Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am writng a paper for a college biology class on pseudogenes and I found Dr.Edward Max's essays really helpful and interesting. Thanks a lot. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Jim Kerr |
Comment: | "It is a FACT that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old." Did it ever dawn on you folks that God created an aged world? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Yes, it
occurred to a number of thinkers. This is called the
Omphalos Hypothesis, named after a book by Phillip Gosse
which argued just this line in the late nineteenth century.
Omphalos means navel, and he argued that God created Adam
and Eve with navels even though they had not developed in a
womb.
The objections are: why would God deceive us in this way? What does he get out of it? How would we know this scientifically? Shouldn't science just continue to use the evidence to draw the conclusions the evidence supports? Why accept (scientifically) that the evidence sure points to a world that is 4.5 billion years old, in a universe that is close to 14.5 billion years old, only God wants us to think it is very much younger than that? Scientists have to work only on the basis of the evidence. As Christians, Muslims or whatever they can reconcile their science with their scriptures any way they like, but that is not a matter for science, and it should not affect the way science proceeds in any way. Otherwise you are mixing up religious belief and scientific knowledge and both will suffer for it. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | madeline beaumont |
Comment: | I would like to add some insight on the topic of evolution vs. creation. The origin of life. First of all, this debate is NOT science (evolution) vs. theology (creation) as many would have us believe. Second, lets talk science (real science) Thermodynamics=degeneration. Evolution=simple to complex. Evolution defies one of the fundamental laws of the universe. Biogenesis=Life produces life. Evolution=Life came from non-life. Let's just say that no one was around to see what happened when life began so it takes faith to believe one or the other. The fact that it takes faith to believe in evolution, suggests that it is not all science. One more question for you to think about. How is it that scientists can create a cell but cannot give it life? With all the intelligence it would take to create this cell in the first place and we can't give it life, how can anyone think it could have happened with no intelligence involved to begin with. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Of your four
"equations," three are not correct:
|
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Much as it is hard for an evolutionist to debunk creationism with one example, the same is true for Creationism about evolution. Recently, I have been perusing the site of the Creation Research, Science Education Foundation, and even as a non creationist, I find it hard to refute their 'scientific' findings, apparently borne from extensive scientific research, any more than I can refute evolutionary findings. What gives? Unlike fake-doctors such as Kent Hovind, these real doctors show scientific evidence that humans co-existed with dinosaurs, that the earth shows blatant signs of a past great flood, 'ancient' oil pockets can be re-created in laboratories today, and that the grand canyon can easily be explained with modern day examples of erosion. I have seen their accompanying videos and they are not brash, haughty, or arrogant as I have always believed them to be (i.e., Kent Hovind). They are methodical, explanatory, and non-evasive about their findings. Contrary to what I have believed about creationists, they actually have 'evidence' to back their claims. because I am not a scientist, I cannot refute them. Can you direct me to a scientist that can refute their specific findings, so that I don't sit here confused as to who has the agenda, and who has the truth? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Actually,
several of their claims are refuted on this archive. For
instance, the human-dinosaur track claims are exhaustively discussed here.
(The claims are in fact so bad that many creationists have
abandoned them.) Likewise, we have articles detailing both
problems with a global
flood and critiques of
the ICR's Grand Canyon dating project.
Most of their other claims (polystrate fossils, the second law of thermodynamics, the supposed lack of transitional fossils, etc., etc.) are tired rehashes of claims made by other creationists and have been thoroughly discussed on this site. Check the index or use our search facility to find material on specific claims. Just because they don't rant like Kent Hovind doesn't mean that they're any more correct in their scientific claims. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I'd like to tell you that I'm surprised that you didn't post my feedback on your Bombardier Beetle article....but I'm NOT. I guess my input just made too much sense, huh? We wouldn't want your devoted readers reading something that contradicts and points out the faults in your silly little hypothesis, right? It saddens me that you people just can't find it in yourselves to open your minds and to think outside the box. You claim to be so wise. You silly people. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | We didn't
post your May 2000
feedback on the bombardier beetle for
several reasons:
Finally, we make no claim to wisdom. In fact, we direct our visitors to consider our extensive list of other links and, most importantly, to check our articles against the primary scientific literature referenced in those articles. See the Archive's welcome message for more details. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I accept the
theory that humans and dinasours did not live at the same
time. However, I recently had a conversation with someone
who said, "Well, you know that they found a human footprint
next to a dinasour fossil". Have you ever heard of this? I
can't seem to find any documentation on this and wanted to
make sure that I had my facts straight before challenging
him with his source.
Thanks. -Tony Reina |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | He's probably referring to the claims of some creationists that "giant man tracks" occur alongside dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. This claim has been thoroughly debunked, and even many creationists now recognize it as bogus. See the Paluxy FAQs for more details. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | In the April 2000
feedback, a mother of four named Jenette wrote:
"I am a Christian who finds the 6-day creation model to be more consistent with what I believe is a correct interpretation of the Bible." I think you missed your opportunity to point out to Jenette that, while she is probably correct that the 6-day creation model is a correct interpretation of the bible, it is inconsistent with what we observe in nature. Because science is empirically based, it therefore rejects the 6-day creation model in favor of an explanation that is supported by physical evidence. I always like to point out that creationism was at one time the standard model for origins, but was abandoned because it did not account for what was observed in nature. That's what science is all about. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Since I
wrote the response to Jenette, I'll answer this question as
well.
Actually, I personally disagree that the 6-day creation model is a "correct" interpretation of Genesis. As our Various Interpretations of Genesis FAQ describes, there are many ways by which Christians reconcile Genesis with the findings of modern science. As for myself, I believe that proper Biblical exegesis must take into account the knowledge, lifestyle, and worldview of Biblical authors and the people at the time. This is the complaint that many Christians have against young-earth creationism: they feel it's bad theology, not just bad science. But this is my personal view alone. Science and this archive take no position as to matters of Biblical interpretation. What they can do is determine that a particular Biblical interpretation, young-earth creationism, contradicts the physical evidence we see in nature. One is left with two alternatives: either God has faked the evidence, or the interpretation is incorrect. Creationists, of course, attempt to insert a third possibility -- science is incorrect -- but they have been woefully unsuccessful in their attempts. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | How did woodpeckers and giraffes evolve? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Karl? Is that you? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | You people are doing a marvelous job! For information, intellectual stimulation, and a good old cerebral recharge, I couldn't recommend this site more highly. Both I and my family have been impressed by the grace and patience that attend all your responses to questions, even, and especially, the hebetudinous ones. I have encouraged my children to visit your site not only as a great source of information about evolution, but also as an example of how discussion on sensitive themes and ideas should be conducted. Enormously commendable. Be encouraged. You are a "candle in the dark". |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Thank you so
much for two reasons:
1. It's nice to get such warm feedback - we really do try to be even handed and sensitive to others' beliefs, without compromising the science, and 2. I learned a new word - hebetudinous, which The Merriam-Webster Dictionary On-line defines as "lethargy, dullness". |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I love
reading through these mail archives, mainly for the
humorous responses from creationist. Most go along the
lines of:
"Okay, smarty, is evolution is so true what about X? X COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY DISPROVES EVOLUTION! I can't believe you never thought of X! What idiot wouldn't remember X? Any moron can see that X says evolution can't be true! Wow, you really are dumb." Followed by the reply: "Please see our article "Why X does not disprove Evolution" which has been here since 1594 and is surrounded by bright neon signs and really big spotlights". (X, of course, stands for just about any creationist arguement, from the "Its just a theory" to the second law). Now, onto part zwei of my letter. I hear complaints that this site is too one sided. But tell me this, how COULD this site be unbiased? Sadly, there is no evidence of creation, it isn't even a theory(random guess is more accurate), and likewise there is no valid evidence against evolution. This is the way the evidence is. If you DID give the creationist POV, you would simply be giving arguements already refuted in this archive. This is like complaining that the Earth Science curriculum doesn't give ample time to geocentrism, even though heliocentrism is "just a theory". Finally, thank you for making this site. Its been very helpful! |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | If you say you have so much proof why are there no pictures of the fossils on your web page? I don't mean an artist's illustrations but photographs of the actual fossils. The creationists have been able to prove that Lucy is a fraud and continue to make new discoveries often; why don't you? All I ever hear is the same OLD things with no evidence. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Two words:
Copyrights and money.
Realize first that this archive is a strictly volunteer effort. We do this out of the goodness of our hearts and pocketbooks; the archive receives no other source of funding as far as I'm aware. We would absolutely love to include more photographs on this site. The reason that we don't have more (besides the hominind illustrations and scattered pictures elsewhere) is that it is difficult for us to get royalty-free pictures that we can place on the site. We would have to negotiate with the copyright holders for that access. That said, we would certainly appreciate any suggestions or contributions of useful photographs and illustrations to the archive. One final point: "Lucy" (more properly Australopithecus afarensis) has not been proven to be a fraud. See the Lucy's Knee Joint FAQ for information on one bogus creationist claim regarding Lucy. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I'm probably asking the wrong person, but... I can't access the talk.origins newsgroup. Is the newsgroup still there? Or am I doing something wrong? Could you point me in the right direction? Thanks in advance. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | It's
virtually impossible for me to say what might be the
problem, given that I don't know what computer system you
are using, etc. But there are generally three things that
might be preventing you from accessing the Usenet newsgroup
talk.origins:
For more information about Usenet, see the Usenet FAQs. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I've heard you had Shroud of Turin FAQ on your site—where is it now? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | As far as I'm aware, we've never had a Shroud of Turin FAQ on this site. You might check out the following sites, though: |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have been asked by a creationist on "How did the first cell eat?". Can you suggest some possibilities please? Thank you, great site btw. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The first
cell did not arise out of nothing. Cells are very complex
structures, and the first cells were probably preceded by
less complex systems that no longer exist. They ate each
other, and also naturally occurring chemicals that used to
be thought to be "biochemicals" but which we now know are
formed in various ways, from volcanism to reactions in
space.
Even at the very beginning of the chemical evolution that led to biological evolution, the processes began on existing chemicals, and then began to metabolise each other as well as them. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Christopher Chupik |
Comment: | Hello.
A creationist I've been debating claims that micro- and macroevolution aren't actually related, and that there is no macroevolution. He goes on to claim that the connection between micro- and macroevolution is quote: "a view characteristic of biologists who have not seriously grappled with the fossil record." He claims that paleontologists have grappled with the fossil record and have a far less Darwinian view of evolution. He cites Punctuated Equilibrium in support of this idea. Comments? BTW, great site! It's one of my bookmarks and I visit it regularily. Keep up the excellant work! |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Macroevolution FAQ |
Response: | There is a
tension between the two in paleontological literature. Many
do think that the processes that result in patterns within
species (due to natural selection and drift, both
population genetics mechanisms) are different from the
processes that cause patterns in above-species taxa.
Some of these macroevolutionary taxa are thought to be, by their proponents, such things as developmental constraints, species selection or sorting, or "laws of form". The matter is not as clearly defined as this suggests. And it is neither Darwinian nor non-Darwinian. Some biologists have gone so far as to claim that their macroevolutionary ideas are non-Darwinian, but in nearly every case this just means non-neo-Darwinian, or that evolution is not always selectionist or acting on genes. There are no proofs either way. Selection and drift - the two staples of population genetics evolution - have been shown mathematically to make the evolution of species possible. Moreover, gradual selective processes can result in dynamics very like Punctuated Equilibrium Theory predicts (or claims - PE is not so much a mathematical model as a generalisation from the paleontological evidence). However, speciation is generally thought to be due to geographical isolation rather than by selection. So in one sense, speciation and thus all macroevolution, is not due to the classic mechanisms of neo-Darwinism. Your creationist friend is likely to have misunderstood this debate. PE-theorists like Eldredge do not say that evolution has not occurred, or that selection is not the mechanism of adaptation. All they are saying is that the lineages of species evolving from species happens at variable rates ranging from geologically quickly to almost not at all. This is a long-held Darwinian view - indeed, it is mentioned several times in the Origin of Species. See the following FAQs for more information: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution and Macroevolution for more information and references. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hi guys, I'm not sorry to say that I don't believe in Evolution and am aware that there is nothing I can say to change your minds. This whole issue makes me feel so sad and I wish we all knew the truth and could agree. Just as a comment, I dislike the way you tend to flatly deny any evidence for the comments offered by those writing to you. You don't provide any evidence for your statements and we are left to guess why you, as a scientist, would make such strong statements without any form of backup. I feel for you deeply for the day you wil experience extreme embarassment and regret when you realise that you have been trying to prove a lie. Please realise I am not trying to criticise or argue, but am hoping you may stop and think about God. One day I hope you will know that to know HIM is greater than any scientific evidence. Enjoy your work and congratulations on an interesting website. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Hello,
Rebecca. Thanks for your feedback.
I'm not sorry to say that I don't believe in Evolution, either. That is to say, I do not believe in evolution the way one might believe in God or angels or everlasting life. Evolution isn't something that one believes or disbelieves; it is something that one accepts given the overwhelming scientific evidence — and it is overwhelming — supporting it. The point I am trying to make, and which is made in various places throughout this archive, is that while some people try to contrast God and evolution, they aren't really mutually exclusive. Accepting evolution doesn't mean that one must necessarily fail to believe in God, or that one cannot be a Christian. See the God and Evolution FAQ. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | You said in the FAQ section that the Earth is proven to be very old because of many different dating methods. Fine, you want to believe that, then I can't change your mind, but I would just like to point out that radioactive decay is very unreliable for several reasons. First, you are saying that it is always constant, and that there is no reason to believe that it wouldn't be. But what about experiments done by evolutionists that changed radioactive decay rates by simply changing the temperature and pressure on the organism. Also, there have been experiments done by evolutionists that used several methods of radioactive decay to date an object from less that 100 years ago, and results from the different types of radioactive decay are from anywhere from 2 million years old to billions of years old, doesn't that say something about the relavancy of them?? If you can come up with one, please send me an explanation to this. |
Response | |
From: | Chris Stassen |
Author of: | Isochron Dating |
Response: | Your first
claim is addressed in the Constancy of
Decay section of the Age of the Earth FAQ. There's more
to the argument than (as you suggest) the mere belief that
"there's no reason for radioactive decay rates to vary."
There are solid theoretical reasons -- based on what is
known about the mechanism of the decay process -- for
variations to be limited to such a small range that they
can be treated as constant. Further, your claim -- that
"experiments" have shown changes to relevant decay rates --
isn't true. The decay rates relevant to geological dating
have never been measured to vary, under any
circumstance including extremes of temperature, pressure,
and magnetic field... which is just what theory predicts.
As for your final challenge, it's hard to answer it... since you didn't supply a reference and didn't give enough detail for me to be sure of the exact case that you're referring to. If I were forced to guess, I'd guess that you refer to creationist claims on the Hualalei lava flows. If so, Don Lindsay has refuted that claim. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I read in the "Creation" magazine a quotable quote: the current state of knowledge can be summarized thus, "in the beginning was nothing, which exploded". I am 14 and even i know that the idea of evolution is ridiclulous. I have known this since i was 2! Why can't people accept that there is a God that created us and the whole universe? I think it is just that people are too proud to think that there is Someone that is "much better" than them. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Many people who accept a Creator God also accept the evidence of evolution as how God created. Evolutionary biology does not require giving up faith in God, nor does it require an excess of pride. Please have a look at the God and Evolution FAQ. It summarizes how evolutionary biology is compatible with faith. Also, it is worth having a look at what evolutionary biology really is before dismissing it. There are many FAQ entries here that help give an accessible introduction to a variety of topics in evolutionary biology. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I wondered what your views were on the wood in the Hawkesbury sandstone story reported on the AiG website? |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Who would be
foolish enough to get mad at either arguements. Both sides
require a leap of faith!
Has anyone calculated the population growth mathematics for a human population that is supposed to be as old as generally estimated? Wouldnt it be better to back calulate, based on the current world population , how long homo-sapiens have been in existence within +/- a certain time? Certainly this could help determine the general timeframe (within the mathematical assumptions and errors) that we have existed? steveo |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Let's simplify. If a doctor were to give you a census of E. coli bacteria in your gut, could you then work out your birth date from that information? The answer, of course, is "No." Trying to find the date of the first appearance of humans from human population data fails for exactly the same reasons. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Thank you for an excellent article on the Archaeopteryx Forgery Claim. I have been debating this point on a UK forum and was wondering if anyone can clear up a mystery. I was under the impression that Hoyle et al had retracted their claims, at this time I cannot identify a reference to this retraction. Any help on this matter will be gratefully received. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have read
Chap. 6 of "Origin..." and your excellent FAQ, but did not
find an answer to the following question:
A new species develops when the individual offspring, B, cannot successfully procreate with its ancestors, A, or other descendants of that ancestor, C. The concurrence in two Bs of the genetic inability to procreate with As or Cs because of or simply along with some other genetic mutation in the Bs that improves their lot seems improbable to the point of being irrational. Long periods of complete isolation of Bs from Cs that might explain it also seem improbable. Will the genome project shed light on this question? |
Responses | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Another relatively common mechanism of speciation in sexually reproducing species is through change of karyotype. This mode of speciational change does pretty much arise through a single individual having some sort of change in karyotype. (One will find two groups, "fusionists" who hold that most such speciation events are due to "Robertsonian translocations" or other means of fusing chromosomes, and "fissionists" who hold that fission of chromosomes is more common. The weight of evidence appears to give the "fusionists" the edge currently.) OK, let's say some individual has such a change in karyotype. (In humans, the species from which we have the most data, such changes appear to be at about 1 in 1000.) How, then, can such an individual propagate. The answer is, "With a bit more difficulty than usual." Such changes may reduce but not eliminate fertility with individuals having an unmodified chromosome complement. To produce individuals with a stable karyotype in the new mode just requires a bit of incest, not necessarily two individuals changing in the same manner at the same time and location. Dr. Kurt Benirschke gave an interesting presentation recently which touched on the pattern of karyotype differences in swine and peccaries. Such patterns support the view that karyotype change as described above is an important mechanism of speciational change in sexually reproducing organisms. Wesley |
From: | |
Response: | The problem
with this explanation, and the reason it seems improbable,
is because you have upspokenly assumed that speciation
occurs because of a single mutation in one individual. That
need not be the case.
Speciation — at least, allopatric speciation — can occur when a population of organisms is geographically separated from the main population. In that case, any mutations that propagate throughout one population do not propagate through the other. At any particular time, the organisms can reproduce within a population, so a population's organisms remain genetically close. (We'll ignore asexual populations for the moment.) But one population as a whole may over time collect and propagate enough genetic changes through it that none of its individuals can any longer procreate with any individual from the other population. Do you see the difference? You don't need two individuals coincidentally having the same "speciation mutation" at the exact same time. You only need two populations that are isolated for a long enough time such that each builds up enough genetic differences with the other population. The other point, that Wesley discusses in more detail, is that the definition of "species" is not quite as black-and-white as we may normally think it is. A particular mutation may reduce an organism's chance of breeding with other members of the population without eliminating it entirely. That is, an organism may be able to breed with some, but not all, members of a population. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I'm an oil
business wellsite geologist, so you'll have a pretty good
guess where I'm coming from. I've just started hearing
about Hovind's ridculous comments on using oil-field
pressures to disprove an earth billions of years old.
Piffle. Two questions: does anyone have a coherent (Ha Ha!)
account of this buffoon's stumbling around in my
profession, so I can do a rebuttal for it; do you know of
any anti-creationist groups in the UK who are needing the
assistance of a professional geologist. The `Links' section
only has the one obviously European site, and that doesn't
really leave the mainland. I'm particularly looking towards
book-sharing agreements to avoid having to pay for some of
these publication in order to destroy them.
I'm kept pretty busy in the "Creationist Containment Trenches" on Compuserve, but when I go out to the rig I often get a reasonable amount of free time to work on *really* taking some of the Creationist arguments to pieces. Thanks in Advance <G>. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hi. It's me
again. You wrote:
"The problem with simple elimination is that there are an infinite number of hypotheses to eliminate..." I say: where do you come up with "infinite"? Are you trying to say that unless we know *everything* there is to know about nature that the process of elimination is invalid? If you are, I am not sure that I agree. Let's say that scientists find an anomaly somewhere that defies natural explanation (i.e. "this event is in direct contradiction to all known laws of nature."). Three conclusions could be drawn: 1. The law is invalid. 2. There is a natural explanation, but we don't know what it is. 3. It is a supernatural event. Why is it not valid to hypothesize that, because no known natural process for this phenomenom exists, it is therefore (supernaturally) designed? How can science claim to be objective and in the same breath automatically reject a possible, maybe even probable, hypothesis? Hypothesizing ID is not the same thing as declaring something, as you said, "not possibly natural". It is simply offering an explanation that is based on what we know right NOW, which is how science works. Why should we hold back possible explanations in favor of others simply due to an arbitrary definition of "science"? Perhaps later on a possible process will be found that is natural... So be it. Who cares? That is one of the beauties of science: it is self-correcting (when practised properly). It seems to me that there are two extremes to this thing: one is assuming that everything is natural, and therefore waiting for natural explanations to rise where they will not, thus possibly deluding everybody (intentional or not) into a naturalistic philosophy. This seems to be the practise of us supposedly "enlightened" folks. The other extreme is to assume everything you don't understand is therefore supernatural, thus deluding everybody into a theistic philosophy. This is similar to the practise of ancient - and maybe even some modern - civilizations. In the middle is objectivity. Base your hypotheses on what you know now, and change them when they're outdated by more accurate evidence... REGARDLESS of philosophical implications. Moving right along... You said: "If something begins to look to us like it is designed, then we are obliged to to seek a natural explanation for it..." I say: I agree to an extent. I agree that a natural explanation should be considered, but not that it should be "weighted" more heavily (i.e. favored). Hypotheses should not be weighted according to philosophy , but according to evidence. If one or the other is invalid, then science (if practised properly - that is, objectively) will eventually self-correct itself. On "Bad Design" (again): You said: "...if we can envision better...designs, then we are entitled to say that a design is faulty." I say: According to who? And on what basis? You defined "better" (a subjective word) as "more efficient or more fault tolerant or making better use of natural principles". I counted three subjective phrases in that definition: "more efficient", "more fault tolerant", and "better use". The use of these phrases all hinge on one assumption: the device's PURPOSE (what it's intended to do). A device's purpose is, of course, dependent on the designer's MOTIVATION. I cannot see, therefore, how an agent's motives "are besides the point". IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT TO CONSIDER! And since they (the motives and purpose) are not available through the use of the scientific method, then the whole argument, logically, is moot. Comparing and contrasting (which is what you are doing when you use phrases such as "better") must be done around a common set of assumptions. If those assumptions cannot be determined then is it not illogical to proceed? If there is no premise to build on, how can a conclusion be reached? Would that not be a "non sequitor" fallacy? And isn't it kind of unethical to arbitrarily place your own premise up and build on that, thus leading to your own conclusion? Also, you did not address the second assumption of the Bad Design argument, which is that things have essentially stayed the same since they were first designed. Since you gave an example of the spine, let's consider the probability that they have stayed the same. Considering the recognized fact of micro-evolution, I find this highly improbable. Ludicrous even. In fact, probably any biology class you attend will say this same thing when it talks about Hardy-Weinberg assumptions, which are (as I understand them): 1. No mutations: no allelic changes, or that they at least balance out 2. No gene flow: migration does not occur 3. Random mating: no phenotypes are favored by potential mates 4. No genetic drift: all phenotypes of a population pass on their genes 5. No selection: no selective forces favor one genotype over another If only one of these assumptions are violated, the micro-evolution has occured. Therefore, things have changed. Thanks for your time. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | No, the
issue is a bit more interesting than that.
Suppose I come up with a hypothesis that X causes Y. You can come up with X+A causes Y, X+B causes Y indefinitely. Logically, there are an infinite number of hypotheses you can generate in this way. To make it more concrete, suppose I say that one god causes the universe. It competes not only with the idea that no god causes the universe, but that 2 gods, 3 gods, ... do. Eventually, there is an infinite number of gods invoked. This can be repeated for any hypothesis quite easily. So in order to use a process of elimination in Sherlock Holmes' sense, we have to be able to restrict the number of viable hypotheses to some manageable number (say, two or three). Then elimination is useful and scientific. With respect to your three alternatives, other possibilities include 4. We mis-observed the phenomena (malfunctioning instruments, drunk observer, mass hysteria, cultural imposition, etc) 5. There is a natural explanation that some scientists know but others do not 6. It is not, really, an anomaly The latter is common in science. For example, people keep "observing" Lamarckian processes in biology which, on close examination and reflection turn out to be quite Darwinian. The "anomaly" is due to a failure in the theoretical equipment of the scientists rather than in the actual event. The problem with ID claims is that they are an admission of failure from the beginning. If you cannot explain it on current knowledge, abandon all hope of doing it at all, is the ID message. That would make any science impossible. You just would not ever find these explanations because nobody would ever look if ID were the ruling paradigm. However, I agree that self-correction is what drives science. The problem is that you can only correct if there's a reason to investigate further, and ID blocks that option for "rational" investigators. We are obliged to seek natural explanations not because we weight them higher than supernatural investigations, but because supernatural explanations are outside the domain of science altogether, from an epistemological (method and knowledge) perspective. In the same way, we are not able to use science to generate new case law. Legal argument is not a scientific matter. The two fields may interact in some manner, but that is not the issue. On bad design, again, the measures for an engineering perspective are objective. Energy use, stress distribution, photon capture and so forth are not subjective criteria. Of course, you are free to say that the purpose of the eye is to behold the Lord or attract comely women rather than see objects, and I cannot disprove that, but if it is to visually assess the environment, it is a less than optimal design. The argument from creationists is that the eye is intended (motivated by the desire to have an organ) to see. It is thus bad design, since photon capture could be increased by reversing the retina and the blood flow that feeds it (and how that arrangement helps one to behold the Lord or whatever is also unclear). But ask how we can, in purely scientific terms, know the designer's intentions? If you say that we need revelation for that, and I would agree it is the only source of such knowledge, then you agree with me that science cannot entertain such rarified notions of design. If you say we can know it empirically, then give a methodology that does so (the designer's email address will do just fine, if he/she/it has PGP and a digital signature). Then we can investigate these matters using science. What the spine staying the same or not has to do with the topic is not clear. Post in the talk.origins newsgroup and we can discuss it. This is not the forum for such extended discussions. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Your website is astounding. I quite appreciate your covering a plethora of views and subjects even going as far as providing contrary websites. I have a question (which you may cover somewhere in your enormous site and I have yet to find) but I will ask anyway in the event that I may get a response. It has to do with evolution and science. What I have found so far deals with the "falsifiable" issue. I agree that Darwinism (macroevolution) is falsifiable. My question is one of reproducibility. In my fallible mind, science must be reproducible. If the experiment I do today (I am a chemist) cannot be repeated tomorrow it is not science and is of no use to the company. If this is true, then one cannot therefore "scientifically prove" historic events, i.e. the origin of the universe. It then becomes an issue of faith for both major parties, the evolutionists and the creationists. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
The relevant criterion is not "reproducibility". Rather, the relevant criterion is "intersubjective experience". If different observers can agree upon their experience of the evidence concerning an event or phenomenon, then we have the basis for making scientific inferences based upon it. If "reproducibility" were the criterion, then for every homicide investigation the detectives might have to commit several similar murders in order to justify their conclusions. Astronomers working on the phenomena of supernovas would have to blow up one or more stars in order to refine their hypotheses, and they would probably start with the closest one available for convenience sake. Archaeologists digging up the mummified remains of child sacrifices in Peru might have to raid the orphanages in order to confirm their findings. And I shudder to think of what cosmologists working on the "Big Bang" theory might need to do... I'm happy to say that "reproducibility" is not necessary to scientific or forensic research. "Intersubjective experience" appears to work just fine. The evidence left by history speaks clearly to observers, and what it tells us accords well with mainstream science, and argues against various and sundry claims made by anti-evolutionists. The claim that "faith" is necessary for accepting the findings of evolutionary biology, in any significant and meaningful sense of the term, is unjustified. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: |
|
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
|
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I just read
your articles on creationism
and racism. The arguments in both are basically trying
to show "guilt by association." This would be okay
(creationists have used the same type arguments) if the
articles proved a link between actual Biblical doctrine and
the practice of racism but there is no such link. Henry
Morris's speculations on genetic tendencies are just that -
speculations. The Bible does not support them. As for the
bigots listed who support creationism, it is not logical to
try to attack an idea simply by finding a list of immoral
people who claim to support that idea. Using that method,
one could discredit any idea.
The Bible teaches that there is only one race of men: "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'" (Acts 17:26-28) Evolutionary theory is fertile ground for racism because the popular Darwinian theory of separate development of different "races" of the "human animal" easily lends itself to the belief that some "races" are more developed than others. The Bible teaches the opposite: "Then Peter [the apostle] opened his mouth and said: 'In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.'" (Acts 10:34-35) "But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean." (Acts 10:28) "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Genesis 1:27) Thank you for allowing me to contribute to this forum. Lori Baldwin |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I agree that
there is nothing in the doctrines of Christianity or any
other religion that is widespread today - such as Islam -
that requires a racist view of humanity. But that was not
the claim. The implication of Morris' writings quoted in
the FAQ is that evolution is the butress for racist
thinking, and then he goes on to make a racist argument
from his biblical literalism! At the least, such
inconsistencies deserve to be highlighted.
The actual history of racism - which I here define as the view that the different races of humanity are different biological species or of different levels of "perfection" - goes back a long way. Prior to Darwin, there were two views (both of which adduced Genesis as "evidence" from time to time. These were "monogenism" and "polygenism". The monos argued for a single origin for all humans, while the polys claimed that only the white race was descended from human stock. Darwin of course argued for the monogenist position, while creationists such as Louis Agassiz argued for the polygenist position. But not all did - a number of creationists in the nineteenth century argued for monogenism, and some evolutionists argued for polygenism. The issue is not whether acceptance of the Bible leads to one or the other view, but whether racist views have been espoused by creationists, and they have. Evolution clearly does not lead to racism in itself. Moreover, what a "popular" theory of Darwinian evolution leads to is no more evidence against Darwinism than what "popular" views of Christianity have led to are evidence against Christian religion. In fact a proper understanding of evolution leads to the rejection of racism, and many leading evolutionists were strong opponents of it in the course of the 20th century. "Evolution" does not teach racism. The consensus of science, including such disciplines as biology, physical anthropology, linguistics and so forth, all predicated upon the assumption of evolution, is that the human species has only shallow geographic variation. Call these races if you like, but the taxonomic sense of "race" is much deeper than that, and includes reduced gene flow and ecological adaptation that human "races" do not have. It has been known since the end of the 18th century, with Buffon, that the "racial differences" of humans are not identical to the races we find commonly referred to - "African" is more genetically and physiologically diverse than the rest of the entire world. In effect the human species has only two races, Sub-Saharan Africans and everybody else, if it has any at all. This is the result of biological investigation. An entertaining and informative account of the history of race in the nineteenth century and its relationship to Darwinism is Alter, Stephen G. Darwinism and the linguistic image: language, race, and natural theology in the nineteenth century, New studies in American intellectual and cultural history. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999. The very notion of "race" in humans is probably the result of the way in which humans classify their world naturally: Hirschfeld, Lawrence A. Race in the making: cognition, culture, and the child’s construction of human kinds, Learning, development, and conceptual change. Cambridge, Mass.; London, England: MIT Press, 1996. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: |
Congratulations: "talk.origins" should be a very useful
site for anyone desiring a calm as well as leisurely
discussion. But I need some quick help. In the process of
preparing a paper for publication (deadline July 1, 2000) I
need a source reference for the description of evolution
used by the Darwin Centennial held at the University of
Chicago in 1959 which states as follows:
While I realize that many biologists today would not agree with this description (which I found in T.A. Goudge's The ascent of life: a philosophical study of the theory of evolution, University of Toronto Press, 1961) I need a publication and page reference as close as possible to the original statement as it first appeared. Richard W. Kropf Johannesburg, Michigan |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | The source
is :
The quote can be found on page 18. However, I do not know what is exactly wrong with the statement. It is perhaps not specific enough for a description of biological evolution, but it is a common usage of the term, and certainly various authors think that evolution is not restricted to biology, eg
Huxley treated what he called "psycho-social evolution" as a process that was distinct from biological evolution but occurred along the same lines. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | This last
weekend June 22-24, 2000 I attended a presentation of a
testable creation model by Dr. Hugh Ross. Apparently he has
offered it up for scientific scrutiny. Are you familiar
with his latest submittal in this area? If so, what do you
think? Personally my problems with evolution are more
philosophical in nature. Those defects (in the evolutionary
hypothesis) are far more difficult to surmount than the
isolated scientific defenses offered. The combination of
Dr. Ross's model with a philosophical attack on
naturalistic/atheistic origins is quite formidable.
Perhaps I'm biased, just as you folks admittedly are. Anyway, thanks for the forum. At least we're talking :-) Larry Rudd |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
What Larry sees as "quite formidable" I see as "pretty pathetic". The summary of Ross's "model" seeks to deploy a variant of the doctrine of "special creation" with some Cuvier thrown in for spice. This stuff is over a hundred years dead, not a "new" model at all. The claimed "predictions" in no way follow from the premises. All in all, it appears to be yet another theological creed simply given the label, but not the content, of science. The only novelty I see here is rolling it out at a conference with a $59 registration fee. I suppose that having paid for the conference might give the attendees the mistaken impression that the information presented there was valuable. This isn't really a forum. If Larry wants an extended discussion, he should post to the Usenet talk.origins newsgroup. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have greatly enjoyed reading the various articles posted on your site. I also have a word of advice for all those creationists that visit your site and then whine about what they read. That advice would be to grow up (mentally) and approach this material with an open and mature mind. This world, this universe for that matter, is amazing and fascinating, in all of it's aspects, especially since there is no anthropomorphic, human invented entity creeping around in the background. Enjoy this universe and learn all you can about it. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | mark sargent |
Comment: | I keep
hearing that theistic explanations are not admissible in
science because they are not falsifiable, and thus natural
explanations are either preferrable, or are the only
acceptable explanations. However, I think that the
hypothesis that there is a natural explanation for
everything is equally unfalsifiable. One could always
claim, regardless of what evidence for a miracle or the
existence of God is advanced, that there has to be a
natural explanation somewhere. And if one is found, it is
immediately thought to be superior to any theistic
alternative, a priori.
Everyone in the philosophy of science is aware of the underdetermination of theories by data. Given any set of data, both theistic and naturalistic explanations could be offered as explanations of the data. Thus there is no way, using data, to either rule out the existence of God, or rule out a naturalistic universe. My question, in light of this, is why are naturalistic explanation a priori preferable to theistic explanations? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | There are
two kinds of naturalism in play. One is the metaphysical or
ontological kind. It asserts there is nothing that is not
natural (ie, physical). That view is not relevant to
science and science has nothing to say about it. It's a
philosophical position.
The other kind is more relevant. Science is a human enterprise of getting to know and understand the world. Therefore it relies upon evidence as information about the world. It must be epistemologically naturalistic (epistemology is the standard term for the study of how we know things about the world). Consequently, so far as science is concerned, there are two modes of knowledge: ignorance and successful explanation on the basis of evidence. If an evidentiary explanation comes along, of course it is going to be preferred. Of course, science may be a futile exercise. We may all be in the thrall of an Evil Demon who deceives us, or Brains in a Vat. But so long as we seek to know the world in which we live through evidence, we must prefer epistemologically natural explanations. Of course there are an indefinite number of theories we can propose given any set of data. But if that is the game you are playing, then you are not playing "knowing the world", you are playing something like "reinforcing my worldview". The data certainly excludes some hypotheses, even if only on the basis of background theories. Finally, what exactly is a "theistic explanation" in the context of knowing the world? I can understand that the actions of God may have theological import, moral import, or inspire hope for future or present redemption and salvation. But how does God's existence explain, for example, the mutation rates of organisms in toxic environments? Only biological investigation does that. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Your
responses are very well written. To argue this subject is
really depressing for me. It brings into question the
intellectual integrity of my fellow humans. I'm glad you
still have the energy.
You seem to avoid the term "natural selection" If so, why? Don't you think it's important to distinguish between evolution and natural selection? Do you add typos to creationist comments? Or do they just have a higher proportion of poor spellers? Bored? Critique my opinions at http://homestead.juno.com/joffreyc Good luck getting the rock up the mountain, Joff Roepcke |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Our having
the energy is probably a clear violation of the second law
of thermodynamics <joke>.
I do not think we avoid the term natural selection. A search of the archive revealed 298 hits. However, even creationists do not deny that selection occurs - they mainly attack evolution by saying that it cannot "add information" or form a new function, or whatever, so the argument tends to shift in that direction. In the first sentence of the classic text that began the marriage of Mendelian genetics and Darwinian evolution, The Genetic Theory of Natural Selection (1929), RA Fisher stated clearly "Natural selection is not Evolution." It tends to be taken for granted that this is so. And creationist typos are never added, although I, personally, remove any obvious typing errors. I leave in the ones that are the result of ignorance. Perhaps others do the same |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Jeffrey Dreblow |
Comment: | I am writing in response to your 'the age of the earth' article. You never showed any CALCULATIONS* for the 'Moon Dust Flux' article; and in fact the only REAL debunking of the shallow moon dust theory began with: "It thus APPEARS...". I realize it might be taken out of context which you do with ALL THE CREATIONIST ARTICLES ON THIS WEBSITE! Furthermore, do you even have any young-earth creationists working on this website? *Go to www.creationscience.com for ACTUAL CALCULATIONS! |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Meteorite Dust and the Age of the Earth |
Response: | I have a
better idea; read my article "Meteorite Dust and the Age of
the Earth", and instead of settling for wimpy
calculations (which can use any made up number you like),
you can witness the full glory of actual
observations, and find out the real truth about the
"moondust argument", an argument so boring that even the
arch creationists themselves have
rejected it! How's that for a compound sentence?
As for www.creationscience.com, properly known as "The Center for Scientific Creation", the home pages of Walter Brown, I've already been there. Indeed, the "calculations" are "real", in the sense that they do exist, but alas for the creationist, they are not "real" in the sense of making sense (which they do not). For instance, see my own refutation of Brown's absurdities regarding plate tectonics, in " On Walter Brown & Plate Tectonics (1997)" and "On Creationism and Plate Tectonics". And elsewhere in the Talk.Origins Archive, see "The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System", which refutes Brown's not very good argument about the recession of the Moon from the Earth. |