Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Because there are a finite number of chemicals and combinations there of, thru out the world, it would seem illogical to assume that evolution exits. Yes things change because of chemical changes, but this would not support evolution....you don't get an apple from a pear. Or humans from animals. The structure of different speices may be close because they share similar chemicals / genes, but this would not mean one came from another. Thanks for the soapbox. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I would ask
you to think about HOW evolution is said to work. It seems
to me (from statements like "You don't get an apple from a
pear"), that you don't really know anything about the
subject you are attempting to criticize.
Yes, you're right, apples do not come from pears. A cow never gave birth to a goat, etc. And if you think this is how evolution works, no wonder it seems illogical to you. That's because it's a straw man-- you're attacking a false version of your opponent. I would suggest you browse the FAQs and look at the "Must Read Files" on this website. If these are too technical for you, look at my page for lay people: The Evolution Education Resource Center. How can you know it's false if you can't accurately describe how it works? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | joyce |
Comment: | Funny, you guys seem to leave out all of the geneticists findings which totally debunks everything you believe. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
Funny, I don't recall seeing any such findings. But I invite the reader to produce a reference or two to such findings on the talk.origins newsgroup. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Khaos Connor |
Comment: | Help me put an end to Dr. Duane Gish's lies! I am a creationist(man only). But i believe God had a greater plan and that plan was a free thinking man! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Have you Contacted Dr. Gish directly to voice your opposition to aforementioned "lies"? He should be made aware of your concerns. You can contact his organization from our extensive list of creationist web links. (click "Links" at the bottom of the page). |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Do you have
the e-mail or other means to contact Robison who wrote the
review of Darwin's
Black Box? I am writing a paper, and would like
to quote his cascade speculation, but the reviewers are not
keen on an Internet-only reference. I wonder whether he has
published anything like this, even just in a conference
abstract?
Thanks for any help, |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Each article on the Talk.Origins Archive has an e-mail link to the article's author. Simply click on the name at the top of the article to send mail. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | In regards
to your comment that Matt. 1:16 vs. Luke 3:23, contradict
each other... I just thought you ought to have a clue. Matt
1:16 says that Joseph was Jesus' father Luke 3:23 mentions
that Joseph was "supposedly" his father.
Is that really a contradiction, when you consider what actually happened. 1. The Holy Spirit is what caused the impregnation of Mary, not Joseph. 2. Joseph, was married to Mary and raised Jesus. 3. People suspected Joseph fathered Jesus. Due to what happened.. Matthew points out who the father of lineage was. This is because Jesus was to be born of the male ancestry of David. Joseph is of that ancestry. Luke points out that Joseph was not the actual father (in the sense of impregnating, but was only thought to be.) Instead, he was a father by marriage and because he was raising Jesus. So therefore, by Joseph being the correct lineage, the scripture is fulfilled, and by the Holy Spirit actually causing the impregnation, the savior was also the Son of God. Jesus was therefore, Son of God, Son of Man, and Son of David, --- That is what the Savior was to be.. (By the way -- the Hebrew term "Son of" means "of the line of".. This is the way the Hebraic term is used. By the way -- "Son of" in the bible refers to "of the line of" - not the actual "son" |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Let me give
you a clue.
It is not the parentage of Jesus that is the contradiction. Who was Jesus' paternal grandfather? The Author of Matthew say that the father of Joseph was Jacob, but the Author of Luke says that the father of Joseph was Heli. Which is it? In any case, since Joseph was not Jesus' biological father, he is not of the line of David at all. According to either geneaology, ONLY JOSEPH is descended from David. This is just an attempt of the authors of the Gospels to connect Jesus to the Messiah prophecies of the Old Testament. But they fail. The Author of Matthew does a few more things to connect Jesus to the Old Testament. He tries to establish Jesus as the Messiah forcasted by the Old Testament by taking verses out of their context from the Old Testament (some which are not even prophecies) and contrive them to "fit" a future Jesus. Anyone who reads the context of these Old Testament verses will find that they very obviously have nothing to do with a future Jesus. (Matthew 1:21-23 NRSV) She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means, "God is with us." Matthew pulls this verse completely out of context to try to make his Jesus birth story look forecasted by the Old Testament. The "virgin" part is also misquoted. The word in the Isaiah verse means a young woman who was not necessarily a virgin. There is a specific Hebrew word for virgin which is not used here). Here is the original: (Isa 7:14-16 NRSV) "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted." In this Old Testament verse, Isaiah is trying to give King Ahaz a sign that was to happen during their time period (seven centuries before Jesus) that Judah will not be invaded, this has nothing to do with a future Jesus whatsoever. One more. Here is another misquote from the Author of Matthew. (Mat 8:16-17 NRSV) "That evening they brought to him many who were possessed with demons; and he cast out the spirits with a word, and cured all who were sick. This was to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah, "He took our infirmities and bore our diseases." " This is the verse Matthew is misquoting from: (Isa 53:4 NRSV) Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. This is the famous Isaiah 53 of which the Christians and the Jewish people have completely different interpretations for obvious reasons. The Christian interpretation is wrong. This is not talking about Jesus. This "Suffering Servant", whoever it is, it is not Jesus, who had no children, no riches, and was crucified at a young age. The "Suffering Servant" in this chapter is someone who will see his offspring, live a long life, has a soul, and prospers as a reward for his suffering. That doesn't sound like Jesus to me. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Interesting questions, though I must make one correction. In question 9b you state "Explain how a viable population was established for all of those animal kinds from only a single pair of each." The actual number of animals is seven pairs of each. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Actually, it
is seven pairs of all the clean animals, and only one pair
of the unfortunate "unclean" animals. (Gen. 7:2) Then,
after Noah landed his big boat, he sacrificed some of each
of the clean animals as a burnt offering (how long did that
take, I wonder?), thereby leaving, maybe, six pairs of the
clean animals. (Gen. 8:20) And of course, as always, the
smell of the burning flesh was a sweet savour to the lord
(8:21).
So, the question still remains: How is a viable population established from so small a sample? Nowadays, species are placed on the endangered species list if their population drops to several thousands... imagine if every species on the planet were not only endangered, but had only 2 or 12 individuals? Imagine the single pride of 12 lions, and the pack of 12 hyenas, and the 12 leopards, and the 12 cheetahs, all fed upon the 12 Thompsons Gazelles, the 12 wildebeasts, and the 12 zebras? How long do you think this arrangement would last before all the prey animals would be gone, and then the predators would die out as well? The prey animals do not breed fast enough to avert this situation. And the young are always the weakest and first to fall victim to the predators. The ability of herding animals to survive predation is in their vast numbers. The situation of repopulating the animals from a dozen individual organims is completely unbelievable. I find it amazing that anyone would believe the nonsense of Noah and his ark. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | upon reading the must read files I saw a comment that belief in evolution does not preclude belief in a god. this is patently wrong as I will explain. Any system/theory of science derives from the fact that the universe and its contents can be explained by physical laws, such as the theory of gravitation or fractal geometry, even the origins of the universe itself could be explained, so if everything can be explained as having a natural cause derived from physical laws where is the need for a god?, and if when the going gets tough and the answer to a question seems unatainable and it gets explained as (god did it)this makes a mockery of the rest of science, because there would be no need of it because everything could have been done by god doing it, getting back to evolution, if any of the many theories of its mechanics are correct then fine, no problem, unless you say "but god did this or god started it", then there is no point to evolution. It has to be one or the other, religion and science do not mix |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | Well, that's
your choice, but it does not follow (except on certain
assumptions).
First of all, belief in God does not commit you to thinking that every event that occurs is planned and executed, or even that any event is, by God. A good many people think that (in line with Aquinas, and more recently Tillich) God's primary creative activity is to sustain the existence of things. Second, while simple etiologies (origin stories) may now be untenable, this is not so for the rest of religious belief. If a god exists, then science would proceed, and use physicalist assumptions, as much as if no god existed. While we might now abandon the idea of a Homeric sort of god, and literal stories about snakes, gardens and fruit, this does not mean we automatically must reject the whole idea of meaning, god or non-physical realities. Religion and science do not mix, you are right. Any more than the rules of hockey and descriptions of the load bearing properties of building materials do. They are, in Gould's words, Non-Overlapping Magisteria (although in practice the division gets blurred, and like any adjacent territories, there are border skirmishes). |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Greetings to all: First of all my compliments to everyone who contributed their time to create this intriguing and wonderful site,It has been most useful in my debates. But there is one thing that puzzles me. I know that science does not question the existence of a god because it is a supernatural concept and science only deals with the natural world. However ,what I don't understand is how any scientist can be a theist ? How can you use the scientific method and empirical evidence in your work but yet throw away that line of reasoning on Sunday morning? There's no empirical evidence for the existence of a deity. It can't even be tested by science . The whole concept of a god is medieval and archaic . But yet some of you are still believers anyway.... I became an Atheist because of my love for science. After reading "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins I realized how foolish I had been . According to Scientific American Mag, 72% of scientists are Atheists .and with good reason. Yes I have read the fact sheet but it didn't answer my question. If one can't prove an assertion ( such as a deity) why bother to believe? Why should a scientist believe in anything ?Isn't a belief asserting that something is true without having personal knowledge of it ? Any feedback would be appreciated ..... Sincerely Melanie Parsons Pre-med and biochemist student |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | If, as you
say, science cannot deal with anything but the natural
(empirical) world, then how can you say, from an empirical
standpoint, that the lack of empirical evidence makes a
supernatural deity improbable? You can't have it both ways.
Either the evidence is irrelevant to such questions or
science can deal with the existence of God. I think
the first option is the only one that makes sense. So far
as concepts of God are concerned, science is useless.
That said, it is true that most scientists are atheist, or at least agnostic, although I think that your figures are exaggerated. But that may be due to some other reason - socioeconomic causes that predominate certain levels of education, for example. Don't fall prey to a false correlation error. It certainly doesn't underpin or support agnosticism as a metaphysical conviction. "Belief" is one of those weasel words that can be all things to all thinkers. In philosophy it is sometimes thought to be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for knowledge. In theology it has several meanings, ranging from confidence to assent to a proposition. The evidentiary nature of belief depends on context, and it can be said that any scientist who thinks theory X is true, at least believes in theory X. That is not to say that theory X is "just a theory" (see the Evolution is a fact and a theory FAQ, as it does have, what theology does not, empirical evidence. My own feeling as an apathetic agnostic (Greek for "don't know, don't care") is that science is limited because it limits itself to information gleaned from empirical evidence. Information about non-empirical realities is not available. It's a point I wish the design theorists would awaken to: you cannot find empirical evidence of the non-empirical. Richard Dawkins, and some others, like William Provine, are convinced that the empirical world shows no evidence of design. Others - like Francisco Ayala and Theodosius Dobzhansky, to name two great evolutionists - are convinced it does. In both cases, the inferences rest upon nonscientific (note: not antiscientific) assumptions. Pay your money and take your choice. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Thanks for designing and maintaining this educational website. After reading the June FAQs, I am sitting here shaking my head at the enforced ignorance of so many people. The one improvement that I think would help those who are not scientifically educated but are willing to learn are photographs. The FAQ page on transitional fossils would be an excellent place for a few photos of these fossils. Then, when a creationist states the usual blather, all you have to do is insert a link to the appropriate photo. Maybe this will prove the 'picture is worth a thousand words' theory. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I agree. However, as this is a volunteer site, we have difficulty in getting permission from others to display their high-quality photographs of fossils. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. What is the proof of these facts? Carl Sagen said there was so many millions of stars in the universe and it is accepted as fact because it cannot be proven or disproved. How can anyone state that something is 800 million years old? My faith in humankind is not that great, so I will stick to my faith in God. My God |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | It is a fact
because we have found their fossilized remains, in
sediments that can be reliably dated to an extreme age. The
proof is there. Carl Sagan said there are so many billions
of stars in the universe because there are. The
number of stars in the universe can be reliably estimated
because of the extent of our knowledge about stars and
galaxies, and because of our increasingly sophisticated
technology. Scientists can state with confidence that
things are 800 million years old, or 8 billion, and we have
every reason to think they are correct, and no reason to
deny the evidence. Except, of course, if that knowledge
contradicts a specific religious dogma, such as biblical
literalism.
Many of the geologists and some of the biologists who have derived these extremely old dates are Christians, so it is pointless for you to argue that this is a plot of an atheistic conspiracy. That being said, should we discard the data that tells us unambiguously that the earth and universe are billions of years old? Why so? Because it steps on the toes of your religious beliefs? Every scientific discovery probably offends at least one of the thousands of religious sects out there, and if we were to ignore scientific findings on that basis, we would have no science at all. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I just stumbled across a rebuttal by "Jim Lippard" regarding "Lucy's knee." It would seem the question still exists "Did Donald Johanson make the comment about different locations (strata)?" Or better still "Is the interview quoted properly?" thereby allowing for individual interpretation of response. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
Does questioning whether Johansen might have slipped up within one lecture over a decade ago get anti-evolutionists off the hook on their claims regarding the evidence? I don't think so. Even if Johansen did slip up in his description during his talk, the proper way to treat the case would have been to ask for clarification, given that his technical articles were at variance with the purported sound bite. And it is clear that the technical literature is the place to find the definitive information on where each specimen was found. At best, the anti-evolutionists could claim that Johansen slipped up once in a lecture, where he did not repeat exactly the same information as was to be found in his articles. But the anti-evolutionists don't recognize the technical literature and persist in spreading an erroneous tale, even after having been informed of the actual situation. That's what Jim Lippard's article documents, the perseverance of anti-evolutionist claptrap well after its basis has been shown to be wrong. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Please explain to me how the theory of the origin of life based upon the evolutionary model does not fly in the face of the law of biogenesis? I thought spontaneous generation was a falacy? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | See Feedback for February 1998 for a discussion of this topic. Pasteur's result only applies to modern organisms. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Thank you for a wonderful web-site. I teach science in a very religous part of Pennsylvania. Sometimes I feel very alone in reason. It is good to know that others are concerned about discovering truth rather than believing what they are told through unsubstantiated scripts. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Very well put. Glad you are benefitting from the Talk Origins Archive! |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I was very disappointed in your site. I thought that I could find information from both sides, evolution and creationism. Instead, the only thing I learned about evolution was how to defend it; as for creationism, I wanted to read things about creationism, not what evolutionists found wrong with it. I believe that I am intelligent enough to make my own choices; you obviously thought otherwise, however, when you tried to make my mind up for me by presenting only your narrow minded opinions without presenting arguments from "the other side". You had some good points, but they had no meaning without a foundation. I hope you can improve this site. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I shall
repeat once more the message on our Welcome page:
These opinions are not "narrow-minded." The authors and feedback respondents on this site have come to their opinions after much study on the subject of origins. Some have come to these views after a period as creationists. Some have a more extensive library of creationist books and materials than most creationists do. Above all, we attempt to present the mainstream scientific view of origins as found in the primary scientific literature. One's mind need not be so open that one's brain falls out. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Dear
Editors,
Thank you for maintaining the pages housed under www.talkorigins.org/origins/. I've only just begun hiking my way through them, and have already been delighted time and time again at the careful writing they evince, as well as their candor and fairmindedness. I would like to point out a small area of potential improvement in Introduction to Evolutionary Biology about a third of the way down. I append a block quote at the very end of this message. My request is for the math to be expressed more clearly, even if it means catering to the lowest common denominator of Web browser. In this specific example, it appears that the term N is being used in two different ways. I understand that this may not be an error at all, but a problem with my browser (Netscape Communicator 4.51) -- perhaps it is failing to distinguish a roman uppercase N from a Greek uppercase nu. But if so, I would request that the math expression be recast so as to not depend on such fine typographical differences. As I find other examples of this sort, I'll keep sending them in until such time as you tell me not to bother. A careful and grateful reader, [Quote from Introduction to Evolutionary Biology:]
|
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | N and Ne for
population number and effective population are the correct
symbols to use in population genetics, and I think that the
error is that the first N after the equation should be Ne,
not Nu.
Thanks for pointing this out. I will notify the author. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | hi,
Please Help ----------- I briefly come across publication on horse evolution. There are mentions of transitional fossils, sequence of fossils were mentioned. Such as from Hyracotherium to Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates to Orohippus to Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus etc... To me, it's quite useless to read such article. What I'd REALLY need is to be able to see pictures of these horse fossils, and identification/interpretation of these fossil features that are important to the study of evolution. So that I can make up my own mind. How can I do this ? I'd appreciate your advice very much. Thankyou. PeeCee |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Find a copy of Bruce MacFadden's book on horse evolution, Fossil Horses: Systematics, Paleobiology and Evolution of the Family Equidae. Check out Barnes & Noble: Fossil Horses for more information on the book. You should be able to find it at a variety of university libraries and be able to get it via InterLibrary Loan. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Lee |
Comment: |
>We are upset, aren't we Lee? > >You didn't like that I exposed your false analogy? In your >emotional tirade, you seemed to have missed the fact that I >never wrote that the courts said "you couldn't have any >subject matter that in some way involved creationism." [Much, much more deleted] |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
These bits of feedback should be about the archive. The exchanges between Lee and Ken have gone far afield from that. This exchange should be taken up in the talk.origins newsgroup or in email. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am not a
creationist. I am a linguist writing you in all seriousness
because I am troubled by a question that relates partly to
creationism and partly to catastrophism. The question is
simple:
How could language have existed for 20,000 - 200,000 years, given that written language has only existed for about 5,000 years? Could it be instead that language itself was only created about 5,010 years ago, and lasted but ten years before the first alphabets were invented? It seems that literate peoples would have a great advantage over illiterates and that the invention would spread like wildfire, which, to some extent, it did. But given that written language is not so difficult a concept to master, as various peoples readily became literate, why did it take so long for mankind to invent in the first place? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I rather
doubt that you are a qualified linguist. For a start,
writing is not so easy to master, or for that matter
discover. It required, in the cases we know about, the
development of trade that exceeded the ability of traders
to remember, forcing the marking of debts and receipts.
Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel is an
excellent introduction to the topic.
Learning a written language is one thing, inventing it is another. As the myth has it Columbus said, once it's done, anyone can do it again. In fact, written language appears to have been invented only three times - in the middle east, in China, and in central America, and even the Chinese case may have been through diffusion from middle eastern trade. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I am a strong Christian and am pleased to see a site where such open discussion is included. It is my feeling that this topic is indeed very important, especially in a world without Christ. Although this topic, in regard to Creationists and Theistic-evolutionists, is important, it is my feeling that the question of salvation should be the core issue. I do have a couple of questions I would like to see answered: "Why would a perfect God use an imperfect means to create his original perfect world?" Evolution is a theory of massive death and extinction, which implies that "God didn't get it right the first time." Also , I would like to know why people interpret the days of creation as millions of years, when everywhere else in the Bible, the days are literal days. I don't think that God would arbitrarily change a "day" so drastically without telling us. As I said before, God and his redemption of man should remain the core issue. I encourage ANYONE to research the prophecy regarding Jesus Christ and the historical fact of His resurrection. In particular, I suggest the materials of Josh McDowell, or check it out for yourself. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I find it
very curious that you feel this is a "world without
Christ". There are over 360,000 houses of worship in this
country alone, and about 85% of Americans describe
themselves as religious. There are dozens of religious
television stations that broadcast 24 hours a day all over
the country, there are thousands of religious schools,
nationwide religious advocacy groups with tremendous
political muscle... I wonder where you find the deficiency.
Do you believe others have a right to hold a contrary
opinion?
You raise some very good questions (ones I also have asked), but it is up to the individual believer to decide if the bible represents a history/science textbook, or a spiritual book of moral precepts and metaphorical teachings. The world is approximately four and a half billion years old, and no verse in the bible can change that fact. Because something is written in the bible, contrary to what we find in the physical world, the evidence is not automatically invalidated. Many religious organizations, including the Roman Catholic Church, Lutheran Church, Episcopal Church, Methodist Church, and Presbyterian Church have accepted evolution. God and redemption can remain the "core issue" for Christians, but why should it be so for the secular population? I also encourage people to investigate the claims of the bible's infallability. You might be surprised. I have read Josh McDowell's material, and was not impressed. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I was just wondering how you Reply to the arguemant that Phillip Grosse brought about with his book "Omphalos" |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | See the August 1999 feedback and the April 1999 feedback for comments. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Kent Hovind
has a standing $250,000 reward for anyone who can present
empirical evidence for evolutionary theory. The fact that
he still has his money is very revealing concerning the
actual evidences for Darwinian (or even neo-darwinian)
theory available to us.
My second comment is in light of biomolecular machines found in eukaryotuc cells. Evolution does not tell us where these came from. Information theory also disputes and even contradicts the basic tenet of evolution (that it progresses upward into increasing complexity). The double helical molecule that we call DNA is a digital code with self-correcting features. There is no way (ever) that random organization of proteins created the irreducibly complex machines and pathways found in living systems, or that random organization resulted in DNA or RNA. No research has produced any evidence of this to date. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Kent Hovind does not have a $250,000 challenge for anyone who can present empirical evidence for evolutionary theory. Hovind's "challenge" really involves reproducing the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and our earth's history of common descent in the lab. Hovind does not want to put his $250,000 dollars at risk over just getting "empirical evidence for evolutionary theory", of which there is plenty. Further clues that Hovind's challenge is a fake used only for effect is the fact that Hovind will not disclose either the escrow account where this $250,000 should reside, nor the identity of the committee that is supposed to judge entries made against Hovind's challenge. Hovind says that the money and the committee exists, but I have seen no empirical evidence of either. Dr. Kevin Henke recently talked with Hovind about taking up the $250,000 challenge. Hovind made clear that in order to collect the cash, replication of th Big Bang, abiogenesis, and the history of life on earth would each be necessary. Hovind did agree in principle to a challenge at $1000 to $2000 in which Dr. Henke (a geologist) would have to show that bananas and dogs share a common ancestry. Henke is pursuing this, but insists upon a neutral committee, composed of three theists with advanced degrees in biology who will affirm that they are not young-earth creationists. Interestingly, Kent Hovind is not willing to risk even $1000 on any of the following challenge topics:
It would appear that "Dr. Dino" has retained his sense where it might affect his wallet. Information theory does not dispute or contradict descent with modification. Evolutionary processes may involve changes in complexity that are increases, decreases, or pretty much the same over time. The irreducible complexity concept forwarded by Michael Behe has had its fair share of criticism. See Behe's Empty Box. It seems to me that the impedance-matching transduction system of the mammalian middle ear fits the description of an irreducibly complex system, in that it has several well-matched interacting parts that perform a well-defined function, and the loss of any of the parts eliminates its impedance-matching properties. And yet the fossil record clearly shows the evolutionary origins of each of the middle-ear ossicles. In order to get away from this instance of recorded evolutionary IC, I imagine that "intelligent design creationists" will attempt to claim that the system isn't what they mean by "complex". Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am confused. Why do you believe that creationism does not qualify as a genuinely scientific theory? Sometimes at this website I am given the impression that creationism is unscientific because it is untestable. Other times because it has failed such tests. I have been unable to find a document here that could provide me with an answer using this search engine (then again, I may just be a rather poor researcher). Can you point me to a website here or otherwise that can give me your position? Thanks. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Quite
simply, creationism is not science because it has no
theory. A scientific theory is an explanation that is built
up logically from observable evidence and experimentation.
It should make definite predictions, be testable, and be
potentially falsifiable.
How do I know creationism has no theory? Just ask a creationist. Ask them this question: "What is the theory of how the Intelligent Designer brought about all the different species on this planet? What were the methods used? How was it done? What is the physical evidence for these conclusions?" The creationist will promptly hand you his bible (which is tucked under his arm at all times), open on page one-- Genesis Chapter One, verse one. Sorry, but that's Fundamentalism, not science. The evidence can't be in the pages of a book. If there is any real evidence in support of creationism, then the creationists are keeping it a closely guarded secret, because I have never seen it. Isn't it completely obvious why creationism isn't science, and why it should be kept clear of public school classrooms? Creationism is not “Creation Science”. Why? Because creationists’ hypotheses do not involve the advancement of creationism. Shouldn’t a scientific theory have some theories? You’d think so. But creationism exclusively concerns itself with the efforts to refute evolution. Creationism should be renamed to “Evolution Refutation”. It simply is not the offering of Biblical Creation as science. All creationism debates and lectures are basically: “Come and hear how we’ve discovered that evolution couldn’t have happened!” Why doesn’t creationism offer evidence in support of their “theory”? Why should they? They don't need proof- their idea of creation is already fully supported in the Book of Genesis. Their own faith is their proof. If you don't believe this, just ask a creationist "What would make you doubt your version of origins? What scientific proof, evidence or observation could change your mind?" The answer (if they even answer at all... the most common reply is a deafening silence) is "Nothing." Do they try to prove their version of origins to evolutionists? You’d think they would. But they don’t. They realize that they can't, because scientists won't accept the bible as evidence of special creation, like creationists do. What they try to do is knock holes in evolution instead, to make us see the error of our ways, and realize that all scientific attempts at understanding the origin of life are pointless (since no one was there anyway), and in the end there can be only one explanation. This is exactly their tactic. They throw up rebuttals as fast as they can, on every point they can, in order to cause doubt and confusion, even if the “refutations” are wildly invalid. (For example, consider creationist Duane Gish’s remark that for some sections of DNA, human genes are more closely related to frogs than to chimpanzees. After being pressed for several years for evidence of this claim, he was finally cornered in a live debate and admitted that he had none, and he said made the claim out of a misunderstanding. Maybe. But he saw fit to let the statement stand for years, and would have continued with it indefinitely had he not been pressed into recanting it.) I have even had creationists come out and admit to me that they said something simply to cause public doubt. Why do they do all this? To keep evolution out of the public school system at all costs. The controversy and confusion have scared school administrators and teachers from touching on the subject. Creationist so-called "scientific" refutations are based on misconceptions, poor science, scripture, faulty logic, lies, hearsay, fear, and a need to protect their dogma. Creationism is like a wild, cornered animal that has no way out, clawing and snapping at everything it can. But, in the end, creationism is a good and useful thing. It has provided the motivation for evolutionists to amass a great wealth of knowledge in support of evolution. In the end, creationism has in fact strengthened evolution. However, the tactics of evolution proponents needs to change. We need to hold the creationists' feet to the fire, and turn the tables, and switch to attack instead of defense. Press them to offer theories, predictions, observations, and verifiable evidence in support of their claims. In PUBLIC and in the MEDIA. That is the way to pull them into the light, so that people may see them, their agenda and their tactics for what they are. But, isn't creationism science in some sense? Here is just one example of why creationism is NOT SCIENCE, why it should be ABSOLUTELY EXCLUDED from public science classrooms, and why creationism avoids offering testable theories. The Great Flood is a cornerstone of creationism. It provides creationists with accounts for the geological strata and the presence of fossils. There are MANY problems with accepting this event as a historical occurrence, but I won't address those here. Here is a URL. But consider this EXAMPLE as a reason for keeping creationism out: There is not enough water on the earth to cover the land as it is specified in the flood hypothesis. Where did all the water come from, and where did it all go? Here is the REASON that this example disqualifies creationism as science: The only way to explain the appearance and disappearance of all the water is to invoke the power of God. YOU CAN'T GET AWAY FROM IT. And that's just fine as a matter of faith. But it is not science in any sense. In science, one must be prohibited from making appeals to divine intervention. Miracles are not allowed for science to remain science. Miracles are not testable, verifiable, or falsifiable. They do not conform to any laws of nature, they are not repeatable, or even understandable. Such a notion is fine for church and home. BUT THAT'S WHERE IT BELONGS. NOT in PUBLIC SCHOOLS. No creationism with our evolution. No voodoo with our medicine. No astral projection with our aviation. No astrology with our astrophysics. No palm reading with our psychology. NOT IN OUR SCHOOLS, at least. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Athena |
Comment: | Sorry, I just cannot believe in evolution. It is ridiculous to think that this complexity happened by radom chances. Evolution is what I was taught to believe- but it really doesnt add up. Now I know we have to have a Creater. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I think then
that you weren't taught it properly. I know that I was not.
In a public high school, I received one class on
evolution, and even then the teacher sidestepped most of
it. Contrary to the hysterical claims of creationists,
evolution is not widely taught in public schools.
What doesn't add up? Rocks to humans? Monkeys giving birth to human babies? The earth being so old, because of the helium in the atmosphere or the salt in the oceans? I would suggest that you give evolution a second chance. I would suggest you browse the FAQs and look at the "Must Read Files" on this website. If these are too technical for you, look at my page for lay people: The Evolution Education Resource Center. How can you know it's false if you can't accurately describe how it works? Believe in a creator if you wish. You don't have to stop believing in a creator to accept the findings of modern science. Many religious people have no problem with keeping their faith and keeping their intellectual integrity at the same time. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Having seen
this argument before, and as a person who has kept both
fresh- and saltwater fish, I'd like to expand on the
replies made to this posting in the July feedback:
It's well-known that some fish can be gradually acclimated from fresh to salt water, if it's done gradually. This is possible with guppies and mollies, two very common aquarium fish, and I suspect that these are what Zach's friend Jared keeps in his tanks. In other words, Zach's secondhand example proves nothing. Now, if Jared has learned to acclimate freshwater angelfish or neon tetras to live in salt water, I hope he will publish his findings in one of the aquarium publications, since this would be a major scientific accomplishment. To many freshwater fish, even the slightest amount of salt in the water is immediately fatal. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Precisely. To show that their flood model works, creationists must demonstrate that not just some but all freshwater fish can survive saltwater. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I FIND YOUR WEBSITE INTERESTING,BUT FULL OF ERRORS. IN YOUR FAQS YOU SAY EVOLUTION IS A FACT, NOT SO. ITS ONLY A THEORY. TO PUT IT MORE ACCURATELY A RELIGION BEING TOUGHT AS A SCIENCE. WITH MUCH STUDY IN BIOLOGY AND ANOTHER SCIENCE-ARCHAELOGY I COME TO REALIZE THERE MUST BE A SUPREME DISIGNER OF EVERYTHING. EVOLUTION TEACHES AGAINST THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND GENETICS. DO YOU KNOW ALL RACES CAN BE TRACED BACK TO 2 PEOPLE(MALE AND FEMALE) THE BIBLE VERSION CAN BE BACKED UP HISTORICALY BY MODERN SCIENCE . THOSE OLD NAMES NOAH,CAIN ABEL,ETC KEEP TURNING UP IN RECORDS FROM THE SUMERITANS TO THE INCAS. LOOK AT THE ANIMALS THAT THOUGHT WERE EXTINCT MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO BUT NOW LIVE. LOOK TODAY AT THE JEWISH PEOPLE,GOD KEEPS THEM AND BROUGHT THEM BACK TO THERE HOMELAND IN 1948 JUST AS HE SAID HE WOULD IN THE BOOK OF EZEKIAL. I THINK THE REAL REASON PEOPLE WANT TO BELIEVE EVOLUTION THEY KNOW THEY WILL HAVE TO ANSWER TO SOMEONE HIGHER SOMEDAY. REMEMBER GOOD SCIENCE LOOKS AT ALL THE EVIDENCE. LETS KEEP THE RELIGION OF EVOLUTION OUT OF TRUE SCIENCE. THANK YOU |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I found your
feedback interesting, but full of errors.
Evolution is indeed a fact. And a theory. The claim that "Evolution is just a theory" is such a common misconception about evolution that it deserves a detailed rebuttal. This comment is born out of misuse of the word theory. People who make statements like: "But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law," or "It's a theory, not a fact," don't really know the meanings of the words their using. Theory does not mean guess, or hunch, or hypothesis. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always be a theory, a law will always be a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory. The following definitions, based on information from the National Academy of Sciences, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory." A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious. A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well. For example, there is the phenomenon of gravity, which you can feel. It is a fact that you can feel it, and that bodies caught in a gravitational field will fall towards the center. Then there is the theory of gravity, which explains the phenomenon of gravity, based on observation, physical evidence and experiment. Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity replaced the less accurate gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton, which was the first complete mathematical theory formulated which described a fundamental force. There is the modern theory of evolution, neo-darwinism. It is a synthesis of many scientific fields (biology, population genetics, paleontology, embryology, geology, zoology, microbiology, botany, and more). It replaces darwinism, which replaced lamarckism, which replaced the hypotheses of Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather), which expanded the ideas of Georges de Buffon, which in turn expanded upon the classification of Karl von Linne. (see also: Darwin's Precursors and Influences) So there is the theory of evolution. Then there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists readily admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species. The process (simply stated) involves the genetic potential of many different types of individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual organisms, and the deaths of those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the total environment as other individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited individuals allows for the increased reproduction of the better suited ones, which initiates a shift in the appearance and function of the species. Without limitation. There is more genetic stuff to it than that, but that is basically how it works. Yes, evolution is a fact, as real as gravity. The fact that all species alive today have descended from a common ancestor can be denied, but not refuted. We know it happens because we can observe it directly in short-lived species, and for longer lived species there is genetic and fossil evidence that is unambiguous. There is no other scientific explanation for the diversity of living species. Evolution is a very well established scientific concept with a massive amount of physical evidence for support. It is not a guess. Evolution is the basis of modern biology, and universities and laboratories across the world are engaged in research that explores evolution. You don't have to 'believe' in evolution. You can trust that the thousands of scientists who study this phenomenon aren't morons, or Satanists. You can accept the general idea that life propagates with modifications, and those modifications can lead to improved survival, and that as those modifications are passed over time, many modifications can lead to a species that looks very different from its predecessor. Is that so hard to accept? I have no faith at all in evolution. (I also have no faith in algebra, chemistry or astronomy). Evolution either stands or falls by the strength of the evidence used to substantiate it. Evolutionary biology relies on factual data, physical evidence, molecular experimentation, and it goes hand in hand with geology. Some people can say "Well, scientists weren't there... they don't know what happened. It's still faith." But that is mere blind objectionism, like an ostrich hiding its head in the sand. There are real reasons behind the science of reconstructing the past. My favorite analogy is forensic science. A man can murder someone (with no witnesses), and scientists can reconstruct the scene with such accuracy as to pinpoint the guilty person-- with such accuracy as to cause that man to receive the death penalty. For example, most Americans are convinced of O.J. Simpson's guilt... even though no one was there to see him do it. The situation with evolution is much the same-- reconstructing the past through examination of the evidence. It's true that not every theory withstands the test of time and goes on to be considered a fact by nearly all of the scientific community, but evolution is one that has. See also: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory. This is the statement from the National Academy of Science:
To say that evolution is a religion is grossly wrong, and simply ignorant. You claim that evolutionists "believe" in it because they don't want to answer to a higher power. This false and ignorant claim ignores the fact that the vast majority of evolutionists are not atheists. In addition, it is false that all humans can be traced back to one male and one female. Let's keep evolution right where it belongs, thank you. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Another
point to consider when rising to the challange of the
second law of thermodynamics:
We can consider the universe to be a closed system. As such, that universe contains the Earth, an open system. Orderly arrangements on the Earth can occur with the addition of energy from the remainder of the system. However, orderly arrangements in the entire universe would require the input of physical energy from another system (which does not exist). It seems, then, that it is the act of Divine Creation that is the principle that violates the second law of thermodynamics. Which is fine. As Christians and others believe, the Creator God can violate the laws of nature. Creator God, a non-physical entity, can mysteriously provide the physical energy needed to create an orderly universe. However, a system of inquiry into understanding nature cannot make an appeal to supernatural events as a means of explanation. We ACCEPT "explanations"; we BELIEVE "Truth". To quote Gish, "We do not know how God created, what processes He used, for God used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to divine creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by God." (D. Gish. (1973). Evolution? The Fossils Say No!, San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers.) As such, we cannot argue against scientific theory using a religious principle. It is like arguing "Apples" vs "Justice". |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Actually,
you got a part of that wrong. Yes, the universe is a closed
system, but temporary increases in order within a closed
system are accomplished by the decrease of order in some
other part of the system. Therefore, on the whole, the
total entropy, or disorder, of the universe is always
increasing, and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not
violated, and therefore there is no need to invoke divine
energies from some speculative "other" system.
Nothing violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
You did say something stunningly right: "a system of inquiry into understanding nature cannot make an appeal to supernatural events as a means of explanation." I couldn't have said it better. As far as your next statement, however, I would say that belief or disbelief are states of mind that are applied to questionable or unsubstantiated claims. Aren't they? And Gish's statement is a perfect example of why creation "science" isn't science at all. He says so himself. Therefore, it shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a public school science classroom. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | The time it takes for star light to reach the earth, should not be used to gauge when the star was formed, or how old the earth is, or any other time measure. In Creationism, God could have very easily created the star with the starlight already reaching the earth, so it really gauges absolutely nothing. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | If so, such
arbitrary dismissals of natural law whenever it is
convenient can hardly form the basis of a "science". Can
they?
What you are advocating there is a particularly malicious theology, were a vindictive creator sets up an appearance of reality for the sole purpose of ensnaring honest scientists in search of truth. Way to go, there. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I am a Christian who has recently been exploring the scientific evidences for evolution, creationism, as well as young and old earth theories. Like you, I am interested in the TRUTH, and I do applaud your research and representation of data. However, you have allowed some faulty information to be displayed on this site. And please, I'm not insulting or attacking you, I'm just making you aware. I visited the "bible errancy" site that you provided a link to, and I'm sorry, but you yourself need to evaluate the validity of the site's claims. Not only was it illogical, but it grossly misquoted scripture. In many of the verses they quoted, they intentionally changed words to distort the meaning. All you have to do is look at a bible, the verses they quoted, and read for yourself. The site is a lie! And if this site is dedicated to searching for the truth, you need to evaluate the information you allow on this site. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | If you feel
those sites are in error, you should contact the owners of
those sites directly. They are not connected with the Talk
Origins Archive in any way.
I sometimes refer to Biblical Errancy websites to illustrate the fact that the bible is not infallable. I feel it is fair and necessary to do so. I am aware that a few of the sites in question do have faulty information, and when I find such errors, I contact the site owners to have it rectified. I suggest you do the same. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am a
student of biochemistry at a state university in South
Dakota, which shall remain nameless at this time because of
the prejudices against true science. When I say true
science, I do NOT mean evolution. Surprise you? Maybe.
If you will answer just one question for me, I will forget every creation science fact I ever learned and totally convert to evolutionary thinking. No fancy chemistry terms are needed, because we don't need them. The question is simple enough: Where did the first molecule of any sort that ever appeared in the universe come from, assuming that there is no creator? Explain to us all how matter comes from nothing. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | Ask a cosmologist. It has nothing to do with evolution. If you think that it has, then you never learned anything about evolutionary biology. Hint: "stellar evolution" has nothing to do with biological evolution except they are both processes of change. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am impressed by how long your site has been available. Do you accept donations, to help keep the site available? If so, what do you need specifically? Thanks for making such a great site. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | What we need
most of all is additional contributions to the Archive from
informed individuals. Check the Submission Guidelines
and the Request for
FAQs to see what we need and how to submit it.
As for financial contributions, Brett Vickers, the Archive maintainer, has indicated that they are best given to a worthy organization, such as the National Center for Science Education. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | A comment based on the "Big Bang Theory.".... Does science really believe that this whole universe, just blew up? How do the 1st and 2nd laws of thrermodynamics account for this? How could the matter get there in the first place? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | No,
scientists do not believe that the universe "just blew
up". Scientists think that the universe had a unique
beginning, and there is good observational reason for
thinking that. The 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics do
not account for this, but fortunately they don't have too.
Laws that don't exist don't have to explain anything; these
laws and all of the rest of the laws of physics, nature,
and the universe came into existence along with the
universe. They all share the same origin. We assert that
the laws of physics hold inside the universe, but we
do not assert that they hold outside the universe
(whatever & whereever that is).
We do not know what caused the big bang to happen, but we do not need to know what causes something (anything) to happen in order to know that it has in fact happened, so the criticism is weak. Do we know that the big bang in fact happened? No, we don't know that either, but it is a strong theory well supported by the evidence and I see no reason to abandon the idea in the face of a fairly flimsy criticism. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Albert |
Comment: | I noticed
you do not seem to believe much on the Creator. It is very
interesting how some people rater dig their back yard and
not pay attention to facts. How do you explain Noah's ark
on the top of a montain? How do you explain David's home
artefacts matching Bible description? How do you explain
prophecies written before Jesus to happen in perfect order?
How do you explain you do not look into the Bible, but into
some christian's coments? ... so you do not care for the
Bible? ... then how do you explain human footprints side by
side with dinossaurs footprints ( on the same layer ) ? How
do you explain that if earth was as old as cientists claim
it to be, the sun would be too close to earth by the time
first life came into earth? Did you know that carbon 14
dating process does not take in consideration that ozone
layer had changed ( because it affects its calculation -
rate ) ? How do you explain that many bones of different
animals are often together ( like if a great amount of
water suddently had pushed it )? Did you really looked into
it? I hope you do it soon. I hope you do not have pride to
block you to search for THE TRUTH, no matter what it is. I
do not intent to ofend you or your beliefs. I just would
like to encourage you to gather more information before you
assume something. Thank you for your attention. Albert
P.S.- Very nice webpage!! Keep it up. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I explain
most of it by saying that you have been misled by dishonest
creationists, who believe it is acceptable to lie in order
to further the kingdom of God. This phenomenon is
incredibly common.
Dinosaur footprints with human footprints, the sun too close to the earth, carbon 14 dating, out of order fossils, Noah's Ark... you left out a few of their whoppers. For the real answers to these creationist falsehoods and fabrications, go to Frequently Encountered Criticisms in Evolution vs. Creationism, or The General Anti-Creationism FAQ , or use the Talk Origin Archive's search feature at the bottom of the screen. As for believing in a creator, some of us do, some of us don't. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | First I would like to say how concise and informative your site is. It has been very helpful to me as a study tool for my physical anthropology course. However, I have decided to use your site to finish a review project in my world archaeology class and I am having trouble figuring out exactly who I should be crediting. I would like a little more information on what organisations you are affiliated with and what the final aim of your group is. Please respond in a timely manner as I am on a deadline. Remember Wallace! Thank you. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | This site is maintained by volunteers. There is no actual organisation beyond an informal arrangement between the site administrator and those who write and revise the FAQs. So citing the author and the URL of the FAQ you are referencing would be appropriate. The standard practice in academic papers when citing a URL is to put the date it was referenced as well, in case it is revised later on. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | "It is
bigotry for public schools to teach only one theory of
origins." Thus, when he declared at the Scopes trial that
children should have 'both' creation and evolution, he
meant both 'evolution' (which is science*) and 'creation'
(which is theology). You are contradicting yourself! Also,
you don't KNOW what Darrow meant.
*science: to take a theory and transform it into a fact one must have documentation and it must be reproducible |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | This
quotation of Clarence Darrow seems to be apocryphal. I am
told that it appears nowhere in the Scopes trial transcript
nor in any contemporaneous report of the trial. If someone
does know the source of this quotation, please enlighten
me.
Scientific theories do not transform into facts. Scientific theories are verified models used to explain facts. See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Jennifer |
Comment: | I don't understand why everything has to be FACT with you all!!! let me ask you something, "Have you ever seen the wind?" no, no one has, but you see the effects of the wind, which by that, you know that it is there. This is the same idea with God.. I haven't seen him physically face-to face, but I can see Him moving in my life. How do you think miracles happen? Is there scientific data to explain those? By the way, none of the evolution theory is fact either. Also, if God isn't real, why is our whole timeline named after Him?(B.C. and A.D.) Why is "In God we trust." on American coins? Why to people blasphemy God's name and not Buddha's or Muhammid's names. Also, just what if my idea of Creationism and Cristianity is real? you have nothing to loose by believing in it, but you have everyting to loose by not! God Bless You. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Pascal's wager is itself considered heretical. Evidence exists. Enough evidence exists to show that the claims made by young-earth creationists are false. Enough evidence exists that even YEC anti-evolutionists admit that "microevolution" occurs, by which they typically mean all sub-specific change and even change at the species level is well-evidenced. Belief in God need not be compromised by acceptance of the scientific data and theories concerning biological change. Millions of Christians are readily able to accept what science has learned about biology. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | In response
to Creation Science and the
Earth's Magnetic Field
If you plot the data used to "conclude" that the earth's magnetic field must be decaying and therefore the earth is 10,000 years old on a TI-83, you will see that a quadratic equation and a linear equation match the small range of the given data with no meaningful difference. So how do we know the magnetic field (even using the faulty logic and data) is not going down in a linear fashion? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: | We don't
know, from the data alone, that it is not going down in a
linear fashion, which is why the McDonald & Gunst
report fit the data to a straight line. We also don't know,
from the data alone, that it is not decaying along an
exponential, or a quadratic, or a higher order polynomial.
In fact, from the data alone, we do not know that the field
is in long-term decay at all, and that's the point. Barnes
insists that he does know, but the method whereby he
justifies his "knowledge" is worthless.
We have to go outside that restricted data set in order to understand its long-term behavior, and that's where the observation of reversals of the Earth's magnetic field become important. We know that the sun's magnetic field reverses polarity on a regular basis (with a period of roughly 22 years), so it should not be so amazing that the Earth's geological record shows that the Earth's magnetic field behaves likewise, but not with so regular a periodicity. That record suggests that the Earth's magnetic field will decay for some time, and then reconstruct itself (and suggests that this has happened numerous times in the past). There is no evidence outside of that presented by Barnes that the Earth's magnetic field is in long-term exponential decay, and his evidence is weak at best. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | maurice frank |
Comment: | I'm writing from Edinburgh (Scotland) public library and can't get into talk.origins. I've got a theory related to cybernetic universe theism, in which an infinite reservoir of pre-living souls exist in space and are the particle of time, with a power of atomic scale interactions with particles by gravity warp, that is a theory of both mind-brain dualism and ghosts, that I contributed to the SPR in 1990. It also includes these souls' interaction with organic polymers serving as a catalyst in favour of complexity, enabling life to originate without involving either conscious creation or chance. Arizona uni is against me for being a survivor/campaigner against high pressure in schools. Can you publish my theory full length? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Um, no. This is not, despite what one might think, a religious Web site. As stated on the Welcome page, this site exists to present summaries of mainstream scientific results. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | This is my 9th attempt at feedback. The other 8 went unanswered! Why am I surprised??!!??! Again I challenge your "theories" to an open debate or forum! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | To debate issues, go to the talk.origins newsgroup, where many will be happy to debate with you, both pro-evolution and pro-creationism. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | If man has been around as long as evolutionists "claim," where is everybody? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Four words:
People die and decompose.
|
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Evolution has never been proven, therefore it cannot be accepted as fact. It is silly to accept it when you have a carefully documented account of creation. Evolution is a copout. It's a religion in this definition: "Man's expression of the divine," (New Webster's Dicitonary And Thesaurus of the English Language). Though a negative one, evolution does express an opinion about the divine. So, you want to quit shoving religion on kids, quit teaching evolution. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Where do people keep coming up with the silly notion that evolution expresses any opinion about the divine, either negative or positive? Science is constrained solely to the natural world; by definition, it can say nothing about the supernatural. Despite what this reader may have been told, evolution does not deny (or confirm) God's existence. See the What is Evolution? and Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution FAQs. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I've really
enjoyed reading your site over the last few lunch hours
here at work. My first comment is thanks.
Second, I'm a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering with emphasis on thermodynamics. I wanted to supplement what you've written about entropy being consistent with the evolution of life and the universe by noting: 1. Scientists & engineers test every theory against certain "laws of nature." We reject (or seriously question) anything that violates conservation of energy, conservation of mass, entropy increase, or other applicable laws. To say Nobel prize winning big bang theorists violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics and never noticed it is an insult to scientists and engineers. What do they think we'll do? Slap ourselves on the forehead and say, "Oh my gosh! We forgot about entropy! Shucks, I guess we're wrong." 2. I am amused that creationists think there is a fundamental law that prevents nature from forming more organized structures than previously existed, but doesn't prevent people from doing the same thing because "we're smart." We are bound by the same laws as nature. This is probably too technical, but here's my description of entropy based on the "fundamental theorem of thermodynamics." The concept is that on a micro scale, all states are equally likely. The result we see on a macro scale is the macro state with the largest number of micro states. Example 1: it is as likely that the Lotto balls will bounce out 1 2 3 4 5 as that they will come 23 38 45 1 6. However, there are only a few states with nicely ordered numbers, and there are many, many states with random numbers. Hence we expect the result to be random and we're rarely surprised. Example 2: it is as likely that the air molecules surrounding you simultaneously have velocities directed away from you as that they will have any one particular set of directions. However, there is only one micro-state that would leave you in a vacuum, and a huge number of micro-states with randomly distrbuted patterns. Hence we expect to have an even distribution of air pressure and that's what happens. Example 3: mixing 1 mole oxygen with 2 moles hydrogen (and a heat source) makes H2O because H2O is a more favorable energy state. However, there is only 1 microstate of complete combustion. There are 36x10^46 micro-states with an uncombusted O2 molecule and two H2 molecules left over. Even though perfect combustion is lower energy, the huge number of states involving less than perfect combustion means that in reality incomplete combustion wins out. (This is an example of nature's constant compromise between minimum energy and maximum entropy.) (Note: expressions of the second law derive from this concept. It is possible for a cold atom to collide in a glancing blow with a hot one and thereby transmit energy from cold to hot on a micro scale, but the odds and number of collisons so favor hot to cold transmission that on our macro scale, heat always travels from hot to cold. Similarly, when gases are mixed, there is one micro-state where they spontaneously separate, but there are many more micro states where they remain dispersed.) The famous Physicist Boltzman derived the equation S = k ln W where S is the entropy of a system, k is a very small number now called the Boltzman constant, ln is the natural log (a way of converting large numbers to small ones) and W is the number of micro-states in the system. The rule that the likeliest macro-state wins out is the same as saying the state with the largest W wins out, which is to say the state with the largest entropy wins. Boltzman was so pleased with this explanation of entropy that he had the equation put on his tombstone as his epitaph. How does this relate to evolution? Actually, it supports it. Say there are 1 million genetic "facts" to be transmitted during an organism's reproduction. There is only 1 state representing a perfect reproduction, 1 million states containing 1 error, and nearly 1 trillion containing 2 errors. Even if the odds of a single "fact" being transmitted incorrectly are very small, it's easy to see that errors will accumulate. A non-changing world would, in fact, require perfect reproduction and that would be inconsistent with the theory of entropy. Lastly, it's a shame the world hasn't produced a modern theologian who is also adept at modern physics. To my mind, understanding entropy, cosmology and evolution means understanding how God thinks. God was a very clever fellow who set this marvellous universe into motion with a bare minimum of building blocks and rules, yet with unfathomable foresight. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Very well said. Informative, and entertaining too! I think you hit the bullseye with your letter. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Both factions agree that matter exists; that reality is "real." What is the evolutionist (old "Illuminati," or anti-religion) explanation for how matter came to be; or, put more succintly, why there need be no "first cause" of matter? I read about an evolutionist in Iowa who said something about wanting to bang his head because they were going to drop evolution from the textbooks. I suggest that gentleman needs a lobotomy so he won't be so agitated; and maybe his offspring will have smaller heads so they can fit into police cars when they are arrested. We Native Americans do not accept evolution. This is intended to rob people of hope of an afterlife. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The origin
of matter is not an issue of darwinian evolution. If you
wish to pursue the issue, you should familiarize yourself
with classical physics as well as quantum mechanics. It may
be that there is no origin of matter or energy. In any
case, I am not impatient for the answer. The most
intelligent humans on earth are working on the question,
and someday we will know. I see no need for a concrete
answer right at this moment.
I wonder why you think evolutionists are someday going to be arrested? Also, not all evolutionists are "anti-religious", as you claim. In fact, about 80 percent of evolutionists are Christians. Evolution is not an attempt to rob people of anything. It is an effort to understand the world by the best possible means: science. It is picking apart the natural world to see how it works-- to understand how we got here. If the results of this inquiring are contrary to your traditional beliefs, you have the right to ignore the results. You may also believe the earth is flat, if you wish. But you might also try to incorporate the findings of science within your beliefs, as many honest religious people have done. At least, to the credit of Native Americans, they have not tried to insist that their beliefs about the origin of humanity be taught in public school science class, as the Christian creationists have done in the past. That would of course be a violation of the principle of separation of church and state, embodied in the first amendment of our constitution. It would also really tick off creationist Christians if Native American creationism was taught alongside theirs, wouldn't it? |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | As an evangelical Christian I find many of the comments made by my fellow Christians most disheartening. The scientists and volunteers who donate their time to this site have done an honorable job of presenting the facts that support Evolution and the facts overwhelmingly support evolution. Facts are not a threat to faith. That our God chose evolution to bring about life does not detract from the wonder of our God - it enhances it! The inability of many people of faith to reconcile their personal theological interpretations with the facts is no reason to dismiss the remarkable intellectual accomplishments of the scientific community. There was a time in the history of our church when serious intellectual inquiry was seen as a form of worship - what better way to honor our God than to come to grips with His creation? I would also remind you that many of the great institutions of learning that are advancing the sciences - including the study of evolution - are Christian institutions. Sadly, few of these are Evangelical Christian institutions. We are called to love our God with all our MINDS! I think its time for us to realize that no one told us to check our brains at the door when we became Christian. To my friends at talk origins - continue the good work. Don't be discouraged, truth and facts will always overcome bad theology. We are with you! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Wow, that made my day. What a great letter! I admire your intellectual honesty. Hey, can you talk to some of these creationists for us, 'cause they automatically reject everything we say. Thanks! |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Why hasn't anyone claimed Dr. Hovind's prize to prove evolution? www.drdino.com Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer formerly $10,000, offered since 1990 |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | That's
because it's a bogus challenge. It doesn't matter if he
offers $1,000,000,000 dollars, the conditions are
unscientific, and the judges are him and his buddies. The
evidence is already out there, but he will refuse to
acknowledge it up until his last breath.
Mr. Hovind's $10,000 "challenge" is my assessment of his challenge, from my website The Wild, Wild World of Kent Hovind. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I wondered
if I could suggest a section on the "evolution" of
language?
Firstly I find it interesting! Secondly I've noticed some YEC sites presenting arguments claiming evidence that it all started at the tower of Babel etc and it seemed worth having a counter to it. Alas I'm not qualified to submit one! |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
We should just point to Dr. Robert Pennock's excellent book, "Tower of Babel". It's been nominated for several prestigious awards, including the Pulitzer Prize. I just finished a review of it for a magazine, and I recommend it highly. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | One of the
best indicators that creation science and the young earth
theory is invalid is that the various species appear only
in certain rock layers. For example, no human remains have
ever been found with dinosaurs.
I ran across a web site that appears to show that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. They point to many dozens of places where humans have been found in ancient rock -- sometimes in the presence of dinosaur bones. How do you explain these findings? Regards, |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | What I see
on this site is a list of geologic ages with statements
like "Dinosaurs found in this layer include: Dimetrodon"
and "Humans found in this layer include: footprints in
Secoro New Mexico."
Are we simply to take this person's word for it? If this were a proper list of findings, it would tell when these artifacts or fossils were found and by whom. It would discuss the conditions of their discovery, tell how they were dated, and compare them to other artifacts and fossils. Or if there was no room for full descriptions, it would at least refer to the primary scientific literature discussing these things. Instead, we merely have a list of unsubstantiated claims. A list of unsubstantiated claims requires no rebuttal. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Obviously, evolution is the best-fit theory; however, I believe it is yet incomplete. There are examples of mimicry that I feel are quite inadequately explained. Also, the apparent "phasing-out" of characteristics no longer necessary (i.e. reduction of canine size in homo sapien) is wonderfully parsimonious but the selective pressure remains elusive. Also, could archetypal fears and instincts be instilled so that experiences of a population are impressed upon the genetics of the descendents? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I agree with you completely. Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of living things on earth. But of course, we don't have all the answers. You raise some good questions, and I'm all for finding the answers. The answers to these and other issues lies in more research, better science education in our schools, and a heightened public awareness on the relevance of evolutionary biology. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Your site pretends to be "exploring the creation/evolution controversy," but there is no criticism of evolution at all on your site. This is not intellectually honest. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Once again,
from the Talk.Origins Archive Welcome page:
|
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I was reading about Archaeopteryx for a science report. Other than the fact that I found your site a great help, I must protest a bit of information in the articule about only modern birds having feathers. Certain kinds of dogs, mainly a few bird dogs have feathers around their feet. It aids in their ability to swim, (along with a flap of skin connecting toes). I am sure no one in their right mind would say a labrador is a bird because of the feathers. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Whoa!! I have had several labs, and never noticed any feathers. Perhaps you should take a trip down to your local petstore and have a look. Have you ever seen these feathers for yourself? Perhaps your dog stepped in some super glue, then walked across a burst feather-pillow... |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | What about polystrat trees over a 120 feet tall - wouldn't this have to be a sudden event? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Certainly,
these fossils were probably the result of a "fairly" sudden
event-- being covered with silt and swampy water in such a
way as to retard decomposition. This is what happens in
localized flooding, and with the advance tidal marshes over
a period of decades. I don't know about "120 feet tall",
though. The only reference I have to the size of the
fossils is "several meters". Please state your reference
for "120 feet"-- when and where were these found, and by
whom? You should dig for this information, and keep
digging until you find it. You might find, at the end
of your search, another creationist whopper-- another case
of "lying for Jesus".
To extend the proportions of this localized phenomenon to suggest that the whole world was covered by massive flooding in a single event is totally unfounded. If it were so, then it is likely that "polystrate" trees would be the rule, not the exception. I would ask you, if the whole world flooded at once, why are polystrate trees so exceptionally uncommon? Go to "Polystrate" Tree Fossils for the Talk Origins FAQ on "Polystrate" fossils. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I read a page arguing the case for the aquatic ape theory (AAT). I found its arguments quite convincing, so I wonder why it receives so little of a mention in mainstream silence. Do you have a view on this? Thanks. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | It's not generally accepted amongst the paleoanthropology community as a viable hypothesis (I'm just reporting here). Mostly it is thought to be a "Just-So" story, based on a misled assumption that every feature of humans has to have an adaptive story for it. There is little positive evidence in its favor relative to the other hypothesis - that humans arose on the arid side of the rift valley, while their nearest relatives lived in the more lush forested side. However, recent discoveries suggest that bipedalism, the defining character of our lineage, may have predated even this - not that this is any comfort to the AAT. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Recently, a
lecturer came to our university to scientifically prove the
existence of God.
While I was speaking to him afterwards, he referred to a method developed by SETI to determine the chance that a signal came from an intelligent source. Supposedly, this method was applied to the DNA of something, and the results were supposed to imply an intelligent source. I searched your site for references to SETI, but couldn't find anything in regards to this. Does anyone there recognize what I am talking about? I apologize for the lack of documentation, but that is what is causing me the problem to begin with. (Oh, and if the topic comes up again, I have a few rebuttals, now. Starting with 'who decided that a technique designed for radio waves should be applied to the shape of a molecule' and leading up to 'radio waves don't evolve.') |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | Well, there
are several things that could be being referred to here.
The most likely is the measure of information in a physical system. The most likely signal is noise, so anything that differs too much has to have some particular cause. The SETI (see their home site) approach is to analyse the signals they pick up for deviations from the background noise of the universe. Of course, other things also cause deviations from background noise: a classic case was the discovery of pulsars, which are rapidly rotating neutron stars that send out highly periodic radiowave signals. So, one has to ask - why is DNA periodic? The obvious answer is that it is a molecule that has been selected for its ability to be periodic. Selection adds order over time. In sum, this is just another case of the argument from design. And it is defeated - as an argument - by the fact that many ordinary things are ordered (that is, unlikely through random chance) without design. However, while we can reject it as an argument against Darwinian evolution, there is no in-principle reason why one cannot use intelligence as an explanation for non-randomness in a cosmic sense. [Thanks to Catrina Wang for picking up a mistake in this response] |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I still can't imagine how all the living organisms were created by evolution. Life is complex and wonderful. It seems impossible unless there is a God who created the world. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I understand
that it is hard to imagine how the complexity and beauty of
life could have arisen from natural processes. What you
must try to imagine is that for the longest time, most
of the earth's history, there were no large animals--
no fish, no horses, no dinosaurs, no sparrows, no frogs.
All life was microscopic. For billions of years this was
the case. All that lived were simple single-celled and then
multi-celled organism. Once life had crossed the threshold
of large bodied organisms, there was more opportunity for
diversity and complexity, arising from the need to adapt to
different environments and new predatory dangers.
Life's information (the instructions on how it works) is encoded in genes, which are decoded by biological mechanisms. Then these mechanisms manufacture parts that work together to make a living organism. Like a computer that builds itself, the process follows a loop: information needs machinery, which needs information, which needs machinery, which needs information. This relationship can start very simply, and then over many generations build into something so complicated that some people can't imagine how it ever could have gotten started in the first place. It is important to recognize that the information encoded in DNA is not like a blueprint, which contains a scale model image of the final product, it is like a recipe-- a set of instructions to be followed in a certain order. Life's complexity arises from remarkable simplicity. DNA's message says, "Take this, add this, then add this… stop here. Take this, then add this…" These actions are carried out by a variety of proteins. The result is all the intricacy and diversity of the biological realm. You might want to look at my page Evolution for Beginners. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Gentlemen,
I have read some of your material. Isn't the fossil record actually hostile to the concept of descent with modification? I have read over the years where many evolutionists have abandoned the idea macroevolution and hace concentrated on microevolution. Well knowns such as Eldredge, Raup, Pilbeam, Gould and Patterson all agree that the fossil record does not provide the intermediates. There should be untold billions, maybe trillions, of intermediates if descent with modification has happened. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Macroevolution FAQ |
Response: | You have
heard some half-truths and misunderstandings. Evolutionists
did not abandon the idea of macroevolution, they studied it
in some detail. What they did do is explain it in terms of
microevolutionary processes. Those you cite are
evolutionists (committed to the idea of common descent,
selection and the other Darwinian theories) who think that
macroevolution also involves some other dynamics,
none of which are antievolutionary.
As to the fossil intermediates: consider how, if what you are saying were true, we would be up to our necks in the remains of our dead ancestors. Why aren't we? Because bodies decay and are returned into the ecosystem. It actually takes very rare circumstances for fossilisation to occur. Even if it didn't, we haven't looked very much for very long in very many places - just a couple of hundred years, and a few thousand researchers. We have many more highway surveyors than that. Despite this, we have lots of transitionals: they are outlined various FAQs: beginning with the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Thank you
for providing an informative and well-documented website. I
have made one particular observation about the Great
Evolution Debate. The debate has been made worse by people
who insist that ontological naturalism be taught as an
evolutionary fact. (See "Naturalism: Is it necessary?" FAQ Evolution &
Chance) If I understand Wilkins' FAQ correctly,
ontological naturalism is not a testable hypothesis. Plus
proponents of this philosophy do not allow it to be
falsifiable. Yet anyone who dares to reject ontological
naturalism is accused of rejecting evolution. Do you have
any thoughts on this situation?
PS: I use a computer at my public library, and therefore cannot participate in Talk Origins the normal way. Is there a way that I can participate via e-mail? Thank you. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | Naturalism
is actually discussed in the Evolution and
Philosophy FAQ.
Whether something is falsifiable or not, it can still be testable in a more relaxed sense. You can ask questions like - "does the assumption that all that exists is natural enable one to make a life?" That's a test. Of course, it isn't a scientific test, but one from the individual standards of the questioner. Only some accuse all and only those who reject ontological naturalism of rejecting evolution. Mostly, evolutionists are happy to allow that, within the confines of scientific knowledge and practice, there is no need for a designer to account for life as we know it. Don't think it is dogma, any more than the religious views of other scientists are part of their theoretical scientific work. In sum, if you accept the value of scientific knowledge, then any knowledge of the physical world is scientifically approachable, and this means it is methodologically natural. That's all it means. If there is a God, demons, an Invisible Pink Unicorn or a Grand Programmer (it used to be a Grand Geometer), that's of no consequence to science one way or the other. The only way to engage it debate on talk.origins is to use a newsreader on a server that is properly configured, I'm afraid. It is not on email, and I suspect it would crash the most robust of email clients on a busy day anyway. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Wanting to
understand the convincing arguments and philosophical
reasoning in support of evolution, I have read many
articles posted on these pages. I found a lot of derogatory
comments about creation scientists who spout "lies" and
"half-truths" in an attempt to mislead people. They are
bashed personally and ridiculed for their presuppositions.
When I read, I feel anger and resentment coming out of the
words.
The weight of the evidence certainly tips the balance for the creationists. Lack of conclusive fossil evidence, irreducible complexity, genetic limitations, our failure to create a simple life form given the best laboratory settings, and the observable magnificance of nature among many others. The complexity upon complexity upon complexity that defies all understanding!! The thought that random processes could generate the complexity that the scientific community has uncovered is absurd to me. That said, I used to be a believer in evolution and at one time thought that creationism was backward, blind, and afraid. All I can say is that my eyes have been opened in a new way, and I am much better able to evaluate the evidence and the arguements. And while creationist bashing may be a great morale builder in the evolutionist camp, it probably will do little to sway the mind of an objective truth seeker. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | As the
reader cites no specific instances, I cannot determine
which comments he feels are derogatory. In general,
creationists do not concern us; we are concerned with the
falsehoods they spread in God's name.
Anyone who claims a lack of fossil evidence for evolution is simply ignorant of that evidence. See the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, for one. More to the point, other independent lines of evidence, such as immunology, embryology, morphology, and genetics, confirm evolution. "Irreducible complexity" is Michael Behe's way of saying, "I don't understand." Behe's incomprehension does not mandate the supernatural, nor does it undermine evolution. See our numerous critiques of Behe's work. I don't know what "genetic limitations" are. I do wish that someone would conclusively demonstrate what those are. We may not be able to create living creatures in the laboratory (yet). So what? We can't make a volcano, either, but that doesn't mean we don't know how they work. I would agree that nature is magnificent. That's not incompatible with evolution. Neither is a belief in God. See the God and Evolution FAQ. The surest sign that people do not understand evolution is when they start talking about "random processes." Evolution contains both random and non-random elements. See the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ and the Evolution and Chance FAQs. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | darwin is a racist cuz he says us black folks are more closely related to apes than them white people |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Darwin may
very well have been racist. In his time, most educated
Europeans were (not all, but most). However, the passage
you obliquely refer to, in Descent of Man, actually
asserts that there is little difference in the human races.
This is not to excuse him, of course, because he did seem
to think there was a "ladder" or scale of "evolvedness", a
hangover from the prior evolutionary ideas of Lamarck.
Or perhaps (my opinion) he was just a bit confused, between the "superiority" of European, particularly British, civilisation, and the biological basis for human species differences. The distinction between biology and culture was not so rigid then as now. However, this does not mean that Darwinian evolutionary theory is racist. For a start, theories in science are amoral. They are either correct or incorrect. Next, modern biology, based on Darwinian theory, asserts that the differences between geographical variants in the human species are pretty minor, and of no overall significance in the relatedness to other species. Apes, by the way, are just as evolved, in their way, as we humans are in ours. They took just as long as we did, since our common ancestor, to get to where they are today more or less. |
Feedback Letter | |
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? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
Unfortunately, my artistic skills are not up to the task.
But I will attempt to answer this challenge verbally.
I urge the reader to consider the example of the flying squirrel. The flying squirrel cannot fly in the sense that a bird can, but the flaps of skin it has around its limbs do allow it to glide over short distances. The survival benefits these flaps give to the squirrel are obvious: it can survive falls from greater heights, and it can jump farther distances from tree to tree to escape predators. There is no distinct dividing line between gliding short distances and true flight. True flight requires adaptations in muscular and skeletal structure that are seen to a greater or lesser extent in modern-day flying animals. Birds, for example, range from flightless birds to birds that make short hops (such as chickens) to gliding birds to short-distance fliers to birds that make transcontinental migrations. If such variation exists today, why could it not have existed in the past? (And, indeed, it did.) Whether those flight adaptations increase or decrease the bird's survival depends on its environment, the local predators, food supplies, the energy required to fly, and other similar factors. Natural selection in the form of these factors has operated and continues to operate on this variation in flight characteristics, strengthening them in some, weakening them in others. Variation plus selection implies evolution. Thus nothing bars the evolution of flight. On a related note, see the Archaeopteryx FAQs. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Your article on the Flood fails at the outset. It was not Noah's Flood, it was God's. He can put any of the animals where He wants, when He wants. His plans for a wooden boat would be able to withstand anything He allowed to occur. However, the bias in your article is that mankind, the creature, is the Creator, thus, all else fails as it initiates from a false premise which you cannot and will not admit exists in your analyses. In all the work, it is nothing other than one professing to be wise yet proving to be a fool. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Hmm. Let's
think about this freely. If God can do anything he wants,
as you say, why did he not simply eliminate the wicked
members of humanity off the face of the earth, and leave
the rest intact? Why take the irrational and wasteful
course of action that is described in Genesis? Beyond all
of the silliness which is listed in the excellent FAQ, there is the
'rainbow in the sky', without which God might forget
that he promised not to flood the world again, and he might
just do it a second time. (See Gen. 9:15-16)
The Intolerant always proclaim the wickedness of today's "godless" society, with it's corruption, sodomy, abortion, pornography, divorce, evolution, etc., etc. I wonder then, how it could even be conceivable that every single person living on earth (with the exception of 8 individuals), were so wicked that they deserved to be drowned. By those standards, we have nothing to worry about these days. Think of everyone you know, and then ask yourself how many of them are so evil that they should be killed. Such a pre-flood scenario is impossible. The most amazing part of the Noah's Ark story is that any adult believes it. Of course, then there are all the little children. How many under the age of 12, do you suppose, were drowned by their heavenly father? The bible doesn't state that, but there must have been a lot, because of all the uncontrolled fornication done by their ultra-wicked parents. The children were killed, we are told, because God knew all of them would grow up to be as wicked as their parents. Look into the face of a five year old child, and then tell me that again. Well, if that was the case, why subject the children to the terror and the pain of death by drowning?? Can you picture all their bloated little corpses on top of the raging waters? If God can do anything he wants, why didn't he choose to make them simply vanish painlessly in their sleep? If he knew for a fact that they would grow up wicked, without the free will to be virtuous, then why allow their births at all? When God said, in Genesis 6:6,7 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him", didn't He know ‘the beginning from the end’, as we are led to believe? Did He forget when he made them that Humanity would become so utterly evil that all men, women and children, millions of them, needed to be drowned? That's not something you would think He'd miss. But apparently He did. Someone who knows the future CANNOT regret something he did. If he regrets something, that means he did not know the future in the first place. Plus, according to Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent." That sounds like a contradiction to me. For someone who speaks of "false premises", and "bias", you seem to not have employed rational analysis to the story yourself. Who is the fool here? The FAQ is full of sound logic, real reasons to reject the Flood Story as history. Did you allow yourself to read it all? Did you get past the title, with which you seem to have a problem? For a purely scientific refutation of the possibility of a worldwide flood, go to this page I have compiled. But in your philosophy, there is no scientific inquiry. Why bother? God is so powerful that anything is possible, and he obviously constructed the geological record to look exactly like a world in which there never was a global flood. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | This is an
excellent website, one which I hope many young people will
discover, that they may arm themselves with the requisite
knowledge to defend the truth against the onslaught of
irrationality (which the fundamentalists are teaching their
children, largely in the form of sophist rhetoric.))
However I have a concern... I came here (talkorigins.org) on the advice of a friend who knew I was seeking observed instances of speciation. I haven't had time to peruse the entire faq archive, but what I've seen thus far seems to be mostly instances of polyploidization, which in my experience (mostly with C. Sativa) reverts back to the traditional chromosome count of its ancestors after a few generations. I imagine many people would question this as an instance of speciation. I would suggest either a clarification of this issue within the faq archives, and perhaps organizing speciation events by category (i.e. spontaneous, polyploidization, active gametes from sterile cross-products, etc.) |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Hmm. Have you perused the Some More Instances of Speciation FAQ? It contains references to non-polyploidy speciation events. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Let's assume God made a tree. If he did, did he have to make a sappling, or can he make it full grown? I would say, he could make it full grown. Now, if God just made a full grown tree, and a scientist measured it, how old would it really be. As old as the tree rings indicate, or as old as when it was actually created? My point is that, scientists are not taking into account their are two ages to go by. The "superficial" appearance age, when measured by modern science, or the actual age the matter was created. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Why would he
make it with tree rings when he didn't have to? Let's say
he made the tree without tree rings. What a nice proof of
recent creation that would have been. It would have been
convincing and solid evidence.
But instead, did he decide to trap perfectly honest scientists and mislead the whole world? Or are tree-rings, ice cores, varves, starlight, mountain erosion, geological formations and radiometric dating all telling us the truth? That the earth is billions of years old? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Free Darwin in Infinite Space, where he can find E.T. for us: As a one-time agnostic, I am a believer in evolution of life in infinite space. What I do not believe in is the narrowly-focused atheo-political version of evolution. Evolution is much bigger than a planet, or a few missing little green monkeys from inner space. This planet is a small part of that infinite space, not the center of the universe or even evolution. The present theory is too focused on atheo-creation to be truly objective or scientific. The atheists and creationists cannot accept little green men from outer space without accepting the argument that E.T. may be an absolute scientist capable of creating life. The atheo-creation battle has done more to hold back the real science of evolution of life in infinite space than any other thing. We must look at the big picture. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Um, we have no reason to suppose that evolution is restricted to this planet. You have not supported your opinion that evolution is a narrowly focused political view. On the contrary, people of all beliefs and all political persuasions accept the truth of evolution. If there are extraterrestrial intelligent beings, then their presence or interferrence with life on earth has to be supported by the evidence, just like anything else. That is the real big picture. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Interesting
site--but of any use to anyone that relies on belief to
verify knowledge? A case in point, the discussion of the
Second Law of Thermodynamics is interesting but long-winded
for people who, either from ignorance or fraud, pose that
tired old straw man as a reason why evolution is wrong.
The bottom line is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics has NEVER been a "problem" for The Theory of Evolution, because the entire theory was built WITHIN the confines of the laws of thermodynamics. At the minimum, any addition to evolutionary theory has to pass the requirements of the laws of thermodynamics not to be laughed out of the annals of science. Creationists have taken a summarizing statement of a broad body of theory, experiment, and observation (an advanced University science course with a 200-page textbook titled "The Second Law" when I was in college) completely out of context. EVERY biological system (virus, bacteria, lizard, rat, human, flower, tree, forest, or biosphere) demonstrates the order that they complain about. But as any educated scientist knows, only at the demonstrable expense of creating disproportionately greater disorder in the Universe than the order encapsulated by the system. This is NO SECRET. Every scientific description of biological processes tells explicitly how that happens. I could demonstrate it with simple utensils in my kitchen. The laughable point is that creationists completely IGNORE and never confined themselves within the laws of thermodynamics (nor within any other scientific laws), but ascribe the creation of complexity to divine intervention, which no one can demonstrate scientifically with any utensils in my kitchen. No reputable scientist or mathematician has ever had a problem with the concept. Only those that either don't understand science or are intentionally misrepresenting it find this problematic for evolutionary theory. Disingenuous that the creationists have foolishly latched onto this misrepresentation given that violating the laws of thermodynamics was one of the many problems with creationism originally solved only by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. And they're no closer to confining their beliefs within any of the laws of science now than they were before Darwin. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | I find it
equally amusing that people would use Boltzmann's creation
to attack Darwinism. Boltzmann was a great admirer of
Darwin and in a rare case of biology influencing physics
for a change, he deliberately devised thermodynamics with a
Darwinian approach to science in mind (see Depew, David J.,
and Bruce H. Weber. Darwinism evolving: systems dynamics
and the genealogy of natural selection. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press, 1995.)
There is no point trying to shift the views of anyone who is founded purely on belief in preference to knowledge. However, most honest people, even if they are beginning with belief, will accede to knowledge if offered it. This site is aimed to reaching them. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I've got a question about the Big Bang theory, I still can't comprehend the something from nothing theory and this holds true with both Evolution and Creation, making Mass or Life are both incomprehensible to me because I'm even more impressed with where or what could have caused energy then where life came from. If the universe is expanding there must be a void for it to expand into now. If so what could have held the energy in it's little package before the Big Bang? I mean this energy would have expanded as it developed if it wasn't confined by something right? I don't know I'm just fishing, but I don't think we were created in 7 earth days either. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: | The "big
bang" is better thought of not as "a theory" but rather as
"a framework", within which specific theories are
constructed. I call it a "metatheory". It certainly appears
that the universe is expanding, and if it is expanding, it
must have started expanding at some point, and that point
is the big bang. It is not a "something from nothing"
theory, because nobody knows, or knows how to speculate, on
the conditions that came "before" the bang (what does
"before" mean if time itself was created in the bang?). So
all of the questions about what happened "before" the bang
are really unanswerable from a strictly science point of
view, at least at this time. We do not know that the energy
was "confined" before the bang, and we do not know where it
came from, or what (if anything) caused the bang to happen.
But we do know that if the universe is expanding, then there must have been a big bang event. But all we can really do for now is describe the universe after the bang, but not before the bang. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I was
browsing the "True Origins" website and came across Timothy
Wallace's rebuttal - entitled: "Five Major Evolutionist
Misconceptions About Evolution" - to Mike Isaak's essay on
creationists misconceptions. I tried to search Talk Origins
for a response but the results were negative.
Please provide me with the site if there is a response to Wallace's comments. If not, please submit comments in reply. Thanks! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You can find a rebuttal link on this page. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | A couple of
weeks ago I came across your site while searching for
information on Creationism. I am always interested to see
other people’s viewpoints. But your page on the Bible
is a prime example of misinformation. I feel sorry for the
people who believe all of what you present on that page as
truth without checking it out. Not one of the claims you
make is accurate. I got the impression that you took the
information from sources you trusted, but didn’t do
any research for yourself. I am sure you opened a bible on
occasion to make sure the verse you were misrepresenting
was there.
Also I noticed you did not list any prophecies that fit the criteria in your list of how to write prophecy. This should be an easy task for you since there are about 10,000 verses of prophecy in the Bible. You could make a great number of them fit your list, especially if you took them out of context. I would rather see how you deal with the ones that do not fit your list however. It seems to me that your first concern is not with presenting the truth, but promoting your viewpoint. And there is nothing wrong with that. Your page is an excellent piece of propaganda. You do an excellent job of debunking the Bible. But you had to leave out facts, misrepresent some items, misquote verses, and make up your own interpretations to make your points seem valid. You even contradicted yourself several times. Why should anyone trust your information if this is the kind of presentation you feel satisfied with. I am not saying that all your errors were deliberate, you might have made some honest mistakes. But the fact is that almost every one of your points is either wrong or inaccurate. If you are looking to present the truth you need to do some research using more than just the sources that agree with you. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You are
referring to the General Anti-creation
FAQ.
While the main point of this website is not biblical errancy, the issue does naturally arise. Creationists claim the perfection of every verse in the bible. Therefore, should errors and contradictions in the bible be discovered, this makes, in a general way, a case against the validity of creationism. I think the main point is that people should read the verses for themselves, and they can determine whether or not a problem exists. The page is not the best on the subject. Personally I prefer The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. The web is full of resources for people interested in pursuing the matter. On the matter of prophecy, here are excerpts from Paine (1795), firebrand of the American Revolution:
You may not agree, but it's food for thought. How can you be sure that what you call fulfilled prophecies were not written into the bible in later years? What we have come to know as the bible was not in a solid form until the Gutenberg printing press was invented in the 15th century. Before that, the bible was copied out by hand onto parchments, which could be easily altered to fit the needs of those in power. It was malleable, easily altered-- no one could hinder the early Church from adding or subtracting at their will. No one will ever know just how much of the bible was re-written between the 3rd and the 15th centuries. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hello.
In your 1999 August feedback, there was a disagreement between 'Lee' and Ken Harding as to when it is acceptable to discuss creationism in school. I personally think the approach of saying that the 'these are two theories that are both valid' approach is misguided, but I would not agree with Ken Harding's insistance that the debate between creationism and evolutionary science has no part in a science course. The history of science can often help to understand the way science works. For an analogy, I would not use slavery, but phlogiston. In my high-school chemistry class, we were taught about the theory of phlogiston. Phlogiston is stored in combustible (sp?) material, and is released when it burns. Through experiments, (involving cats in closed containers with lit candles, etc...) it was concluded that living things had to release phlogiston to live, which again produced heat. When it was demonstrated that some materials were heavier after being burned, it was proof that phlogiston had a negative weight. But the fact that I know all of this info about phlogiston does not mean I discount the existance of oxygen. (This would later replace phlogiston as the explanation) Any instructor that tried to claim it would instantly become suspect, in my mind. Anyone who claimed that phlogiston and oxygen are equally supported by the evidence would also be suspect. My suggestion is that debates on evolution could be beneficial, but preferably after a debate on phlogiston, a debate on whether the earth orbits the sun, and whether the seat of conciousness is the heart or the brain. Just to get into practice, right? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Your points
are valid, and I would agree with you if we were talking
about a social studies class or a comparative religion
course. But creationists and their proponents do not want
creationism taught as science history, but rather as
a currently valid scientific theory. To use your analogy,
what if the science teacher was a follower of the
geocentric hypothesis, and not only taught that the sun
orbits the earth, but refused to accurately represent the
heliocentric view, but instead offered straw man
caricatures that none of the students could believe.
That changes things, doesn't it? They want to present the "scientific data" that, because of the meteoric dust present on the moon, the earth/moon system cannot be more than 10,000 years old. Or because of the lack of helium in the earth's atmosphere, the earth must be, once again, less than 10,000 years old. Presenting discredited, outdated and erroneous data to young students (who have no real way of verifying it) as evidence against solidly accepted scientific knowledge is simply wrong, however you dress it up. If creationists have anything real by way of hard data, they should cease with this "backdoor" approach and get their findings accredited the normal way, through peer-reviewed, refereed scientific journals. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hello, I am very impressed by the quality of your website and the seemingly large amounts of effort that went into it. I must thank you for upholding basic logic and promoting basic science in this day of New Age popularity. I am also impressed by how objective this site is, even when those on the side of evolution make incorrect statements, you do not hesitate to correct them. It has become quite apparent to me from the feedback section that religion is extremely powerful at controlling how people think. My I ask how I may help to ensure that science and evolution remain in the curriculum of public schools? I hope your site will be found for many more years to come and continue the good work. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | My response
would be to stay active in your local school board
activities, keep abreast of what's going on. Prior to a
school board election, find out if any of the candidates
are creationists. Make your opinion known, not only there,
but among everyone. People who support science,
specifically evolution, need to "come out of the closet".
If you have children, take it upon yourself to teach them
all about it.
Also, find out from your elected officials if they support science (or creationism). We need people to be more pubically vocal. You might also visit evolvefish.com, to get yourself an evolution bumpersticker or t-shirt. Also, check out the National Center for Science Education. They have a good selection of brochures and pamphlets, more suggestions, and the most current news on the subject. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Beverly Ferguson |
Comment: | I wanted to
let you know ---you can't imagine how relieved I am to find
your website. I am living in Kansas, and the local response
to the Board of Education's decision to eliminate
macroevolution (and the big bang theory) from high school
testing has been depressing. For instance, the major
newspaper in the state capital ran a front page story
equating the scientists at the state university and a group
that claims that the Grand Canyon was created by a volcano
and that my grandfather could have shot a dinosaur. You all
are probably used to this, but I thought I must have
accidentally eaten some hallucinogen.
Thanks again. I will definitely be back to this website. Beverly Ferguson MD |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Dear
Beveryly,
Don't let it get you down. It is, in my opinion, a temporary setback only. Many sharp people and organized groups are working in opposition to it. Thanks for writing. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Dear people
that arose entirely by chance,
There are many, many arguments that I could bring to your attention that evolutionists are unable to answer. One of the more simple arguments is that the fossil record does not show any evidence that one species evolved into another, i.e., how a rat-like-mammal evolved into a whale. There are no (complete) fossils that show: fish with legs, dinosaurs with wings, how dinosuars gradually got so big. (And many more.) Spreading the Truth!!! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | On chance:
On transitional fossils: In short, your "simple argument" is flat-out wrong. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | What a wonderful site. My comment may be too general. I just wondered why there is such an intense debate in the US where here in the UK creationism is not really an issue with either Christians or biologists? We do have the odd group pushing the bible as word for word TRUTH but main stream Christians accept Evolution without any real debate and seem comfortable with it. Are we a more rational race!? I bought a Darwin fish for my car while in the States a couple of years ago and no one here understands it. Good Luck. |
Response | |
From: | Chris Stassen |
Author of: | The Age of the Earth |
Response: | There are a
couple of anti-evolution organizations in the UK. One used
to be titled the "Evolution Protest Movement" (but has
since changed its name and I don't recall offhand what the
new name is). Overall, you are right, it's not nearly as
big an issue there as it is here. Perhaps this is the
reason (from the Unix "fortune" file):
|