Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hello,
I have a quick question for you guys (and gals). Do you know of any specific organizations that are dedicated to fighting creationism (and thereby religion) from being taught in public schools? Besides the fact that teaching creationism is blatantly unconstitutional, and obviously violates the Lemon test set forth by the Supreme Court, the exclusion of evolution (and any other theory that by necessity postulates the earth to be older than 6k -10k years old) in our classrooms will undoubtedly lead to a weakening of the scientific abilities of our children. Since the 21st century will most likely be characterized by incresing technological innovation, the reduction of scientific knowldege of our youth could significantly damage US dominance in the 21st century. Thanks for your help, and please feel free to edit for spelling or gramatical errors. Sincerely, |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Our Other Links section has links to such organizations. The National Center for Science Education focuses specifically on creationism, while other organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, People for the American Way, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State focus more broadly on First Amendment issues. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | joyce |
Comment: | It's obvious
you guys are anti-Creationism. Anti Spiritual, Anti God.
So, there really is nothing to discuss, you just give your
one sided arguments and move on. Personally, there's alot
more "shakey" foundations for Evolution than Creationism.
Evolutionist/Creationists will never agree with each other.
Not even to back up the science of Creationism, because I'm
not aware of all their findings, even ligitimate findings
you'll denounce. But, with this scripture I'll leave it at
that:
ICOR 2:11-16 (New Testament)> For what man knows the things of man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For "Who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ. Thanks, joyce |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
Anti-creationist, yes. That's because creationism is
anti-science, anti-reason, anti-truth. Are we
anti-spiritual, or anti-god? Not necesarily. Not all of us,
not all the time. Many of the scientists who have written
articles are Christians. About 80% of all evolutionists are
in fact religious Christians.
If you think evolutionary science is on "shakey" ground, you need to take it upon yourself to do some research. You can start on this website, or go to my site, which is geared towards the average layman: switch.to/evolution. If there are any legitimate findings of creationism, I haven't heard of them. It is merely a scientific-sounding justification of scripture. The scripture you quote conveys nothing to me. Does it mean that we should not bother to investigate nature? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Lee |
Comment: | Original
Comment by Lee
"I was disturbed by the responses given by Ken Harding in your May feedback concerning school debates over evolution vs. creationism. His comments seemed mislead, as in one instance he blames the debates on creationists trying to infiltrate our schools. In taking a class called Science Symposium we discussed more or less the politics of science, in doing so we studied about this debate. Certainly I see the learning about a popular dividing point in American society not as a ploy to introduce religious beliefs to children, but as needed education. One case in point would be that while in elementary school we debated over slavery while learning about the civil war. I don't think you would so quickly jump to the conclusion that this was a ploy by pro-slavery groups that intimidated our teacher into holding this event." Lee Response from Ken Harding: >I can understand that you are disturbed, but I am not misled. > >Your "slavery analogy" is a false analogy. There are no court >decisions preventing slavery from being discussed or debated >in history class. Oh bullshit Harding. This little dodge the question act isn't winning anybody over. Citing a detail that has nothing to do with the analogy doesn't prove that you get away from the fact you fucked yourself in your little fanatic rampage last month. You know damn well the courts didn't say you couldn't have any subject matter that in some way involved creationism. But back to the analogy. You should have easily known you didn't address what the analogy meant. You're seeing demons in the shadows, you act paranoid around the subject. It has nothing to do with anything else other than the fact you're a crazy motherfucker. >Slavery advocates have not repeatedly attempted to bring their >teachings into a prohibited environment. Creationism has been >prohibited from being taught as science. It is NOT prohibited >from being discussed in a comparative religion course. Who the hell died and made you superintendent, and you best sure as hell not say the Supreme Court. Creationism has been prohibited from being taught as actual science or history as it promotes one religion over others and has no substantiating evidence, but they never said what class you could discuss it in. So don't fucking tell me and everybody else were to teach it. >That's where it belongs. >Using debates about creationism vs. evolution IS INDEED a way >to sneak creationism back into science class-- introducing its >so-called "scientific" arguments against evolution. Oh, I don't think I have to tell you how reminiscent this sounds of the old Christian "How to tell if your children or friends are in league with the Devil" crap. And you are just as deluded about the real world as they are. >As far as infiltration... someone first came up with the idea >of a debate... and I'll bet it wasn't an evolutionist. We >nothing to gain from such an encounter-- our battle's already >been won. My debate motherfucker? No I'm afraid you are wrong again. My debate (which actually is more of a discussion of the debate, that can lead into a debate with reports and papers by students) came from an educator who cares more about his duty in the classroom, which was to teach about the politics of science, over his scientific obligations to the paranoia of evolution. You see, when you get out of your parents basement you'll find most peoples first obligation isn't to evolution or creationism, in fact most people don't even care. So perhaps it never crossed anybodies mind who had won the arguement. >In my opinion, it was an illegal infiltration. In such a >debate, creationists get all their fallacious, religiously->based arguments presented as surely and completely as if they >had read them from a textbook. They knew what they were doing. Then why don't you arrest them dumbass. What I'm talking about is the fact that in your dream world every time someone mentions creationism or any of its syllables in or around a school you piss your panties thinking that they must have just given a speech on Genesis, and now every schoolchild in a five mile radius is contaminated. All those responses you've given to Creationists must have deluded you into thinking you know what the hell you're talking about no matter what the subject. Well Ken I suggest you stick with Thermodynamics and steer clear of the stuff a science professor couldn't ramrod up your ass and into your brain. Good Day, Lee |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | We are
upset, aren't we Lee?
You didn't like that I exposed your false analogy? In your emotional tirade, you seemed to have missed the fact that I never wrote that the courts said "you couldn't have any subject matter that in some way involved creationism." If the controversy between creationism and evolution comes up in a history or social studies class, fine. But it should not be dignified by teaching it in a science class by a science teacher presenting it as science, whether directly or indirectly via a student debate. Your discussion, in a class about the politics of science, is not at all the same thing as an evolution vs. creation debate in a general science class. Once again, and this time I'll type more slowly so Lee can understand it, slavery MUST be taught when you are learning about the Civil War because it is pertinent... it all belongs in a history class. Therefore, there's no need to jump to the conclusion that it's a ploy by pro-slavery groups. But, creationism is not science, and DOES NOT belong in a science class. The courts have clearly said so (MCLEAN V. ARKANSAS [1982], Edwards v. Aguillard [1987], Webster v. New Lenox School District [1990]). Therefore, an attempt to introduce creationism by a "student-led" debate into an area in which it is prohibited is an illegal infiltration. None of your ignorant ranting has changed the facts. I actually feel sorry for creationists being represented by a person like you. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | If the Bible talks against Evolution, and the Bible is God's word (and God doesn't lie), then how can we say otherwise? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | In a world
where all people accepted 1) that the bible talks against
evolution, 2) that the bible is God's word, 3) that God
doesn't lie, and 4) that there is a god in the first place,
your argument might hold some validity.
The fact is that no two Christian sects agree completely on what God's message is, and how the bible is to be interpreted. Above that, there are hundreds of religions actively being practiced in the world, and the adherents of each one believe theirs is the only one that's valid. But MOST importantly, is that science is the effort by humans to describe and explain natural phenomena by naturalistic means through observation, experimentation, and the examination of evidence. If the findings of science contradict a particular "holy" book, what are scientists to do? Cease experimentation in that area, for fear of offending someone? Some Christian sects do not allow their children to receive medical treatment... should scientists cease all medical research in order not to offend these people? Should the germ theory of disease be excluded from medical school? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am inquiring about how species diversification occurs. I was interested to read your section on Observed Speciations but fail to see how animals and plants were formed. I fail to see how new alleles can produce such diversity from birds to whales for example. This is assuming that all life has a common ancestry. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | Most changes
that lead to diversification begin with small variations.
New alleles in an early reptile like animal that was the
common ancestor of dinosaurs, mammals and eventually birds
would not have produced a bird, mammal or dinosaur in a
single event, but instead began the separation of the
lineages which eventually evolved into those organisms.
This is the concept of the "key innovation", which allows all descendents of a new species to diversify in ways that are distinct from its cousins' descendents. One key innovation is the mammalian ear bones. Another is the evolution (in the dinosaurs at first) of feathers as insulation or display features. Others include internal fetal development, and so forth. Plants are thought to have originated in the inclusion of cyanobacteria into the cells of some single celled organism, which enabled them to photosynthesise, making possible the range of plant forms we see today in the sea and on land. Animals have a similar "endosymbiont" - the mitochondria that generate the energy used to drive muscles, and other processes in the cells. So far back as we can tell, life has common ancestry, with these sorts of "horizontal transmission", until one gets back to the hypothetical ancestor of all life. In that case, there is some evidence that different organisms could share their genes occasionally, so that the universal ancestor is really a pool of different organisms. Bacteria can do this even today. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | It seems to me that you are overly concerned with the Bible and Christianity in this debate. Phillip Johnson does not attempt to promote religion . . . his degree and professional background is law. Johnson is challenging Darwinism. There is a difference. Why not stick to the issue and defend Darwinism (if you can) instead of slamming creationism. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I can't
quite understand why certain creationists have elevated
Phillip Johnson to the iconic level he seems to have
achieved. My degree and professional
background is law, and I can't see how that qualifies
me at all to discuss evolution. Phillip
Johnson is a law professor, and as far as I know, he has
absolutely no scientific training whatsoever. I at least
have had some experience in science; that makes me more
qualified to discuss science than Johnson is.
The trick of it is, Phillip Johnson is not challenging the theory of evolution. He is challenging a strawman, a version of evolution that he has created in his mind and substituted for the real thing. Folks who don't know better think he's talking about the real thing; that's why pages like our Critiques of Phillip Johnson FAQ exist, to make that plain. Johnson is well-versed in the court rulings on creationism and is very careful not to mention religion overtly. That does not mean he is not attempting to promote religion. He's a smart guy; there's no doubt about that. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | The astounding amount of scientific evidence disproving evolution theory has been uncovered! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Wow, perhaps you would share some of it with us. We haven't seen any "scientific" evidence disproving evolution. All we have seen so far are falsehoods, bad data, out of context quotes and straw man arguments. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have a question. I believe in Evolution. My boyfriend does not. He keeps asking me this question and I am having difficulty answering it. He wants to know why, if Evolution is correct, have species stopped evolving? Why haven't any more chimps evolved into humans? Thank you. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Hi Kelli,
To understand the answer to the question, your boyfriend needs to learn a lot more about how evolution works. Typically, I find that people who ask these types of questions haven't learned enough about the subject they're criticizing. It's kind of like someone saying "Hey, an airplane is way heavier than air... there's no way it could get off the ground," before bothering to read anything about the physics of aviation. The answer to his question is this: species have not stopped evolving. Evolution might be slowed if a species lived in an unchanging environment, but even then, in the absence of environmental selective pressures, the process of genetic drift ensures that species will continue to evolve. Why haven't any more chimps evolved into humans? Well, for starters, chimps never did evolve into humans. Humans did not evolve from modern apes, but rather humans and modern apes shared a common ancestor, a species that no longer exists. Because we share a common ancestor with chimps, we share many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with them. We are less similar to the Asian apes--orangutans and gibbons--and even less similar to monkeys, because we share common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past. Evolution is a branching or splitting process in which populations split off from one another and gradually become different. As the two groups become isolated from each other, they stop sharing genes, and eventually genetic differences increase until members of the groups can no longer interbreed. At this point, they have become separate species. Through time, these two species might give rise to new species, and so on through millennia. Since we did not evolve from chimps, chimps are totally unaffected by human evolution. All of human evolution occurred after the split from our common ancestor. It's just like you and your brother... you both do not necessarily share the same fate, do you? If your brother moves to another country, do his actions and descendants have any affect on you and yours? Another way to think about it is that a species is like a river. We'll call the common ancestor of chimps and humans the main river. If that river branches off into two streams, there is no reason that both streams, chimps and humans, should both go in the same direction. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I sent in a
request for info earlier today, and have been probing your
website's archives.
As an evangelical christian, I'm really left with only one question: are most of the comments you receive from christians kooky and insulting, or are those the only ones fun to publish on the web? I'm not admonishing you -- I'm admonishing them. You'd think somebody trying to convince you of the Love of Christ would use some of it in addressing those they see as opponents. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Most of them are kooky and insulting. We publish pretty well all the comments from Christians who do not have a problem with evolution or science in general. Many of us involved in the site are Christians, some are not. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | You should
post this. The bible is _very_ precise on dating of the
creation and the flood, none of this 10,000-50,000 year old
stuff, either it's 6000 yrs old or it's billions. This is
an easier task than some of the stuff they're throwing at
4th graders in my state WA assessment test.
\doc\work\bibgen.wk1 Dating Genesis by sons of Adam Sons of Adam from Birth Age Date FC Abraham Date BC Creation 0 Adam 130 930 130 -1893 -5743 Seth 105 912 235 -1788 -5638 Enosh 90 905 325 -1698 -5548 Kenan 70 910 395 -1628 -5478 Mahalalel 65 895 460 -1563 -5413 Jared 162 962 622 -1401 -5251 Enoch 65 365 687 -1336 -5186 Methuselah 187 969 874 -1149 -4999 Lamech 182 777 1056 -967 -4817 Noah 500 1556 -467 -4317 ------------------------------- Creation to 1656 Flood Flood 1656 -367 -4217 Shem 2 1658 -365 -4215 Arphaxad 35 1693 -330 -4180 Shelah 30 1723 -300 -4150 Eber 34 1757 -266 -4116 Peleg 30 1787 -236 -4086 Reu 32 1819 -204 -4054 Serug 30 1849 -174 -4024 Nahor 29 1878 -145 -3995 Terah 70 1948 -75 -3925 Abram Abram leave 75 2023 0 -3850 Date of Abraham leaving for Canaan given by Gifts of the Jews Actually, I was quite surprised to find how easy it is to construct how many years Genesis states should be between the beginning of creation to the flood to Abraham's historic trip to Canaan. I come up with almost exactly the same year, and it's also very close to the classic 4004BC figure arrived at by bishop what his name. I have no idea how people come up with 10,000 years given the precision of the geneaology in Genesis (shame on them) This interestingly enough almost would be a challenging assignment that some 4th and most 8th graders would be able to do as a "performance based task": Given the date of Abraham's journey, and the following texts, compute the date of the great flood and creation. It's quite a lot of addition, but easy with Excel. BTW, I do believe that while Gensisis is probably not the first account since the Sumerians evidently were first, it appears to be the first human document to at least attempt enough information to accurately date the beginning of creation. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Wow, that settles it! 4004 B.C. it is! |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Timothy B. WATT |
Comment: | Original sin explains evolutionary theory far better than science can. When God created the heavens and earth, he created them perfectly. There was no disease, no decay. Then, man sinned against God, and God punished man. Original sin introduced disease, decay, and death into the world. Natural selection and evolution, rather than being the survival of the fittest, are the survival of the diseased, decaying, sinful nature of man. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
By that view, every parasitic organism developed after the Fall. Every predator only took up predation after the Fall. And yet the many specialized adaptations needed for either the parasitic or predaceous life history were, quite incidentally, already present and ready to go, and were not the result of an evolutionary history. I fear I must demur from accepting the assertion that "original sin" explains biological phenomena at all, let alone better than science. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | MY COMMENTS
REGARDING THIS SUBJECT. I HAVE COME TO THE BIG DECISION
ABOUT CREATION VERSES EVOLUTION. I WATCH THE DISCOVERY
CHANNEL FREQUENTLY. YOU SEE A WHOLE PLANET FILLED WITH ALL
TYPES OF CREATURES, PLANTS, SEA LIFE, ASTRONOMY, HUMANS,
ETC ALL LIVING THINGS ARE DEPENDENT ON A MAIN PROVIDER OR
SOURCE TO SUSTAIN THEM. ALL THE DETAILS AND INFORMATION I
HAVE LEARNED IN 1 YEARS TIME. MY ANSWER IS YES, THERE IS A
GOD. GOD IS THE ULTIMATE CARE TAKER OF ALL LIVING THINGS.
AND HE DID CREATE ALL THINGS. LIFE CAN'T EXIST WITHOUT THE
CREATOR. THEREFORE GOD & SCIENCE GO HAND TO HAND.
CREATION IS A BEAUTIFUL DISPLAY OF THE WONDERS OF OUR
CREATOR AND HIS CREATION. A REFLECTION OF WHO GOD IS. AND
HUMANS MUST BOW TO GOD AND THANK HIM FOR HIS WONDERFUL
HANDY WORKS. THE BOOK OF JOB IS A WONDERFUL BOOK IN THE
BIBLE THAT HAS MORE INFORMATION ON CREATION. THE NATURAL
WORLD IS ONLY 1 OF 2 WORLDS. THERE IS ALSO A SUPERNATURAL
WORLD (SPIRITUAL WORLD) THAT DOES EXIST CO-EXISTING WITH
THE PHYSICAL WORLD. UNSEEN FORCES (SUPERNATURAL BEINGS.) SO
THE ANSWER TO ALL OF THIS SUBJECT IS "YES" THERE IS A GOD.
THE GREAT ALMIGHTY JEHOVAH. HUMANS CAN'T LIVE EITHER
WITHOUT HIM.WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE IN EVOLTION OR
CREATION IS NOT THE SUBJECT. THE FACTS SPEAK. JUST LOOK
AROUND YOU AND SEE ALL THE WONDERFUL THINGS GOD HAS MADE.
YOU CAN'T SAY JESUS CAME FROM A MONKEY. ANIMALS ARE VERY
SMART AND INTELLIGENT BECAUSE GOD HAS GIVEN THEM ABILITIES
AND INTELLIGENCE. ONE THING I HAVE ALSO LEARNED IS GOD
LIKES VARIETY. SO THIS IS WHY THERE ARE SEVERAL SPECIES OF
SAME KIND OF ANIMAL. DO YOU KNOW THAT UP IN HEAVEN ANIMALS
LIVE THERE ALSO. I HAVE A WONDERFUL DREAM SEVERAL YEARS
AGO. I DREAMED I WAS WALKING WITH A GIRL WHO LED ME TO A
HUGH BARN AND WE ENTERED INSIDE THE BARN AND IT WAS A VERY
BIG BUILDING AND FILLED WITH ALL TYPES OF DOMESTIC AND WILD
ANIMALS ALL LIVING INSIDE TOGETHER. AND THEN THE GIRL TOOK
ME OUTSIDE AND WE WALKED TO A HUGH GARDEN AREA, AND I SAW
ALL TYPES OF FLOWERS, PLANTS, TREES, EXOTIC PLANTS, CACTUS,
FERNS, (ALL TYPES OF GREEN THINGS) AND THEN THE GIRL TOLD
ME "YOU ARE NOW IN CHARGE OF TAKING CARE OF ALL OF THESE
THINGS" GOD'S SPIRIT LIVES (THE HOLY GHOST) LIVES INSIDE OF
ALL LIVING THINGS. IT MAYBE A FACT THAT CREATION CREATED
EVOLUTION.
CHARLES DARWIN MOST LIKELY WAS NOT A BELIEVER IN GOD. THEREFORE HE IS PROBABLY IN HELL. HE STARTED THE EVOLUTION THEORY. WE NEED TO CHANGE TEXT BOOKS IN SCHOOL BECAUSE THE MAIN INFORMATION IS NOT IN TEXT BOOKS. THE MAIN INFORMATION IS FOUND IN THE HOLY BIBLE. WE NEED TO RETURN THE BIBLE BACK IN TO THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN AMERICA SO OUR CHILDREN WILL BE TAUGHT THE TRUTH AND NOT LIES. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Be cautious
about getting all of your scientific education from the
Discovery Channel. It frequently portrays junk-science and
psuedoscience as legitimate.
If you want to believe that there is a god as some sort of "ultimate provider", then by all means, do so. No one here is interested in talking you out of it. But, if you make claims as to the authenticity of scientific theories like evolution, be prepared to back them up. Just because you have chosen not to educate yourself on the subject of biology, does not mean that evolution did not, and does not, occur. This is not an insult. I am simply pointing out that if you cannot describe the mechanisms by which evolution occurs, and you can't list some of the physical and experimental evidence that supports it, then how in the world can you be so certain that it is not the truth? Charles Darwin was intending to enter the clergy when he began his travels, and by the time he died, I believe he claimed himself as an agnostic. But whether he was a pious Christian or an athiest, like all other scientists, his theories stand or fall by the strength of the evidence used to support them. If you believe he is in hell, so be it, if that makes you feel better. But then you must also accept that some of the most intelligent and benevolent of the Human Species are there with him, like Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Carl Sagan, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Edison, Andrew Carnegie, Albert Schweitzer, Mahatma Ghandi, Mark Twain, and many, many others. Charles Darwin did not "start" the evolutionary theory-- he was the first to propose a viable mechanism by which evolution could be scientifically explained. We do not, and cannot, teach the bible in public schools. That would violate the right of every non-Christian child and parent-- many millions of them. The deist founding fathers of this country wisely foresaw such a possiblity, and hence we have a Bill of Rights which protects the minority from the majority. American kids are not taught lies in public schools. Did you learn that from the Discovery Channel as well? By the way, I find the Book of Job to be disgusting, heartless and obscene. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | B.W.Schultz |
Comment: | I think the
"theory of evolution" would more aptly be stated as the
"belief in evolution." As I recall my understanding of the
scientific method, experiments are needed to test the
hypothesis. Also, the experiments have to be capable of
being falsified.
Based upon this I do believe, as you state, there are facts that have occurred. However, how can a valid scientific experiment be conducted on these facts to elevate them to scientific theory? Seemingly they are past, non-repeatable events. How can one test the 'theory' against these singular events? Also, how can a population be tested where it is said evolution has occurred? Even if one assumes the facts are true it doen't neccessary follow that this is scientific theory based upon use of the scientific method. Thus my belief that evolution is a belief based upon facts, and not a tested scientific theory. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Many people
are under the mistaken impression, given to them by their
eighth-grade science teachers, that the practice of science
requires that scientists conduct experiments. This view is
a sizable oversimplification.
What science requires is that the scientist formulate a hypothesis, or model, that is falsifiable. This hypothesis is then tested against observations. Experiments are nothing more than a method for generating observations, but those observations don't have to come from experiments. No one has ever built a star or a volcano in the lab, but we know a great deal about how both function by observing a lot of them. One scientist says, "I think we should see such-and-such because of blah-blah-blah," and then looks for such-and-such. If he finds such-and-such, then that is evidence for blah-blah-blah. If not, then blah-blah-blah has been falsified. Evolutionary theories, like theories in astronomy or geology, do not usually have much experimental confirmation (though in some cases, they do). But they do have an unbelievable amount of observational data to back them up, so much so that the basic theory of evolution has not been in scientific doubt for over a century. Belief doesn't enter into the picture. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | If Evolution has been observed so many times, then why do scientists still disagree about the mechanics of evolution (puncuated equilibrium, neodarwinism, natural selection, ect.)? Shouldn't we know how it has occured if it has been observed? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | Take an
analogy from astrophysics. Suppose you said "If we have
observed the orbits of the planets so many times, then why
do astronomers still disagree about the orbital paths of
their moons and the comets? Shouldn't we know what they are
if they have been observed?" Would this make sense?
The answer is that we don't have all the observations that would settle the question "what is the main way evolution happens, given that evolution is observed?" We would need a better fossil record, and more information about existing living things to do this, and there are only so many biologists and so many fossils, etc. So there is dispute about whether evolution happens slowly, quickly, or in jumps. But as the evidence comes in, it appears not to be as simple as was once thought - some lineages are slowly evolving in some respects but rapidly evolving in others. Some species remain stable for many millions of years, others do not. These are questions of facts, and to resolve them, we need much more evidence than we now have. Perhaps you could put in a good word with your local representative for more funding to do the necessary research? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | So far I
only read one article, and it was the one on Noah's ark.
What can I say? I looks like you guys truly did your
reaserch, and you gave many good points. And I do respect
you for that. But, something still bother me. I bet you
that some curious(about religion) person read some of your
articles, and decited that there is no God. So what you
did, is you lead a person away from salvation, and that
person will go to hell, all because of you. And God will
punish you for this, one of the worst things a person can
do, is lead someone away from God. I of course can't prove
that God exsists, but you know that he does when you accept
him in your heart. Lets take "wind" for example. You can't
see wind, but you feel it, and you see the results from
wind blowing on something light, thus you know that it
exists. Its the same with God, you can't see him, but you
feel his presence with you, and it is a truly great
feeling. And how great it is, to see God answer your
prayers, my life just became so much easier since I
accepted God into my heart. Thats all that I have to say, I
know that letter means nothing to you, but its my job as a
Christian to try. I really hope that God will open your
eyes and lead you out of the darkness. My prayers are with
you, and many other people like you. God bless you.
Please reply to alex@bit-net.com with any questions or comments, I would love to hear from you guys. Good day! Alex |
Responses | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Personally, I got started in opposing theistic anti-evolutionary arguments based upon my commitment to truth, which came from my faith. I could not simply stand by while others were led into belief in lies and error, which were the dominant, if not defining, character of the SciCre literature I first encountered. So I disagree about who might be weighted with the burden of lost souls at judgement. Those who promote false things as apologetics do far more harm to fragile belief when those falsehoods are exposed than the most dastardly evangelical atheist could hope to accomplish. The expressed sentiment of pity put me in mind of a verse, Matthew chapter 6, verse 5.
Wesley |
From: | |
Response: | It's
unfortunate that you feel this way. It is true that some
people may come away from this site and conclude that
humans arose on this planet through purely mechanistic,
natural means. But that is not a conclusion that is
specifically endorsed on this website. Most people who
accept the truth of evolution are not atheists. The vast
majority of them are Christians. There are Christians
actively involved in the production of this website.
If we are responsible for providing an individual with information on which to base a choice, are we responsible for the choice he or she makes? No. Should we withold the information from the public? Now THAT would be irresponsible, and a disservice to the human endeavor. Science will continue to advance, regardless of the objections of particular religions. We cannot go backwards. As far as your wind analogy, I have to tell you it's not accurate. Wind can be measured, wind can be explained scientifically, and everyone on earth agrees that wind is real. God, on the other hand, cannot be measured, cannot be explained, and hardly anyone on earth truly agrees as to just what he is, or whether or not he exists. I hope you can see the difference. I understand that your beliefs make you feel really good, but honestly, I am not in "darkness." |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Some believe the creation days were actually 7,000 yrs each. We see that a 'day' to god is 1,000 yrs. There is judgment day, which is actually many yrs etc. The bible says that the earth was already here before the creation period on the earth. It says it was void and covered with water and dark because of some thick cloud or gas like covering, so yes, the earth is billions of yrs old itself. The order of creation fits with what the bible says. There was a global flood. All one has to do is look around at the evidence. Sea fossils deep in wyoming. Mammoths frozen so quick that one was found in Siberia with fresh vegetation still in its mouth! Look at the Grand Canyon and all the obvious water cuts from the pacific past wyoming. The dinosoars were extinct by the time of the flood, actually before man was ever created. They had some distinct purpose, perhaps during the thick vegetation periods and animal periods. There to nurture the Earth? Who knows. The evidence could seem to go both ways depending on who find the best questions and the newest physical evidence. Evelutionists will never know. Creationsists know that the bible has proven itself and promises a grand future. How did the bible writer thousands of yrs ago know that the " Earth was round and floated upon nothing ?" UFO's? Theres another controversy there, it can go on forever if you want it to. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Dear reader,
You begin with "Some believe". What is far more significant than belief is what you can substantiate with physical evidence and verify through repeatable experiments. For example, what is the physcial evidence for your belief that creation days were 7000 years each? And the same goes for the rest of your letter. Where is the evidence for all these claims? Even IF creation days were 7000 years (contrary to the bible saying that to God, a day is 1000 years), and assuming 6 creation days, that still only totals 42,000 years, when wolly mammoths roamed the tundra and neanderthals lived in northern caves. You state that the order of creation fits with what the bible says. Well, the bible gives two different sequences of creation, so are you hedging your bets there? Which sequence is correct? And you can hardly draw a realistic view of the emergence of different animal groups from the scant story in Genesis. It just doesn't cut it. The world-wide flood did not happen. What Would We Expect to Find if the World Had Flooded is a short and easy to read list of geological evidence which absolutely refutes the flood. Inland sea fossils are evidence that, at one time millions of years ago, that land once was a sea floor. Go Frozen Mammoths for frozen mammoths. The claim that the grand canyon is the result of a flood is simply ridiculous. And if, as you say, dinosaurs were extinct by the time of man, why are their bones found in strata supposedly laid down by the flood, 4000 years ago? No, the evidence does not go both ways. Creationists twist facts to suit theories, not theories to fit facts. And the bible has been proven wrong time and time again. From huge historical mistakes, like the absence of the global flood, to small but significant errors like the value of pi. The writers of the old testament thought, like the Babylonians from whom they got their philosophies, that the world was a flat, round disc supported upon pillars. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Is this
really a controversey or a saopbox? Doesn't the word
'controversey' imply debate? That is, an honest discussion
relating to ALL of the facts, figures, beliefs and even
philosophies ON BOTH side of the table?
So far, as I have been browsing around this WebPage, I have found a slant decidedly in the direction of the evolutionists. That is to present the truth of evolution on one side and as for the other, ridicule and condemnation, with out a fair chance to represent the opposing opinion. Clearly, you are not giving equal evidence to BOTH sides of the discussion and therfore you are no worse than those of whom you speak against. VERY UNSCIENTIFIC indeed. CAD87 |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | How are
creationist arguments distorted or altered? The Talk
Origins Archive is a REBUTTAL website, offering answers to
creationist claims, which are explored in detail, yet not
distorted or altered.
Creationist arguments are represented in their entirety. Creationists have represented themselves adequately on their own websites, which are all listed under the links section, which is probably the largest list of creationist links available anywhere. Creationist websites, on the other hand, DO NOT fairly represent the evolutionist arguments and theories. They frequently use misquotes and straw man theories. Documentation of such tactics can be found on this site. Missing Supernova Remnants as Evidence of a Young Universe? A Case of Fabrication is one I uncovered myself. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Well, it has
been done again. This time the Kansas Board of Education
has abolished evolution from any meaniful place in the
public schools. Microevolution can be discussed, but
evolution, as an underlying principle of biology and
unifying theory has been wiped from Kansas'schools.
The dark forces are on the march again. How many times is science going to be trashed because some people can't be tough enough to accept what science has found? Little frail human sensiblities are hurt when big bad science tells us that we have descended from a common ancestor with the apes <pouting>. We are on the dawn of the 21st century and this is the kind of science education facing students in Kansas? What state and what science is next on the chopping block? we even have educators (if we can call them that) that hail this decision as a victory! One biology teacher from Kansas what heard on NPR stating that it is good that the decision has been passed because evolution is only a theory! She should be removed from her job! Obviously she has not a clue as to what the word theory means in a scientific way. It was obvious that the creationists had their dirty little paws in this all along. Today (8/111/99), Lycos has a story about the decision and a leader of a creationist society helped to draft the Board of Education's science proposal! Didn't seem to matter that all university presidents in the state of Kansas and the governor begged not to make a stupid decision of banning the teaching of evolution. This time, the board did it by carefully keeping creationism out of the rhetoric and allowing the teaching of microevolution. Yet they had a creationist to help draft the proposal! I shouldn't be that suprised however. People who are supposed to be scientists wrote into the journal Science for the 30 Jul 99 issue claiming that evolution is a theory and that there is evidence for intelligent design in the universe. As I pointed out to these people they are mistaken and should recall basic high school biology (obviously not Kansas high school biology) and learn a thing or two. For Pete's sake, the journal Science is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science! If people who write to a well respected science journal and can't understand why evolution is a valid science, then can we expect that a group of "educators" in Kansas can? The difference is that these fools in Kansas (four out of six board members) have heavy influence on students and the future of students. This has ramifications beyound Kansas. It opens the door for creationists to refine their rhetoric and get it into states where they have been unsuccessful thus far. It will help to shove American science back a century and it opens the door for other sciences to be trashed. Let us not forget that this isn't a war against science, although it does endanger other sciences that support the theory of evolution directly (which is most of them!). Rather it is a political/ideology war where students and science will be a victim of war. As I have requested before and will do again on this web site: What can sane citizens who know that evolution is a valid science do to prevent such foolish decision from being made in the future? How are we to prevent the same thing from happening to our states and our children? I have seen a lot of feedback here about why evolution is a valid science and how creationists get their panties in a bunch when they hear that evolution is a fact. What I haven't seen is a feedback posted like this one asking these questions . . . what can we do to stop the ruin of science eduation in this country . . . what can the ordinary citizen do to stop foolish decisions such as what the Kansas Board of Education did today? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Organization
and commitment are the key.
Creationist groups may be small, but they generally well-organized and funded. Moreover, they have the commitment that only service to one's God can engender. They have a simple and straightforward (if misleading) message, and they are persuasive to those who seek simple and straightforward answers, who are committed to a particular vision of the divine, and who are disgruntled with what they perceive to be the moral decay of society. The creationists have learned from their defeats in the courts. They know that a law declaring Genesis 1 & 2 to be accurate will be struck down as unconstitutional. But they know, too, that their effectiveness lies at the local level, where the opposition is less organized and where the press pays less attention. And so they fund particular candidates for state representative, or encourage "right-thinking" church members to actively support particular school board members. They count on "stealth" candidates with hidden agendas not revealed until they come into power. The battle in Kansas was not won or lost when the Board of Education voted. It was decided years earlier, when the current board members were elected. What can the ordinary citizen do? What the ordinary citizen can and should be doing at every election, not just presidential elections. Turn off the sitcom and study the candidates. Read about them in the newspaper. Call their headquarters and ask for a position paper. Read their web sites. Buy the political reporter of your local newspaper a drink or two, and ask them what the latest news is. Talk to your family and friends. Talk to those who disagree with you politically and see who they're supporting. Start a recall petition. Contribute money to candidates you agree with. Get involved with political organizations you support. And above all, make your vote count for every candidate in every election. If the concerned citizens of Kansas decide that they do not wish the stigma of this decision hanging over them, they can most certainly reverse it at the polls. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | After reading the FAQs and "Chance From A Theistic Perspective" I do not understand why atheists claim that evolution is proof in favor of atheism. I believe that it would be beneficial if evolution supporters connected with Talk Origins would assure Creationists that evolution does NOT necessarily imply that God doesn't exist. Plus, it may be beneficial if Talk Origins had a page which quotes Christian theologians and Christian scientists who do NOT support a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | This is made
explicit in a number of FAQs, particularly
and Evolution and Chance which contains the FAQ you refer to and another one from a more philosophical perspective. As to the interpretation of Genesis FAQ, I think it would be a good idea, but as yet nobody has offered to write it who knows the history of the exegesis of Genesis properly. We know that Origen was a non-literalist, and Philo of Alexandria also (a pre-Christian era rabbinical scholar). |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Romans 1:18-23 Isaiah 46:18-19 |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I, for one,
am familiar with the verses in Romans. (There is no Isaiah
46:18-19. Isaiah 46 stops at verse 13). But how do verses
change the facts?
Are you saying that science, the inquiry into how nature works, is unrighteous, and those who investigate nature are going to incur god's wrath because of it? Biblical verses do not erase the fossil record, or the genetic record. They do not refute the findings of science. Evolutionists are condemned also by any religous fundamentalists, whether they are muslim, hindu, native American, or any of the major world religions. Why should your condemnation be any more valid or troubling to me than theirs? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | When you
were talking about the flood account in Genesis and trying
to disprove it as being global, you forgot to mention the
fact that the world had a different climate at that time.
IT DIDN'T EVEN RAIN YET!!! Living conditions were
different.
P.S. If you think that the Bible is compatible with evolution, you must not take the Bible or Jesus seriously. Jesus taught a literal creation. He said "from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."(Mark 10:6) He was talking about Adam and Eve. According to the Genesis genealogy, it couldn't have been millions of years from Adam and Eve to the present. Do you even read the Bible? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Jesus also taught that God's view of divorce was different from what had been given as law before due to the hardness of men's hearts. Actually, we're talking about the same passage, aren't we? So in order to support a view of scripture that indicates an inflexible and unchanging aspect, you are actually citing scripture that says that what God tells us changes over time with what man is ready to hear and accept. Those who believe in a revelatory faith can accommodate the truth of divine grace and the findings of science. Those with a hardened and inflexible view of faith will continue to insist that God conform to their interpretations. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | The article I read, Observed Instances of Speciation, by Joseph Boxham, attempted to show the transformation of species and therfore add credibility to Darwinism. I failed to see on example of one species transforming to another. I saw examples of microevolution, but the observance of microevolution does not prove that macroevolution is taking place. I feel his "evidence" is unfounded and weak. It does not bolster the case for evolution. It nearly points out what we already know, that microevolution does take place "within" species, but we can find no solid evidence of macroevolution taking place. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Perhaps the
most commonly used definition of species is a group of
organisms that are interfertile, i.e., that can breed with
one another. Two groups of organisms that can breed within
their group but that cannot breed between the groups are,
by this definition, two separate species. When a population
which can interbreed becomes over time two populations that
cannot, speciation has taken place. Speciation is by
definition macroevolution, and
the Observed Instances
of Speciation FAQ details, well, some observed
instances of speciation.
The reader may be laboring under the misapprehension that the theory of evolution requires that one species "transform" into another, or that a cow should give birth to a goat, or something similar. This is not the case. Species do not "become" other species; instead they radiate like branches on a tree. Close to the joint between two branches, the differences are negligible; it is only at the far end of the branches that the differences seem large. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Katie Nelson |
Comment: | This is in reference to E.T. Babinski's article called, "why we believe in a designer". And really this refers to the other articles I've read here. Non-believers and believers speak a different language. All of the reasons that were listed in order to make fun of a Designer, have been explained in the Bible. But the Bible is simply foolishness to a non-believer. Fortunately, for believers the design does make sense, and we have pity for those of you who are merely looking forward to rotting in the ground when you die. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Actually, I don't look forward to rotting in the ground. I look forward to living my life while I'm here, and not postponing joy. Sure, I would like to believe that I will live forever. But I would also like to believe that I am bulletproof, and can breathe underwater, but wanting something to be true doesn't make it so. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | In your page against creationist thermodynamics (especially with regard to the second law), it seems to me that it would be very effective if you also noted that not only does the overall entropy not decrease, but that this applies to an isolated system. The Earth is not isolated energetically. Constant energy is supplied by the sun - and supplied in huge amounts. Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics is simply not applicable to the Earth. The behaviour of Earth as a thermodynamical system would be described by some other thermodynamic potential, enthalpy, perhaps. (How many creationists have heard that word, I wonder?..) |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: | The second
law of thermodynamics is applicable to the Earth and the
biosphere, but the key is that creationists apply it
wrongly. The second law restricts possible changes in
entropy when a system makes the transition from one state
to another. It requires that the initial state, as well as
the end state, both be in thermodynamic equilibrium, and
that throughout the transition the system must be
thermodynamically isolated. The Earth and biosphere
do not satisfy any of these conditions, hence the
conclusion that it does not apply. To that extent, you are
right, and the application of thermodynamics to the Earth
and biosphere needs to be reconsidered.
That reconsideration leads to the pursuit of non equilibrium thermodynamics. This is the proper tool for analyzing the thermodynamic behavior of the Earth and biosphere, but is never used by creationists. It includes an analogous application of the second law which which describes the overall nonequilibrium system as a collection of sub systems, each of which is in thermodynamic equilibrium, but not isolated. The analysis then centers on identifying the sub systems that are sources or sinks of entropy, and the entropy and energy flow between sub systems. Obviously, this is an enormous task if applied to the Earth and biosphere, and no wonder if creationists are daunted by the magnitude of effort required. Nevertheless, it is the only proper way to describe the thermodynamic behavior of the biosphere during evolution. Of course, the other major cerationist mistakes are the assumption that entropy and order/disorder are strictly analogous (they are not), and that evolution moves from disorder to order, which has yet to be demonstrated. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Alex |
Comment: | Here is a
page by a Catholic on creationism and
evolution.
You should also know that Catholics are allowed to believe in evolution provided that it was by God. But we Catholics also have the option of course to believe in creationism. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | But only if you take a literalist approach to Scripture and make Scripture pre-eminent over science in matters of fact, which is not exactly the Catholic tradition, is it? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Dear Sir(s):
I've been going into a number of Born-Again chat rooms and when I bring up the subject of evolution, I often get a response saying evolution is a statistical impossibility. The odds against it happening, of life generating from non-living matter, are staggering. This is apparently the new brush-off line, but do you have any further information on it? Obviously it came from somewhere, probably a creationist. I am sure it is just a distortion of mathematics being used by creationists the same way the 2nd law of therodynamics is a distortion of physics. What, if anything, do you know of it? Sincerely, Ken Sloan |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Here is my
answer, although I'm sure it will be thought of as too
simplistic for the more erudite among us, yet here it is
nonetheless.
First off, saying "Well this is just too improbable, the odds against it are staggering" is not a scientific statment of any kind. It isn't even a valid argument; it is an opinion, with no supporting evidence. The real problem with this statement, however, is that the person making it assumes that the world we see today is the only possible world that could exist. But if one makes the very valid and likely assumption that all possible world scenarios (one of which happens to have humans) have equal validity and had equal chance of occuring, then the statement about improbability has no meaning. It would be like throwing three dice, and getting a six, and a one, and a three, and then being amazed at the improbability of getting that sequence, but not realizing that there is nothing special in that particular sequence. All possible outcomes are equally valid, and no one result should be seen as inevitable or expected. Only if the sequence of 6-1-3 was predicted prior to throwing the dice, would probability be a factor. After the event, the odds are precisely one to one. Another way to examine this is to consider the lottery. Let's say that John Smith wins the lottery, a hundred million to one chance. He could say to himself: "The odds were a hundred million to one against me winning the lottery, so there could be no way I actually won. It is too improbable." But the fact is he won, just like the fact that we ARE HERE on Earth. If, however, someone predicted that John Smith was going to win the lottery before he actually won, and then he won at 100 million to 1 odds, well that would be extraordinarily improbable, and we would probably have to suspect some cheating somewhere. Conversely, if someone who was able to observe the Earth 4.5 billion years ago predicted the eventual domination of the planet Earth by Humankind, that would indeed be impossibly improbable. In short, there is no way to statistically prove that we did not evolve. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | > Please
do not send us feedback to tell us that the Earth is a
sphere; > we are already aware of this fact.
Actually it is an oblate spheroid. Surely you guys aren't those "Sphere Freaks" that spam the geology forums ;-) Boy, am I a smartass or what? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Earth's oblateness is overadvertised. According to an item in from "The Straight Dope," Earth is closer to a perfect sphere than is required by the standards for billiard balls. See "http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mdownup.html". |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Please
advise/consult on debating professional
old-earth-creationist/I.D.-er on Family Education forum
Religion in the Public Schools.
FEN Message Boards
This dude (who calls himself "Rick Pierson"--could be an anagram) is really good, really arrogant, and has a really good concordance he's pasting from. Example: "Challenge to all you evolutionists I've read many messages where an evolutionist declares that humans arose naturally by evolutionary processes - and that such is scientific fact, not theory. The evolutionists' messages also show that the writers refuse to accept that their belief in this supposed evolution is based on faith. I say that these peoples' words are empty and can not be backed up by their authors (see my challenge at the end of this message). The macroevolutionists accept the idea that, simply put, molecules aggregated into cells by natural means and then, over the next 4 billion years, gradually evolved into humans. They believe this even though there is no proof - and that, my friends, is called FAITH (firm belief without proof). MY CHALLENGE: I challenge any evolutionist out there to regress through the evolution of humans, from the present to the dawn of life. Any takers? I didn't think so!! As I said, your belief is not based on proof, but on faith. You lack the facts to back up your position, plain and simple." See previous email attachment for additional posts from this person.Can you recommend a person or persons who can assist? Thanks. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Live debates with anti-evolutionists are usually counter-productive. The usual anti-evolutionary tactic is not to inform the audience, but rather to cast doubt upon evolution by innuendo, mischaracterization, misquotation, and outright lies. The live debate does not offer one a leisurely opportunity to then show the faults in the torrent of claims made by the anti-evolutionary side. As one wag put it, "They can make more false claims in five minutes than one can rebut in five hours." I would make an exception for broadcast debates, but even then one should have a plan and then make sure it gets executed. Research the opponent, find any juicy whoppers that they have told in print or reliably on tape, and hold their feet to the fire. Don't accept that one has to defend every silly statement ever made by anyone claiming to support evolution. There have been and continue to be stupid people on both sides of the issue. Specifically, one could point out concerning Pierson's challenge that while the data doesn't permit showing every single generation from any lineage from the present back to a single-celled forebear, that there is plenty of evidence the does support the theory of common descent. First, one can remind people of the Passenger pigeon, a bird that was once so numerous that flights could blacken the sky from horizon to horizon, and which is now extinct. Despite the fact that Passenger pigeons had hard parts, there are no fossil specimens whatever of the Passenger pigeon. SO, if one were called upon to produce a fossil lineage starting with the Passenger pigeon, one would be stymied at the start. While the fossil record is fragmentary, it is perfectly sufficient to discredit and falsify certain conjectures. The concept of extinction faced tough going because most people accepted a theological doctrine of plenitude, which held that God would not allow a species of His creation to suffer complete extermination. Cuvier was able to demonstrate through fossil specimens that extinction was a real possibility, and had happened in the past. The fossil reality falsified the doctrine of plenitude. Another doctrine, that of "special creation", fell to the fossil record somewhat later. "Special creation" held that each species embodied a though in the Mind of God, and that its existence was immutable througout its residence on earth. Soon, the evidence of the fossil record dispatched that idea as false. One can find that modern creationists often substitute the word "kind" into that doctrine. Over time, one finds that creationist doctrine evolves to more closely resemble evolutionary biology. Instead of having God create billions and billions of separate species and some multiple of that of varieties of those species, one finds the modern creationist discussing "kinds". When pressed to give a definition of "kind", what tends to pop out bears an uncanny resemblance to the biological term "clade". By dint of embracing "within-kind" evolution, modern creationists manage to cut down the number of separate creation events that their God must have performed. The number goes down from billions to mere tens of thousands, with some forward-looking creationists going so far as to claim comfort with having groups as broad as phyla being identified as kinds. Thus creationist conjectures are steadily diminishing the number of creation events needed to sustain their doctrine, and asymptotically approaching the figure proposed by common descent: One. Perhaps one need only wait a while, and the concepts of evolutionary biology will be co-opted in their entirety by the creationists. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I would first like to ask how you as an evolutionist can ridicule creationism and call it unbelievable. There is just as much evidence for creationism as you think there might be for evolutionism! Did you know that the sun is shrinking? Did you know, in fact, that if the sun is now currently shrinking, that at one time, it was bigger? And did you further know that the sun is shrinking in such a rate that if the earth and everything was billions of years old, the sun would have been, at one time, large enough to where it would have swallowed up the earth? Did you know that the moon is moving further and further away from the earth? Did you know that this means that at one time, the moon was closer to the earth? Did you further know that if the earth and everything was billions, even millions of years old, at one time the moon would have been close enough to cause such tides that all the life on earth was washed away twice a day? Did you also know that the earth is slowing down in its rotation? Did you know that this means that at one time, the earth was spinning faster? Did you further know that if the earth was billions or millions of years old, the earth would have been spinning so fast that everything would have shot off it like little kids from a merry go round? Do you know what happens to kids shooting off from a spinning merry go round? As they are travelling away from the merry go round, they themselves are spinning in the same direction as the merry go round was! If there was a big bang, and everything went shooting off of a spinning dot of compressed matter, then everything we see in space should be spinnning in the same direction, right? Well, its not! There are moons of planets travelling in a different direction than the rest of the moons of other planets, there are planets that are spinning in different directions, and, if our own galaxy were spinnning for billions or millions of years, it would have spun itself into a perfect circle years ago! I challenge you to explain away these facts to me. I challenge you to fit these things into your theory of evolution. I challenge all who believe in evolution to tell me how these things are in agreement with evolution. Because if just one of these things cannot be explained, if one of these things cannot agree with evolution, then you cannot accept the theory of evolution as truth, and cannot accept evolution at all. |
Response | |
From: | Chris Stassen |
Author of: | The Age of the Earth |
Response: | One thing to
note "up front" is that none of your arguments concerns
evolution. All of your arguments are in the realm of
astronomy, not biology. With that said, let's check out the
quality of your claims:
It's a common creationist practice: fling out a large number of garbage arguments, and hope that your opponent isn't familiar with some of them and they'll stick despite being false. It's a good way to score debating points, but it's dishonest. Rather than worrying about our ability to refute every last one (the other two have been handled in talk.origins before), you should worry about the quality of the source that armed you with at least three fibs out of five arguments. How confident can you be that the remaining two claims are any better? |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Evolution is a hoax. The Bible does not argue against itself. The Bible is the most researched book in the world. There is no evidence to contradict the Bible. It's not that a person cannot believe in creation, it is because they do not want to believe. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The sad
truth is that a person who holds your position is too far
gone to help. As Thomas Paine said, to argue with a man who
has abandon reason is like trying to give medicine to a
dead man.
For creationists, no evidence, no matter how strong or how much of it, would be enough. You might start by learning that the bible is not accurate, contains errors and contradictions, and has many moral dilemmas. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | ACCORDING TO
THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY, WHERE DO HUMAN EMOTIONS COME FROM?
EXAMPLES: LOVE, HATE, ANGER, JOY, GUILT, ETC. AND IF WE
HAVE EVOLVED WHY WOULD WE FEEL GUILTY ABOUT THE BAD THINGS
WE DO? ONE WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD BE LIKE THE ANIMALS
THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE COME FROM AND NOT REALLY HAVE
FEELINGS AT ALL. SOME ANIMALS APPEAR TO HAVE FEELINGS BUT
THATS ONLY SOMETHING THEY ARE TAUGHT BY TRAINERS TO MAKE
THEM LOOK CUTE. BUT IN REALITY ANIMALS ARE GUIDED PURELY ON
INSTINCT ALONE. THIS HAS REALLY BEEN A PROBLEM QUESTION,
BECAUSE EMOTIONS WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING IN THE LOWER
CLASSES TO EVOLVE FROM, AND THERE IS NOTHING THERE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND RESPONSE.... RANDY |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Fortunately, some people have actually investigated this matter, and have documented rather different conclusions based upon the evidence. There was a rather large book written over a century ago documenting just the kind of thing that Randy says does not exist. The title was "The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals". The author was Charles Robert Darwin. More recent texts on animal behavior might also prove illuminating for Randy. Alcock's text is a standard. I hear that proper operation of the CAPS LOCK key is something that has to be learned, and is not instinctual. ;-) Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | It is clear
that in your own narrow view of the world and its origin,
you are clearly willing to accept that evolution (and there
are over 100 different theories so far) is the only
reasonable answer. However, you must also accept that I can
disasemble a Ferrari, blast it into the sky and it will
fall to earth fully assembled and running perfectly. To
accept any of the over 100 different theories of evolution
as fact falls within the same odds as the Ferrari.
Open your minds, your hearts will follow. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The reader's objection has been completely answered in the Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution FAQ. In short, evolution has both random and nonrandom elements. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Your page on
Macroevolution states the following:
"Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails." Unlike most of the statements made in your website (which I found to be very thorough), the claim that "the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes" has no supporting documentation. As an admitted rookie in this debate, I'd be interested in specific documentation that supports this statement - it is frankly the crux of the matter in crossing the line between microevolution and macroevolution. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Macroevolution FAQ |
Response: | It is very
hard to do this in a short space, and equally difficult to
prove a negative. All I can say is, read the literature. A
very good place to begin is Steven M Stanley's now somewhat
dated Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, Freeman
1979.
Every day, in a journal of some kind, documented evidence appears that genes are far more malleable and can have much greater effects than creationists claim they can. One class of genes in particular, the Hox genes, appear across classes where they have major effects in the development of major body plans. Rather than give you the standard run of web references, I refer you to this lovely article. There's another one with it, but I don't have a reference right now:
This paper shows how the entire range of body plans of arthropods (spiders, insects, crustaceans, etc) are generated with a similar range of genes. The argument can be extended to other body plans, including animal plans. We share homologous genes with - for example - worms (annelids) in our own development, which is why studying simpler organisms is useful to understanding more complex ones. Moreover, it shows how novel structures evolve with only minor changes in the timing and location of the expression of existing genes. This is only one of literally thousands of experimental and observational papers of its kind. Trying to summarise them would be like trying to show from all street directories that roads exist. It's so basic to the science that it is incredible to those who read it, and I'm only an amateur, that anyone could deny it happens. I hope this helps. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Frank Steiger's reasoning is an absolute nonsense. The conclusions he draws from probability math connected with thermodynamics are all wrong.He does not even right in his "mathematical" deductions. I do not think he understands what he trys to talk about. He says creationists "believe" the the second law of thermodynamics means things are getting on a lower level of organisation as time is passing by. Creationists do not believe this, they KNOW it and everybody does in professional circles. Do not attempt to be impressive by evolutionistic hocus-pocus. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | "Evolutionistic hocus-pocus"? The last time I checked my chemistry textbook, Steiger had used the correct formulas for statistical thermodynamics. If the reader has a new theory of thermodynamics he'd like to share with us, I'd be happy to see the equations. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I just
wanted to congratulate you on this wonderful site.
Virtually every rational person I know has had at least one
run-in with creationist "science", and it's nice to know
that there's a convenient resource available for more
information.
I myself have gotten into the infamous "second law of thermodynamics" argument with a creationist, and even though I actually studied thermodynamics at the university level, as part of my BASc program, my high-school uneducated opponent refused to acknowledge my definition of entropy, or closed systems! <sigh> Anyway, thanks again for putting in the work required to build this outstanding website. I can only imagine how much effort must have been required to put this together. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Thanks for the compliments. When dealing with the second law of thermodynamics objections, I like to question the person claiming that a problem exists to demonstrate what, precisely, that problem might be. Evolutionary processes do not require anything that does not happen in the usual course of growth and reproduction. If there is some thermodynamically inviable process associated with evolutionary change, your correspondent should be able to identify what that process is, identify which evolutionary mechanism theory requires it, and be able to show that it does not actually occur in living populations. I don't much like the "See the sun up there?" type responses to the anti-evolutionary claims. It is not really relevant. Making those who claim problems between thermodynamics and evolution get specific about it seems to me to be the better option. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Daniel Rechav |
Comment: | According to the Cell Theory all living cells come from living cells, this has never been disproven. How does evolution overcome this? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The cell
theory was proposed in the 1830s by Schleiden and Schwann
to cover all existing life, which, so far as we know (and
with the exceptions of viruses, and prions, which are
arguably not alive) is entirely cellular.
It does not cover the early origins of life. Neither does evolutionary theory. Both cell theory and evolutionary theory are theories that explain the processes of life since it began, although several researchers - Sidney Fox and Eörs Száthmáry being two - have accounts of how the pre-biotic chemistry came to be wrapped up or compartmentalised in protocells. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Re: Dawkins
and Wilson versus Gould and Lewontin
I'm not a science major but I would really like to understand evolution, so I've been doing alot of reading and thinking and surfing. I come to this website alot. But no matter how much I read or how hard I try, I never feel brave enough to jump into the conversations. But I finally noticed a few weeks ago that ignorance doesn't stop other people like it stops me. Some creationists jump in without paying attention to your rules about what you need to know if you want to talk here because they've decided in advance that they're not going to agree with it anyhow. They seem to think that ignorance about evolution is ok because the bible is the answer to everything anyway. It would be easy just to call this plain stupidity, except that this same kind of thing happens with famous biologists. Alot of them jump into the fights about nature versus culture without knowing much about culture. For example I've been trying really hard to agree with R. Dawkins and W.O. Wilson because they make evolution so easy. They say that all you need to figure out culture is to study nature, and all you need to figure out nature is to study genes. The scientsts who agree with Wilson even think that nobody should pay attention to things like ethnic studies and womens studies because they are wrong and dangerous. Like the creationists, they think that its ok to be ignorant about what they don't agree with. Since genetics (like the bible) is the answer to everything anyway, all you need to know about is genetics. It seems like their ignorance about culture makes them experts about nature. Then I read S.J. Gould and R. Lewontin. They don't seem to think that its ok to be ignorant about things you don't want to agree with. They seem to think that if you want to put down culture, you should know something about it first. So they know alot about culture. They know about history, literature, environmentalism, philosophy, pop culture, politics, womens studies, art, music, religion and ethnic studies. Its funny, though, they don't put down any of them. They also dont read the genetic code as if it was the bible - the answer to everything. They fight alot with Dawkins and Wilson and I don't always understand what the fights are about. But I do know one thing. Although Gould and Lewontin make evolution harder for people like me to understand than Dawkins and Wilson do, they at least don't think they are too good for things that are important to real people. And they don't think it's ok to ignore stuff you don't want to agree with. I may never be smart enough to talk on this discussion site. But even if I stay ignorant forever, I don't think that my ignorance about evolution makes me an expert in something else. R. Elke |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Hallelujah!
A person with some common sense! I thought they had all
become extinct.
Take faith, dear reader -- ignorance is a curable disease. You are taking exactly the right medicine. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | JOSEPH |
Comment: | Evolution sounds like a series of mindless accidents. Life, especially human life, is too sophisicated and intelligent for it to happen out of nowhere. Evolutionist's seem to mock creationist's because they don't agree with the "theories of evolution". What makes the opinions of evolutionist's better than any one else's? All they seem to have are a bunch of theories. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Certainly
chance plays a part in the diversity of life. That
randomness has a major part in the responsibility for the
fact that there is life on earth, especially in respect to
humanity, can seem insurmountably difficult to grasp, if
you can't see the steps in between, and don't understand
the processes involved.
Evolutionists don't mock creationists for the fact that they disagree with us. We might bring forth their claims in an unflattering light, because of the sheer ignorance of some of the claims, and we might expose them when they make up references, figures or quotations. But we don't mock them for simply disagreeing with us. Anyone has the right to disagree. Theories are scientific explanations of how nature works, built up logically from observations and experiments. Formulating theories is what science is FOR. What makes the theories of evolutionists good theories are that they conform to the facts, they are testable, repeatable, demonstrable, and potentially falsifiable. Creationism has yet to provide a "theory" for scientists to test. Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I was
brought up in a religious family, taught the creation
theory and the existence of God e.t.c however i left home
at age 16 (now 28) qualified as an engineer and kept an
open mind on things. i see that to believe in creation
generally involves believing in god and noahs ark and the
virgin birth and thus, as these things are unproven and
stretch the realms of the imagination, the scientific
community tends to stick with evolution, after all, you
don't need a God for evolution. there is just one thing
that the theory of evolution does not account for, ( no i
am not casting my vote in the creationist box and about to
start preaching the holy trinity!!!) and that is the
terminator gene built into all life. think on this....how
does evolution explain the inbuilt time bomb, the self
destruct mode that all life has, after all we are born, our
bodies grow we stabilse then we grow old and disapear into
the ether.however if we didn't die, this place would get
pretty crowded and as the human race does not follow the
lemming method of population control we need to control our
numbers in other ways.
there is one rather large difficulty to achieving population control though....we are an intelligent species.... and given the opportunity everbody would want to live forever, infact this would be the ultimate scientific breakthrough...... how could population control, ever come from an evolutionary process as the factors requiring this genetic timebomb to evolve would have to come from a genuine need to adapt and the need to adapt in this case would be overpopulation and as we know, this has not been a problem for this planet to date. in any event if the earth had become too crowded then the survival of the fittest theory would have come into play the weaker human's being destroyed until the balance between the available resoureces and the humans requireing them had equalised.???????? the basic instinct and i mean the very basic instinct of the human race is to survive, to live. yet we only get 70 -90 years....WHY...????. IF EINSTEIN HAD LIVED A FURTHER 100 YEARS JUST THINK OF THE ADVANCEMENTS IN TECHNOLOGY... i would genuinly appreciate any comments or suggestions on this problem as it's got me stumped. Yours Tim Leadill Bsc hons eng |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Actually, Sir Peter Medawar addressed the issue of why we die. He came up with an answer in 1957 that continues to be the basis of most such explanations today. Medawar's explanation is fairly detailed, but the essential concept underlying it concerns the age structure of populations. The most critical part of a population are those individuals just about to enter the age class at which reproduction of new individuals is possible. Members of older age classes contribute less and less of the future of the group. Now, consider a population which starts with individuals which could, potentially, be immortal. That is, there is no in-built reason for them to experience old age. But, over time, external circumstances can cause mortality. As the population moves along through time, suppose that certain traits which affect early fecundity arise in the population. Soon, the population comes to be characterized by individuals who are likely to have traits that enhance early fecundity. Now, either by linkage to traits that result in senescence or through pleiotropic affects (such that the "early fecundity" trait also influences "later senescence"), the population can come to be composed of individuals who reproduce early and die off at a later point in the life history. There are certain species whose members do not appear to have any strong tendency toward senescence, or whose senescence is long delayed. Certain fish of the carp family are an example. But in most vertebrates, senescence is just the way things are, like it or lump it. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I think I
came across a page in here (talkorigins.com)that talked
about what a creationist theory would need to explain, as
in observed phenomena. Really it turned out to be a great
argument for evolution But I was stupid and didn't bookmark
it. What I'm hoping is that you or someone out there will
know the page I am talking about and send it to me.
Thanks. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You are seeking "A list of stumper questions for creationists". |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Christianity is a reigion based on faith. We do not claim to have proof of our beliefs but we do have faith in them. I don't believe that the questions you asked were going unanswered,but that you were not recieving the answers you wanted. We believe in an all powerful God and I reaaly don't think that anything is impossible for Him. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Creationists
do indeed claim evidence for their beliefs. Their faith is
obvious, their proofs are not.
The answers scientists expect to receive are ones based on testable, observable reality, not mythology, magic and blind faith. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I'd like to see articles on the origins of organic molecules and self replicating molecules. If evolutionary biologists had a few billion dollars to build the biological equivilant of a super-collider (to study the origins of the molecules of life), what would they build? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Such work is
being done, and it is interesting, but one of the problems
is that there is more than one way of being alive. Even if
we do build novel replicating lifeforms, there's no
guarantee that they are much like the ones from which we
came.
However, the origins of biomolcules are better understood. For a start, they are naturally synthesised in space and occur in comets and meteors known as carbonaceous chondrites. An article by NASA researcher Max Berstein appeared in a recent Scientific American. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | J. Owens |
Comment: | I was
wondering if you could print an article about how Genesis 1
and science coincide to help some fundamentalist Christians
realize that a belief in God and the Bible can coexist with
a belief in evolution. Below is what I have found out about
the two topics. It has strengthened my faith in God, not
weakened it.
I would like to mention that the word "days" used in Genesis is translated from the Hebrew word "yom" which can mean a 12 hour, 24 hour, or indefinite period of time. This will help people understand that because evolution took a long time it doesn't conflict with the Bible. The Bible states that things were created as follows: plants, sea animals, birds, land animals, and humans. At first glance you may see a few problems with this from a scientific view. You should remember that the main purpose of Genesis 1 is to state that God created the heavens and the earth and that humans are His chosen vessels to share His Word with. Secondly, you should probably take the creation account from a "human's view." Bacteria and other small creatures can't be seen by humans and probably weren't included for this reason. Some of the "sea animals" can probably refer to reptiles and amphibians because they do go into the water sometimes and look similar to sea creatures. One must remember that Genesis was written thousands of years ago and the people of that time couldn't understand cellular life and evolutionary processes (a lot of people still can't). By no means is Genesis 1 a scientific account of creation/evolution but it does not conflict with evolution. P.S. Instead of arguing with fundamentalist e-mailers try to explain to them some of the points I made above, it may help understand that evolution and creation can coexist. It will be better than just telling them they don't understand or are ignorant. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The reader might examine our Various Interpretations of Genesis FAQ, as I think some of the points raised might already be in there. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Your theories on how the animals were loaded and kept on Noah's ark are quite interesting but I think you're forgetting something. I believe the bible says that not the animals themselves were brought on to the ark but their "seed". If you possess the DNA-code of every existing animal on earth you CAN recreate it. Of course this implies that you accept the idea of the ancient gods having been a far-evolved otherworldly species. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Yuck, who did the collecting of this "seed", and, how? Maybe Noah did it while he was drunk. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I feel that your Christian view is slightly off. It said that few Christians actually believe that the book of Genesis should be taken literally for the creation of the earth. In a recent ABC news poll almost 50 percent believe that God created the earth and mankind. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Your view is
too narrow. The standard polling results show that just
under half of US citizens believe that God created humans
in the last few thousand years. But the population of the
USA is just a small portion of Christians around the world;
worldwide, most Christians are not bothered by a
non-literal reading of Genesis.
Something you might think about, considering these polls. In the USA, most people who accept the scientific arguments in favor of evolution also believe in God. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | It is a proven fact using radio-isotype dating that the earth is only around 10,000 years old. Carbon dating was proven in- accurate so that blows your liberal evolution theory to poop. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: | No radioisotope dating method has ever demonstrated the Earth to be anywhere near 10,000 years old. Radiocarbon dating has never been shown to be inaccurate, and is quite irrelevant to the question of the age of the Earth in any case, since it cannot handle ages beyond about 50,000 years. If you would read the archive first, and then try feedback, it might be a more profitable experience. There are a number of articles addressing the age of the Earth, including Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale and Isochron Dating Methods, both of which deal directly with radioisotope dating. Also, see my own "Radiometric Dating Resource List", which includes many links to relevant sources including calibration and correlation exercises that make poop out of your suggestion that radioisotope dating is wrong. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | If you haven't learned this information yet, the real name of creationist John Woodmorappe is Jan Peczkis, who earned his M.S. in Earth Science in 1982 from Northeastern Illinois University, to the department's everlasting dismay. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
The first to publish Woodmorappe's identity was apparently Tom McIver, who saw him at a conference with a name tag bearing his real name. See McIver's Antievolution, p. 88. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | About the Noah's Flood thing. I am no scientist, and I don't need to be one. The article clearly states that over 15,000 pairs of species were crammed in the Ark. According to my opinion, that isn't necessary. One pair of dogs can fit in the ark... after, which could produce all the different variaties of dogs today... a process that can also be called evolution. But, the ark was Devinely inspired, therefore, God gave directions to suit it's need during the flood. You have no right to say it couldn't have survived. You weren't there when it happend. Also, in those days, there was no ocean. All aquatic life lived in fresh water. Over the following milleniums, the ocean started to become what it is now, a salty body of water. Aquatic life had time enough to adjust to it. Why would the flood wipe out aquatic life? When the Sustainer of life is there, watching? You only argue what is logical in the scientific point, but there is a Super-natural force you must consider. Every single occurance CANNOT be explained by science alone. God bless... |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | That's fine,
but then you have no reason to go looking for
pseudoscientific "explanation" of the Flood, or indeed any
claim made in the Bible. If all you have to say is "God did
it" then you effectively abandon any attempt to understand
the natural world. The mere fact that you say that acquatic
life had to adjust to a salty ocean shows that this is not
enough, for you or anyone. Why not rest easy with "God kept
them alive"? Why should you need anything more?
God might have packed the entire diversity of life into a testtube, sitting on Noah's desk. God might have made the ark work according to different physical laws, to overcome the problems of the engineering stresses on a wooden box that size. God might have made the whole thing happen in Noah's and his family's imagination. Once you reject explanation, you can do anything you like. Just don't suggest it has anything to do with science, and we'll all be happy. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I believe in creation and evolution, and I'd like to challenge some of the scientific types here to chew on this: What if the world was created 6000 years ago (as most creationists believe), and only 6000 years of evolution has taken place? But before you say "Hey, evolution takes a long time!" please understand what I mean by that statement. What if God created about 99.9% of the species that exist today 6000 years ago, and the remaining .1% are a result of just 6000 years of evolution? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
This isn't a new concept, and many of us have seen it before. It got its most extended and intellectual treatment in the book "Omphalos" by Gosse in the late 1850's. "Omphalos" means "navel", and Gosse proposed that the proper way for God to have created things is with the "appearance of age". Thus, Gosse answered the old question of "Did Adam have a navel?" in the affirmative. An all-powerful omphalic creator need not have created some 6000 years ago. A sufficiently spiffy omphalic creator could just as well have created everything last Tuesday (or Thursday), with the remaining 0.00000000001% of change having occurred due to the usual evolutionary processes. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Put the TV evolution debates on your web site using the Real Player or some other feed type software. I think it would go a long way towards helping people make informed decitions on this subject. I know that my personal opinion did not change on evolution until I saw a debate which got me to think more about the subject and research it more. Thanks and I hope to hear from you. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | We'd love to
do that. Unfortunately:
On the other hand, if anyone wanted to donate those debates to us, we sure wouldn't mind . . . . |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Does evolution violate the 2nd law of thermidynamics?, if not state why. Explain the 'Cambrian Explosion' and how so many complex organisms can appear all at once with no evidence of ancestors. Comment on why Darwin came close to repudiating his own theory of natural selection (Darwin, The Descent of Man, quoted in Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution(1959) p. 302). Wings, eyes and fins, supposedly the product of evolution, appear suddenly in the fossil record, show me an example of an animal with 5, 6, or 60% of an eye, wing or fin. Thank you. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Dear John Wilkins, In your page about Darwin's Precursors and Influences you incorrectly state that Darwin was the first to state sexual selection, when in truth the first to state sexual selection was Edward Blyth. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Darwin's precursors and influences |
Response: | Do you have
some references? I'd be interested to see them. I do
mention Erasmus Darwin's comment, which would precede Blyth
by some decades, and it wouldn't surprise me to find one of
the 18th century French naturalists like Bonnet or Buffon
making a similar comment, but they did not develop the
notion, particularly not in terms of the evolution of
traits.
Having said that, let me note that there is a claim now discredited that Edward Blyth discovered all of the theory of evolution and that Darwin dishonestly stole from him all his key ideas, due to Loren Eiseley, which is dealt with in a footnote in the FAQ. If this is what you mean, I'm afraid it is wrong. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Bravo! As a biologist I am often called upon to defend evolution from the various misconceptions and misinformation circulated by creationists. It is such a relief to have a website to recommend - particularly one as thorough as the Talk Origins Archive. In some cases I have directed people to read about specific creationist claims that I know to have been well rebutted in a FAQ, or to the links page so that they can read creationist arguments for themselves. My colleagues and students usually return from their perusal informed and invigorated. When reading through the feedback comments I am made increasingly aware how much work remains to be done, and in the face of what opposition (both ignorance and deliberate misinformation). Your site is a stronghold of lucid thought and perspicuity. Thanks, and keep up the good work. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Many thanks for the feedback. Perhaps, given that you see the need for further work, you could write some FAQs with your colleagues? :-) There's a list of FAQs requested or you could submit one on a topic you think needs to be made available. We don't pay, but we will drink a beer in your honor. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | joyce |
Comment: | The water
found in various meteorites, and other findings from space
(NASA's latest findings) supports the canopy theory. God
said "to seperate the water from the water". All prophecies
are coming to pass, and you can't debunk Statistical
Science Quarterly's finding regarding the Bible Codes. When
the sky splits open and Christ comes down, then you'll know
the Bible is true. Let God be true and every man a liar. As
w/ the earlier post I sent, if you do not have the
"resurrection" in you, you will never see things
spiritually.
Like you said, you don't believe in Creation anyway, so go have your banana break. Thanks again, joyce |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | How, in
fact, does water found in meteorites support the spurious
canopy "theory"? Please
explain the connnection. Because meteorites are "up there"?
Please...
And the so-called bible codes are thouroughly explained and debunked at Hidden Messages and The Bible Code and Bible-Code Developments. It's interesting to note that the phrase "Darwin was right" was also discovered using the bible code. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Terry Loyd |
Comment: | My question, is where can the oldest rocks on earth be found? thank you. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: | As of
January, 1999, The oldest rocks found on earth are 4.031
± 0.003 billion years old (meaning it has been that
long since the molten rocks solidified and thus reset their
internal clocks). This is reported in the paper Priscoan
(4.00-4.03 Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada
by Samuel
A. Bowring & Ian S. Williams;
Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 134(1): 3-16,
January 1999. The previous record was 3.96 billion years,
set in 1989.
|
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Peter Stephen |
Comment: | For the Big Bang to have occured matter or energy would have had to be present, where did it come from? According to Einstein, matter can not be destroyed or created; the same with energy. To have an original matter/energy you would have to have a supernatural creator. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Actually,
maybe not. Certain cosmological theories state (as I
understand them) that the "positive energy" of matter is
balanced by the "negative energy" of the gravitational
force; thus, everything cancels out and the net mass-energy
of the universe is zero. (This description is an extreme
oversimplification, to be sure.)
In any event, the laws of physics as we know them act much differently close to the zero time of the Big Bang, and may not apply at all to time "before" the Big Bang, if indeed such a thing exists. In short, there is no reason (now) to think that mass-energy conservation applies to the Big Bang. The only scientific answer at this point is "We don't know." Certainly one can posit a supernatural Creator, but then the old question "Who created the Creator?" remains unanswered. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hey Ken
Harding ...I'm Back! Let me say at the onset, I am not
writing to try and debunk evolution, even though it is far
from perfect it is likely. I have, however, come across an
author who makes some pretty keen observations and
conclusions about some of the soft spots in this grand
theory, I will share them with you here. First off, have
you ever heard of a Dr. Gerald Schroeder? Former professor
of physics at M.I.T. and author of the book, "The Science
of God"? It is his opinion that evolution speaks volumes in
support of a theory of creation. Two points from memory are
that life appeared with liquid water (approx. 3.5 million
years ago). The apperent instantanious development of
bacteria and algae stands in opposition to the bedrock
belief of Darwinists that the development of these
organisms took millions upon millions of years. (which they
should have statistically.)
The second point is that at the onset of the Cambrian period the sudden rise of so many animals and the establishment of the 6 current phyla from simple life that exhibited few of the many FULLY FORMED traits (like eyes, gills etc.)they passed onto the prodgeny is a sharp contrast to the notion that these traits developed slowly over time. In addition, he does a rather good job of shredding Dawkin's counter to the probabiity argument of creationist mathematicians. The fact that Dawkin's model had a "goal" made it unsuitable as a analog to evolution, which of course is directionless, or so Darwinists say. Putting you personal religious beliefs aside for the moment, wouldn't you agree that these moments in time tend to support the idea of a creative intelligence at work? Comment? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Welcome
back. You always preface every communication with the
disclaimer that you are not out to debunk evolution, but
you have yet to offer an alternative.
Nope, haven't heard of him.... But I did some looking. From "Fitting the Bible to the Data", a critique of Schroeder's book "The Science of God": Okay, you say that he makes observations about some of the "soft spots" in evolutionary theory (you fail to point out what these might be). First you offer that his opinion is that "evolution speaks volumes in support of a theory of creation". Well, that's the opinion of a creationist. Then you say some non sequitur about algae and bacteria developing instantaniously, and that somehow has a bearing on the "development" of these organisms. I'm not even sure what you are implying (I've experienced this with you before). Are you saying that because bacteria develop instantaniously (and I have no idea what you mean by that), that it is impossible that bacteria could have taken millions of years to evolve from more primitive organisms? OR, are you saying that because bacteria develop instantaniously (I still don't know what that means), that life could not have originated from the famous primordial soup in "millions upon millions of years"? Why so? You give no reasons to support your ambiguous claim. Point two. The Cambrian explosion. First let me say that if you use the Cambrian Explosion to illustrate a point, then you admit the authenticity of the geologic column as a record of billions of years of history, and not piled up mud and silt from a 40 day flood. You should read this article by Chris Nedin and learn that the Cambrian Explosion wasn't so instantaneous as people make out. Just what do you mean by "the notion that these traits develop slowly over time"? According to Dawkins, "Even with conservative assumptions, the time taken to evolve a fish eye from flat skin was minuscule: fewer than 400,000 generations. For the kinds of small animals we are talking about, we can assume one generation per year, so it seems that it would take less than half a million years to evolve a good camera eye. In the light of Nilsson and Pelger's results, it is no wonder "the" eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around the animal kingdom. There has been enough time for it to evolve from scratch 1,500 times in succession within any one lineage." That's not exactly "slowly over time". In fact, it's nearly too rapid a time to measure in geological terms. In any case, what are you implying? That organisms were dropped into the oceans, fully formed, 650 million years ago? I'm not impressed with anything you've written here. ... |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I just visited the Grand Canyon with my family on vacation. I'm not a scientist, but it's pretty darn obvious (just from viewing the canyon) that the Earth is billions of years old. How do "creation scientists" explain away evidence anyone can see and judge for themselves? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | With
enormous ingenuity, dedication and a complete disregard for
facts.
Creationism is not an evidence-based system, it is a doctrinally based dogma. Hence, no amount of factual information will sway them. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have to
disagree with some of the statements in the "Evolution is a
Fact and Theory" FAQ. Mainly I don't agree with the
following statements:
"In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." and "Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality." I do not agree that just because there is a large body of evidence supporting a hypothesis, it becomes a fact. A fact is something that is true and does not need to be investigated or questioned. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The problem
with your final sentence is that, if we use that
definition, nothing is a fact. Take the shape of the earth:
some people say it is flat. You will say it is round. But
if "it's round" is a fact, and does not need to be
questioned or investigated, how did you decide it was round
in the first place? By investigating.
But the problem comes up when we ask "What if you found out that some part of your investigation was wrong? Wouldn't that new discovery, of an error in your research, mean that your conclusion might be wrong? Isn't in possible that some idea can be overturned and, even though you thought it a fact, be discovered false?" So far as we can make out, the tools of science cannot discover absolute truth. If "fact" is going to mean "absolutely true statement", then scientific research cannot discover any facts. Science just isn't up to the sort of totally rigorous proof such as you will find in mathematics. Our standards of "fact" and "proof" have to be weaker than those of the pure mathematician, simply because we don't have the luxury of defining our universe and what goes in it. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Dear Sirs,
I want to comment on the April post of the month about the Beatle collectors. I think this essay missed the point. The fossil record, when there are examples do not show any evolution of style. We find a perfect copy of 'Yesterday'. How could the sonata form in that song appear without design? These evolutionists cannot show ANY fossil between the strata (or 'albums' as they are called) with half of one song in and half of another. Each is perfect and complete in itself. Only when a song with half the lyrics of 'Love me do' and half from 'Let it Be' will I be convinced. Until then I can only believe God could have inspired the production of each record individually. Yours in Truth, Filip |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | As Post of
the Month Coordinator, I must take umbrage. The very idea
that John Lennon was divinely inspired is an offense
against all liberal humanist godless immoral communist
fellow travellers.
You fail to understand that the evolution of music happens not on entire songs, but on phrases and sometimes entire bars. Rarely, we get whole melodies passed on, as when the song "He's so fine" evolved into "My Sweet Lord". The actual recordings are just the phenotypes, or as they are known in the music industry, "performances", that the genotypes ("scores") produce. I do hope that this resolves your difficulties with the evolution of the Beatles, and indeed of the modern pop music industry. |