information about them even if we don’t. Thank you your informative website, and keep up the good work.

Thank you.

"The Talk.Origins Archive is a collection of articles and essays that explore the creationism/evolution controversy from a mainstream scientific perspective."

And what exactly IS the "mainstream"? Gee, let me guess, those that accept the evolutionary theory.

What a crapsite.

Matt

In the Index of Creationist Claims (one of my favorite resources), item CA111 - Scientists Reject Evolution? makes refernce to Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court decision striking down the Louisiana Creation Education Act. The case was heard and decided in 1987, not 1986.

The city of Tyre consisted of two settlements: a settlement on an island just offshore and a settlement on the part of the mainland facing the island. The island part of the city overshadowed the mainland settlement in importance because of its harbors and because it was easily defendable. Moreover, the word translated as Tyre means “rock” in Phoenician, for the city derived its name from the geological nature of the island.

As Ezekiel 26:2 indicates, Ezekiel took umbrage at comments that the inhabitants of Tyre had made about the destruction of Jerusalem, and the thrust of his prophecy was to wish a similar fate upon their city. The remainder of Ezekiel's "prophecy" indicates that Tyre was to be conquered and laid waste by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar. Nevertheless, it turned out that Ezekiel’s prophecy was false. Nebuchadrezzer’s army failed to conquer Tyre and to lay it to waste. After a thirteen-year siege, a compromise was reached, and Tyre agreed to become a vassal of Babylon. Even Ezekiel himself conceded (in Ezekiel 29:17-18) that his “prophecy” concerning Tyre had failed to be fulfilled.

Two and one-half centuries after Nebuchadrezzar’s failed siege of Tyre, Alexander the Great had his army besiege the city. After a seven-month siege, the city fell to Alexander’s forces. Antigonus, one of his generals, subsequently reduced it. Since, contrary to Ezekiel’s prophecy, the Babylonians under Nebuchadrezzer failed to conquer and sack Tyre, Bible promoters have tried say it was fulfilled by Alexander’s conquest of the island city and its subsequent reduction by Antigonus. However, that necessarily brings about a somewhat perverse conclusion: That is, though the inhabitants of Tyre in Ezekiel’s time brought the wrath of God upon their city for their having spoken ill of Jerusalem, they got off relatively easy, but those who lived in the city two and one-half centuries later were made to suffer for it.

Moreover, soon after the “reduction” of the island city by Antigonus, and contrary to the statements made by promoters of the Bible, both the island city and the mainland settlement were rebuilt. In later years, under Roman rule, Tyre was the capital of the province of Phoenicia and again became a rich commercial center. The island city of Tyre, in fact, has fared quite well despite Ezekiel’s “prophecy” that it would be made “like the top of a rock,” (aluding to the name of the island) and that it would be “built no more” and would “never be found again” after its “destruction” by Nebuchadrezzar. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Tyre (what was the original island city, not a supposed city down the coast) has a population of twenty-three thousand (as of 1982); in fact, Tyre is the fourth largest city in Lebanon. The present-day city covers most of the area covered by the original city on the island, though it is an island no longer, as the causeway that Alexander built to conquer the city has silted over to form a peninsula. (The book, "Tyre Through the Ages," by Nina Jidejian, has an aerial photo of Tyre showing the existing city quite well.) Moreover, even the mainland part of the city has had a resurrection of sorts. Contrary to Ezekiel’s prophecy, the remains of the city from the classic period have been “found again” and have been excavated to reveal its avenues and buildings.

There is some related material concerning Ezekiel as a “prophet” of God that the Bible promoters ignore. In the beginning of chapter 29 of his book, Ezekiel prophesied that, though Nebuchadrezzar had failed to make a spoil of Tyre, he would make a spoil of Egypt as a reward for his unfulfilled labor against Tyre, and that Egypt would be totally abandoned for forty years and its inhabitants would be scattered among the nations. Needless to say, this prophecy by Ezekiel was also an utter failure.

That was a very abbreviated refutation of the argument that Tyre proves the veracity of the Bible. It shows that Bible promoters can be just as dishonest in trying to prove the Bible true as they are in trying to prove evolution false.

Sirs: This web link on credentials lists "Don Patton". I have a book by Donald Wesley Patten, "The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch". Note the different spelling of his name if this is the same person. Inside jacket = b. Nov. 11, 1929. BA Geography, Univ of Wash. 1951, MA Geography 1962. Book is published by Pacific Meridian Pub. Co., 1966. (Seattle). If this is the same person, you have his name misspelled.

JFP

"Q4. If evolution is true, then isn't the whole Bible wrong?

First let me repeat that the underlying theme of the first book of Genesis can't be scientifically proven or disproven. No test has ever been found that can tell the difference between a universe created by God, and one that appeared without Him. Only certain interpretations of Genesis can be disproven.

Second, let us turn the question around. What if I asked you "If the story of the prodigal son didn't really happen, then is the whole Bible wrong?" Remember that the Bible is a collection of both stories and historical accounts. Because one part is a figurative story does not make the entire Bible so. Even if it did, the underlying message of the Bible would remain."

In regards to your "turning around the question" I feel it is necessary to point out to you that the story of the prodigal son is a parable, that means it didn't happen. So your turning around the question needs a better example. This parable was written to teach to the people that were listening with "ears to hear" that God was and is willing to accept anyone willing to turn around his or her wrong ways. I hope this message shows you that your skeptical and manipulative and dodging-the-answer ways are morally wrong. God did create the world exactly as the Bible says He did.

Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely.

A scientific theory has yet to be proven in all trials. A law has passed all tests and will forseeably pass all future tests with flying colors. You say here that a law is simply shorter.

The worst part is that evolution had evidence for a while; but now there are scores and scores and scores of qualified books and scientific evidence to say otherwise.

I just listened to D. James Kennedy rail against evolution, saying that many atrocities of history have occurred because of a belief in his version of evolution by such people as Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, and many other evil people.

The way I agree with this statement is that, if that his estimate of this historical evidence is indeed true, then his version of evolution should indeed not be taught. Any science teacher who teaches that because evolution is true life is meaningless or that it's ok to use evolution as permission to hurt anyone should be fired on the spot.

My question, therefore, is this: Do you know of any instance where a science teacher has taught evoution as such?

Also, I wonder if Kennedy would be so quick to point out that evil people have used the Bible, and so called "divine revelation" as permission to hurt people?

Any thing can be molded for good, or twisted for evil. I can use a hammer to build a bird house, or to crack skulls. Does that mean that we should stop teaching shop in our schools?

Hi! Darwin in his "Origin of species..." complained about the lack of transitional forms in the geological records.

Mr Gould and mr Eldridge do the same (1972)

Why do they claim this to be the fact if it is not?

In Him,

Mike