Feedback for September 2005

Q. And how does the Turkish school-- public schools teach origin science?

A. They don't have as much focus as you would have here, as you could find in the Kansas summits, but there is a fair approach. The school curriculum talks about the theory of evolution, Darwinism, methodological materialism, and it says it will present other views of life scientists that life is designed. So there's, you could say, a fair approach.

That's not correct. Not one public school or any publication ever mentions about creationism or I.D. The conversation follows:

Q. Do they teach criticisms of evolution and essentially teach both sides of the evolution controversy?

A. You can say that. I mean, since they acknowledge that there's another theory held by some scientists and according to some scientific evidence, and there's also mentioning of the abrupt appearance of some species and lack of transition forms between different taxa, they mention that. I mean, there's a more-- I could say that there's more emphasis on Darwinism, but it's also saying that there's an alternative understanding and it has scientific evidence, and they also mention that scientific evidence as well.

There's no such debate in Turkey. In biology books there's no mentioning of such "abrupt appearance" or whatsoever. There's no mentioning of creationism or intelligent design.

Only one radical islamist group pioneers the creationism idea, the science research foundation, which is long ago discredited with their illegal activites.

There is no controversy and we should never give it that name.

• Mosquitoes of Australia
• CSIRO Entomology

Please explain.

Well what I am trying to understand is, is the Theory of Evolution fact or a theory? You know it will be a great day for sure when we all accept God as the creator. Until then I recon that since no human was there in the beginning that both any answer to origin of our species will be considered a theory. You know though, it has been explained by the creationists and the traditional scientists that there is a difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution. There is really no argument that Microevolution exists. We can all see that. But to say that we all evolved from a chance of mixed gases and stuff is up for debate. You know I can certainly see the logic behind every living thing evolving from a single cell but I don't believe it. Instead I choose to believe that all living things here on earth came from the ground. That is why we all have the same elements and compounds in our bodies as all creatures on the Earth. God formed all the animals and all human beings out of the ground. There hasn't been a single fossil found that represents a transitional animal, an in-between phases, missing link. It has been speculated but never found. We should see those everywhere. Lizards with wings and fish with legs and stuff. I know there are some weird animals out there like the duckbill platypus and stuff but these appear to be entirely unique animals and not transitional animals. I don't see the scientists explaining just how all those dinosaurs got so big near as well as the creationists. The Bible speaks in Genesis about there being water above the sky and below the sky. It has been explained that the water that orbited the Earth in the form of Ice or whatever blocked out allot of UV and helped to hold in a higher atmospheric content of Oxygen. It is obvious that there was quite a bit different world wide climate going on in the dinosaurs time. I mean plants were huge!! Animals were Huge!!!! Nothing like today. Isn't it kind of a coincidence here that modern day scientists are coming up with schemes such as putting solar mirrors in outer space to block the sun so it will slow down global warming? A layer of ice or water orbiting the earth would have done that. That protective layer falling down to earth would have caused a massive flood too. That might explain how all the animals disappeared about the same time and wound up embedded in sediment layers too

"Question: could you tell me one thing about evolution, something that is true, no matter what? I asked this question at a meeting of the Gelogical Staff of the Fieldmuseum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence.

I tried this question at the Evoltionary Morphological Seminary of the Chicago University and all I heard was a long silence, untill someone said: I now one thing for sure - It shouldn't be tought on high schools.

Dr. Colin Patterson (Head Paleontology, British Museum of Natural History London)"

Has he really said this? I could not find anything in the quote mining?

I would add, "Does your faith require physical proof of its claims in order to survive? Would your faith be destroyed by proof that any of the claims you present is false? Why?"

I'm a 2nd year Biology and Chemistry student planning to further my studies in evolutionary biology. I have never encountered a site with a vaster treasure of information and answers than this. Its an excellent tool for debating any creationist, or help explain the finer details of evolutionary theory to a non-scientific person.

Gotta love your FAQ to creationist claims, it helped me shut the stupidly squaking beak of many a creationist, who astonishingly believe anything with enough pseudoscience to garnish it as fact.

Rock on, this site is a beacon of light in a dark sea of creationist stupidity,

Nicholas Flores Martin, Malta

Allowing amateurs, including polititians and religeous proselytisers, to force their views on the rest of us will drive the USA into a Dark Age. As we have found, control of our minds concerning Evolution is just the beginng of an attack on science as a whole. We cannot afford to let this happen.

Claim CA001:

Evolution leads naturally to ethical principles such as the Golden Rule.

Claim CA002:

Evolution is descriptive. It tells how things are, not how they should be.

He admitted that the moondust argument had been thoroughly refuted but provided the following counter-argument to the atmospheric helium argument from Milton's "Shattering the myths of Darwinism":

...

If you will notice, Dalrymple quotes Banks and Holzer to bolser his argument about Helium 4. "There are two things that make Banks and Holzer's finding unsuitable for the purposes to which Dalrymple tries to fit them. The first is that the figure he cites for escape may be great enough to account for the production whose figures he gives, but that is only because he has selected a low estimate for production. In reality the escape rates he cites are not remotely great enough to account for the amount of helium 4 that must have been created and lost--remember we are looking for more than 10**20 grams of missing helium. This means that if the Earth really is 4,500 million years old, then its atmosphere would have to lose helium at a rate somewhere around 10**16 atoms/cm**2 sec., or some ten orders of magnitude faster than Dalrymple's figure, to account for the missing helium.

The second objection is that the figures he uses come from a time (nearly 30 years ago) when most space scientists assumed that the Earth was moving through the vacuum of space--that the atmosphere was surrounded by nothing but empty space. At that time it was believed that light hydrogen and helium atoms would either escape or be dislodged into the void.

More recent studies have suggested that far from losing helium, the atmosphere may actually be gaining quantities of this gas. As it orbits the Sun, the Earth moves not through empty space but through a thin solar atmosphere, which consists principally of hydrogen and helium resulting from nuclear processes within the Sun. Measurements in the upper atmosphere have suggested that the Earth is gaining helium by this means.

In his 1987 book "Gaia: A New look at life on Earth," space scientist James Lovelock writes, 'The outermost layer of the air, so thin as to contain only a few hundred atoms per cubic centimeter, the exosphere, can be thought of as merging into the equally thin outer atmosphere of the sun. It used to be assumed that the escaped of hydrogen atoms from the exosphere gave the Earth its oxygen atmosphere. Not only do we now doubt that this process is on a sufficient scale to account for oxygen, but we rather suspect that the loss of hydrogen atoms is offset or even counterbalanced by the flux of hydrogen from the sun."

Of course Lovelock is writing about hydrogen not helium. However, helium is four times heavier than hydrogen and it is plentiful in the Sun's atmosphere since it is the principal product of the Sun's nuclear fusion process. If hydrogen is not lost but gained, then the same will be true for helium.

...

I would be interested to know what the scientific community have to say in response. Unfortunately, "more studies" to which Milton refers are not referenced. I would also be interested to know if the argument in the final sentence holds any water - I do not why "it's true for hydrogen so it must be true for helium" is a valid step.

A defence of the other two rebuttals has not yet been forthcoming.

Yours,

Oliver

The piece attempts to debunk the creationist hypotheses of irreducible complexity using an analogy of free-market economics to explain how complex organisms evolve, and have not been ‘designed’ or ‘created’ for the singular reason that they are too complex.

The clear analogy struck a chord with me and I thought it would make good reading in the Feeback pages of the comprehensive Talk Origins archive, if indeed you deem it appropriate.

An excerpt:

What is more than a bit odd, however, is that some of the most ardent opponents of Darwinian evolution - for example, many fundamentalist Christians - are among the most ardent supporters of the free market. They accept the market's complexity without qualm, yet insist the complexity of biological phenomena requires a designer.

Remember the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption? It occurred on May 18, 1980. That was less than twenty years ago. As a result of that catastrophe, a new lava dome was formed on the site. Not long ago, it was “dated” by the radio-metric method. Guess how old it turns out to be? It yielded a date of 2.8 million years! If that does not demonstrate that the “clock” is broken, then what would?

Is there any truth in this? Please explain if so. Thanks, Harold

You really need a FAQ on Beowulf. I have heard it used several times lately as proof that dragons were dinosaurs. Specifically, I have heard that Grendel was a T. rex, because Beowulf was able to rip its arms off. I've heard this from both people quoting Hovnid and from a tour of the ICR museum. But as far as I know, Beowulf wasn't a real person, no more than any of the Greek myths described real people. Grendel was a monster-like human, and not a dragon. It is one thing to use bad science to justify creationism, but it is a new low when lies about a myth as used a scientific evidence.

PS. I used to believe in evolution its never to late to change. Ci yodea elohim

I came across this text on http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo10.html

"MR. CALVERT: Okay. I think that in our-- what we-- what Dr. Harris said we proposed to do in these hearings was to show that there is a genuine scientific controversy about origins. And I don't see how anybody can deny that, given the testimony that you've heard during the past three days. There is a clear and undeniable scientific controversy about the origin of life....

"Secondly, we have shown that the controversy unavoidably impacts religion. The side of the controversy that supports the idea that man is the product of an unguided evolutionary process, that side which is the evolutionary biology, supports but does not require one kind of religious belief and conflicts with theistic religious beliefs. So we saw an example of that, in spades, in the Humanist Manifesto. The secular humanism was decided in the Schempp case in, I believe, 1987. It was a fascinating case. It involved books in a school that were charged to be promoting secular humanism. By the way, none of the books involved science books or biology textbooks. "And so the Court had to make a decision: Is secular humanism a religion? Because if it wasn't, then, there wouldn't be an issue regarding the books. And the Court took an enormous amount of testimony [hmm--which court? The SC takes no original testimony!] and concluded ultimately that secular humanism is a religion. It found that it was a religion because the tenets of secular humanism is that there is no reason to believe in the existence of a Creator. Well, why is there no reason to believe in the existence of a Creator? It's because an evolution unguided process is perfectly capable of producing life as we see it, and so there's no reason for us to even imagine one. Given the lack of any reason to believe in a Creator, we can ignore traditional religion, and we use human reason to decide our ethics and morals..."

-------------

I am amazed at Mr Calvert's ignorance. The Abington vs. Schempp case was decided in 1963--Calvert is off by 24 years here (and quite likely about 4 billion years in the history of the earth, so 24 is miniscule). This error, however, shows a lack of concern for getting simple facts right. "Secular humanism" is a phrase that nowhere--NOWHERE--shows up in any of the text of the decisions, concurring opinions, and the lone dissenting opinion. Neither does it appear the Engel v. Vitale case of 1962. Schempp did not "involve[d] books in a school that were charged to be promoting secular humanism. In fact, the case was about required Bible-reading and "morning devotions" in the public schools. The SC ruled that such practices violated the establishment clause. Calvert seems to have no clue. I happen to know about this. In fact, I am on record as stating that one of my motivations as a teenager in 1956 was that I did not believe that the Bible was literally true, that I found the stories in Genesis about creation and Noah's flood were myths that did not make sense scientifically, and that reading these tales as part of "morning devotions" was unacceptable to my scientific understandings. The SC's decision agreed that these practices were unacceptable to the First Amendment. Obviously, Calvert has no idea what he is talking about and making stuff up as he goes along. Thanks to talk origins for your really great efforts.

Best regards,

Ellery Schempp

Mark Issac's response ignores what is (in my opinion) the most common cause for creationist quote mining. Creationists are used to being able to quote proof-texts and/or verse citations from their holy texts. For the literal minded creationists, it is understood that the original context has little revelancy to the quoted text. Quote-mines occur when the creationists attempt to apply their standard hermeneutic procedures to other texts, such as science journals.

Doesn't this statement, by using the words "natural" and "chance", preclude a Creator from being involved in the entire evolutionary process? How then is it possible to reconcile Christianity (or Judaism or Islam) with evolution? It seems as though the Designer must be reduced to little more than an uninvolved and disinterested observer since everything was left to chance. In other words, by chance, things could have turned out much differently than they did - with apparently no concern from this "Creator".

Also, what is up with Antony Flew? Did he become an ID advocate? Did he really switch sides? Please fill us in with the details.

I certainly offer my heartfelt commendation though I suppose in these times that is not much consolation considering I am also very much one of the choir.

This is a more interesting and constructive 'forum' than most because you exercise a little editorial 'free will' and no doubt excise a huge amount of absolute codswaddle that never the less has to be waded through by someone. I very rarely post anything to any forum, newsgroup, etc. anywhere but in your case its impossible to remain silent. Thank you for sparing those of us who are curious and willing to be informed by good scholarship, reasoning and science.

I'll try to be as brief as possible but I think just a smidgen of backgroud is justified for context, my freshman high school 'biology' class in 1965 never mentioned evolution, theory, or otherwise, lucky for me in a way becase it gave me the impression that biology was a 'soft science' incapable of really doing much so I ultimately wound up a geologist because I was luck enough to land in a great department with a killer researcher as an advisor just at the time geochemistry and mineral chemistry became quantitatively 'easy'. I went into exploration work because I visited Africa several times and because I felt and indescribably deep awe in the experience of trying to contribute something to the understanding of nature, through addressing a very specific and somewhat urgent problem. I have worked in a lot of places that would make most people's bad dreams seem like a holiday and a few other places that would make other people's best dreams seem like a soap opera. Science is an enormously powerful tool, I apply it in every aspect of my life that I can, though admittedly its requisites make that very unreasonably except in the most pragmatic sense, at least outside the realm of my greatest expertise. (For example it wasn't until I got Malaria the first time that I every read and of the biology literature. Believe me, as soon as I got over the initial week of delirium and other symptoms, I spent two days in the UCLA library and got educated quickly, it has saved my life probably once or twice since.

Too much bio I know, sorry.

The one thing that I want to relate that I think is a contribution to your efforts is this, and perhaps I can understand why you do not want to take such a generalized view, but I really thing you should embrace it as I will explain.

Creationism, ID or whatever the propaganda flavor of the month is at any given time is not just anti-evolution or pro-religious brainwashing, it is entirely anti-science per se. Across the board, no holds barred, to hell with science. Scientist=atheist=satan= eternal damnation etc. etc. etc. (Brings to mind a nice quote from Milton which might not be 100% - '...but for me, 'tis better by far to reign in hell than to serve in heaven...') This would be fine if it were kept on a philosophical level, but when it becomes political and smacks of theocracy there is danger on the horizon if not the doorstep.

Science in all its profligate and amazing forms has utterly transformed the world in under 300 years, some might say under 100. Without the accomplishments of science, my guess is that 1/10th the present population of this planet would be able to survive and they would be scrambling to a much higher and more desperate degree than we are to maintain subsistence. Everything we have and use, everything we eat and drink, everything we build and design, everything we humans implement to leverage our biological advantage (the brain, hand, etc.) in one sense or another, comes from this planet of ours we call earth. The two most endangered commodities on this planet are clean water and unpolluted air. Atop those substrates stands an enormous pyramid of industrial minerals and commodities that we as a species consume at rates that make locusts look like lichens. Petroleum is a case in point.

If the kind of twisted and depraved thinking that tries to refute the whole scientific paradigm prevails, here in the U.S., somehow manages to prevail and fool a titular majority into supporting their fantasies, then its just possible that we as a planet will win the 'Darwin award'. I don't claim that the U.S. is necessarily all that significant in the world per se, but economically and in terms of resource consumption, obviously we are the kind pin, so we shoult behave in our own and the planet's best interest if at all possible. That would be a moral way to address reality.

Instead we find people who are no doubt conviced and self-earnest advocating the teaching of 'scriptures' which are only now becoming as persuasive as Disney cartoons. The evangelicaly pious minority, in their zeal to impose their beliefs on the vulnerable and distracted masses, the billions who live from hand to mouth... overlook one thing. They will bring upon themselves and all 'creation' the wrath of their 'god'. The wanton uncaring, utterly indifferent consequences of defying nature, and pretending, like any witch doctor in the bush to dispence magic that will protect you from the bullets, or the viruses, or the monocultural scourages of crops, or the dissocaiton of ozone, or the finite availability of petroleum, or molybdenum, or .... I could go on for a long time.

I find this idiocy mildly amusing because I have no investment in the future, no children. I had the foresight not to condemn another sentient being to the holocaust that may be lurking in the near future, because of stupidity and belief.

And I for one, am quite comfortable, though my experience of life has not been without certain setbacks.... because I have at all times and in all ways tried my best to live and be productive to the greatest extent possible. It kind of galls me in a way that I provide the commodities that these mendacious believers rely on to prostelitize.

To those whose hopes are bet on heaven, I have one piece of advice... play the cards you hold...

This web site is an important resource for the masses, I hope they will realize it and support you, I already do, I help provide your electrons.

Cheers mates,

[one last thing I have to say which is irrelevant to the above in most senses, but pertains to you; back in 94-95 when I was reading sci.geo.geology regularly it was a tremendous and rich resource, I could communicate with colleagues almost anywhere in the world. Today it is a homeopathically diluted vestige of its former self, overwhelmed by the rantings and ravings of evangelists for something which is indeterminate but a priori, stupid. The aim of these people seems to be to shout down any reasoned and informed discussion. The evolutionary irony is that only through science could these fabulously mal-adapted minds, hope to avoid ultimate extinction. That the whole of human intelligence on this planet must accompany them in that fate is a debateable and perhaps inconsequent issue, though I would not bet on it.]

Every now and then it's important to temper your yeoman's work with a little levity.

"I don't see the compatibility in someone who believes in evolution and being a "devout Christian", as you labeled some of your staff. One feedback response by one of your staff even stated that God "had a part" in evolution (a magnanimous gesture for sure). Which part do you think he had a role in?"

Well, I can't say for sure, but any place where there is a random process, it is certainly feasible that God could "nudge" it in the direction He wants. So all or some of these "random mutations" could have an invisible mover. Note that this does not imply design: this is more like giving a push in the "right" general direction. One might also argue that God set up the natural laws that are at work in the universe, including in evolution. God might also have "nudged" the appropriate molecules together so that life could begin, or guided the comet carrying the first lifeforms, as some scientists now suggest life did not originate on earth. If you want a larger, more direct role for God, He could have wiped out entire species (say by a flood) that were interfering with His ultimate goal. Or He could have sheltered certain species from random catastrophe. So long as there is an element of randomness in an event, there is room for God to have a hand in it.

"Either ALL living creatures - from protozoa to man - have a spirit or NONE have a spirit based on your view that they are descended from the same primoridial slime. ... Or, perhaps, man uniquely evolved a spirit somewhere along the way."

Okay... I think you're trying to think scientifically about spirit here, but since science has no way of measuring spirit, I don't follow your assumptions. You say either (1) spirit was in the first lifeform and was passed down into all other lifeforms or (2) there is no such thing as spirit. You snidely mention (3) that spirit could have evolved. First off, I don't see why you have avoided mentioning God. Spirit itself is not defined in terms of the physical, scientific realm, so far as I know. If your definition is different, I would like to hear it. So if spirit exists, presumably it comes from something outside of science, call it God. Well, with no way to measure spirit, we have no way to constrain when, where or how it may have appeared. In addition to your suggestions, (4) God could have waited until a sufficiently advanced creature appeared and then bestowed spirit on it; (5) God might have set the system up so that at a certain stage, spirit would appear automatically; (6) God could even have said, "Ooooh, those apes are funny. Okay, they and all their descendents get spirit." Without a way to measure spirit (and find it in the fossil record), we have no way of knowing. In all practicality, when and where spirit should appear will depend on your particular set of theological assumptions.

Science places constraints on the physical processes, because those can be observed and measured. No one has produced an instrument to measure spiritual processes, so there are no scientific constraints there. But when you say, "Science can't handle the thought of the supernatural and so that must be rejected," you are making a very common logical fallacy. You are assuming that lack of proof for A implies that A is does not exist. Science cannot prove the existence of spirit. Neither can it disprove it. What science does say is that most phenomenon do not require a supernatural explanation. That is, a rational, scientific explanation is sufficient. Perhaps you object because God is not a necessary condition. But if God were a necessary condition, why would faith be important?

1. Why is there no "law of evolution"? I know you've answered similar questions many many times before, so let me clarify. As I understand it, in science jargon, a law describes an event while a theory explains it. The theory of evolution explains how life evolved, but there's also the fact of evolution, the fact that life evolved from a common ancestor. Couldn't this evolution-as-fact be considered a law? Why not?

2. I'm more a philosopher than a scientist. I never really understood much about the sciences, and a lot of what's on these pages goes over my head. Do you know of any resources that can explain the workings of evolution as if I were a ten year old?

3. I discovered this site a few years back, and I'm still learning. The more I learn, the more I realize how ignorant I really am. I have come to the realization that those who believe they have the most knowledge generally know the least. I have also learned that the first step to learning is accepting the possibility that you might have it all wrong. Why are so many people unable to take that step, that leap of doubt, if you will? Why do so many people cling to their ignorance? It's as if their delusions of wisdom are precious to them, even moreso than real wisdom.

Justin

However, this procedure logically requires us to exist before the evolved organisms. Our pre-existence allows us to see what organisms have arrived and we can write their names in The Book of the World's Real Objects.

That's OK for most of the evolved objects in this world. But what about man himself? He cannot pre-exist to be the seeing agent that sees his own evolutionary arrival!

I gave the answer that things don't need man to see them into existence - instead they 'self-exist' ('in themselves'). The reply I got was 'Yes, God self-exists too'!

In other words, if we delete man's observation role from evolutionary theory, we've got to make real scientific accommodation of objects that have never been seen and are unpredictable-in-principle - but which might exist 'in themselves'. Please help!

A few months ago, i read a report saying that Homo erectus and other early hominids may not be that different from us and a certain Wolpoff considers us a "highly variable species" with a history going back several million years. As such, there was a debate over whether we and they were in fact a single and same species. What is talkorigin's position on this? thx

Dar