Feedback for August 1996
| Listed below are some of the letters received from readers of the Talk.Origins Archive in the month of August, 1996. |
The test of whether or not evolution or the Genesis account
of creation are true should not be based on what you or I
think. It should be based on the credible scientific
methodology. I would define this as mathematics, chemistry,
Newtonian physics, and biology. Other areas of science so
called science if not empiracally varifiable, must be
considered suspect. In math, 2+2 are always 4. In
chemistry, if I mix the same amount of chemical, at the
same temperature, in the same environment, I will always
get the same solution. These things are varifiable. If it
is not varifiable by these true sciences than we should not
consider it even a theory, much less truth. Do we all have
agreement on this? Good! Let us delve into what is, and is
not, true. There is no way to prove, empiracally, that
evolution is true. This is why it remains a theory and not
a fact as some suppose. Not even the ardent uniformitarian
geologist will argue with that. By the way, I am an
engineer, with a masters, & enough hours for a PhD.
Geology is an area I know a lot about. Contrary to PBS and your local university geology professor, there is no way life could form in a soup. Chemistry and biology both deny this possibility. The so called missing links have all been proven hoaxes, by emperical science. It was proven through the scientific method, in a court of law, about twenty years ago that the earth did not slowly cool over millions of years. It was found that polonium, which has a varifiable half life of around 2 minutes, left a decay ring in a piece of granite. This means the granite had to have hardened in less than five minutes. This contradicts all theories of evolution. Species once thought dead by evolutionist, because they turned up in rocks dated by them to be billions of years old, have been found alive and kicking. True science proved the theory of evolution, false many years ago. The only people keeping evolution alive is those who have need to do so. It must be kept alive or they will lose their jobs, or they will have to perhaps accept one of the alternatives, which means they might have to change their lifestlye.
The next question is, is the Genesis account of creation scienctifically varifiable? Not all, but many aspects of it are varifiable.
1. Fossils do not form by slow burial. If deposited by slow burial, they will decay before they have time to fossilize. Burial alone is also not enough to cause fossilization. Fossilization is caused through instant burial, in a substance containing a mixture of at least 80% water and the rest sediment, & organic material. i.e. "mud." When you find fossils at 2 thousand feet above ground level, in walls hundreds of feet tall, it means you would have to have a flood the size of Noah's to explain it. A flood is the only means that can be varified to cause and explain such fossilization.
2. The evolutionist ask where the water came from. It is not possible that it could have rained that much all at one time. Well, the Genesis account begins with no rain and a deposite of water (ice), a canopy of water above the atmosphere (firmament in the older Bibles), if you will, surrounding the earth. This would explain several things. It would explain where the water came from. It would explain why the earth split in the past. It would explain the dying of the largest dinosaurs, the decreased size. and ages of man and mammal. It would explain the increase in cosmic radiation which now causes our aging process.
I would love to chat further but must go. will continue this later.
Rabbi T
Response from the editor:
Most of these issues are addressed in the various files of the Talk.Origins Archive.
To understand why evolution is considered both a fact and a theory, see the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ by Laurence Moran. For information about polonium haloes and why they don't support creationism, read Evolution's Tiny Violences: The Po-Halo Mystery by John Brawley. For a list of insurmountable problems the Genesis flood story has as an explanation for the planet's geology, read Mark Isaak's Problems with a Global Flood FAQ.
What a marvelous website. I'm so glad I found it. As an undergraduate student at the University of Arkansas during the 1982 Creation Trial in Little Rock, Arkansas, I began to explore the controversy myself. I attended a lecture given by Duane Gish at the U of A. His mixture of religion and "science" was enough to convince me that there was no such thing as "creation science." When he stated that "God" created the Universe some 10 to 15 thousand years ago with the photons of light from stars millions of light years away at just the the right place in the universe so that they were just then striking the earth for us to see having traveled the remaining distance at the speed of light, I knew which side was relying on science and which side was trying to pull the wool over the general publics' eyes.
Keep up the good work.
Stu V.
I wonder if it's time to put some economic muscle into the debate. Several years ago, scientific and academic societies declined to meet in Colorado in response to the anti-gay initiative. Perhaps scientific societies could refuse to meet in Alabama, New Orleans, or Atlanta in response to the specious "equal time" positions adopted by local or state bodies. If technical companies declined to (re)locate to these states the political establishment might find it easier not to cave in to fundamentalist pressure.
Frank S.
I can't find anything in t.o. about Haldane's dilemma. Is there a reason for this? Do you address the matter under another name?
Pam H.
Response from the editor:
There are no articles in the talk.origins archive about Haldane's dilemma. The reason is probably that no talk.origins participant has written one yet. For a book on the matter, Tim Ikeda suggests George C. Williams' Natural selection: Domains, Levels and Challenges (NY, Oxford University Press, 1992).
A brilliant site which has given me plenty of reinforcement and substantiation for a viewpoint I previously held to be obvious, but was often stumped in arguments.
A quick question: Does anyone have information about Duane Gish's credentials and past work experience before his hallowed days on the touring circuit for the Idiotic Creation Researchers, or whatever they are called?
Many thanks especially to all your writers who mentioned Dalrymple's fantastic book.
Cheers,
Clive C.
Response from the editor:
Duane Gish received a doctorate in biochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley. According to the bio in his latest book, Gish "spent 18 years in biochemical research at Cornell University Medical College, the Virus Laboratory of the University of California, Berkeley, and the Upjohn Company, Kalamazoo, Michigan". (Thanks to Jim Foley for this information.)
May I suggest a couple of sites that may, when read spread a little light on the questions that "creationists" are NOT willing to ask? try: Center for Scientific Creation -for this one check out the hydroplate theory(it explains the flood a bit technically-but don't forget it's not too old!) also try a search in the yahoo directory; they contain many good sites. Also, some your "unanswered" questions appear a little nieve, I could answer them myself! There are old earth creationists just like there are young earth evolutionists! It's the same thing!Ever heard of radiohalos? How about the short time frame for the production of coal and oil? the list goes on....! I don't get how they could be unanswered! Also, instead of trying to give your interperatation of what the creationists are saying, give links to their sites. I found myself immediately asking how biased these ideas and notions were, I myself have heard completely different replies! Thus links to creationist pages would eliminate all these questions of validity! Goodluck in your work, although I'm very sorry to say that your pages did not help a great deal, only influencing me in the other direction towards creationism. This was mainly becuase your arguments seemed plainly out of spite, and a bit below the belt; but this is really only my personal view. Also, how about a list of evidences? Then talk to creationists to provide info against it and their own evidences?!
The main reason that creationist "attack" rather than defend is because it is easier to point out the flaws in evolution it seems than to find evidences against it. They also do not have anywhere near the same amount of funding and approach things in a rational manner. Instead of pointing to a lack of evidence(e.g fossil record) and claiming that the evidence will be found soon; they point and say that there won't be any more evidence found because we've been searching for centuries! This ra-ra about nothing really gets on my nerves, that's all anyone really ever brings up; how about talking about actual data rather than why's and "whodunnits"? Is it so scientific to look past the sceince and make claims about the oppositions motivations or past? On this and relative sites the science seems to be the secondary feature. Also, will this be cut out becuase it's too hard? There seems to be the suggestion that the "too hard" feedback is not displayed. What then is the point of it when it is selectively culled?
Smiley
I am quite surprised at some of the figures contained within these pages. I have not got the figures in front of me so forgive me for any mistakes but 34% of United States citizens are fundamentalists??!! I cannot believe that 34% of the population of such an advanced country can interpret literally all that is contained within the Bible. I find it equally alarming that some fundamentalists are emminent, or at least educated, scientists.
I am only a high-school student here in Australia but I feel that I know enough already to realise that the Bible is a book written, in some parts, by an ancient civilisation that knew not what science was nor had the faintest idea that dinosaurs ever existed or that humans have so much in common with other animals. I'm sure that if this is published at least one creationist will read it. Do you want us to teach the Australian Aboriginal DreamTime stories in schools as serious alternatives to evolution? They are beautiful stories, but only in their context. The context that Creationists are putting the stories into is not only absurd but also somewhat scary.
I have no objections to you teaching your ideas to whoever wishes to hear it. I have serious objections to it being forced on students as a serious alternative to other scientific theories. I apologise to creationists for this remark but is it just that you don't see the holes in your theories or are you too stubborn to acknowledge that there are huge craters throughout the main ideas.
I will admit that science cannot explain everything and that some of its ideas have elements of untruth about them, but is this any reason to scrap scientific thought, or experiment, altogether?? It appears to me that a large part of the Creationist argument hinges on an attempt at a complete dismantling of what could be called "conventional" science; especially Darwin's Theory of Evolution. How do you explain the similarities between chimpanzee and human DNA? I am not a biologist so tear that last statement apart if you must!! You are asking for a "fair trial". I have read a number of books on creationism and am still not convinced. To be quite frank, I am becoming sick of theories based on "pseudo-scientific" research or stances! Please, allow logic to prevail! Spread your word, but don't spread it as a compulsory part of an education systems sylabus!
You may wonder why I am saying this here and not to one of the creation "scientists". The answer to that, the articles I saw on the ICR server have no e-mail addresses attached.
James O.
Response from the editor:
According to the 1991 General Social Survey, 34% of U.S. residents believe that the Bible is literally true, word for word.
I am afraid I am not well read enough to contribute to the archive. I just want to congratulate the guy who spend time maintaining this archive for a job well done. I have learned valuable things from this treasure house of information. Please keep up the excellent work!!
Though I frankly find much of what is posted here pedantic and boring, I am grateful that someone is interested enough in the technical issues essential to refutation of the theosophical monster that is religious existentialism. I'm a literary critic by training, so my problems with creationism are as much aesthetic as anything else (my instincts say "Trust those who seek to FIND Truth rather than those who seek to PROVE it"), but I am also married to a recovering Fundamentalist, whose family dragged us unknowingly into the little trailer in Glen Rose that houses the "Evidences of Creation Museum" (I especially enjoyed the "not responsible for accidents" disclaimer) where I proceeded to listen to two hours of tripe that contradicted everything I learned in sixth grade Physical Science, so I am, per- haps, more aware than most outside the scientific community how utterly bizarre the wonderful world of Creationism is. At times the inundation of pamphlets leaves me feeling a little conspiratorial myself, so thank you for providing a rational touchstone.
Mark M.
I don't know what the creation theory is defined as but I know what the Bible says. It agrees with the "young" earth theory. You can't say the earth is millions of years old and then read the Bible and it only gives six or seven thousand years. The idea that creation was or is thousands of years long is absurd when as Carl Baugh mentions on his "Creation in Symphony" lecture series that certain plants and animals can only live if the other is there to help. I believe its called symbiotic relationships. I would much rather believe what Baugh says than your bashing. Now I won't say anything about his degree's because I don't know about that, but most of what he does say in the video I mention sounds good. And it agrees much better with the Bible than those long creationist people.
After only a brief perusal of this wonderful site, I expect to publish both the electronic address and quotes from the site in my *church newsletter*. Thanks for your work!
Joel M.
Please explain why a double-blind study of radiometric dating cannot be done, using rocks of origin unknown to the testing lab, and comparing those to the known geological dates of the crystallization of the rocks.
The concurrence between dating methods is interesting, but this would prove the matter one way or the other.
Response from the editor:
There is to my knowledge no reason why a double blind study cannot be done. In fact I would be surprised if it has never been tried.
Thank you for this FAQ list! I've been watching with despair for a few years the efforts to have "creation science" etc. forced into school cirricula. The recent piece in "Science" really disturbed me, and convinced me that I can't sit by, watch this descent back into the dark ages occur, and tell myself that "logic will win out." I'm an American marine geologist living in Australia, and I can see the same clouds here on this horizon as well. I'm disturbed that society could let itself slip backwards this way, but the forces of illogic are strong. The political efforts to force religious dogma on educators is really scary, and is reminiscent of earlier politicizations of science. Nazi rejection of "Jewish" science comes to mind, and the campaign pushing "anti-evolution" contains a strong thread of thinly-veiled bigotry. In part we scientists are responsible for correcting this slide by educating people on what science is and is not. Your archive provides some of the tools.
Will H.
An excellent resource. This is the best of any group/homepage that I have come across on the Net. Now I can gird my loins to take on the creationists. I have the facts to refute their "it must be true" chants.
Graeme S.
I have enjoyed reading the "talk origins" archives but to me it seems that these archives are missing a chance to relate biblical stories to actual geologic events. Are there any correlations?
It does seem like I read many years ago a scientific article regarding geologic evidence for a very large flood event centered about the eastern Mediteranean. Such an event would have seemed quite the "global" event to people of that period of time, would it not? Perhaps I'll find the answer to this when I review the rest of the FAQ's.
Jim D.
Response from the editor:
There is very little if any geological evidence to support most biblical stories. In fact there is a great deal of evidence that some of them never could have occurred. For example, take the flood of Noah. Such a global catastrophe should have left a trace in the ice cores that have been laid down over the last hundred thousand years in Greenland and the Antarctic. There are plenty of other examples of geological evidence conflicting with the Noah myth in the Problems with a Global Flood FAQ. You are probably correct to note that the world's flood myths are most likely to have had their origins in devastating local floods.
My hats off to you, what an amazing resouce you have developed here in the Talk.Origins Achive. I have spent the past 6 hours or so, reading every word I can and I am still not done. (I imagine I will spend a majority of tomorrow finishing off the rest of it.) I have been following t.o. for the past few months on usenet in an effort to learn more about what kind of posting would be considered appropriate. Well, after reading the archive and many of the faqs (with more reading to come) I feel confident that I can now begin to contribute in a positive way. Thanks for all your hard work and dedication.
Mark S.
a few ?'s to you!
Like you, I have a few ?'s to have answered! I could go on and on (like I'm sure you could too), but it gets down to a why in the end... You can't deny you are here now, but will at some point be gone... Why? All this Beautiful, Perfect symmetry... Perfect universal laws... Accident? Please don't give Caos them much credit! Entropy say's it all... To much break down! Name one great design that has no designer!
I leave you with the repetitous thought of... If you're right, no problem for me; if I'm right, I see a potential problem for you!
Till we meet... Someday! Yours Truely, A defender of the Faith!
Rich
As a science teacher of 20 years, I just want to know if all these fundamentalists who want to teach creation in science classrooms are willing to have their ministers teach evolution at the pulpit. The fairness argument doesn't seem to hold. Keep up the terrific work!
John S.
About the section on The Second law of thermodynamics, Evolution, and probability.......what is your argument? What are you trying to say?? The only thing that I could see that you were trying to get across was "A favorite argument of creationists is that the laws of thermodynamics would not allow a junkyard to spontaneously become an airplane. Nevertheless, there is nothing in thermodynamics that would prohibit the formation of said airplane by an array of incredibly sophisticated robotic machines that would require nothing more than the spontaneous flow of electrical energy. There is also nothing in thermodynamics that would prohibit the the manufacture of said robotic machines from the energy of other machines. All that is really essential, as far as thermodynamics is concerned, is a scource of sufficient energy." I don't think that there would be any creationist that would argue against what you've said in the first two sentances. This also seems to me suprisingly circular, how do the other robots come about? You are in actual fact supporting creationism by implying a creator; whether it is the robots or the creator of the robots that created the robots which created the robots which created the robots...?! I read this artical hoping to find figures on the probability of evolution and the likewise, but I find nothing of any great significance other than what I already could have worked out. And how is it that all that is needed is a sufficient scource of energy??? Anyway, I'm late for class, hope to talk to ya later,
Smiley
Response from Frank Steiger, author of the Thermodynamics, Evolution and Probability FAQ:
With respect to the thermo FAQ, I would like to emphasize that thermodynamics does not deal with ultimate origins of life. It merely deals with changes in thermal, potential, and kinetic energy in going from condition A to condition B. The manner in which state A came in to existence is immaterial as far as the relationship between A and B is concerned.
The reader stated that he was hoping to find some information in my article on the probability of evolution. He is missing the point! The basic purpose of my article was merely to demonstrate some very elementary aspects of thermodynamics in order to refute the fundamental creationist claim that the second law does not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. Period. All this talk about the probability of creation diverts the attention from the one single, basic issue: Does thermodynamics permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder? I went to a great deal of trouble to show that indeed it does.
Creationists have created a smoke screen of propaganda that presents thermodynamics as a fuzzy concept subject to interpretation by the "experts" rather than what it is: a rigorous set of mathematical relationships that deal mostly with things like steam turbines, voltaic cells, and diesel engines. It is not very applicable, in a quantitative sense, to things like cell growth and evolution.
The creationist argument that the "junkyard into airplane" phenomenon violates the second law is incorrect. It is merely based on the intuitive idea that anything that seems unlikely must violate the laws of thermodynamics. There is no way that creationists can demonstrate the validity of their "junkyard to airplane" claim using the mathematical laws of thermodynamics. Creationists are fond of trying to apply entropy and probability to ultimate origins, but succeed only in hazy, non-rigorous speculation that proves nothing.
In short: leave thermodynamics to the engineers and don't misrepresent the laws of thermodynamics!
I have been reading and enjoying your website very much over the last month or so. And while I am a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, I wouldn't touch the age of earth debate with a ten foot pole. Primarily because I am so un-informed about the two opinions. My question revolves primarily around the size of the known universe. How is that determined? What assumptions are made? What different techniques are used? And finally, if there is agreement on the size, what is it?
David S.
Response from , author of the Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field FAQ and the Meteorite Dust and the Age of the Earth FAQ:
The age of the universe is generally agreed to be between 10 and 20 billion years, but efforts to become more precise just don't seem to work too well yet; both observation and theory still have a lot of progress to make. One positive note is that the recent results from the Hubble Space Telescope observations of cepheid class variable stars in the Virgo cluster of galaxies is producing a concordance of agreement on the value of the Hubble Constant, slowly but surely, at about 65 km/sec/megaparsec. That is a major step forward, and the hopeful deployment of the Next Generation Space Telescope circa 2005 (which will have 10 times the collecting area of the Hubble) should boost the observations considerably.
Since the age of the universe roughly equals its size in light years, that would make the universe between 10 and 20 billion light years across. Look for the book "The Cosmological Distance Ladder" by Michael Rowan-Robinson (W.H. Freeman, 1985) [QB991]. Some of the quoted distances will have been altered by more recent observations, but Rowan-Robinson's description of how large distances are measured is unmatched for clarity, and is likely the best explanation you will find. His more recent book "Ripples in the Cosmos" (W.H. Freeman, 1993) [ISBN 0-7167-4503-8] updates his earlier work a bit, in a more general way, concentrating on the results from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) mission. Stephen Hawking's popular book "A Brief History of Time" does not directly address the question, but does provide insight into the theoretical methods cosmologists use.
Other than that, there is very little on this topic that is at all "approachable" by the layman. There are sources one can consult, and get something from, but they are intended for a more sophisticated audience. Two volumes from the Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series are appropriate here; volume 94 (1996),"Mapping, Measuring, and Modelling the Universe", Peter Coles et al. editors [workshop held in Valencia, Spain, 18-22 September 1995]; volume 51 (1993) "Observational Cosmology", Guido Chincarini et al. editors [International Symposium, Milano, Italy, 21-25 September 1992]. Another book worth trying is P.J.E. Peeble's "Principles of Physical Cosmology" (Princeton University Press 1993) [QB 981.P374]. Peeble's book is probably more "readable" than the ASP conference proceedings, and probably presents the more basic aspects better.
The primary presumptions in determining the size and age of the universe are (a) that the observed systematic redshift results from a cosmological Doppler shift, and (b) general relativity theory accurately describes space-time locally. These are both strongly supported by observation, so they are not simply educated guesses, and they are not presumptions made out of a bias towards any desired result.
Finally, keep in mind that the age of the universe and the age of the Earth are different questions. The age of the universe is a nebulous and difficult quantity to assess, but this is not so for the age of the Earth, which can be determined with considerable accuracy, and certainly lies in the range 4 to 5 billion years. The best source to consult here is the book "The Age of the Earth" by G. Brent Dalrymple (Stanford University Press 1991, ISBN 0-8047-2331-1). I bought the book recently in paperback, so it should be in print. Of course, the topic is addressed to some extent in any text on geophysics.
I believe creationism and evolution coincide, that evolution is the means by which the Creator created. The creationist's disbelief that life was created at random and evolved at random is understandable, however, do you not have to have the raw materials necassary before creating anything? Cannot we just be looking at different sides of the same coin? I cannot believe that people in this learned age refuse to flip the coin over and examine it from the other side.
I found your site through cnn. I see the creationist movement, and its deepening endorsement by pacs and government/school institutions as the single greatest threat to American education, and thus, the future health of our society. I am involved with a campaign presented in a disneyland-type environment that I have designed that offers shows hosted by a fully animated talking robot. The subject of the shows is a thinly veiled counter to the rediculous and absurd nihilistic-creationist. I could use much of your material in my efforts to expose the unscientific nature of "creation science". Copyrighting being as it is, I hope it is possible to obtain permission to utilize your data, and material in my work. We are working toward the same ends, thus allied in objective. I hope this letter finds a sympathetic ear and permission may be granted for dissemination in other media. thank you
Dana S.
Response from the editor:
Thank you for the kind comments. If you wish to disseminate an article contained in the Talk.Origins Archive, I recommend that you contact its author and seek permission first. As for using data or selected passages from an archive article, I believe the fair use provisions of the copyright law apply. You may quote portions of any article in this archive for the purpose of commentary or criticism, so long as you reference the source.
According to radioactive dating the earth is around 4 billion years old. However, how can it be assured that rocks that are dated did not originate from other planets, solar systems or from comets, etc.? Is is not possible for these old rocks to have dropped onto earth during meteor showers? Earth is not the only planet with rocks.
Response from the editor:
The oldest rocks on Earth date to about 3.8 billion years, and some of them are sedimentary, so it's highly improbable that they originated on other planets. As for the 4.5 billion year age of the earth, it is known not by dating rocks from the earth, but by dating ancient meteorites that have fallen to earth. This works because, according to standard theory, the solar system, with its planets and meteorites, formed at about the same time as the Earth, some 4.5 billion years ago. This is all covered in the Age of the Earth FAQ.
I'm sad to admit that I am not at all surprised by the response of the scientific community to a challenge of their beliefs and processes of coming about them. It is exactly this kind of ridicule of controversial information that the entire book "Forbidden Archaeology" discusses. The book is clear in saying there's no *conspiracy*, but a simple, somewhat automatic "rolling of the eyes" response to conflicting suggestions. When one has a strong desire to believe in something, he/she will probably be capable of creating proper argumentation in order to comfort and re-convince these beliefs. And I see the scientific community more as a religion constantly in the making, than an actual, bias-free group of individuals.
There's absolutely NO way for scientists to NOT become bias or favorable to their past findings. And it certainly IS human to judge evidence against a platform, or point of view that we ourselves are not aware of possessing. I do feel that alot of data is viewed from an angle. That angle having an origin within the established views and beliefs of science, and a destination that is unfortunately either unable to grow wide, or is withheld from doing so for a great number of reasons -- some reasons perhaps being aspects we are not aware of or simply cannot control.
Forbidden Archaeology has a point of view. Science as we know it, has a point of view. And since science is always changing its point of view based on new evidence, then science really is an unreliable source of reliable information. Perhaps no more or no less unreliable than the information within "Forbidden Archaeology".
Chris P.
Response from the editor:
The implication of this message seems to be that science doesn't work as well as advertised. I would ask the reader to reflect on the fact that he would not have even been able to send his message to thousands of people were it not for science. He might not have even been alive to type the message were it not for the advances made in the biological and medical sciences. No one denies that science is performed by imperfect human beings with biases and interests that may impede their efforts to reach the truth, but one of science's greatest strengths is its very ability to criticize and modify itself as new evidence becomes available.
As for the book Forbidden Archaeology, there are good reasons to think the information contained therein is significantly below the standards of mainstream science. See Colin Groves' review of the book.
Your site is terrific. I'm teaching a new course for non-science majors, attempting to make science more relevant. On topic will be creation/evolution and your site will be quite useful.
Rick B.
I read your piece on evolution and I must say that you have done your homework and the piece is well written. I would like to say first that I am a Creationist now, but have not always been so. I used to believe in a blend of creationism and evolution but have come to understand that a stand must be taken within all of us and this is where I've taken it.
First in my mind and perhaps what I find so troubling amoung evolutionists is the way they seem to always leave out even the remotest suggestion of a higher power being involved either in this world or the creation of it. Some do not recognize even the existance of such a being. Most of those purporting to espouse evolutionism have never made an honest study of how God might have an involvement in creating this world and the people in it.
History is repleat with persons who have been through almost exactly the same challenges and have argued many of the same points we do in our time and have discovered for themselves where human reason and fallability leave off and where faith begins. For many, that faith begins ever closer to the beginning and has successfully suplanted reason so many times.
So the fundamental argument is not really one of where we came from and how many years it took to get here or how many dino- saurs died in the process. The argument is really one of do you or do you not have faith in the One who got you here? The funny part is that the argument is an internal one, not an external one. I can't MAKE you believe anything, you have to experience it for yourself.
If I can leave you with one thought though. You will have a relationship with your Creator one day. The kind of relationship it is depends upon you.
Response from the editor:
The question of a supernatural, higher intelligence is just as irrelevant to the study of biological evolution as it is to the study of falling bodies or black holes. Just because a scientific theory (like evolution) neglects to mention the possibility of a higher intelligence doesn't mean that it is being denied. Faith and science can go hand in hand, as many theistic evolutionists would point out, but their purposes are orthogonal.
The living cell clearly demands that all of it has to be there at the same time in order for it to funtion. There is no why it could have slowly or quickly.evolved. The same goes for the bombardier beetle and the woodpecker and many others. The intelligences we see in design and order in nature, leaves us without an excuse, for not believing in God.
Ron H.
Response from the editor:
Practically no creationist argument would be complete without the standard argument from incredulity. "If I can't imagine how it could have happened, it simply could not have happened!" I leave it as an exercise to the reader to assess the logic of this position.
I take it that you are not a Christian? You have no faith in God? Or the power of God? Why do you believe that there were millions of animals on the Ark? If you read the account of the flood, you will see that God told Noah specifically what animals, and how many of each, to bring on board. Simply because the Bible does not give an account of the day to day life on the Ark does not mean that the flood did not happen. Having faith in God and His inspired, inerrant Word does not come about by having someone prove God to you. *So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.* Romans 10:17 So you see, the very book you have set out to disprove is also the book that brings you to faith in God. My challenge to you is to keep searching out the Word of God. Mabye then one day, you'll have faith too.
If you can tell me where the "infinitismally small" packet of energy that exploded to create everything came from, I might consider your argument. If you can't, - get off the subject. You don't know enough about it to discuss it!
Wendell M.
I'm sorry to take up time and space with a question like this, but I've been browsing around for an answer and have been referred to talk-origins archive by someone else. I'm an anti-creationist in a state that is the home to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. I have no problem with fundamentalists expressing their opinions and advertising them on their cars (a common practice). Free speech applies to everyone. However, I'd love to show my colors in a clear, but subtle way too. The answer to my needs is the "fish." It's a knock off of the Christian fish outline displayed on cars that sometimes includes the word "Jesus" inside it. Instead, this fish outline has the word "Darwin" inside it and has time legs growing out of the bottom. I'd love to buy a couple, but I have no idea where to look. One man who had one told me he got it from a friend who bought it somewhere in California. I would appreciate an E-Mail from anyone who can provide me a source. Thanx.
Bruce U.
Response from the editor:
You can purchase the Darwin fish from Future Fantasy Bookstore for $5.00 U.S. [Added Sept. 2003: This retailer seems have disappeared. The Archive now has a short list of Darwin fish sites.]
Informative and valuable site for answers to questions I have been asking for a long time.
Has anyone read Creation and Evolution by Alan Hayward. He takes an Old Creationist position, but presents a fair and reasonable view of the geologic and other physical record. Pretty much blows the Young Creationist view out of the water.
Thanx for the site
Dan T.
I have been working on this issue for years and have come to the conclusion this argument is the most foolish, inane, and idiotic exchange of ideas in the whole of western culture. Firstly - it should be identified as science and Christianity, not religion, because in all other major religions, there is compatibility with science.
Secondly, it should be recognized that the misunderstanding is limited to a couple of major ideas in biology and geology. In biology, the argument is about evolution, or more specifically biological evolution. In science, this is THE MOST IMPORTANT THEORY of all science. But speciation, the basic principle of biological evolution can be understood in Genesis -- if the mind is open to such an idea. The average student with an open mind can be convinced in three minutes. The student with a closed mind won't even listen. The point is that in science biological evolution is THE MOST IMPOTANT THEORY, and in Scripture, evolution is FACT -- although I am sure there are a multitude who may read this could not care less.
The other issue is the age of the earth. Science, and specifically geology, a subject about which I have some degree of expertise, provides the understanding that the EARTH IS OLD. Genesis has those seven days, and the literalists argue are 24 hours. However a multitude of ecclesiastical experts acknowledge, the days can be understood as long periods of time and if this is accepted then the age of the earth according to the geosciences and according to Genesis can be understood as being very old. Once agreement is reached that EARTH IS OLD, then the question of how old? can be addressed. I also have developed an analysis which demonstrates that the sequence of events in Genesis and geoscience have a high degree of similarity, but that is too involved to discuss here.
I also recognize that the resolution of this argument is a long time in the future. Just consider the fun the composers and readers of this page are having, arguing back and forth. And consider the mountain of books on the subject, with new titles appearing with great frequency. Anyone for giving this up? Not a chance. But the waste of time, energy, resources, and emotion is monumental. The general elimination of this would allow more time to do legitimate science -- and improve the image of Christianity.
If anyone is interested, I have a few pieces of 'paper' which I send out to those who request. But don't expect to get a detailed analysis. I firmly believe that every individual should make greater use of the one ability which separates us from the animals -- the ability to THINK -- which is incidentally a directive cited many times in the Bible.
C.G.W.
Has anyone addressed the arguments in the books: "The Mystery of Life's Origin" by Thaxton, Bradley and "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis" by Micheal Denton?
Response from the editor:
I know of no reviews of the first book, but there is a review of Denton's book in the archive.
