Feedback for September 1997

As stated on the Talk.Origins Archive home page:

This archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) and frequently rebutted assertions that appear in talk.origins.

As this statement makes clear, the Talk.Origins Archive website is not meant to host an "open discussion" on the question of origins. That purpose is served by the talk.origins newsgroup. Instead, this web site provides the mainstream scientific viewpoint regarding the questions raised in the newsgroup.

It is worth noting, however, that this site maintains a large number of links to creationist web sites, perhaps even the largest collection on the web. If you wish to find that information, by all means use this list as a starting point.

It always amuses me to hear someone define "secular humanism" as a religion, since I have yet to hear of anyone defining herself to be a "secular humanist." It's a funny religion that no one claims to adhere to.

My personal amusement aside, whether the theory of evolution is or isn't the basis of secular humanism simply isn't germane to the truth of the theory or its power to describe and predict observations. Genetic characteristics change in populations over time, and the theory of evolution describes a mechanism for those changes to take place. The theory has predicted observations which, when made, were consistent with the theory. As such, the theory provides a powerful tool for advancing our understanding of biology, biochemistry, medicine, and paleontology, one which is useful regardless of the dictates of "secular humanism."

In other words, you have your question backwards. The proper question is, "What would happen to the theory of evolution if secular humanism was proved wrong?" The answer is, "Nothing."

Perhaps it could be summed by the statement that science describes how nature behaves. Creationism does not; rather, it postulates that nature, by divine miracle, at the time of creation, behaved in a manner entirely different than nature's actual behavior. This is religious dogma masquerading as science. There is very little that is new in creatinism. Creationist arguments have been refuted over and over again. All this information is availabale in the talk.origins faqs. Additional information can be obtained from my web site.

You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that science in general or evolution in particular is an attempt to disprove the existence of God. This is not true. See the God and Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ for more information. Certainly, many devout theists, including many practicing scientists, accept evolution.

Evolution also does not involve "faith" or "belief" beyond the faith that our senses are not being deceived, i.e., that the world exists, that we see things and smell things and touch things that are actually there, and so on. More precisely, it does not involve religious faith.

As for "hard questions" that must be addressed by anyone proposing to invalidate evolution, look at Chris Colby's Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ under the section entitled "Evidence for Common Descent and Macroevolution." In addition, read the List of Stumper Questions for some doozies.

But there is a misunderstanding of evolution implicit in your question. There is no such thing in evolution as the "perfect" anything (unless it is the cockroach, which seems to live in all terrestrial environments that support life :-). Populations of organisms generally vary on a whole range of measures of adaptedness to local conditions, and there is only a "better" variant for any given trait, not an "optimal". Moreover, since there is a cost to every trait, and the development of traits affects other traits (grow a longer arm and you'll probably also grow a longer leg), it is unlikely for any small set of traits one may choose to use as a measure of "perfection" that one organism or family will carry the optimal variation for more than one trait.

Physical perfection depends on the conditions in which it is found. Michael Jordan may not be a good baseball player even if he is a great basketball player. Arnie Schwarzenegger may be absolutely lousy at table tennis. If either of these athletes were forced by circumstances into sports they were not good at, then they would no longer be the "best" physical specimens. The same is true for any organism.

Many evolutionists are also religious, and will appeal to God as the creative source of all matter, the driving force behind the big bang. Those of us who are not religious may present any number of explanations, including my personal favorite: I don't know. It is not necessary to have a handy-dandy, 25 words or less answer, ready at hand, for every conceivable question. The big bang theory certainly seems to imply that the universe has a unique beginning. I don't know what, if anything, caused that beginning to happen (and neither does anybody else). Maybe someday an answer will become apparent, and maybe not. If the logic of quantum mechanics is applicable to existence outside the known universe (maybe a big if), then it may even be that the universe came into the big bang without any cause at all.

Surely, anyone reasonable will admit that God could have sent a global flood and then covered up any evidence that it had ever happened. But if He did send a flood, why would He hide that he'd done it?

The problems with the flood are not just limited to engineering problems that Noah and the animals would have to deal with. The more serious problem is that there is no physical evidence which indicates that the flood really did happen, and there are many reasons to believe that it didn't.

If you insist on it, then you could argue that God sent the flood, and then He manufactured a bunch of false evidence which is inconsistent with it, and then He covered up all the evidence the flood left behind. Surely an omnipotent God could easily accomplish deception on such a grand scale. But is that the kind of thing that a God of truth would do?

Walk into your local university library sometime, and take a look at the section which contains biology journals. If the library is at all well-stocked, you should be able to find thousands of volumes. The conclusions reached by the articles in all of these volumes depend on evolution either directly or indirectly. If evolution were not true, the information in those journals would have tumbled like a house of cards long ago. But it hasn't, and that more than anything else shows it to be an accurate description of reality.

If you think the scientific method is about "proof," then you don't understand the scientific method. Nothing is science is "proven," even the most basic and fundamental things we've learned from science. "Proof" only exists in logic and mathematics; what science has is evidence. In the case of evolution, the evidence most clearly weighs in its favor. Science doesn't proclaim evolution a "fact" with casual ease; it does so with over a century of evidence and investigation backing it up. See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ for more details.

Furthermore, your understanding of the "fundamental requirements" of the scientific method is simplistic at best. What science requires is observations; the more the better. We don't have to travel back in time to observe actual living dinosaurs to be able to study them any more than we have to travel to a distant galaxy to make observations of the stars there or travel to the center of the earth to know what the earth's core is composed of. Many sciences, such as astrophysics, geology, paleontology, and meteorology, involve making observations about processes that we can't control directly, but that doesn't make them any less scientific.

Evolutionary theory is a valid scientific theory, and not simply a tautology. See the Evolution and Philosophy FAQ.

As for predictions made by evolution, there are lots and they are observed. For example, evolutionary theory predicts that intermediate forms should be found between major categories of biological life. We've found many of those, the most famous of which is Archaeopteryx, which has features in common with both modern birds and reptiles. Since then, we've found other intermediate forms which are either more "bird-like" or more "reptile-like" than Archaeopteryx. What you have stated about Archaeopteryx is simply incorrect; see the Archaeopteryx FAQ for more details.

Examples of transitional fossils are abundant. See the Transitional Fossil FAQ for a list of some.

Evolutionary theory makes predictions. For example, it predicts that we should not find mammalian fossils in rocks from the Devonian Period. Guess what? We don't.

Instead of telling scientists what science says, why not listen to what they say science says? Chances are, they're more likely to be correct.

As a former Day/Age Creationist (I'm a Southern Baptist), I gave up on Creationism because I was never able to find any scientific theories in anything that was specifically creationist. There aren't any Creationist theories to teach.

As to the more general point about "equal time", there are two serious problems with that idea. The first is "who gets equal time?", and the second is "how equal should the time be?"

When we ask "who gets equal time?", that's not just about theories of origins, such as the notion that life here came from outer space (panspermia). The idea of panspermia (see The Panspermia Page for their view) has support from respectable scientists. Should they get equal time with the mainstream scientific view? If not, why not? Their position is at least as good as that of "Creation Scientists"; their credentials are at least as good as those of any living Creationist. Why should they be excluded, if you believe they should?

And what about other topics? There are people who believe in homeopathy, crystal therapy, aromatherapy, and dozens of other quack medical ideas. They even have testimonials from satisfied customers. Should health classes in schools give equal time to those fringe ideas? And there are flat-earthers; should flat-earth ideas get time in school? What about the people who believe Velikovsky was right?

Most Creationists object strongly to teaching anything like crystal therapy in schools -- but they have trouble explaining why THEIR fringe ideas should be in schools, and OTHER fringe ideas should be kept out.

Secondly, we have the question of "how equal is the time?" Do you really propose that the school year be broken into equal parts, and that panspermia and recent divine creation and old-earth creation and intelligently-directed evolution should all get equal time with mainstream science in biology classes? And how do we break it down? Some believe in directed panspermia, and some believe in undirected panspermia -- is that one equal chunk of time, or two?

A few years ago, a science survey reported that over 50% of adults in the USA were unable to correctly answer the question "How long does it take for the earth to move around the sun?" Over 70% of adults were unable to correctly say what bacteria and DNA are. Our schools are doing a bad enough job now just teaching basic material. Cluttering them up with the fringe theories of everybody who can get political clout isn't going to make it better.

I am unsure what you mean by "Moor science". The Moors are a group of people of mixed ancestry who lived in Spain. They were Muslims, and sometimes the term is used incorrectly to mean Muslims. Muslims and Moors are quite capable of being excellent scientists. Indeed, around a thousand years ago the greatest centres of learning and of science were in Islamic cultures. The term "algebra" (al jabr) still recalls that proud heritage.

In my opinion, science and religion are about different things; one might as well ask what makes a pencil sharpener different from a poem. There is no one correct definition, but roughly science is about understanding the natural world through direct investigation, and religion is about maintaining a relationship between the human and the divine. Some religious believers hold beliefs which have implications for the natural world and conflict with scientific investigation; others allow scientific study to inform their understanding of the natural world.

Islam is a religion; and a Muslim can also be a scientist.

According to a text I have on the religions of the Ancient Near East, somewhat old now, but probably still valuable, astrology began in Mesopotamia about 2500BCE or so. It appears that each city in the valley had a deity that was represented as a star or constellation in the heavens and as one city overcame another by conquest, a hierarchy of deities developed to justify the ascendency of that city (god) over the other. The connection with astrology is that the fate of the inhabitants of a city were determined by the god of that city, and so were ruled by their stars.

The astrological religion spread in various forms through the Middle East, the Mediterranean and Europe over time, accruing all sorts of other features from the mystery religions, from Judeochristian religion, and from Greek philosophy. It probably was common at the time of Mohammed in Arabia, but no more so than elsewhere in the region. It is not true that it derives from the Moors alone, although Moorish science and arts had a major effect on the burgeoning European cultures after the fall of Moorish rule over southern Spain and the establishment of European universities (beginning with Bologna as I recall, in the 10th century) on the basis of works recovered from the Islamic universities that were conquered.

If I understand your question correctly, I think you may not correctly understand how the process of radioisotope dating works.

Radioactive isotopes are elements, such as uranium-235 or carbon-14, that are unstable. The nuclei of the atoms of that element tend to emit particles such as two protons and two neutrons (alpha decay) or an electron (beta decay). When an atom does so, it becomes an atom of a different element; what once was a uranium or carbon atom is now an atom of some other element.

These decays are governed by quantum mechanics, and have been extensively studied by nuclear physicists for many years. For any particular radioactive isotope, we know what it turns into and how long it takes to do so. The isotope is called the "parent," its product the "daughter," and the amount of time the "half-life."

The "half-life" measures the amount of time it takes for one-half of the parent isotope to decay into the daughter isotope. So if we look at a lump of what began as pure parent isotope, and find it to be half parent and half daughter, we know one half-life has passed. For example, carbon-14 has a half-life of over 5000 years; in that period of time, half of a mass of carbon-14 will become something else.

Chris Stassen's Isochron Dating FAQ shows the equation that results. In general, we know the amount of parent isotope and daughter isotope present now, by simply measuring their quantities. If we assume that all of the daughter isotope came from decay of the parent and that there has been no influx or outflux of the parent or daughter over the life of the sample, we can add the amount of parent and daughter present now to get the amount of parent originally available. Since we know the half-life of the parent, we can solve for the age of the sample.

As you can see, none of this depends on the rate of decay of radioisotopes in the surrounding environment, which as you correctly point out, decay at the same rate as the isotope in the sample.

The primary problem with radioisotope dating is the assumption I made earlier, namely that no daughter isotope was present in the sample at the time of its formation and that no parent or daughter was added over the life of the sample. There are several solutions to this problem, but most of them involve making multiple measurements with different isotopes and choosing the sample carefully. If you are interested, please check Chris Stassen's Isochron Dating FAQ and the Age of the Earth FAQ.

The amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is in equilibrium governed by the decay of existing carbon-14 to carbon-13 with a half life of 5730 years, and the generation of new carbon-14 from nitrogen-14 by cosmic rays. Plants get most of their carbon from the atmosphere, and animals get most of their carbon from plants, so the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-13 in the biosphere matches the atmosphere.

After a plant or animal dies, it gets no more new carbon from the biosphere, and all the carbon-14 gradually decays. The amount of decay can be measured, thereby giving the amount of time since death.

Potassium 40 decays to Argon 40 with a half life of about 1.5 billion years. When a rock melts, Argon is able to escape to the atmosphere. After it solidifies, new argon generated by decay is trapped within the rock. The amounts of potassium and argon can thus give an estimate of the time since an igneous rock solidified.

Thomas Higham of Waikato University provides a useful introduction to radiocarbon dating. Roger Wiens of Caltech gives very readable summaries of radiometric methods in Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective. In the archive you can find The Isochron Dating FAQ, which explains a method less dependant on assumptions about initial conditions and lack of contamination.

Scientists sometimes naively assume that what is required to win a debate is good information. Actually, what is required is tactical and rhetorical skills, the ability to set or avoid the ground rules of the debate as appropriate, and being forewarned about the likely tactics of your opponent.

One particular rhetorical tactic is illustrated by your first sentence, which gives no specific examples, and glosses over the real scientific basis for constancy of radioactive decay rates and the obvious fact that there are some other processes (which you do not name!) that are not constant. In a debate, choosing to respond to such vaccuous assertions eats into the limited time available; here it would just waste space.

I agree with the reader that generally, creationists do well in debate; particularly those who have lots of practice in the art of debating. For some revealing exceptions, you may like to look through the archive page on debates.

The Laws of Thermodynamics--First, Second, or Third--do not in any way prohibit an earth 4.5 billion years old, nor do they prevent evolution from taking place. Often, the Second Law is misstated as "Order cannot arise from disorder." If this were the case, we would not see snowflakes forming, trees growing, or babies becoming adults. Please see the Second Law of Thermodynamics FAQ for more information.

Evolution specifically and mainstream science in general is not the same thing as atheism, nor is it an attempt to disprove the existence of God. Indeed, many scientists who accept evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on Earth are devout believers of a wide variety of faiths. They see scientific knowledge as a tool to better understand their God.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory, in the sense that science regards "facts" and "theories." See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ for more information.

With regards to Kent Hovind, you may want to check out Dave Matson's analysis of Hovind's claims for a young earth. Not only have Hovind's claims been debunked, but some of them have been obsolete for decades, yet he has continued to make those claims.

A detailed discussion of determination of initial abundance of isotopes is present in the Isochron Dating FAQ, in particular in this section.

I would recommend reading the two referenced FAQs carefully. If you have additional questions which are not already answered there, I will be glad to help you further.