TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for May 2006

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	If evolution is true how come it's the evolutionary theory and it's not stated factual in school classes? I have never been taught that evolution is anything but theory, not fact. It could be a gross mistake. In my feild I am asked many questions and I can't believe a theory as true until I see the proof!
Response
From:
Response:	Evolution, as defined by scientists, is a fact. We can observe it directly. Evolutionary theory is the umbrella term used to describe our model for how evolution happens. Many aspects of evolutionary theory are so well supported by scientific evidence that they are facts (e.g., natural selection). Data that documents the history of life on Earth are facts. This history is well-explained by evolution and there are no other explanations that come close to accounting for the facts. Thus, scientists conclude that life has evolved from a common ancestor over billions of years. The evidence in support of this conclusion is so overwhelming that it would be perverse not to consider it a fact.

Feedback Letter
From:	Nathan Enns
Comment:	Hello talkorigins.org, I would like to make a comment on CH030. You have incorrectly quoted the Bible on Isaiah 45:7. You said "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." The correct verse reads: "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things." Isaiah 45:7 If you plan to attempt to use Bible verses as your evidence then at least use your eyes and print it right.
Response
From:
Response:	The version quoted is the King James Bible (the Authorised Version), while you have quoted the New King James Version. Different versions translate it differently. Here's the New International Version: I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. The New American Standard Bible: One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these. American Standard Version: I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things. The problem in quoting translations is that Hebrew and Greek are distinct languages, with nuances that each translation has to try to get across in dialects and contexts of English, which is itself a diverse language. The KJV is generally quoted because it is the version that most creationists quote.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	To be honest, my friends, I would like to see a change in the format of the formulation of your so-called "FAQ" on the Creationist/Scientific argument that you seem so readily engaged in. Please take note that I am speaking to you from a philosophical perspective, and my comments will remain tied to such ways of thinking here... I find it a bit offensive that a group such as yourselves, who have clearly taken strides in your scientific views and research on such a volatile subject would lower your own standards of public education to the point at which you simply speak for your supposed opponents and put words into their mouths rather than use the actual arguments of the actual people who would have them. This is a very simple thing to do, politicians have doen it for years, and it is below the dignity of anyone who calls him or herself a scientist to do the same. We are not discussing something that is cut-and-dry or simple to define on any level, so, as an open-minded person that prescribes to many ways of thinking and theory, I ask that you engage your adversaries directly in your argument. It can open doors that you never acknowledged, and thus give you new lights in your own perspective. Respectfully, Thomas C. Page
Response
From:
Response:	The FAQ's questions, where they pose objections common in antievolution, primarily differ from the statements actually made by the antievolutionists themselves by improving the implicit civility in presenting the objections. I've been engaging antievolutionists in discussions online for a couple of decades, and I have seen every one of the FAQ's antievolution questions taken as a stance by antievolutionists. Usually, those are not presented in the form of questions, but rather stated as bald assertions, and often with large dollops of sneering and condescension thrown in for good measure. The FAQ presents brief questions and answers. All of the answers link to longer essays dealing with the question. The essays on this site generally are scrupulous in linking to online materials from the antievolutionists themselves. The TalkOrigins Archive maintains one of the most extensive sets of links to antievolution sites available anywhere, in addition to site supporting mainstream science. So I reject the notion that the Archive has avoided "engaging our adversaries directly". It simply is contradicted by the evidence that we do so already.

Feedback Letter
Comment:	Does it seem improbable that God created everything?
Response
From:
Response:	Depends who you ask.

Feedback Letter
Comment:	l visit pro-creationist and pro-scientific web sites regularly. I find regularly made distinctions between what is called "operational" science and "observational"/"historical" science, when reading creationist material. l have an engineering background, and am not sure if this is a creationist fabrication or not. I was hoping that you could inform me if real scientists make this distinction, before I allow myself to be annoyed at yet another creationist ploy.
Response
From:
Response:	I haven't found a reputable source backing that dichotomy outside of the antievolution community. Maybe John Wilkins will weigh in on this. There are a great many questions in evolutionary biology, moreover, that are amenable to the methods antievolutionists say characterize "operational" science.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Hey Guys! Thanks for posting my comment in February and especially for the feedback in March. That and your response to irreducible complexity in The Index really helped. The next time that moron and I argued, it was in front of an audience in my chemistry class. Knowing that I had not made a succinct response to him about I.C. in our last debate, he walked into the room with a smug look on his face, seemingly disregarding the fact that I threw him on his ass in every other topic on our last meeting. I was determined this time, however, to finish the job completely. The second our argument started, he of course, went straight for I.C., but this time I was ready. The instant his mouth stopped spewing crap everywhere so that he could take a breath, I pounced on his argument and basically quoted your March feedback. He just stood there with a look of surprise mingled with a touch of horror. I relished every second of it. He again opened his mouth to attempt to defend himself and unleash more nonsense, but I went straight for the kill by paraphrasing your Index response to I.C. That did it for him. Sensing utter defeat so early on in the debate, he resorted to the trademark Gish-gallop and proceeded to make the vilest display of incoherent and random stupidity that I have ever witnessed (which, after two years of arguing with these psychos is quiet a statement). The damage, however, had been done. After receiving a barrage of disgusted stares by half of the people in the room (the half that actually had brainstems), he realized that he wasn’t in front of a bunch of his idiotic and brainwashed cronies. He finally shut up, and I proceeded to systematically destroy every one of his ludicrous arguments without a single response (which almost took the fun out of it). It was glorious. Needless to say, he and I don’t talk much anymore. It was just another triumph of reason over the usual creationist insanity. Thanks a million you guys! Keep it up and God Bless……Bryan.

Feedback Letter

From:

Comment:

I was impressed by the extensive list of cerationist's claim and their refutations. Good work!

Nitpick: in CE401, it says "Supernovas are evidence that stars have reached the end of their lifetime, which for many stars is billions of years."

Stars that go supernova live millions of years, not billions.

Feedback Letter
From:	Mich
Comment:	I am 13-year-old student. I don't know how to answer : which one is come first, chicken or egg? My teacher answer is egg. How can it be? Can you explain it a bit for me? Thanks.
Response
From:
Response:	Eggs evolved long before chickens did. Dinosaurs, from which birds evolved, along with other organisms that are collectively called Amniota, also lay eggs, as do playtpuses and echidnas, which are a related group to mammals. Our ancestors also laid eggs before they evolved into mammals. So eggs long pre-date chickens, which are jungle fowl that were domesticated long after birds first evolved back in the dinosaur age.

Feedback Letter
Comment:	Hi folks Did you know that there is a Creationist Wikipedia at http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page I'm sure some of the regulars at Talk Origin could contribute. I'm sure there are some articles that need "Correcting"
Response
From:
Response:	Yes, many of their articles need correcting, but not by us. On their main page they say, "Contributing editors must believe the universe and life on earth were created by God." Their other articles make me strongly suspect that they would not consider someone accepting evolution to fit their criterion, whether or not the person believes God created life and the universe.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	I believe that children should be able to choose what to think is right. Taking out Scientific Creationism is making children think that only evolution is the right answer. I thought school's were supposed to present both sides of the argument.
Response
From:
Response:	Should children be able to choose which elements they think make up water? Should they be able to choose whether it is right that force of gravity is proportional to the square of distance or the cube? Should they be able to choose what 487 + 179 sums to? Evolution is the right answer, if by "right" you mean what the evidence points to. Should children -- or anyone, for that matter -- be free to redefine "right" to include whatever they want?

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	An excellent site. Has anyone considered coal formation in context of hours of sunlight? I bet it's more than 6000 yr.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	The IDiots have begats in theit belfries. DWU

Feedback Letter

From:

R. Berry

Comment:

Interesting comments from a Vatican astronomer.

"Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism - it's turning God into a nature god.

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=674042006

Feedback Letter
Comment:	Once an athiest walked into the labratory of Sir Isacc Newton and saw a complex model of the solar system that Dr. Newton had made. The man inquired "Who made this?" and Newton replied "No one" The man was puzzled by this and asked "You mean to tell me that this complex model simply made itself?" "Yes, isacc replied, all of these fine gears, and bits of machinary made themself" The aithiest got the point, it is just silly to believe that this universe has no Maker as it is to believe a model can build itself. I hope you get the point also. Next time you attempt to present quesses as facts do you research more thourogh, and explore both possibilities. sincearly, a 14 teen year old who did her research
Response
From:
Author of:	Evolution and Philosophy
Response:	Atheism (note spelling) was not a position that was held by anyone at the time of Newton. People who failed to agree with the prevailing religion, no matter what their religious views were, were called atheists (because they denied the God that the majority accepted). I cannot find that story. Since you did your research, could you give me the reference to it? I have found a version at the Creationwiki but they simply reference an apologetics book with no further citation. It is listed also among "science jokes" but I have never read this in any biography of Newton nor in any contemporary source or shortly afterwards. I think it is a made-up story, like the famous apocryphal story about Diderot and Euler.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	I was commenting on the dumb scientists who were trying to explain whatever it was without using god. Are you idiots really that dumb. Everyone knows God is the center of everything. Without him there wouldn't be a universe..... That whole big bang thing is irrelevant because if you pick up a bible and turn to the first chapter of the book it explains that God made the universe. In the beginning God created the earth. But i guess your not fully to blame you ignorant then again you are. Don't ever try and state a theory without putting God in it first. Go to CHURCH. Your not scientists your 2nd grade science teachers. REad up on it

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	to venture an educated positivity i firmly believe that jumbo tron type technological producers of psychological input both verbal and visual, are powered by electricity and am radio waves. and split at times trichromatically in primary colors, and high definition is light only bent and refracted with precise calculation and sound is added at an fm frequency.
Response
From:
Response:	I think you have been watching too much TV.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	I find it ridiculous that any individual would submit a paper without a little bit more research(Referring to: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory; by Laurence Moran). I am convinced that the paper in question was written by some form of biologist with little or no knowledge of anything outside of there college indoctrination. A simple search through mathematical theory would blow so many holes in this paper it would be nothing more than swisscheese (which is far more tasteful than this paper I might add). My suggestion to anyone reading this purely emotional and wholly bias paper would be to look up information about Wistar (a 1966 meeting in Philadelphia between biologists and mathematicians) and examine the just as large amount of "facts" that do not support the THEORY of Evolution.
Response
From:
Author of:	Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Response:	I don't usually read 40 year old papers in order to understand modern science. Perhaps you could tell me some of these old "facts" that don't support evolution?

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	An excellent site. I like particularly "Problems with a global flood" and the many articles explaining genetics. It must be frustrating to the real scientists finding great insights and then being systematically misquoted. Know that there are some folks who appreciate what you are doing. Good work.

Feedback Letter
Comment:	Your site has exactly what I'm looking for, is easy to read,is condensed and yet has all the imformation I need.

Feedback Letter
From:	Matthew Davey
Comment:	I am currently reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins which is as intellectually rigourous as it is fascinating. However, after reading the chapter about replicators I am left with questions that don't seem to be answered (although I haven't finished the book yet!) If a self-replicating organism came into existence through abiogenesis this needs just the right conditions which may have come together in a highly unlikely combination. Now, given that this happens, isn't it also highly unlikely that a mutated replication would also be able to self-replicate and therefore kick-off the process of selection?
Response
From:
Response:	I fully agree with you on this. When Dawkins says that evolution began when a molecule acquired the property of being able to replicate, it strikes me as a miraculous argument. How did that occur? Either it was a likely event, due to the laws of chemistry, or there was a way in which an unlikely event of this magnitude could be formed. It is unlikely, in my view, that replication arose by necessity, and so I think that selection does not require replication. I think that selection can occur when a cycle reproduces the same products. This is not a widely held view, though.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	I am a highly educated European who had the fatigue to come to the US years ago. I must admit I got quite a surprise when I came face to face with debates and questions that were long ago forgotten in my home land. I literally witnessed the very same fanatical and dangerously bigoted thinking in Medieval fanatic Christianity as I just discovered in Creationist groups and sects such as the Baptists. Salvation and, of course, Earth-aging and other scientific as well as theological issues have never been an easy topic, but these current fanatics make it looks like everything must be understood according to a literal reading of God's Best-seller. I support a web site, like this, which endeavours to explain and clarify these controversial matters for those who still keep a Medieval fanatic mind.

Feedback Letter

From:

Comment:

I really appreciate the website. It is a great service in the education of the public about an important issue. However, I would recommend one slight correction to the "Five Misconceptions" page http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof) in the section on the 2nd law of thermodynamics is the statement: "However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too."

I disagree that life is irrelevant to the 2nd law or vice verse. In fact, the 2nd law is about equilibrium, which is an essential concept to understanding living organisms, populations, and evolution itself. Organisms survive if they can obtain energy for themselves by driving reactions toward equilibrium using reactants around them and releasing products. Thus the 2nd law is relevant to understanding life processes, fitness and survival. Not only is the theory of evolution consistent with the 2nd law, the theory of evolution and the 2nd law support each other in helping explain life.

Rick Kohn, Professor of Animal Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	I was recently watching a program on Animal Planet and it mentioned a species of lizard that has no males. They said that in order for a female to reproduce, it must simulate sex with another female and it is believed that males of the species must once have existed. They went on to say that the Y chromosome in humans has degraded drastically and may one day disappear, meaning there will be no males. I've always heard that sexual reproduction was evolved because it helps species to evolve and adapt more rapidly. If males were to disappear, and females could somehow reproduce asexually, it would seem as though we were going backwards. I'm rather confused about the implications of this. Is it beneficial for a species to revert to asexual reproduction? If asexual reproduction would be so beneficial, why would sexual reproduction evolve in the first place?
Response
From:
Response:	The lizard mentioned is the whiptail lizard, genus Cnemidophorus. They are likely formed by hybridisation between two sexual species. Typically asexual species (parthenogens, as they are called) do not last very long - as all individuals are clones, or nearly so, they are all susceptible to the same pathogens, parasites or ecological changes. But some groups of organisms have been asexual for a long time. It is thought that sex evolved in order to allow rare beneficial mutations to be shared throughout the population (that is, populations that swapped genes would have a higher proportion of well-adapted individuals who happened to have more than one of the beneficial mutations that had occurred in that population's past. Mutations and sex don't have foresight about what will be useful). Asexuals tend to go extinct faster than sexuals, but they are usually the descendents of successful species, so they don't immediately go extinct.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	First off, great site. I enjoy reading each and every link, and the feedback section is helpful as well(it's good to see other people's relevant questions answered by you guys). Plus, every other creationist "comment" gets at least a chuckle out of me. Ok, enough ass kissing. Now, I've read and understood tons of material covering everything from the definition of evolution to our own(human) lineage, but I still have a few unanswered questions. I just finished a Biology 2 AP course (I'm still a high school senior) and was a bit disappointed that I either missed the answers or our teacher decided to skip the explanations. First, what is the current accepted theory of how self-replicating polymers arose? Is there one? From what I understand, this seems like a big question that no one seems to know the answer to. Are we the only genus to have a single species? Why is there (for example) thousands of frog species yet only one of humans? Is there even a biological answer to this? Thanks for any help.
Response
From:
Response:	To your first question, there are many hypotheses, but nobody knows for sure. It has been suggested that RNA or some similar molecule can synthesise itself. A good site for information about this is the NASA astrobiology site. As to the second, genera are artifically named by taxonomists. There are a number of monotypic genera, but it pays to notice what species specified that our genus only has one, very special, species...

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Dear Talk Origins, On average I find the articles of very good substance. The rest are freaking awesome! But one thing I have found lacking, there is no general primer on evolution. You just need to discribe some selective forces and the types of mutations for starters. And just discribe how the theory works and how to evaluate what is evidence against/for evolution. This will help stem the common strawmen creationist set up.
Response
From:
Response:	There is, actually, an Introduction to Evolutionary Biology, by Chris Colby, and a shorter and less technical What is Evolution? FAQ by Laurence Moran. See also the list of other FAQs on evolution. A chattier account might be useful, if you'd like to suggest the topics and treatment. Please go read these and get back to us.

Feedback Letter
Comment:	I read the response to Kent Hovind's, and other creationists, proof of a young Earth involving the rate at which the sun is shrinking. In the response, it is stated that the sun could be going through a stage much like ocean tides. I have NEVER read of another star growing then shinking then growing etc. On the contrary, stars grow up until they reach full maturity, then they srhink until they die. There seems to be many observations to support the theory stated by Dr. Hovind, and little evidence supporting the statments used to refute his theory. Please notify me if there are any observances of what for ease I will call "the tidal phases of the sun." Thank you for your time, Scott
Response
From:
Response:	The term is "pulsating variable stars," and a search on that phrase will turn up several web pages on the subject, such as this one. There is also a good introduction to variable stars on Wikipedia. Also, sun-like stars go through a phase of great expansion as they die. Hovind, as usual, is spectacularly wrong.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	I'm sure you guys won't publish this because there's alot of truth in it.. but it's worth a shot. Are there really people out there who think this whole entire universe in all it's complexity is just "time and chance" ? FACT : ENTROPY INCREASES (NO ORDER COMES FROM DISORDER) FACT : THE EARTH GAINS 1 SECOND EVERY YEAR. (WE'D HAVE SOME SHORT DAYS "MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO" HUH) ? FACT : A decayed DINOSAUR carcass accidentally netted by a Japanese trawler near New Zealand in 1977 (THOUGHT THEY WERE EXTINCT "MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO" YOU CAN READ ABOUT IT HERE FACT: NOAH'S ARK HAS BEEN FOUND IN THE "MOUNTAINS OF ARARAT" JUST AS THE BIBLE TELLS US. YOU CAN READ IT HERE FACT: WE ARE BUT DUST IN THE WIND, HERE TODAY AND GONE TOMORROW, AND THE FOOLISHNESS OF THE LORD SURPASSES THE KNOWLEDGE OF MAN. - GOOD LUCK GUYS, THE TRUTH WILL BE REVEALED IN THE END FOR ALL TO SEE. DON'T BE CLOUDED BY FALSE INTELECT. "FOR THE FOOL HAS SAID IN HIS HEART THERE IS NO GOD" LOOK AROUND YOU, AT THE NIGHT SKY, WATCH THE SUN RISE AND SET, EXPLORE THE COMPLEXITY OF THE HUMAN BODY.. STEVEN HAWKINS BELIEVES IN GOD READ HERE [dud link in feedback] ALBERT EINSTEIN AS WELL READ HERE FACT : THE BIBLE IS THE BEST SELLING BOOK OF ALL TIME, IT WAS BEFORE DARWIN,IT WAS DURING DARWIN, IT IS NOW, AND STILL WILL BE LONG AFTER WE ARE GONE.
Response
From:
Response:	On the contrary. Feedback like this is, I think, part of the charm of this column. I have a feeling you are just pulling our leg, but it can sometimes be hard to tell parodies of creationism from the real thing. We don't think the universe is just "time and chance". You've omitted the whole business of natural laws studied by science. There certainly is a role for "chance" in the way things turn out; but there is also a massive role for the laws of nature, which strongly constrain the possiblities for how things can develop. Your "fact" about increasing entropy is a statement of the second law of thermodynamics. None of the scientific models for how natural processes constrain and drive the development of the universe or the evolution of life have the slightest conflict with this fundamental physical law. If you think for a minute, you can see that birth and growth is as much a part of our experience as death and decay. The second law does not prevent a field of ploughed up soil becoming a field of flowers; or a pair of bunnies becoming a thriving warren of many rabbits. All the processes by which things grow and develop and evolve do indeed contribute to a net increase in the entropy of the universe, even when complexity arises and increases locally. Your "fact" about gaining a second every year is a common error. What actually happens is that the length of a day is a little bit longer than 86400 seconds. In fact, a day is about 86400.002 seconds long. Over a year, this means that your clock becomes out by around 0.73 seconds. We adjust for this by adding a leap second every so often, say three times every four years. This is not because of slowing, but because the clocks are out of sync. There is a slowing effect; but it is far more gradual than you suggest. The day was indeed 86400 seconds long around about 1820. That is, the 0.73 seconds deviations per year has accumulated over almost 200 years. By measuring records of ancient tides, we can measure the length of a day 620 million years ago as being about 21.9 hours. This rate of slowing is the same order of magnitude as we have measured over the last hundred years. See Day at wikipedia. The "dinosaur" found near New Zealand was actually a decaying basking shark. This is explained in your own link. The link you give for the ark does not say it has been found. It is an article about an expedition that was going to try and find it. A subsequent article in the same publication shows that they did no such thing. See Noah's Ark Quest Dead in the Water – Was It a Stunt. There are quite a number of superlative scientists who believe in God; but neither Hawking nor Einstein are good examples of this. Your link for Hawking was invalid; and if you follow your own link for Einstein to the section on "god/religion" you'll see that Einstein did not believe in the personal God of Christian theism.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Thanks for maintaining an easily read source of information on the subject of orgins. It is good to see a non biased collection of information supported by facts rather than opinion. Reading through your site has helped me understand the misreprestation of information I had previously seen, and given me supporting refrences for disscusions with others. Keep up the good work, and may the hunt continue. Dustin Walters

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Ok.. Let us suppose that evolution is true and all the living beings are still evolving, we may not perceive the effects of evolution in living beings instantaneously because visible changes occurs only over a lengthy span of time. Now let us consider evolution of a single cell to multicell living beings, there is no intermediate form between single cell and multicell. So if evolution is a countinous process, we shd she many examples of single cell organisms getting converted to multicell organisms daily. Everyone knows that time cannot play a role here to see this change because single cell organisms are the first living forms and have lived for millions of years as per evolution and if they evolved to multicell in the past, the same should happen now. Single cell organisms are always single cell and multicell are always multicell, there are no instances reported of single cells getting converted to multi cell living beings. If evolution is a true then the aforesaid should also be true. I think this is enough to bury the theory of evolution. Also Evolution could never explain how such a complex single cell could form by chance. Could a building stand with out a strong basement?, same is the case with theory of evolution. I have studied the functioning of a single cell bacteria, its really mind boggling and unimaginable. All these things shows that its nothing more than our stupidity and prejudice to believe in theory of evolution and supporting it. The more I read about evolution, the stronger my faith becomes in creation. Open your heart and mind and ask for urself, your will obviously see a designer behind this creation of complex intelligent creatures, even a single cell. May god open ur hearts to the truth.
Response
From:
Response:	There certainly are intermediate forms between a single cell and a multicellular organism; and examples live and thrive today. The intermediate forms are single celled organisms that come together occasionally into organized colonies that behave as a single organism. Here are some examples. Dictyostelium discoideum normally lives and dies as a single celled amoeba. However, in times of stress they can come together and form a "fruiting body" a bit like a small slug, containing something like 10,000 individual amoeba. This "slug" migrates up towards light, and then the cells differentiate into two forms, making a stalk and a fruiting body of spores at the top, which eventually disperse to be new individual amoeba. Volvox is a species of algae that live in colonies that behave a bit like multicellular organisms. Sponges. These are generally considered to be multicellular, but operate in many ways like a colony of co-operating individual single celled organisms. A sponge can be filtered so that it breaks up entirely into individual cells, which will subsequently come together a form another sponge again. The sponge does not have organs or tissues, and all the cells in the sponge are basically interchangeable. The inference that we "should" see singled celled organisms becoming multicelled organisms daily is based on a misconception, that any evolutionary development that has taken place in the past should also be seen occurring in the present. But in this case, you are in luck. We do see individual cells becoming multi-cellular organisms daily: like D. discoideum. Your problem – one of them at least – is that you simply have not yet studied enough. You are right that the functioning of a singled celled organism is mind boggling. None of us know all about them; not even close. One of the things about them that is mind blowing is their capacity to evolve over time; which is why they are so good for experimental studies in evolution. They are also amazingly diverse in their ways of living. Some are strictly individualist, some live in colony like groups, and in some cases those groups show the beginnings of a capacity for being an identifiable multi-cellular organism. Open your mind yourself. It's not a matter of rejecting your God. After all, you believe, I presume, that God created all these creatures, and ordained all the natural processes studied in science. If that is your belief, then you are not selling God short to recognize the astounding capacities of the natural world.

Feedback Letter

Comment:

I dig the site.

I hear insistently that ID is objective. I see the objective starting point of viewing the universe as, It is the apparent phenomena of complex parts that seem to be related by forces. Perhaps, I am naive in my assumption that ID is a blanket analogy that is used to describe the whole, but I have not seen it in another light as of yet.

Is ID better than the Chinese concept of Tao, whereas Tao is as suitable as a blanket analogy that stands neutral to claims about a deity, but still implies design? Analogies can only be strengthened, but are also completely verbal and not concrete. The argument of ID cannot be won or lost because it is a verbal argument. Also, there are many definitions of Intelligence and Design. Which ones are we using? If the opposite of design is disorder, is it imaginable that with the a priori belief in design that there could ever be non-design, no matter how the universe or its parts turned out. I agree that constants in the universe seem to be static. That is why they are called scientific facts. If we are to suggest a purposeful or non-purposeful source of these constants, which in philosophy may be considered as Universals, the arguments belong in the realm of teleology, not science. If they were ever considered in science, I believe they would fall into psychology. The studies would be of how the mind came to these conclusions. But still, it seems more a philosophy.

Encyclopedia: Teleology (telos: end, purpose) is the supposition that there is design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in the works and processes of nature, and the philosophical study of that purpose. Teleology stands in contrast to philosophical naturalism, and both ask questions separate from the questions of science. While reductionist science investigates natural laws and phenomena, Philosophical naturalism and teleology investigate the existence or non-existence of an organizing principle behind those natural laws and phenomena. Philosophical naturalism asserts that there are no such principles. Teleology asserts that there are.

I have the most respect for those who are trying to inject providence into science to give students a more meaningful education (although it is out of place), but perhaps we could inject philosophy by itself instead (although the subject matters would have to include all of the pious and impious conclusions which usually attack our modern religions, and it is such a large field that it would be difficult to keep from cherry picking texts that would seemingly mandate some form of religious belief).

Providence and ID seem to be self evident for those of faith, no matter how far science goes in the future. Faith in my definition is belief without the burden of proof. If we put ID out there and honestly say that it could be proven wrong, Falsifiable, what does that say about our faith? And if we "know" it, and "prove" it, there is no need for faith.

Evolution has some holes to poke in it, but the analogy of Intelligent Design is quite imperfect. We should approach the problems of evolution with continuous investigation instead of offering an analogy that implies something that is imperfect from what we observe through natural phenomena. We know something about the mind and about intelligence, and it is not without great consequences.

First, nowhere in nature phenomena is it proved that a mind exists without a body, intelligence as well.

Second, pain and suffering is consistent with all intelligence that we know, as well as learning is. We learn through experience, example, error, and many other would be impious sentiments if applied to a deity.

The skeptics look for the difficulty, and the dogmatists look for the necessity.

A quote of David Hume: "If the whole of natural theology, as some people seem to maintain, resolves itself to one simple, though ambiguous, at least undefined, proposition, That the cause or causes of order in the universe probably bear some remote analogy to human intelligence: If this proposition be not capable of extension, variation, or more particular explication: If it affords no inference that affects human life, or can be the source of any action or forbearance: And if the analogy, imperfect as it is, cannot be transferred, with any appearance of probability, to the other qualities of the mind: If this really be the case, what can the most inquisitive, contemplative, and religious man do more than give a plain, philosophical assent to the proposition, as often as it occurs, and believe that the arguments on which it is established exceed the objections which lie against it?" -Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

Anything that anthropomorphizes the source of the universe is subject to much impious inferences, if it is not presented the boundaries to which David Hume argues.

Thanks, Bob

Feedback Letter
From:	Tedric
Comment:	It is possible that many creationist spokesmen are intelligent enough to know that what they propose is rubbish. If so, what is their agenda? Here are three possibilities: 1. They have dug a hole for themselves so deep that they cannot get out of it without looking complete fools, so they prefer to stay in it. 2. In cases like this ('where there's muck, there's money' - old English proverb) it could be that promoting creationism is a very nice source of big dollars. 3. Psychologists may be able to say whether the creationist hierarchy enjoy the feeling of power they have over their followers/adherents. Other have pointed out that, judging by creationist feedback, many of the followers seem to have a fairly poor level of education. Do the leaders enjoy the influence they have?
Response
From:
Author of:	Ancient Molecules and Modern Myths
Response:	I think these are some good questions. I suggest that you need to ask the professional creationists.

Feedback Letter

Comment:

I just wanted to let you know that this website is a fantastic resource for accessing the major rebuttals to the claims creationists make. Their points of attack tend to be spread out over several disparate fields of science, making it hard for any one person to have the competence to reply to all their claims with much evidentiary support. Your site can help equip the debater with the skills necessary to pointedly answer the creationist techniques, which, when left unproperly unchallenged, sound so plausible. Nice work!

Feedback Letter

From:

Nomad

Comment:

I am just now reading your article on the Jehovah's Witness book entitled "Life: How did it get here? By evolution or creation?"

As a former Jehovah's Witness, I am well aware of the deceitful way the Watchtower argues.

However, whether the quality of the information in this book is good or bad, I find the smugness of some of your comments and criticism disturbing. I find comments such as "Another humorous picture is on p.34, with a depiction of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Note the makeup on Eve. I guess God created her with lipstick and eyeliner, eh?", or "Chapter 3, "What Does Geneis Say?", is especially funny." inappropriate and counter-productive.

The fact of the matter is, that this book comprised a large part of the foundation of my faith during the time I was a Witness. For this reason I find the matter anything but 'humorous' or 'funny'.

It is an grave matter, with far-reaching consequences for many persons who have built their understanding of the world around them on books like this, and I feel that it would help to make your entirely valid criticism more palatable, if you tried to keep the smugness and sarcasm at a minimum.

My two cents, for what they are worth.

Feedback Letter
Comment:	Have you seen this site yet? http://www.trueorigin.org/ It seems to make alot of points that aren't refuted by your site.
Response
From:
Response:	We've very familiar with it, and have many links to it throughout the archive. You can use our search facility to find them.

Feedback Letter
From:	Lil' Fish
Comment:	This is one of the most blasphemous sites that I have ever read. Contrary to most beliefs, you CAN be both a Christian and a science lover! i happen to be one fo those rare combinations. However, I do not let me analytically based mind interfere with the facts of divine existance staring me in the face. To my felow Christians posting similiar sentiments, I salute you!
Response
From:
Response:	Contributors to the archive include Christians, atheists, and just about everything in between; but by and large we all recognize that there are Christians who love science, and Christians who are active and effective scientists. If you think that creationism or ID is the only way a Christian can be a scientist, then you are doubly mistaken. So called scientific creationism (including ID in the style of the Discovery Institute) is not science; and it is not the only way a Christian can express a love of science. On the other hand, if you recognize that faithful Christians can appreciate and embrace conventional modern science; then you are basically in agreement with most of the people involved in this site, I would think.