Feedback for November 2004

A point I never see the creationists address -- and one which I'm sure they're loathe to dwell on -- is that of scientific majority opinion. First, creationists will say that "more and more scientists are turning to ID" or "more and more, evolution is collapsing", or some variation -- and, of course, that's not true. A simple comparison of pro-ID and pro-evolution positions as represented by peer-reviewed publications, science faculty at ALL major universities and even popular science magazines demonstrates that there is effectively NO pro-ID scientific faction. So, of course, the creationists change their argument (as they often do, rapid-fire, to avoid scrutiny) to what has got to be the weakest link in their chain of tenuous claims -- that the reason scientists embrace evolution and natural selection isn't the preponderance of evidence and 150 years of good science, but because doing so acts as some kind of philosophical end-run around God.

As demonstrated in many examples in this Feedback section, they will deliver the argument flippantly and obliquely, then quickly move on, and for good reason: examined in any detail, the argument is preposterous. It seems to imply the following thinking, not just in one, but in hundreds of thousands of modern scientists:

"I hate God. I believe he exists, in my secret heart, but I hate him and am afraid of him and want to go to Hell, for some bizarre reason, so I will choose to adopt belief in, and promote, a scientific theory (which secretly has no evidentiary support), but which, by implying that a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of Genesis is factually inaccurate, calls into question the inerrancy of God's Word the Bible, and therefore the Fall and Redemption, judgment, etc. and the whole shebang. Therefore, by convincing myself that evolution is true, I can believe that I am not subject to God's judgment."

I know that doesn't make any sense. It isn't something a sane person would ever think. Yet creationists want to accuse, not just you or I, but EVERY pro-evolution scientist (which is, effectively, every scientist) of this bizarre line of "reasoning".

I would be very surprised if any creationists who visit this site ever have any alternate explanation for the overwhelming scientific support evolution enjoys among the people who are supposed to be the experts. I would be happy to see them expand on their own argument, to see how much dancing they can do before they make themselves sound totally absurd.

Millions of people over the past 100 years -- many of them Christians -- have dedicated their lives and their souls to learning the truth about the natural world. Demonstrating the falsehood of as venerable a theory as evolution would have meant instant scientific immortality. The idea that evolution enjoys its scientific popularity owing to a logically absurd, almost schizophrenic conspiracy amongst scientists to thwart God the Judge through a tortuous metaphysical self-deception is to me an example of unconscionable intellectual dishonesty amongst creationists. Either that, or they are so muddle-headed in how they distribute their own belief that they really think that you can believe "A equals 1" and "A does not equal 1" at the same time.

Meg Wrote,

One of the easiest to find was Dr. James Allan (although his PhD was Zoology, not Genetics) at the University of Edinburgh, top of the "Additional listings" at the bottom of this page: http://icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalscientists.html

The difference in discipline should have alerted Meg that she was potentially off base. It would seem the James Allan in question apparently never worked at University of Edinburgh merely received his doctorate from there. He retired in 1992 and AIG tells his story here http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/jumping_ship.asp

If the Allan she contacted is presently at the University of Edinburgh she might want to call him back and have him forget the libel lawsuit because the libel would have been totally in Meg's mind.

I have been 'introducing' the theory of evolution by natural selection to a Christian Fundamentalist forum. I am even discussing evolution/creation with someone who was involved in the starting of 'True Origin', your 'counterpart.' ;)

I must admit that discussions with people that know a bit about science are more fun than the usual 'you will burn in hell'-kind of comments I often get. I would like to say: Keep up the good work!

I just wanted you all to know that your site IS making a difference. Many of my friends are really starting to grasp what evolution is all about, because of Talk.Origins and I have inspired some Christians to at least think about evolution, using your site. You would be surprised how many misconceptions there are about evolution. (No wait, you actually DO!)

You are one of my favorite sources to get information from (besides of course Darwin, Dawkins and Gould).

Suggestion: Have you ever thought of using evolutionary psychology as further evidence of evolution, or do you think that's 'off-topic'? (Or did you do it and did I miss it?)

Although I disagree with many of your articles, I am very pleased to see the relative civility with which you conduct yourselves. I know there are bad examples on both sides of the fence, but this does not mean that civilized debate cannot take place.

Personally, as a biochemist, I am still unswayed in my conviction about the design I see in proteins (my pet field). However, I always welcome factually-supported debate and fully agree with you that the current methodology favored by many creationists is neither factual nor convincing.

I commend your efforts at keeping the ID / Creationism community honest (My pet peeve is thursdayism), and ask that you continue to do so. I especially enjoy reading your rebuttals of common ID literature. They are needed to keep material accurate and on-point. I hope to possibly post some replies of my own, time permitting.

-Elihu

My apologies if I misunderstood you. Also, please understand that I truly enjoy your site. This made it doubly annoying when I saw what I took to be a POLITICAL stance by some on your site.

I would like to continue visiting, and amusing myself with the fundies. (I’m easily amused), as well as being instructed in the finer points of evolutionary biology.

BTW - Kerry DID lose (heh!)

Uranium-iron testing has been found to be very inaccurate. anexample is the effect water has upon it (and scientists said water had no effect on it). A sample a few hundred years old was found to be several million years old by uranium-iron testing. It was known for sure that it was only a few hundred years old. Im sure that you already know that carbon dating is also very inaccurate.

How then is evolution, requiring many billions of years possible on a planet not nearly 1 billion years old?

If you look, you find evidence in the bible that Sun, Moon AND stars MOVE around the earth, and the earth is immovable!

You have been deceived!

Found this web site for much more proof: http://www.fixedearth.com

See also Psalms 93:1 and over 100 other verses in the bible (The ONLY scientific LAW BOOK on earth - Only people, ignorant people for that matter are 'RELIGIOUS')

I've found this website since 3 years ago. I found this website is very helpful, especially for my school work. One of my favourite section is Creationist Arguments by Mark Isaak. That's very useful.

I wanna ask some questions :

1. What species is claimed to be the closest ancestor to Homo sapiens sapiens, that evolved to modern humans?

2. Is Archaeopteryx closer to reptile or to bird?

3. Any other fossils that can be claimed as the transitional fossils between reptile and bird?

4. Is the existence of 'sternum' in Archaeopteryx chest disprove Evolution? (I read this from Harun Yahya's)

Many hominid fossils were found in my country. The last one is Flores Man.

Mike Morwood and Peter Brown from Australia claimed that it was Homo floresinensis, a different species than modern human. But Prof. Dr. T Jacob from Gadjah Mada University said that it was Homo sapiens. Prof.Jacob said something about um.. micro-cephali (??). Do u know that? Which one is correct? Is it a homo sapiens or a new-found species?

Thanks a lot. Sorry my English isn't good.

There are other similar claims elsewhere on the site.

I'm well aware that this is fairly involved organic chemistry (I'm reading http://www.ictp.trieste.it/~chelaf/summariescontrib.html at the moment!), but it might be worth adding more details on this area; the 'Simple Chemicals -> Polymers' stage is probably the most important one to explain.

After reading the FAQ where creationists argue against evolution and the evolutionist rebuttal is given, I naturally went to find the other FAQ where the evolutionists would argue against creationists and they could have their rebuttal. I was then mildly suprised to see the quote "With just enough of learning to misquote." at the top of the creationist section. In fact I couldn't find any text where the creationist perspective wasn't denied absolutely beyond any doubt and often disrespected, with the evolutionist view always having the final word.

Based on how you have handled the feedback I have looked at so far I don't exactly expect a great response from you, but I think you should change the title of your site. If you want to have a page promoting evolution and arguing against creation then that is fine, but to describe this site as "Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy" is misleading to people like me who expect a site which presents the arguments of creation and evolution impartially. A site which describes the theory of evolution as fact is pretty useless in that regard.

He makes the statement "Let me guess: you work in a college and have never had a real job, correct?" Wow, what a loathing for educators. Maybe there is a link between neo-conservatives and the religious fundamentalists. The fundies want to undermine education by turning it into some sort of state funded Sunday School, while so many neo-cons undermine education by making statements demonizing educators. Also, if he has such a problem with college professors then why is he "agree[s] with the ToEv" and reads it on a site that is written by people that are those horribly lazy college professors, and cites studies done by other horribly lazy college professors. He must be just infuriated by Dawkins and Gould and Chompsky!

That is the real problem, if one really wants to get it across to people about the scientific validity of evolution it would be a good idea to maybe not slander the living crap out of the people that are trying to do so?

What is so ironic and hypocritical is that he condems Mr. Wilkins for doing exactly the same stuff he does in his post!!

"Leave your political prejudices at home". Which is followed with "Get over yourself, leftie." And then it turns out Mr. Wilkins is also a conservative. Then in his next childishly profane submission he concludes with "framing 'neocons' makes it a POLITICAL not a SCIENTIFIC discussion". Yet this was preceded by "Kerry WILL lose".

Basically, all I can say is: What a doofus.

(feedback to AnswersInGenesis)

I notice that while (for example) The Talk Origins site has a link to yours, you do not return the favor (unless I just didn't see it). Why is that?

Dear Jeff,

Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis Ministries. Talk Origins is a site that attempts to put down Answers in Genesis and refute many of the points we make. Thus, we would not ever link to their site. However, for a much broader reason you need to realize is that Talk Origins is not a site with peer reviewed material. It is actually a lay site disguised as scientific. Many of their technical articles that appear there, have never been peer reviewed and even have extensive amounts of speculation. We tell people to ask them what peer reviewed journal the article appeared in and then check their sources to evaluate if their claims are fact or an interpretation of fact.

If the Talk Origins are truly reputable articles, then they will appear in a reputable peer reviewed journal and then we will take interest in them. If they don't make it there then there is no sense wasting our time with those lay opinions since they can't pass other scientists' approval. You shouldn't waste your time there either.

One thing you need to keep in mind is that the people involved in the Talk Origins website do not believe in God. Therefore, they have no reason to believe in 'good' or 'bad'. If they did, then they are admitting that there is a God who sets what is good and bad. As Christians, we believe the Bible which says not to lie. Those who don't believe in God or the Bible have no reason not to lie. It is neither good nor bad in their eyes. Thus, another major reason not to link to their site.

Since they believe in concepts such as 'no right and no wrong', they have no reason to speak the truth. So be wary of their claims and check every fact all the way back to a single source document and their logic. Please take some time to review an article regarding Talk Origins:

http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp

I pray this helps and have a great day, God bless.

Ryan McClay, B.Sc Answers Representative Answers in Genesis P.O. Box 510 Hebron, KY 41048

Hi, I’m going to assume that you were over-tired and stressed when you wrote this. First off Talk Origins isn’t a "put down" site (unlike the link you sent me which IS) they attempt to answer evolution bashing, much of which is flat out wrong. Since they openly state that their comments, etc. are mostly personal opinions and advocate checking for yourself, I don’t see where the "peer review comment came from". Next, your letter is an incredible example of hubris, ignorance and bigotry. Some examples:

1) "They attempt to refute…": So what? If you get into a scientific discussion people are going to try and poke holes in your arguments. That is why the overwhelming majority of scientifically educated people accept Evolution since it has withstood over 100 years of scientific questioning. 2) "…do not believe in God..": first, you would have no way of knowing this, second it has no relevance to a scientific discussion, third some of them are Christians. Therefore your statement is not only irrelevant but wrong. 3) "therefore no reason to believe in good or bad…": You probably didn’t INTENTIONALY insult several billion people, but you did anyway. This is an incredibly ignorant, bigoted and self-serving statement. Do you REALLY believe that only people who share your narrow view of the Bible are capable of good? Think about it. 4) Your statement about the Bible and lying: Another example of unbelievable arrogance and prejudice. Many statements on your site (including the ones about the Nazis, etc.) indicate that your own hold on the truth is somewhat weak.

In short the only real reason you will not link to them is that they disagree with you. This does not speak well for either your ethics or your honesty. It is worthy of note that THEY link to YOUR site even though YOU attempt to refute THEM. Who is being more fair here?

Sincerely, Jeff Webber

Second, It amazes me how creationists continue to misunderstand evolution in the feedback. Maybe this will help to stop the confusion...

CREATIONISTS:

1. EVOLUTION DOES NOT DISPROVE GOD.

2. EVOLUTION DOES NOT EXPLAIN, OR ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.

Couldnt evolution be a method of creation by God? If it was, would God attempt to explain a complex science to a largely un-educated population via the Bible? It would be like explaining the theory of evolution to a bunch of 5 year olds. Hence the wonderful story of Genesis. I have been told by Christians that the most important message of the Bible is not our origins, right?

Hope this helps.

Again, fantastic website!

-Eric

May I suggest you consider to include the following book into your recommended reading list, just for the benefits of those Christians who happened to have an interest in this subject.

Mark A. Noll, "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind",(1994).

From page 196:

"Creation science has damaged evangelicalism by making it much more difficult to think clearly about human origins, the age of the earth, and mechanisms of geological or biological change. But it has done more profound damage by undermining the ability to look at the world God has made and to understand what we see when we do look."

In page 203, Prof Noll cited Augustine's writing in the fifth century (shown in the next paragraph in 'single quote', that Augustine "had no patience with those who used the early chapters of Genesis to promote views about the natural world that contradicted the best science of his day" -

'Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics.'

If you decide to publish this comment, kindly obtain proper permisisons from the publishers before posting the paragraphs taken from Prof Noll's book.

Thank you.

"Plus, let us not forget the scientific facts brought to human attention by the bible such as the earth being a sphere... MANY centuries before science even had a clue."

That is totally false. In the first place the Bible does not indicate the earth is a sphere. Isaiah 40:22 is the passage that Bible believers refer to justify that it does. That verse states "It is he that sits on the circle of the earth..." They say that "circle" here means "sphere." In fact, the original Hebrew word is "chuwg," which in fact means "circle." It does not mean "sphere." In fact, according to the Bible, the earth is a flat, immovable disk (hence, "circle"), supported by pillars that suspend it above the abyss of the deep, and covered by the solid vault of heaven in which are set mere lights that are the sun, moon, and stars.

In the Isaiah passage, the rim of the solid vault of heaven rests on the rim of the disk of the earth. Since God's throne is on top of the solid vault of heaven, he is literally, sitting on the circle (the rim) of the disk-shaped earth.

That is the only view of the earth that can be derived from the plain, unaltered words of the Bible. Every single passage in the Bible that says anything about the shape of the earth indicates that the earth is flat. There is not one single passage indicating the earth is a sphere.

In the second place, contrary to it being "MANY centuries before science even had a clue," the ancient Greek scientists knew that the earth is a sphere. In the fourth century B.C., Aristotle summed up four scientific arguments for the sphericity of the earth, and Democritus argued that the earth must spin on its axis. In the third century B.C., Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth and arrived at a figure very close to the actual.

It turns out that most Bible believers are just as ignorant about what the Bible says as they are about evolution and the history of science.

In fact the legs were supposed to telescope against a deformable foam core to absorb the shock of landing. It was a once only system. On the first landing Armstrong fired the thrusters longer than he was supposed to and the landing was slower than expected, as a result the legs didn't compress as far as they were supposed to and there was some concern that the ladder was toofar above the surface.

www.clavius.org is the talkorigins of Apollo. it's all on there.

Cheers

Shooty

I was just about to gripe about the tardiness of the monthly feedback on this site, when I wandered on over to http://www.trueorigin.org/feedback.asp out of curiousity and found no feedback update since June/July 2001, and the curious statement;

Where’s the rest?... Each month the backlog of feedback (and responses) destined for “publication” becomes ever larger. Due to the webmaster’s limited schedule, however, the formatting and posting of feedback material (already a lower priority than original articles themselves) faces consistent delays. Bringing the feedback posting up to date (eventually) is very much his intention.

Could it just be that "TrueOrigins" is just a little weary of debating their original articles? Judging by their most recent feedback updates, I'd say they are.

I contradict 'creationist', who said that Darwin said that: (1) it's OK to kill weaker people or people that have disabilities; (2) it's OK to lie to get ahead; (3) it's OK to steal wives from your neighbours. This is false. Darwin doesn't say any of those things. Now that he's dead, it can't hurt him to be defamed in this way, but I still don't like it. (I know that the response from Dr. GH casts doubt on whether 'creationist' is sincere. But I still want to contradict the statements even if they're facetious.)

The other comment I have is on Chris Thompson's response to the anonymous feedback which asks whether science can answer the question 'when someone dies, where does that person go?' The response is, 'No, science does not address the supernatural'. But it's quite possible that the things that happen to people when they die are exclusively natural, in which case science can discuss them. The assumption that the original question involves the supernatural is unsupported.

I've been through the Observed Instances of Speciation pages here, but I haven't found a solid example to refute this charge. The 1983 Boraas green-algae work is listed as "ambiguous." Is there a clearer-cut example?