Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Unless I have overlooked it you show nothing of a "transitional" phase between reptile lungs and an avian lung. This ties right in with Micheal Behe's "irreducable complexity." There is no such thing as a "functional intermediate" between reptiles and birds. How could a reptile lung "evolve" to an avian lung and the poor thing still be able to breathe? Better luck next time. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Of course
there is no "transitional" between a reptile and avian
lung, for two reasons.
1. Any modern reptile or bird evolved, not one from another, but from a common ancestor. That common ancestor will not be entirely the same in its lung structure as either reptiles or birds. 2. There is no such thing as "the" reptile lung or "the" bird lung. It's not like they have a standard part that gets ordered from the factory. Each species has it's own version of a lung, and there will be differences. Then you ask how a helf-way lung could function. The answer of course is that it functioned very well in the animal that had it, even if it would not function well in either a bird or lizard. And Michael Behe's IR thesis is mistaken. One way that functions can be added to irreducibly complex systems (like genetic-determined biochemical pathways) is by duplicating the genes so you have a "spare" copy to mutate and evolve, so it can replace the older IR system if necessary. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | You say that you have information on both Creationism and evolutionism, but in fact you dont. You have Positive stuff about evolutoionism, but then the Creationism page is dedicated to arguments AGAINST Creationism. You should have bith positive and negative on both, not only on one- it is obvious that you have a biased opinion. Dont advertise that you have info from arguments on BOTH sides if you only have one!!! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The archive
advertising is as follows:
This is prominent on the welcome page, and in the archive descriptions. We most certainly do have a bias, and are quite up front about it. This archive seeks to provide the most accurate information available, and we are firmly of the view that the most accurate information unabiguously supports the mainstream science view. Indeed, that is why it is the mainstream view. At no point does the archive claim to present information from both sides. It claims to present information about both evolution and creationism, showing why the one is accepted and the other is rejected. We do encourage people to look at the other side of this debate. This is done by providing many links to pages maintained by those who hold alternative views. You can find our huge list of links to various creationist views at Other Links, and also many FAQs have further links that will take you directly to creationists pages on the same topic. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | john peterson |
Comment: | The Law of conservation of Angualar momentum is a problem for evolutionists. When a spinning object breaks apart (like the Little Bang) in a frictionless environment ALL the fragements will spin in the exact same direction. How come Venus and Uranus and 6 of the 63 moons spin BACKWARDS unless of course Evolution can override the laws of nature. Such as a "simple organism" coming out of non-living chemicals. This "simple organism" contains an encylopedic amount of genetic information which came out of this disorder and was organized which contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Louis Pasteur disproved "spontenous generation" over a century ago so why not get with the program? Admit that you were created and give your life to Jesus. By the way wasn't it just earlier this year that Dinosaur footprints and human footrpints were found in the same strata of rock in Russia? So much for dinosaurs being 65 million years old. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: | Your first
sentence is already wrong, conservation of angular momentum
does not work that way. Whatever the object is, even if its
surrounding environment is a frictionless one, its internal
workings will not be frictionless. Those internal frictions
could easily generate pieces that do not spin in the same
direction. The only restriction place on the system by the
requirement to conserve angular momentum is that the total
before is equal to the total after. As long as all of the
spin angular momenta add up to the same total, physics is
happy.
But even if you had started out correctly, your next argument would still be wrong, because neither the whole solar system, nor its constituent parts, formed in such a manner as you describe. Rather, the whole solar system formed out of a condensing cloud that lost most of its angular momentum through interactions with magnetic fields that resulted in the ejection of considerable mass and momentum from the system. But the planets and moons did not form in this "top down" fashion, they formed in a "bottom up" fashion, being built out of the agglomeration of smaller "planetesimals" into larger planets. And, finally, the internal and external environments cannot be considered, even approximately, to be "frictionless". Indeed, the early evolution of the planetary system is dominated by hydrodynamic friction with the accretion disk out of which the planets form. [Growth of a migrating protoplanet by H. Tanaka & S. Ida, Icarus 139(2): 350-366, June 1999; Planet Formation by Jack J. Lissauer, Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 31 (1993), pages 129-174] So, when we look at the solar system, we first see that all of the planets rotate around the sun in the same direction, as expected. Two of the nine planets spin on their axes in retrograde (i.e., "backwards"), Venus and Uranus. The peculiar spin of Uranus is easily explained by the planet formation process. All it takes is one big thwack during the accretion of planetesimals, and you wind up with a sideways planet. Venus is only barely retrograde, just push it over a couple of degrees and it's spinning prograde (i.e., "forward"), not retrograde. This can be explained by the same kind of thwack that upset Uranus, only a much smaller hit will do the job, or it could be explained by the exchange of angular momentum between the planet and its massive atmosphere, or it could be explained by the fact that the obliquity (the angle of the spin axis with respect to the plane of the orbit) of a planet is chaotic and can undergo large migrations quite spontaneously (in other words, the planet can spontaneously move from prograde to retrograde spin, or vice-versa). As for the 6 moons, none of them formed with the parent planet. In the case of the retrograde moons of Jupiter and Saturn, they are all the smallest and farthest out. They were free asteroids until being recently captured by the gravity of Jupiter or Saturn, and have not had time yet to be forced into prograde orbits. in the case of Neptune's Triton, which is quite large, it too was undoubtedly a recent capture. [On the Character and Consequences of Large Impacts in the Late Stage of Terrestrial Planet Formation by D.P. Sheehan et al., Icarus 142(1): 219-237, November, 1999; Venus' Free Obliquity by C.F. Yoder, Icarus 117(2): 250-286, October, 1995; A Possible Constraint to Uranus' Great Collision by A. Brunini, Planetary and Space Science 43(8): 1019-1021, August, 1995; Evolution of the Spin of Venus by J. McCue & J.R. Dormand, Earth, Moon and Planets 63(3): 209-225, December, 1993; Why Does the Earth Spin Forward? by L. Dones & S. Tremaine, Science 259(5093): 350-354, January 15, 1993] Your argument that an evolutionary scenario for the formation of the solar system violates the law of conservation of angular momentum, or any other law of physics, has been falsified. There is no aspect of life that violates the second law of thermodynamics, nor is there any aspect of evolutionary theory which does either. Neither the 2nd law, nor any other law of thermodynamics, speaks to the impossibility of "order" coming from "disorder', nor in fact do any of them deal directly with "order" at all. Since your description of the thermodynamic constraints is wrong, and you offer no other argument, then I am forced to conclude that this argument too stands falsified. Louis Pasteur disproved the "spontaneous generation" of whole complex organisms (particularly flies & maggots) at one shot. His results are not applicable to the science of abiogenesis. Pasteur dealt only with large fully-formed organisms, whereas abiogenesis deals with the smallest possible molecular life forms. Second, Pasteur. Your Pasteur argument against abiogenesis has now been falsified. Dinosaur and human footprints have never yet been found together anywhere by anybody. So in this case there is no argument to falsify. Judging from the comments made, I presume that you have not read any of the FAQ files before commenting. This is a feedback page, the idea is that you read an article (or 2 or 3 or more), and then you "feedback" opinions about what the articles say, or corrections if you find errors of fact. I suggest you go back and read, if you are so inclined, and then "feedback", if you are so inclined.
|
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Just wanted to say an analogy I thought the site might enjoy. "You look at the watch on your hand and know that billions of years ago molecules evolved making each pice of metal and then the metals coroded making the gears, and the glass was worn down by sand and air , and finally the band was attached by the covalent bonding of the metals together which was a process that took billions of years. THIS IS OBSERVED!!! We cannot believe this, but we can believe that human beings which are billions of times more complex as a watch did happen by chance.?? Love the site and I am a very open-minded person and would love to get some feedback on bible/science related matters . |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | We don't
think humans got here just by chance. Evolution is not simply
chance.
That new forms of living creatures have arisen on the Earth has been known for centuries. There used to be dinosaurs; but they are extinct. When they were living, there were no elephants. The question is thus: how do we explain the origin of elephants, or of other species? Simply postulating the chance assembly of an elephant at some time since the extinction of the dinosaurs is, as you suggest, ludicrous. Generally we think that elephants came about by cummulative inherited change, with selection ensuring that only viable well adapted organisms persist. These processes are observable today: they are the processes of biological evolution. Humans are subject to the same processes. These processes don't work for watches, not because of anything to do with complexity -- but because watches do not reproduce. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am
suprised that with all the talk of open systems and closed
systems that someone has yet to point out the fact that IT
DOESN'T REALLY MATTER WHICH. Evolution is still impossible,
even with an open system. Let's select something with an
open system... a computer, a plain ordinary computer. Now,
we place it in the sun (that it receives energy) and let it
sit there for about 1000 years at the least. The metal may
survive, but besides that, the computer would not work,
would not even stay together as the plastic and other parts
of the computer decomposed. Not only do you need an open
system for new information to be created, but you must have
an object to capture the energy and convert it to something
useful. Looking at the computer again. Open up your tower
and take everything out. Now sit down and type. Nothing
happens, because there is nothing to capture the
information. Second, you must have an object not only to
collect the energy, but to interpret it. Now, reformat you
drive and then type. Nothing happens, even though you have
something to capture, you have nothing to interpret the
electronic signals coming in.
If my understanding is incorrect, please explain why. Thanks |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Your
understanding is quite correct, and explains why computers
have not evolved, but had to be constructed.
The only defect with your understanding is thinking of this as a critique of evolution. Evolution does have the objects which collect energy and make use of it to grow and reproduce. Living organisms do this all the time. That is why there are able to evolve. If computers reproduced themselves in the same way, then they might also evolve; and as you point out the second law of thermodynamics, and open and closed systems, have nothing whatever to do with the matter. I am sure you will find the above unsatisfactory, since I make no mention of how living creatures first came about. This was not your point however, and you should be aware that evolution proceeds just fine, however it happened that life got started. To consider the question of biogenesis is more difficult, because we really do not know how life got started. There are some interesting speculations around; but no comprehensive theory. But in any case, even non-living chemical systems are capable of utilizing energy to transform and self-organise in subtle ways; and a range of relevant processes have been demonstrated by which complex potential precursors to life can arise. We have two relevant FAQs on biogenesis you may like to read: |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I haven't read all there is to read on science, whether it's pro-evolution or pro-creationism. All I know is that you put up many questions that you say creationists have not answered when they have. I know your point of view. I have been fed your point of view since elementary. You need to go to the Institute for Creation Research, look into it with your un-biased scientific mind and read the non-Biblical, scientific facts they have posted. I don't know why they haven't answered you specifically, but there are those out there who have answered your questions. As far as why there are Christians who believe in evolution, I think they are being hypocritical. They want to please everyone and don't want to take an issue. Not that I am without blame. I think being a Christian is very difficult because we are fallible human beings no better than anyone else. I have at times been hypocritical, and I feel the non-Christians' eyes on me. It is a hard thing trying to set a good example for your beliefs when you feel like if you have a moment of being a human, it may lead others to create stereotypes of us all. On a final note, I think you need to relax. You scientists need to do less pointing fingers and need to maybe look at the facts unobjectively. Not who's right or wrong, just the facts. The facts can not lie. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, for instance. Perhaps you can explain why evolution could break this basic law of physics in order for all the matter and energy to go from a state of chaos and disorder to a state of order and complexity. I guess I don't understand that. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I personally
agree with you that the Frequently Asked But Never
Answered Questions list includes things which are
answered, sometimes quite often, by creationists. I
personally don't like that FAQ, and in view of your
feedback I will make some comments to that effect in
talk.origins, on my own behalf. We are a fairly loosely
knit group; so I individually don't have authority to do
more than this.
The reasons some Christians accept evolution has nothing to do with wanting to please everyone. It is just a matter of accepting what the evidence shows. I quite agree with looking at just the facts. One of those facts is that evolution does not break any basic laws of physics. People who think that evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics don't understand the law. This is such a common error that we have some FAQs on the subject. The second law does not prohibit growth in complexity. After all, you and I both grew from a tiny egg, all by natural processes, without violating any laws of physics. Of course, it can be hard to read through all the stuff that gets written on the second law, and decide what to accept; and sometimes people get rather vehement, in part because it is so simple. I invite you to contact me personally by email if you would like to discuss the second law in more detail. I won't try and prove evolution to you, or disprove creationism... I am just offering to go through the second law with you at whatever pace or level you would like, and consider whether or not it is in conflict with evolution. Thanks -- Chris Ho-Stuart |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Dear
Mr.xxxxx, I will review what you have written in your
letter below. I am also sharing my response with others.
[4272 words deleted. -WRE] I hope you will read carefully the attached file. Sincerely, Abraham Smith |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Abraham's message would be excellent for a post to the talk.origins newsgroup. It is not appropriate for this feedback system. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Dear sirs: This is not, strictly, a comment but a question. I am very interested in knowing if there has been a book review of the book "Show me God", I believe is the title, by Fred Heeren. It is one among a set of books set to be published by the author. This set supposedly will prove that Modern Science vindicates the Biblical view of the Universe, and that Jesus was indeed the one God for all. Please feel free to respond to my e-mail address if you can. I thank you for this opportunity. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I am not
familiar with this book, and have not been able to find any
detailed reviews.
On the Amazon books site, there are 15 reader reviews. Most gave it five stars. Two people gave it one star. It is a bit amusing to see how polarised the responses are. It might be worth noting that different people have different ideas of what consistitutes a biblical view of the universe. I gather Heene is not a young Earth creationist; but rather attempts to give an apologetics for God's existence in the light of mainstream science. Here is a link to the relevant page at amazon books. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Why do we not continue to see present day apes evolve furthur into humans? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | This is a
very common question. I'd like to answer it by breaking it
up into a few parts.
1) Species of large animals take hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years to manifest major physical changes. We won't see any large mammals evolving into anything. We will see evolutionary changes in short lived species like fruit flies, but not apes. 2) The chances of any specific species being "evolved into" more than once is, in all practicality, nonexistent. There are far too many chance factors that are involved for things to fall together in precisely the same way twice. The exact physical conditions under which primates evolved into humans can never again be duplicated. Apes might evolve into something else, but it wouldn't be humans. Each species is a product of a bunch of random ecological conditions and chance genetic mutations. If you rolled a die 100,000 times, and had 100,000 numbers from 1-6, the odds are pretty slim that you could ever duplicate that same sequence. What happens next with evolution is that these random factors are acted upon by a highly selective and efficient method of rewarding the species that are better adapted for current conditions with increased offspring, and punishing those whose body plans are less effective at coping with the current conditions with diminished offspring (and possibly extinction). And so species descend through time with modification, and one species can give rise to another that looks very different. I like to think of life as a river, with different streams branching out from the main river, each representing a different species. Some streams dead end and come to nothing, like Neanderthal Man. Humans and apes are like a stream that split into two smaller streams and went their own separate ways. Is there any particular reason why both streams must go in the same direction? Can one stream ever back up and try to go the same way as the other? I hope this helps you understand why a specific species cannot, in practical terms, arise twice within the history of life. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | ok first thing this really is not an exploration of evolution/creation, it is trying to disprove creationism by exposing "holes" in creationism without knowing all the facts i.e. in the "arguments against creationism" section under FABNAQ the first question is "If you believe that some animals -- for example, dinosaurs -- were not saved on the Ark, explain why you believe the Bible is incorrect", all animals were saved, but not all survived the 4000 years after the flood. To stay on the dinosaurs example, pre-flood times saw an atmosphere with much more pressure and moisture (like a hyperberic chamber) and everything was able to grow much larger (this is shown in the fact that giant people and pumkins are found so it is possible for all things to grow larger given the right conditions) after the flood, the dinos were not able to grow as large and were eventuly hunted to extinction in the medieval times, this is the origin of the "dragon". thank you for taking the time to read this. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Stories of dragons, like the story of the flood, are not historical stories. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Folks, in a discussion with a creationist, I was informed, by him, that evolution is impossible because it violates the second law of thermodynamics. Since physics is not a strength of mine, what say you to this critique? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I would say,
"Evolution depends only upon processes like birth,
mutation, growth, reproduction, and death. All of these
processes are observed; none are barred by the Second Law
of Thermodynamics."
Then I would say, "Read the Thermodynamics FAQs. After that, show me mathematically how the Second Law is violated." |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Sad thing about your comments is that you also tend to stretch the interpretation of the biblical verses youre using to your own view. You tend to read a little too much into them.. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Your feedback is flagged as being in response to Problems with a Global Flood. If you hold the literal account of a global flood in history interpretation of the biblical story of Noah, the FAQ lists conflicts between that view and empirical evidence. If you have another interpretation, then the FAQ does not apply to you; and this is stated explicitly at the outset. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I recently wrote all the members of the state textbook committee who are under pressure to approve public school science textbooks which water down evolution. I received a reply from one of the 14 members. He is a middle school teacher and his response included these comments: "The microevolutionists have scientific facts that support their position and can show errors in the macroevolution theory. I don't believe children are completely educated when only one theory or side on any topic is presented." " I have studied this subject extensively. Based on this research and the fact that both schools of thought have scientific research to support their position, I firmly believe both points of view should be presented." He also said he had 5 advisors who were respected and had degrees in various fields of science. What can we do when the people making decisions regarding textbooks believe sincerely that creationism is real science? |
Responses | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Vote them out. Expose their reliance on pseudoscience. Show how marginal and sectarian their viewpoints are. Usually, YEC belief indicates certain other, less popular, stances as well. For instance, one popular YEC advocate has had entanglements with the IRS for non-payment of taxes. While US residents might fantasize about avoiding taxes, most of them resent a shirker. In New Mexico, the state board of education recently passed a resolution strengthening the commitment to teach evolutionary biology in science classrooms. At least one board member had run for the post in order to displace a YEC member there, and then helped formulate the strengthened science resolution. It takes people willing to get involved in the process. I would recommend getting in touch with the National Center for Science Education. They can help with putting you in touch with like-minded folks in your area. Wesley |
From: | |
Response: | I would also send them copies of the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision and ask them, "The Supreme Court has declared scientific creationism to be not science but religious belief. How much of your time and effort, and how much of the taxpayer's money, do you think should be spent fruitlessly defending the inevitable lawsuit?" |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Sheppard Deese |
Comment: | "We're not just evolving slowly. For all practical purposes we're not evolving. There's no reason to think we're going to get bigger brains or smaller toes or whatever--we are what we are." Stephen J. Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University) in a speech in October 1983. As reported in 'John Lofton's Journal', The Washington Times, 8 February 1984. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | And for all
"practical purposes" Gould is absolutely correct. Most
evolution - that is, change to the phenotype, or
appearance, of organisms - happens in small populations
that are mostly isolated from the main range of the
species. This means that once species have evolved to a
new, adaptive and stable phenotype, they tend to remain
much as they are, so far as we can tell.
What evolution most certainly does not mean is that we are on the way to evolving "to" any particular end point, as if evolution was like a helium balloon that had to rise. There is no "next step" in human evolution. We just cannot say what we'll end up with. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Evolution is cool. I don't believe it but it's cool anyway. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | Don't
believe it then. Nobody asks you to. It isn't a religion or
a doctrinal creed, it's a science. Learn about the data and
see if the explanations fit the data. If they do, and
nothing does it better, then accept it as a provisionally
true hypothesis, theory or program for further research.
I must warn you, though. By then, you'll be doing science, and who knows where it will all lead... |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | There is nothing to prove that evolution did not come after creation, it is all based on what you believe, there is no real proof either way. Scientists spend their time trying to prove that only their theory exists, but think of one thing, the world used to be flat! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Actually,
scientists spend no time at all trying to prove the obvious
facts that the Earth is very old and life has been evolving
for millions of years. That scientific debate was finished,
conclusively, last century. There are many details of
evolutionary theory where scientists spend time looking for
answers; but the fundamentals have plenty of real proof.
The problem is simply one of education for people unaware
of the evidence.
Exactly the same thing applies regarding the flat Earth. Although a few uneducated folks may have thought that the Earth was flat, its spherical nature has been known for more than two thousand years, and has not been the subject of serious debate in that time, always excepting a few cranks. I strongly recommend you check out The Myth of the Flat Earth. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I believe that this information is very biased. Evolution is a theory not a fact. You should also display the information that disproves Evolution. There is a lot of information that proves Creation, yet this is not covered. Read your Bible - it could be helpful. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The primary
reason for this archive's existence is to provide
mainstream scientific responses on the subject of origins.
In this sense it is very biased indeed. You will find
plenty of links here to alternative views, but that is all.
You may like to read the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ to get an idea of how these terms are used in the mainstream of science. There is no evidence at all that proves so-called scientific creationism, which postulates that Earth and all its life was made from nothing a few thousand years ago. The arguments for this odd proposition are described in many other sites, which you can find from our Links Page. This archive is intended to help explain the problems with those arguments. The evidence which is readily available consistently and unambiguously demonstrates that the Earth is very old, and that life has existed on Earth in a huge variety of ever changing forms for millions of years. I strongly agree that the bible is helpful for following this discussion. I've read it a number of times myself, and recommend it to others for clearer insight into the real issues. "Scientific creationism" is not based on scientific information; but is a flawed attempt to shore up one particular interpretation of the bible in the face of overwhelming evidence that this interpretation is false. A solid knowledge of the bible is crucial to deciding whether or not you accept the proposition that the bible is in conflict with mainstream science. You may like to look at the God and Evolution FAQ, and also a rather brief Interpretations of Genesis FAQ. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hello. I am
a Fundamental Christian. I am studying this very hard . . .
the whole Creation/Evolution controversey. I have a
question for you to answer first and then another
concerning it.
1.You are an evolutionist,so therefore you beleive in the "Big Bang" theory , am I correct in this statement? The big bang theory talks of a ball of intense mass or intense something exploding sending all of the particals into the universe and they intern came toogether after billions and billions of years to form what we have today as our universe. My question is then: Where did that Ball come from? Where did it all come form. I wil use the Ontological arguement and state that Everything has a cause everything came form something before it. So where did it all come from. I have talked to a few evolutionist (teachers, college students) and they can't answer it. They say. . . "We cannot know where it came form because time did not yet exist." Well we al know that time is just simply the rotation of theearth around the sun and when ans when not the light hits the surface. But that is my question. Hope you can give a answer. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | No,
evolutionary theory has nothing to say about theories of
the origins of the universe. Evolutionary theory is
concerned only with the origins of the diversity of living
things.
Whether the universe was created or appeared out of nothing, or from quantum discontinuities, the theory of evolution is unaffected. Whether individual kinds of organisms were created, evolved or arise due to some other process is the subject matter of evolutionary theory. Incidentally, the Ontological Argument is a contentious doctrine in philosophy of religion. It may pay you to read further. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Scott |
Comment: | I did a
search on talk origins for "Midrash" but didn't find
anything. Here is a site that discribes it:
http://www.unityspokane.com/Ron/Midrash.html [Site is
dead.]
I was wondering if "Midrash" could be a description (or modern example of) of what creationist are attempting to do with sciences' data to reconcil science with the Bible. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | According to
this site, and my own prior understanding, "Midrash gathers
together the Jewish scholars' exegesical, expository, and
homiletical interpretations of Scripture". Expositors
"search out" the "true" meaning of Scripture. In Christian
tradition, this has taken the form of allegorical and
analogical interpretations, and is often referred to these
days as the "theological meaning" of Scripture.
However, what creationists want to do is not find out the theology of the texts, but to not interpret them at all. Literalism is the desire to have only the plain surface meaning of Scripture be the truth. Unfortunately, two things are true: they have to interpret the texts to say they understand them as the literal truth; and their interpretation is contrary to all observable facts. It seems to me, a non-Christian (and non-Jew), that literalists are in fact attempting to make their sacred texts into something unsacred, or mundane. They want a history and science text book that is, beyoind all doubt, correct. It makes for a simple set of choices. But the point is that the only way they can do this is to deify science - if science were not more important than the Midrash of the texts, they would not keep trying to reconcile the facts to the text, but accept the message of the Midrashim. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Sheppard Deese |
Comment: | The Universe
Is Not "Billions" of Years Old
The general theory of evolution is based on several faulty assumptions. (Note: It is important to understand by this statement that we are not disputing simple variations that some call "microevolution," whose micro-changes are often observed but never lead to a fundamentally different kind of plant or animal.) The following assumptions of evolutionary theory are easy to prove false: [The remainder of article was deleted for space. See http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=2 for the text of the article.] |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The reader,
it seems to me, has committed three faults in this
feedback:
Discerning readers might also be interested in Ken Harding's Wild, Wild World of Kent Hovind, more of Dave Matson's arguments, and Harry Leckenby's Christian critique of the very article the reader quotes. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Life comes from non-life was disproved a long time ago. Why then do evolutionists still hold to that ancient idea, but just change the name to chemical evolution? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | Because not only was it not proved that life does not come from non-life long ago (Pasteur showed that current organisms do not come from non-living material, which is a very different notion to there being a singular occasion when chemical reactions became self-sustaining and self-reproducing), it is also understoodmore and more how it might have happened, as we discover chemical reactions that do what antievolutionists say can't be done. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | When I checked this website, I was expecting a fairly balanced and honest approach that would lead to a reasonable conclusion. However, it is very obvious that the approach of this website and the intention of the editor are heavily biased and thus present unfair presentation. Why not let the readers make the decision based on the finding instead of the editor already making the presumptuous decision already? I find the approach of this website suspicious and therefore its arguments unreliable. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Evidently,
in checking this site, the reader read neither the home page nor the welcome page, both of
which clearly explain that we do have a bias,
towards mainstream science. That bias results from our
individual observations. We have examined the arguments of
"scientific creationists" and concluded that they are not
science.
It is unfair, however, to accuse us of dishonesty and a lack of balance. We have clearly stated our bias, so that anyone who examines this site can take that bias into account. As for balance, we have the largest collection of links to creationist sites found anywhere. We link to a number of those sites directly from our articles. How many creationist sites do the same? Finally, our bias is irrelevant. Take it into account, but don't use it as an excuse to ignore our arguments. Actually read them and try to understand them. Come up with counterarguments. Try to understand why we say what we say. (If you think it's because we're all irredeemable atheists, you are wrong. Read again.) Arguments may be reliable even when the source is suspicious. Consider the message, not the messenger. The reader would do well in the future to read more carefully before accusing others of such misdeeds. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Love your site. Is the Sober you mention in "Evolution and Philosophy" the same one who wrote the book "Unto Others?" Has anyone there read the book? It deals with the concept of group selection. The concept is reworked and brought up to date. I would be interested in a response if anyone there liked the book. I guess I'm looking for anyone knowledgeable on the subject to indicate why they think altruism could be an important evolutionary factor. I have to admit I didn't make it through the book as it is not an easy read but I have it on my shelf to try again some day. Thank You. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | Yes it is.
The full reference is:
Sober, E., and D. S. Wilson. 1998. Unto others : the evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Sober is responsible for some of the clearest expositions, from a philosophical point of view, of the theory of natural selection, some of it very technical. David Sloan Wilson, the other author, is a noted biologist with an interest in group selection topics. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I would like to reference your site in a paper I'm writing. Could you please tell me when it was last modified? Thank you! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The standard way to reference a website in an academic paper is to give the URL (eg, <http://www.talkorigins.org>) and the date it was accessed by you. This way, you refer to a version of it in much the same way as you do to an edition of a book. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Pardon my ignorance, but I think that the earth would not accumulate any space dust. I think any space dust collected by our planet would burn up in the atmosphere. Am I wrong? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Meteorite Dust and the Age of the Earth |
Response: | Most of the extraterrestrial stuff (dust included) which encounters Earth's atmosphere does so at a very high relative speed, and consequently "burns up in the atmosphere", as you said. However, "burns up" does not mean "becomes nonexistent". The matter remains matter, and all of the constituent elements remain the same (all of the Carbon is still Carbon, all of the Silicon is still Silicon, & etc.). So it still has to wind up somewhere, and that somewhere is Earth. Most of the space dust accumulated by Earth arrives already in the form of dust. A lot of space dust is the "burned up" remnants of larger chunks. The references cited in my meteorite dust article will give you more details. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I was reading your section about the flood in genesis and in the section where you were talking about the difficulties of loading the ark with all the animals, I noticed something that I don't think many fellow anti-biblists have noticed, or at least never think to mention, is the fact that there are animals that are native only to certain continents. Turkeys and Bison are indegenous only to north America, Orangutans and Kommodo dragons in Polenysia, and Koalas, Kangaroos, Duckbilled ?Platapi?, in australia. The list goes on. Yet all these animals still exist. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Hi I'm very disappointed that you think evolution is a fact not a theory. Darwin himself on his death bed said he was a fool with undevolped thinking. I also think you people need to think about all the stereotypes mentioned in your web site!!!!!! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Actually,
evolution is both a fact and a theory. The meanings for
these terms are explained in the following FAQ:
I also recommend Evolution: Fact Theory, Controversy, which also explains these concepts very well. This is an appendix to a white paper on evolutionary biology endorsed by many of the major biological science bodies in the USA. Darwin made many self-depreciating comments; particularly when he was first publishing "Origin". Most likely this was to minimize the backlash which he anticipated, and feared. He was, nevertheless, quite convinced of the worth of his work, and marshalled such an impressive array of evidence that he won over almost the entire scientific community within a few years. However, I have never heard of self-depreciation as some sort of death bed confession. I think you may be mixing this up with the (bogus) story of a death bed retraction, invented by Lady Hope. I am not aware of stereotyping as a major problem in the archive. You will find the view expressed that creationism is crank pseudo-science, and you will find some specific and substantiated criticisms that do reflect on certain named individual creationists. Nevertheless, if you have a specific example in mind of a general stereotyping problem, please let us know where it is, in all seriousness. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | First, I would like to say that your article on "transition species" provides nothing more than microevolutionary evidence when it claims to show macroevolution. Perhaps the author had not taken a course in biology, but there is a HUGE difference between microevolution and macroevolution. In this entire article, I was unable to find any evidence whatsoever of a species exhibiting macroevolutionary development. In fact, the only part that even came close to touching on macroevolution was the section on the first amphibians regarding the development of lungs. Here, the author makes a fatal mistake, writing that the very first amphibians had BOTH gills and lungs. What happened to the development of lungs? Where's the gradual evolution? The same goes for the development of complex organs and organ systems. Nowhere in the article is this mentioned. Wake up, people. I can't believe we have hundreds of thousands of so-called bright, young, college students majoring in biology and no one has been able to pick up on the incredible flaws of macroevolution. Check out any writings by Lloyd Pye and you'll see how easy it is to disprove this failed hypothesis. Macroevolution is a modern-day "flat earth" theory. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Your
feedback was flagged as being in response to the Transitional
Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2B. This FAQ demonstrates
that different forms of life have lived on the Earth at
different times, and that intermediate forms live at
intermediate times. This is called macroevolutionary
change, however you care to explain it.
Creationists usually just deny the data and insist that the observed patterns of change do not exist. Scientists explain the observed patterns of change by common ancestry, and the divergence of living forms over time from their ancestral forms. Lloyd Pye is another matter entirely; but more on this below. Microevolution is about the (observed) processes which lead to change over successive generations. Why you think simultaneous existence of gills and lungs is in conflict with gradual change is a mystery. Most people think it is confirmation of gradual change. The really interesting aspect of your feedback is Lloyd Pye! Lloyd is at odds with everyone in this debate. He recognizes the nonsense inherent in scientific creationism, but he also has harsh words for the scientists. Best to read Lloyd's own web page. Lloyd's ideas are derived from those of Zecharia Sitchin. Humans are the result of genetic tinkering by aliens who needed us for slaves several hundred thousand years ago. You can read all about it in his books. Be warned, however. Lloyd's web page start off with a long list of statements which are just not true, such as the old myth that we only use 10% of our brains (off-site.) Of course, one need not accept all of Lloyd's ideas as a package. He presents some criticisms of evolutionary theory based on his problems with "macroevolution". Those criticisms should be considered on their merits. As far as I can see, his criticisms don't have any merits at all, and are based on his own misunderstandings. But you would be welcome to bring them up for discussion in the news group. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have no problem with science and god co-existing..I do have a question for which I can find no answer tho. If evolution developed increasing intelligence in man from a lesser creature, aside from the adaptablity to enviroment, why did not the creatures older than man also evolve higher intelligence..why is the shark still the same as he was eons ago? I guess I would like to know if an answer or theory exsist as to why only man evolved in intelligence, aside from devine intervention. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You might as
well ask why humans did not grow to the size of elephants,
or shrink down to the size of mice, or grow fangs like a
saber-tooth tiger, or develop enzymes to digest cellulose.
There is no one perfect strategy to optimize an organism's
fitness, and intelligence is just one strategy among a
multitude of possibilities.
Sharks, obviously, are only as smart as they need to be...and it's quite probable that any additional intelligence would only be a detriment to their lifestyle. Would it help a shark thrive better to have to support the metabolic drain of a larger brain, and would that brain give it any advantage in feeding or reproducing? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I would like two books reveiwed because I haven't seen GOOD criticisms on them yet and I have a bachelor's degree in anthropology so my interest is still there, although my job is unrelated to anthropology. The first book is now 5 years old written in 1994 it is written by Periannan Senapathy. It is called The Independent Birth of Organisms. The Second book is called Symbiosis: A new Theory in Evolution by Margolis. I am curious as to why more scientist don't talk about Symbiosis like they do darwinian evolution. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | Senapathy's
views are slightly ridiculous, as I remember them, and in
the discussions in talk.origins, they were pretty well
trashed, although I can't remember the details. His views
amounted to Lamarck's theory of independent lineages of
organisms, and the evidence doesn't support it. His web
site is Welcome
to Genome Technologies, and he includes some of the
discussion from the group at it, to his credit. A layman's
view is The
Independent Birth of Organisms.
Margulis' book is discussed a bit, but the consensus seems to be that she and Lovelock overplay the "organism" nature of the ecosphere. There are certainly homeostatic, that is, self-regulating, mechanisms in the ecosphere, and some of the views of Margulis, who is more famous for her work on endosymbiosis, have been taken up by respectable biologists on this matter as well, but generally it seems that nobody quite knows how to proceed with it, and a lot of it seems to be a matter of metaphor rather than substantive model. Not everyone: there have been some attempts to make models that develop it: for example The Daisyworld project. Here are some links to Gaia sites: Gaia Online [Defunct] |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I would
appreciate any comments on this essay. Thanx
[260 lines of essay removed] |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The purpose
for this feedback column is feedback on the archive, not
feedback on essays supplied by our readers. Sorry.
Try sending your essay to the newsgroup talk.origins. You should get some comment there. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Looked over
your "Interpreting Genesis" FAQ, and it definitely *is* off
the cuff. I'm an Orthodox Christian and a biologist, and
I've discussed this matter with my priest. What I've
learned is that, as you said, allegorical interpretation of
Genesis is a very old matter--very old in Christian and
earlier Judaic tradition. Some specifics:
"Day" in Old Testament usage can, as you have noted, mean something other than a 24-hour day. It can also refer to "the period in which something is to be started and finished". "Seven" in both OT and NT usage is not just the number seven. It also is a symbol of completeness. Thus "seven days" can be "the complete time in which it was done"--but more vividly (this symbolic use of numbers is easily verified by anyone who makes a study of Judaic and early Christian interpretation of Scripture, it also applies to numbers like "twelve", "thousand", "144,000", etc.) "Dust" in the creation of Adam also has symbolic meaning--it refers to HUMBLE ORIGINS, not necessarily literal dirt. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Thanks for
an interesting feedback.
The Interpretations of Genesis FAQ is, as you say, "off the cuff", and only briefly mentions the kind of allegorical interpretation you advocate. As a biologist and a Christian, you may like to consider writing a more comprehensive description of allegorial interpretations of Genesis. Check out our submission guidelines. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | "Please draw
how anything could have "evolved" wings, in a step by step
diagram. Noting, of course, that anything that does not
have a full set of wings, could not fly. This should be
easy, since there is so much scientific evidence, right?"
The above smug but ignorant challenge was sent to the September feedback and subsequently successfully answered by Kenneth Fair. With Kenneth's permission I would like to elaborate on his argument and add the following. Feathers need not have evolved specifically for flight. In fact feathers serve (and have served) as insulation and even as a means of sexual 'advertising'. There is no reason to think that feathers have only one function, in fact evolution is replete with examples of organs with a specific present utility having been 'co-opted' from an originally different function (i.e. - the panda's radial sessamoid 'thumb'). In addition feathers may very well have developed as a streamlining tool for nimble terrestrial predators and flight could very well have been an eventual consequence. This is supported by the evolutionary link between theropod dinosaurs (especially the maniraptorids) and modern birds. The above informed inferences arise from the numerous recent finds in China of many small, feathered theropod dinosaurs. A perusal of recent issues of the following journals should reveal numerous articles describing these finds and the detailed arguments outlining the evolutionary connections between birds & dinosaurs: Scientific American, New Scientist, National Geographic, Nature, and Science. Personal disbelief without evidence is not a legitimate argument against a scientific theory. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have written to you before as a pro-evolutionist. Recently one of my creationist acquaintences presented an occurrence to spoof evolution. The incident happened at Green Belt, Md. There was a search for problems for satellite orbits and a missing day was found. This missing day was quoted from the Bible as when Joshua made the sun stand still and another place where the sun went backwards. I doubt this incident really happened. Please point me towards an answer; possibly this question has a rebuttal in your feedback archives. Thank you. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | As it happens, you are absolutely correct. We do have an answer to this in our feedback archives. See my response to Greg Garland in the June 1998 Feedback. The short answer is that this is an urban legend and never actually happened. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Subject:
Godless Linguistics!
You may be interested that an ICR radio program http://www.icr.org/radio/rad-9902.htm has said the same bizarre things that the Godless Linguistics Page did. As long as I am writing, thank you all for fighting the good fight. Talk Origins has been very helpful to me debunking Kent Hovind to a friend. P.S. The Earth is a sphere :> Lucas Bachmann Debunking Creation Science with Creation Science http://www.darwin.ws/contradictions/ |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Wouldn't it
be lovely if they got it from that item? Perhaps they did.
PS: Read the introductory page :-) |