Creationism and the Presidency

Published on September 13th, 2004

read this

Creationism is its pure form is the belief that the word was created about 10,000 years ago and the fossil record exists only because of the great flood during Noah’s era. The question that I would personally like to have answered is whether the President of the United States is, or is not, a subscriber to this notion. In an age of scientific discoveries and daily breakthroughs can we afford to have leaders who think that scientific method itself is a hoax? This particular webpage tries to examine the issue and includes some of the primary pro-creationist information.

Since Bush is a born-again Christian of the new style, the liklihood that he is a creationist is quite high. In fact, I’d be shocked if he was not. But except for a Frontline documentary on Bush’s beliefs, we know very little. This is something I’d like to know. I think it’s important. Has he ever come out and told anyone? If he thinks the whole thing is bogus it might offend his flock. So is he misleading them? Or does he believe in creationism and is ashamed of his belief? It just seems strange to me that a man so religious never lets on about the basics. I want to know. And while we’re at it can we find out whether he subscribes to “talking in tongues” too.

51 users responded in " Creationism and the Presidency "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Jeffro said, on September 13th, 2004 at 10:52 am

I don’t want to hi-jack this post, and I don’t want to start a philosophical or relgious debate.

It should be noted, however, that “creationism” is not a strictly Christian term.

Moreover, a number of noted astro-physicists, who are officially agnostic, support the idea of “Universe by Design”.

Some of the arguments to support that stance are very, very convincing.

# 2 Steve Michel said, on September 13th, 2004 at 1:36 pm

Sorry, Jeffro, what you say makes no sense, even at the most superficial level. First, it’s “astrophysicists,” not “astro-physicists.” Second, to say they are “officially agnostic” is nonsense, as there is no sort of agnostic or astrophysicist oath they have to sign before become astrophysicists.

You are right, though, that it’s not a strictly Christian issue. Nonsensical explanations of the universe include things like the earth sitting on turtles, the idea that it was all created yesterday (including our memories) and lots more. Modern “intelligent design” or whatever they are calling it this week, is still, though, a foot in the door to making the Christian bible the offical tool for scientific teaching and investigation.

# 3 Anonymously said, on September 13th, 2004 at 3:26 pm

“Some of the arguments to support that stance are very, very convincing.”

Only if you don’t know anything about science or the fields of study to which the arguments refer. Thankfully, with the Internet, anyone can discover what a load of horseshit ID is. There’s really no excuse for advocating it other than ignorance or having a (not so secret) underlying agenda.

# 4 Timlt said, on September 13th, 2004 at 3:53 pm

John said this about the (probable) creationist beliefs of the President:

“In an age of scientific discoveries and daily breakthroughs can we afford to have leaders who think that scientific method itself is a hoax?”

Clearly this is a rhetorical question, and John would argue that the answer is “No.”

I find this chilling for two reasons. First, the statement itself seems like a gross caricature. Undoubtedly there are creationists who are ignorant or otherwise reject some tenets of modern scientific methodology, but it is inaccurate and unfair to imply that anyone who believes God had some direct role in creating the world also rejects science. John, while you’ve no doubt read critical summaries of Michael Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box, please take the time to read just a few chapters of it yourself, and then tell me if you still hold to your broad-brush statement without qualification. Do you seriously believe this author does not believe in scientific methodology? I know you’re a pretty opinionated guy, as I often enjoy reading your columns in PC Mag, so I don’t expect you to change your mind, but still, I’m inviting you to consider some evidence that is contrary to your position.

A second reason I find your assertion rather chilling is that you’re willing to assert with such confidence–in a field that is outside your own area of expertise–a litmus test of a “required belief” as a qualification for high public office. Now I suppose you could counter my concern and say, Ok, would you want to allow someone who believe there are pink unicorns running around on the North Pole? Of course not–there has to be some reasonable common ground, some test of truth and rationality that we can agree on. But I don’t think it’s reasonable to take a scientific hypothesis, even one that is strongly supported, and suggest that, if you don’t accept this, you are either stupid or crazy, and you can’t be President. That sounds like something Richard Dawkins would say (Dawkins is an intelligent, but rabid, apologist for neo-Darwinist evolution), but not John Dvorak . Many, many scientific theories, which were widely accepted as the “received notion” in their day, have now been discarded or superceded. Even aspects of Einstein’s revered quantum theory have been modified over time, with modern notions such as string theory now pushing for consideration. Scientific theories come and go, and even strongly supported ones such as evolution can be seriously modified, i.e., the “paradigm” (Thomas Kuhn’s construct) can shift. It does not seem reasonable to freeze a particular scientific hypothesis at a moment in time, to suggest “This is the only possible acceptable view of truth,” and then require everyone to meet that standard in every walk of life unrelated to the field.

If the President were clearly mentally unstable, irrational, or had done something illegal and provable that would otherwise disqualify him from the Presidency, then let him be removed or impeached. But I say, the President has a constitutional right to hold his personal beliefs about the origins of the world, as long as he doesn’t try to impose them on the public, and so I think John’s assertion is incorrect.

# 5 Rob McEwen said, on September 13th, 2004 at 4:01 pm

Before you all get all your digs in at Creationism…

(1) Have you ever examined the best evidence for Creationism and against Neo-Darwin Evolution? (I’d suggest “The case against Darwin” by James Perloff as a starting point. It focuses on those evidences which are easy to explain in a short book and those evidences which are most powerful. Also, you can buy it in almost any bookstore for less than $10. Unfortunately, it leaves out the more complex mathmatically issues, but it is a good starting point.)

(2) Neo-Darwin Evolution is basically Classic Darwinism with the added component of Natural Selection / Survival of the Fitest “selecting genes” as the mechanism or engine for Evolution. (I hope this made sense. Basically, Darwinism by itself did have the mechanism down pat.) Neo-Darwinism is the dominant theory of origins that is taught in our Universities today. Therefore, I would ask anyone here, what is the best and most irrefutable evidence to show that naturalistic Neo-Darwin Evolution occurred?

# 6 John C. Dvorak said, on September 13th, 2004 at 4:42 pm

Timlt. First of all you are using the word “chilling” too much. This is actually an old left-wing code word, so that baffles me. Second are you saying I have no right to this opinion? I wouldn’t vote for a puppy kicker either. I have standards. I voted for Bush the first time around and I’m disappointed. And I’m not going to argue about creationism or Dawkins. What you fail to grasp is that with an education one accepts long-standing modern Western Christendom rationale thought. The fact is there are no pink unicorns on the North pole (your weird example). I do not have to go there to know that. You’re trying to fool readers with specious nonsense. If you want to beleive that the world was created 10,000 years ago, and that 30,000 years of Chinese history is a hoax, good for you. Do I want someone so flummoxed by reality (like that) to be my leader. NO WAY. Not that this makes him or you a bad person. And I haven’t even gotten to the talking in tongues stuff.

That said plenty of people voted for Pat Robertson a few years back. They have a right to. AND I have a right not to. You seem to think (by your last paragraph) that unless the President has done an impeachable offense there is no rationale for voting against him. What planet does this idea come from?

# 7 Thomas said, on September 13th, 2004 at 5:16 pm

I have to agree that this is where Bush is weakest. Creationists can accept that nuclear waste can have a half-life of 10,000 years, but can’t believe that the world was created more than 10,000 years ago? (*Does not compute*).

I have to say that this is where Bush and the Republicans really lose my support. I’m a firm believer in the market system and low taxes which is why Democrats lose my vote. But that doesn’t mean voting for Republicans isn’t painful at times.

Unfortunately, it will be a cold day in hell (pun intended) before an atheist gets into office just because there are so many religious loons on both sides. For every Christian crack pot on the right, there is a astrologist, new ager or feng shui bozo on the left.

It would be nice, for a change, to have a leader that actually understands science for once. That actually comprehends the scientific method for finding truth. The reality is that the President has to be a good judge of people and thus good at surrounding themselves with an intelligent staff. That said, Ashcroft isn’t exactly a beaming testimony to that ability.

# 8 Duh said, on September 13th, 2004 at 7:59 pm

John, if you really want to know Bush’s beliefs, Google “Bush Creationism” and you’ll get all the answers you need on the first results page without even clicking through. You voted for Bush? Don’t Google? Shoot me now.

# 9 Mike Voice said, on September 13th, 2004 at 8:24 pm

A second reason I find your assertion rather chilling is that you�re willing to assert with such confidence�in a field that is outside your own area of expertise�a litmus test of a �required belief� as a qualification for high public office.

After reading that, I scrolled back up and re-read John’s post.

Where do you get the “as a qualification for public office” crap?

# 10 Mike Voice said, on September 13th, 2004 at 9:21 pm

Therefore, I would ask anyone here, what is the best and most irrefutable evidence to show that naturalistic Neo-Darwin Evolution occurred?

Therefore, I would ask anyone here, what is the best and most irrefutable evidence to show who authored the “Genesis” chapter of the bible? Extra credit: When was it written?

# 11 mike myers said, on September 13th, 2004 at 9:23 pm

First off, not all Christians interpret the creation section of Genesis in a literal way. It’s not written like the historical books of the Bible like 1 and 2 Samuel and many others. While it makes it clear that God created the Earth and Mankind, and not that it was a matter of chance, I think insisting that the world was created in 7 days is not a good interpretation of that passage. I have taught on Genesis, and while some can argue for that, I don’t believe it’s the best interpretation of the text. Many parts of the Bible are written in this poetic way – the book of Proverbs, the Song of Solomon, etc…

Personally, I think it takes much less faith to believe God created the universe, the earth and mankind than to believe everything somehow everything wound up the way it is because of chance interactions. Try running the odds of the earth coming into being with all it’s life by complete chance, and you’ll see what I mean. The only reason you would conclude this happened by chance is by ruling out the possible existance of God. That assumes God doesn’t exist, and I think it’s very hard to prove that is the case. I am not saying you have to assume He does exist either, but ruling it out at the start isn’t good science. It isn’t keeping an open mind to what the evidence might show you.

If you want to actually read some work that is a very credible argument for creation, and not just some article that is easy to ridicule, look at any of Phil Johnson’s books on the subject. He’s a law professor at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall and argues with logic of an excellent attorney. The first book is “Darwin on Trial”, the second is “Reason in the Balance: The case against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education”. The third is “Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds”, and the last “The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism”. I would recommend them to all who really want to understand the evidence for darwinism and creation.

Most folks on both sides of this debate blindly believe what someone taught them on this subject, and don’t actually understand the pros and cons of both sides. The atheistic mindset found in most universities today doesn’t exactly encourage one to investigate the issue and not take Evolution as a matter of faith.

Read some of Johnson’s books and post what you think of them. You would be surprised at how many scientists have come to the conclusion that evolution is fundamentally flawed.

Thanks,
Mike

# 12 Dave McCall said, on September 13th, 2004 at 9:34 pm

Coincidentally, I just saw a hilarious show on creationism by Penn and Teller (from their Showtime program “Bullsh*t”, downloaded on Kazaa). It lends weight to the idea that “Intelligent Design” is just a deliberate smokescreen.

This is mostly just a sad reflection of people’s ignorance, and one should be compassionate, but I’m still tempted to pull a prank at a school board meeting where the teaching of creationism is being debated: get several people to address the board, one by one, and have them say stuff like, “School board members, I represent a Christian denomination that has its own true account of the origin of life. We have irrefutable proof that the Earth plopped out of Elvis Presley’s butt three weeks ago, and we demand that this be taught alongside evolution.” Or, “I am God, I can prove it, and I made the Earth from a Heathkit set back in the 70s.” Etc. Then again, it might be better to keep it more subtle, offering just minor but incompatible variations of creationism.

A related question regarding George W Bush is whether he believes in the rapture, which, as “60 Minutes” reported, is a belief held by a surprisingly large number of Christians in the U.S. Shades of Martin Sheen’s president in “The Dead Zone.”

What’s especially sad to me is that creationists seem to be motivated partly by a distaste for the idea that people and other creatures share a common lineage and are made of the same stuff. I myself feel reassured by the idea that I’m related to the pelicans I was watching today.

# 13 Thomas said, on September 14th, 2004 at 7:34 am

Firstly, As Dave mentioned, I would highly recommend to everyone to buy and watch Penn and Teller’s Bullshit. The purpose of the show is to debunk stupid beliefs (UFO’s, Reflexology etc) and well as some common misconceptions (Recycling works, Secondhand Smoke kills etc) as well as loony organizations (PETA). For believers and non-believers alike it is a good dose of reality. It�s great comedy that teaches people how to go about differentiating bullshit from truth.

Secondly, there is OVERWHELMING evidence that the earth is older than 5,000 years. Paleontology is not the only science involved in evaluating human history beyond 5 to 10 thousand years. Among others are Generics, Chemistry, Physics, Geology, Oceanography and more. The evidence for the evolution theory is as overwhelming as the evidence that the world is not flat. There is absolutely no **scientific** basis for creationism. One more time, there is no **scientific** basis for creationism. The problem is most people studied how to pass notes in class instead of how real science actually works to find truth.

Thirdly, Mr. McEwen said that �Verifiable history (i.e. dates that are verified beyond a reasonable doubt) do not go back as far as many would like to believe.� I�m reminded of a quote from a Journal of Irreproducible Results article that started, �History has been with us a long as the transcribed record.� That was meant to be a *comical* statement. History *is* the transcribed record. That has nothing to do with whether homo sapiens, who were probably unable to write, were living on the planet longer than 5000 years ago. We can verify with absolute confidence that homo sapiens that are generically identical to modern humans have been on Earth longer than 10,000 years. We have fossil record (something the creationists love to dismiss for some reason) that dates back that far and farther. *Modern civilization* however, is only about 10 thousand years old. Those are two completely different statements.

I don�t think creationists understand that in order for the creationist theory to be accepted, *they* have to provide proof of its veracity. That proof always fails at the �and an intelligent designer� or �a supreme being� then made the universe. Where is the proof of the existence of that being? Where is the proof that there is one and only one? Which creationist theory (each religion has their own)?

# 14 Dave Farquhar said, on September 14th, 2004 at 10:17 am

Back to the original question, of what George W. Bush believes.

Bush is a Methodist, which, generally speaking, is a moderate denomination. He was raised Episcopal, which, generally speaking, is a liberal denomination, at least in teaching. An Episcopal is more likely to be an evolutionist than a Methodist, and either one of those is more likely to be an evolutionist than a Pentecostal.

As far as speaking in tongues, it wouldn’t surprise me either way if Bush believes in it (and believing in it is different from practicing it). Sometimes you’ll go to a church service where there’s tongue-speaking and it looks like anarchy because everyone’s doing it. I’d be highly surprised if Bush is in that category. Are there Methodists who speak in tongues? I know there must be, because there are Lutherans who do (which surprises a lot of people). Most of the Lutherans I know who speak in tongues do so only occasionally, and generally when they are alone. I guess you could say I believe in speaking in tongues because I’ve done it, once. In 20 years.

I suspect George W. Bush falls into the same category I do.

As far as creationism and its effects on you, I won’t mince words: I’m a creationist. But I don’t tell people they’re going to hell if they believe in evolution. It changes my view of things, sure, but I still believe in the scientific method. I use it almost every day. Since nobody can repeat the world’s coming into being, and life’s coming into being, it’s not about the scientific method. My dad, who was a doctor, a Christian and an evolutionist, used to say that whichever you believe, you get to a point where there’s some force that had to set it all in motion. Dad believed that force that set it in motion was God. An atheist would believe that force that set it in motion was chance, or chaos. Either way, you’re choosing to believe in something.

If Bush is a creationist, then, one of his fundamental beliefs is going to be that every human being is part of some big plan and has a purpose for living. If he’s an evolutionist, he’s more likely to be willing to accept the idea that a particular person is an accident, because we all are.

Since I run around in Christian circles, I can tell you there are a lot of Christians who are happy to have someone who professes to be a committed Christian in the White House. Does that mean his Christian beliefs control him? I don’t think so. No more than John F. Kennedy’s status as a Catholic made him a puppet of the Pope and Rome, which was a fear during his time.

I can also tell you, because I ran around in Baptist circles for a good part of Bill Clinton’s presidency, there were a lot of Baptists who were happy that one of their own was in the White House.

Oh, and if I were a betting man, I’d bet that Bill Clinton is a creationist.

# 15 John C. Dvorak said, on September 14th, 2004 at 10:22 am

I’d take the bet. But the fact that you think that Clinton is a creationist tells me that he should have been asked about it too.

# 16 Give it a rest said, on September 14th, 2004 at 10:41 am

I am rolling my eyes so much reading these discussions they hurt.

Please! It’s interesting to discuss whether it’s important to know the President’s position, but STOP the silly debating of creationism.

It’s like reading kids arguing whether pokemon lives anywhere near the smurfs. Talk about your fairy tale somewhere else. There are endless places more appropriate for that.

Thanks!

# 17 Rob McEwen said, on September 14th, 2004 at 10:47 am

KB mentioned, “if chance alone were at work”

…KB, the problem I have with Evolutionists is that they elevated things that should be only a hypothesis to the level of “law of nature”.

Also, you would have a good point with your comments about not merely relying on “chance” if Evolutionists could prove “self-ordering” tendencies with regard to Evolution in it’s early stages. However, all such attempts to find and prove these tendencies have failed.

For example, the famous “Miller-Urey experiment” that was in all our science textbooks was fundamentally flawed because it used an “atmosphere” which was extremely different from the composition of Earth’s early atmosphere. In fact, oxygen was missing from the Miller-Urey experiment and oxygen is widely believed by mainstream scientists to have been in our early atmosphere. The presence of oxygen actually prevents Miller’s experiment from working. Also, the Miller-Urey’s experiment was largely oversold because it didn’t actually produce life. Yes, it did produce one of the raw materials of life… but amino acids are also ound in non-living matter, too. For that matter, water is one of the raw materials of life. Again, the Miller-Urey did NOT produce life.

Also… regarding your “Santa Claus” comments… My reply is that I appeal to Occam’s Razor… which is simply:

…explanations should never multiply causes without necessity. When two explanations are offered for a phenomenon, the simplest full explanation is preferable. If a charred tree is on the ground, it could be because of a lightning strike or because of a secret government weapons program. The simplest explanation that is sufficient is the logical one, according to Occam’s razor, and there was a lightning strike. (I quoted from here.)

Therefore, I suggest having an open mind. Don’t rule out EITHER evolution OR creationism from the start and just let the evidence take you where it goes… asking questions like “what would the evidence look like if Evolution really did happen?” and “what would the evidence look like if Creation really did happen?”

I recognize that there are lunatics on both sides… but I find a high percentage of Creationists I talk to these days who took this “open-minded” approach, looked at the evidence on both sides, and arrived at Creationism… in contrast, I also find a high percentage of evolutionists who have ruled out creationism from the start without ever seriously considering the evidence for creation and against evolution.

(Maybe that is why the level of discourse on this thread from the Creationists is at such a higher, more rational, and more evidence-based level?)

# 18 Rob McEwen said, on September 14th, 2004 at 11:12 am

I think that the poster who calls himself “give it rest” just can’t handle the truth.

I did post another evolution/creationism debate post… (which may or may not be up by the time you read this) which I hope Dvorak lets through. I’ll stop there on the evolution/creation debate if no one else cares to challenge my points.

However, in the spirit of cooperation, this post WILL focus more narrowly on the main topic of this thread…

Basically, with John Dvorak’s main article as well as many of the pro-evolution comments, there is a sort of “we all know that only ignorant, backwoods, rural, bible-thumping, fundamentalist Christians are capable of believing such provably false myths as creationism” (I don’t think many of you would call this characterization of what is really going on in your minds an exaggeration… Am I right on target with what you are really thinking?)

However, what many of you don’t seem to realize is that many, many well respected and renowned scientists and scholars are either creationists or, as the very least, extremely skeptical about Evolution.

See the following page for evidence to back my point up. (Be sure to scroll down to the actual list of scientists.)

http://www.s8int.com/nodarwin.html

I would say that if Bush finds himself in the same boat as people like Henry F.Schaefer (Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia and 6th most frequently quoted chemist in the world in science journals) and Fred Sigworth (Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U.) …then Bush may be smarter than you give him credit.

…now, what were you were saying about “fairy tales” and “smurfs”???

# 19 Mike Voice said, on September 14th, 2004 at 11:18 am

First off, not all Christians interpret the creation section of Genesis in a literal way. It�s not written like the historical books of the Bible like 1 and 2 Samuel and many others. While it makes it clear that God created the Earth and Mankind, and not that it was a matter of chance…,

So, believing that “God created the Earth and Mankind” is not considered a literal interpretation of the Bible?

My main problem with ID is not that the proponents want discussion of a creator – that’s fine by me – it is that they only want discussion of the creator that Christians believe in.

The aurguments always come down to (some, not all) Christians wanting to graft their belief structure into/onto the secular model. I never hear of anyone wanting Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddist beliefs to be grafted onto Darwin’s theory.

A close second, in my complaints against ID, is that they use all sorts of facts and figures to attack Evolution, and then want to use an anonymously-authored text – with no known publication date – as a reference for their arguments. Very scientific on the attack, but totally un-scientific on the defense.

And the people who mention how history gets “vague”, more than about 4000-years ago, should consider current events – where people are giving conflicting testimony about what happened just 30-years ago, in Vietnam. People can’t agree on that, but some of us are absolutely certain about what happened 2000-years ago – or at the creation of the world – because the Bible tells them so.

# 20 Rob McEwen said, on September 14th, 2004 at 12:34 pm

Mike Voice:

I’ve been accused of getting away from the main focus of the original article. Fair enough. I did.

Now… your last post demonstrated that you never really read the points that I and others made very closely. It is obvious that you skimmed (if even that) and then posted a rebuttal to a “straw man”. I don’t even know for sure WHO you are talking to in your last post because no one is even coming close to doing what you accuse them of doing.

But, to be sure, tell me what “anonymously authored text” you are referring to and, if it was from me, I’ll provide impeccable sources. (I thought I did this already, but I could have missed one or two).

Also, when I talked about “history getting vague”, I’m simply referring to the fact that we cannot pinpoint the actual year or even the decade (or even the century, in most cases) of many major events that scientists believe to have occurred once the timeline goes beyond 4,000 years ago. There is simply a disconnect between history stops and paleontology picks back up. But, again, I repeat myself and you obviously are replying to posts that you didn’t read carefully in the first place.

Finally, just because I mentioned some things as compatible with “biblical creation” does NOT necesssarily mean that these same things are incompatible with other’s belief about creation. Where did you dig that one up from? Moreover, I have relied ONLY on provable science and scientific authorities throughout this thread. I have not once appealed to the Bible as an authority or reason for the readers here to trust me.

Certainly I am not ashamed of the Bible… and I happen to believe the Bible literally�

�but I would not dare use the Bible to convince someone of something if that person didn’t believe in the Bible in the first place… and if I didn’t think that I already had science on my side (apart from the Bible), I would not have entered into this discussion in the first place.

…but next time, please challenge what I actually said, not the “straw man” arguments that you want and prefer to argue against.

# 21 Thomas said, on September 14th, 2004 at 2:55 pm

Rob, I suggest you take some courses in logic and science.

That I cannot prove to the second, minute or day the age of a fossil does not mean I cannot prove it is at least 10,000 years old. If you are arguing that the Earth is 5000 years old, I only have to provide one solid piece of scientific evidence to the contrary. As it happens, there are libraries and museums filled with such evidence. You cannot seem to separate the difference between how long Homo Sapien has been walking the earth (I think it is 100,000 years or so) vs. how long modern civilization has been around.

Newton believed in God too and yes Newton was a smart guy. But Newton also lived at time where not believing in God (or at least proclaiming as much) got you burned at the stake.

Yes, I find it disturbing that the leader of the free world believes in the equivalent of leprechauns. Yes, even people that believe crazy shit can turn out to be good or even great leaders and people that understand science and live in the world of reality can be terrible leaders.

So, Mr. McEwen here�s a little lesson in scientific logic:

1: You cannot prove a scientific hypothesis through testimonials.
2: You cannot prove a scientific hypothesis through the popularity of the belief (e.g. Many people believe soccer is a good sport)
3: You cannot prove a scientific hypothesis by disproving another theory. Thus, even if you proved that evolution is not true, it in no way substantiates the creationism hypothesis.
4: Proving a scientific hypothesis requires independent, unbiased verification. That means that an atheist, polytheist or any other person of any other belief system should be able recreate and verify your findings.

Therefore, in order for creationism to be established with any kind of scientific acceptance, it must explain the fossil record, chemical half lives, carbon dating, geologic phenomena and whole host of other natural phenomena that are explained through evolution.

# 22 JOhn C. Dvorak said, on September 14th, 2004 at 3:41 pm

I think we need to get back on track…it’s about whether Bush believes in creationism, not about the viability of creationism. Nobody is going to be convinced that their opinion is wrong.

All further posts arguing about creationism will be edited if they are not succinct.

# 23 Jon Fitch said, on September 14th, 2004 at 6:59 pm

Disclaimer, I believe in both. God created the universe and established it’s laws. These mathematical and physical laws set into motion the gears that resulted in us. This is my belief set.

Basically, it all comes down to what happened prior to Plank time (the first 1×10^-43 seconds). Physics, in it’s current form, cannot by definition make any predictions prior to that time. Science can neither prove nor disprove that some “hand of god” set the universe in motion. A scientist must accept that uncertainty.

I find it a little disturbing, as a scientist, that people are believing literally in a english translation of a latin translation of a greek translation of original hebrew documents. While I believe that “God” or a “creator” exists, the literal belief in King James’ version of Genesis is an issue that needs to be asked of both candidates.

But do any of you really think that either candidate would give you anything approaching a straight answer? It would be political suicide to either look like a creationist loon or an outright atheist. Why don’t we ask Kerry also? Last time I checked he was a practicing Roman Catholic, ergo, should believe in creationism according to the Church. If he doesn’t, he’s a hypocrite since creationism, to some extent, is required of any religion. You must acknowledge an omnipotent god to be a monotheist. Omnipotent gods are not created after the fact.

# 24 Marc Perkel said, on September 14th, 2004 at 8:18 pm

Besides the creationist delema there are a number of other items that those who believe everything in the bible have to explain.

The Tower of Babel for example. I wonder how tall it was compared to modern concrete and steel skyscrapers? At what height does God get nervous about reaching Heaven?

Then – Noah and the Ark. 40 days and the planet is covered in water. The highest mountains are 27,000 feet so that means it had to rain 28 feet per hour. That’s a hell of a storm.

Then – if God can see the future – doesn’t he know everything everyone is ever going to do – including himself? And – if God knows everything he’s going to do – then he doesn’t have any free will. Unless he doesn’t know everything that everyone is going to do – then there’s something he doesn’t know.

The limitations of omnipotence. I can go out and get drunk and be stupid. Can God do that? NO! But – you would say – God wouldn’t want to do that – and that’s another thing I can do that God can’t.

The real question is – why does the invisible cloud being remain invisable? Is he hiding from those evil intellectuals who won’t surrender their logic to worship something that refuses any test of reality? I suppose it is God’s will that people like me remain confused and ignorant and I will fulfill my destiny and spend eternity in hell – a fate that God has already foreseen.

What scares me is – people actually believe this.

# 25 Mike Voice said, on September 14th, 2004 at 8:23 pm

Rob McEwen

The initial part of my comment (#25) was a quote from comment #14 – which was posted by “Mike Myers”.

I’m not sure how you took my post as an direct rebutal to any of your postings – as I normally insert the quote first – to avoid confusion.

Most of my post was just me chipping-in with my 2-cents – on something that had gotten off-topic – after scanning the commnents (you are right on that score), since most of it is pretty dense. I had no intention of trying to rebut your statements – using a “straw man”, or otherwise.

But, to be sure, tell me what �anonymously authored text� you are referring to and, if it was from me, I�ll provide impeccable sources.

No, it wasn’t from you. The “annonymously-authored text” I was alluding to was Genesis – as I don’t believe anyone is credited with writing it.

# 26 David said, on September 15th, 2004 at 4:51 am

Wow. I am amazed at the lucidity of these posts. I am even more amazed that one of my favorite writers actually answers them. What a great little spot to find on this world wide web.

However, again, I see that acceptance and tolerance are hard to come by in a discussion such as this. I ran into a similar thing when our High School Alumni class (1974) started a web site in Jan.2001. Ingrained beliefs about God and Creation seem to leave very little wiggle room, and my fellow alumni were trying to draw blood from each other (Missouri Bible Belt) .

# 27 Ed Campbell said, on September 15th, 2004 at 5:30 am

“I would ask anyone here, what is the best and most irrefutable evidence to show that naturalistic Neo-Darwin Evolution occurred?”

There is NO example of something ever coming from nothing.

The mathematical probability of something occurring — when it has NEVER occurred, when there are NO scientific combinations of events or circumstances predicating its occurrence — is ZERO.

It’s the basic division between philosphical materialism and idealism. The latter exists in the dreams of the “faithful”. The former relies on the history of all science and, in fact, the daily behavior of all but the demented.

Believers may walk down the street expecting the 3rd bush on the right to burst into flame — or, even better, some hippie-looking dude in a long robe to appear from nowhere and promising miracles — but, in daily practice, believers act like spontaneous materialists just like everyone else.

# 28 Marc Perkel said, on September 15th, 2004 at 6:24 am

Bush’s belief system is very simple. If it helps him get elected – he believes in it. Bush believes what Karl Rove tells him to believe.

# 29 Thomas said, on September 15th, 2004 at 7:15 am

Rob, people like you make me understand why people vote Democrat. To answer your question, the entire science of Palentology refutes your claim. We have fossils of early humans (Neandertal etc) we *know* to be millions of years old. You want evidence, go pickup a science book. Take a course in real science at a real university. Astronomy, Palentology, Geology, Chemistry all provide evidence that evolution is accurate. You want your evidence? That is where it is located. It is nonsense to believe that Plank’s constant is the hinge on which all of the evolution theory revolves. Evolution is substantiated from numerous fields of studies and thus in numerous ways. That’s one of the reasons it is so solid. Saying that Evolution is wrong is like saying the world is flat.

Jeff, creationism cannot be supported by scientific evidence which is why it is not a scientific theory. It stops being scientific right at the point where it purports a supernatural or “intelligent designer.” Since they cannot provide scientific evidence for the existence of such a being, the theory itself cannot be established.

I”m not going to suck up any more of John’s blog trying to convince loons how actual science works.

As I said before, many smart people in the past have believed all kinds of crazy stuff but that did not preclude them from being good or even great leaders. Likewise, many smart people that had their basis in reality and understood science made terrible leaders. So, should it worry us that the President probably believes in the equivalent of the tooth fairy? Yes. Does or would it prevent him from being a good leader and good at his job? Not necessarily.

However, I think the answer to your question John is that there are still numerous ostriches in the world that still believe in creationism and thus they are not at all disturbed that Bush (or even Kerry) might believe in it. (Which in and of itself is disturbing.)

# 30 Rob McEwen said, on September 15th, 2004 at 8:59 am

John said:

now plate tectonics is a hoax too!

Please re-read this article again. I don’t think it goes near as far as your comment suggests. Rather, this is a competing theory regarding plate tectonics.

Also, again… the combination of everything I’ve personally espoused is NOT incompatible with a “big bang�15 (or so) billion years ago… but I’d admit that I do veer from the traditional “old earth” creationist model. Therefore, I’m NOT espousing a 10,000 year old earth. (Remember, I’m not yet convinced one way or the other� I try to stick with science that is irrefutable and/or more provable. Personally, I find astronomy as young earth creationist’s biggest enemy.)

As far as how “young earth” creationists (and I don’t count myself as one) get these dates, I�ve read that these estimates are based on genealogies in the Bible. (This is not an exact �science�, but one can reach a range of dates using this method.)

# 31 Thomas said, on September 15th, 2004 at 10:21 am

The funny thing about this is that I get the distinct impression that Kerry really doesn’t care about religion but simply made himself out to be Catholic to appease the ostriches of the world like Rob. I expect that one finds out how many loons there are in this country when they run for President.

This whole topic is even more ironic in that Washington, Jefferson, and Adams were all agnostics (so was Paine but he was never elected). In other words, the first six Presidencies were dominiated by essentially non-religious men.

Rob…stop babbling bible bs…go get a degree from a non-religious 4 year university in a major science field (Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Genetics etc)…then we’ll talk evolution vs. creationism.

As Will Rogers once said, “It’s not what you know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know that ain’t so.” You think you know how to use the scientific method. You don’t. Go learn young grasshopper.

# 32 Peter Barrett said, on September 15th, 2004 at 10:26 am

Whenever I observe one of these flareups of creationist nitwittery, I’m amused by the deep misunderstanding of the workings and language of science evident in the creationists case. I’m surprised nobody’s said “Evolution is a theory and not a fact!!” yet.

Here’s what they should’ve taught you in grade school: A ‘fact’ is an objective, measurable observation we can make about the world, a datum. A ‘theory’ is a collection of words to explain the facts at hand. Now, here’s the clever part: the theory can also be extended to point out facts that we haven’t discovered yet. By using the theory as a guide to search out these facts and finding them, we can reinforce and refine the theory. If we fail, or falsify the theory, we can junk it and work up another. It’s a marvelous self correcting mechanism.

This is where science exceeds previous methods of telelogy. You can make your career as a scientist by breaking someone elses theory! The constant vigorious testing of theories with new measurements and discoveries is what keeps the process honest. The whole idea of a dogmatic scientific community is laughable. If a guy in a lab could turn the last 200 years of biology on its head with a better theory of the origin of species (evolution says zip on where life itself came from) then he’d have gold plated tenure for the rest of his life.

That’s where creationism breaks down. It not only fails to explain the data at hand, it makes zero predictions as to what we could find if the hypothesis were true. Therefore, it’s not falsifiable and it is NOT part of the body of science. Stretching your explanation to fit available data is not enough. Saying ‘God done it!’ isn’t falsifiable, since there’s always an out to explain away errant data (remember Sagan’s invisbile dragon in a box?).

Back to Bush: I can’t see Bush as a creationist. I see him more as the wishy washy ‘God works in many ways’ Christian who thinks that each day in Genesis represents a zillion years. Or maybe he just doesn’t give it much thought. Either way I’m ambivilent. I’m unconvinced that a understanding of advanced biology is a requirement to hold high office in this country. That’s what advisors are for. I see him more sympathetic to getting creationism in schools, but that’s just playing to his base and would happen regardless of his personal beliefs. Besides, that’s just another reason to dynamite the federal education system.

# 33 Jeff Lampman said, on September 15th, 2004 at 11:43 pm

In an effort to respect John’s request for succinctness, to get back to basics here, and to determine whether or not belief in a creator is cause for a President to deemed unfit for the position, I’d like to ask one simple question: Can someone tell me how science can prove that someone like God doesn’t exist?

# 34 Rob McEwen said, on September 16th, 2004 at 6:08 am

Jeff said:

I see no need for the earth after creation to have been completely devoid of fossils underground.

Jeff, I appreciate your support for creationism… and I especially liked your links to some very good and relevant web sites (like the Discovery Institute). However, for the record, I loathe statements like this. 1st, you will find that these types of wishy-washy, compromise in silly places type of beliefs are very representative of those creationists who have very little depth and haven’t spent much time researching or thinking this through. Ironically, you will never find such ludicrous positions/beliefs from any of the scholars at the Discovery Institute, for example.

Consider that in John 3:12, Jesus says: “I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?”

Or, to quote Hugh Ross (btw, I’m a fan of his, but I differ sharply with some of his views)”

To put it another way, if the Church demonstrates itself to be unreliable in the interpretation of scientific matters which are subject to verification by unbelievers, it undermines, by association, the credibility of our claims that unbelievers need to pay attention to the Bible’s statements about spiritual matters which are not empirically verifiable by unbelievers. If Christians’ claims about physical reality cannot be trusted, what grounds do unbelievers have to trust our claims about spiritual realities? Demonstrably false “science” gives the lost “reasons to reject” the Gospel — “reasons to disbelieve” rather than “reasons to believe.”

I think that when creationists (1) make facts fit how they think they should fit ..or.. (2) do silly and preposterous reconciliations between evolution and creationism… they end up doing more damage to the cause of creationism (and the gospel) than good.

That is one reason that I carefully support all my assertions in this thread with evidence that is either irrefutable or that the evolutionist cannot answer very well, if at all.

# 35 Thomas said, on September 16th, 2004 at 12:50 pm

Jeff you are as scary as Rob. You clearly have no understanding of how science finds truth and builds on previous results.

>You can�t prove that the fossil was created 10,000 years ago, >because you can�t go back and watch it being made.

Wrong. There are ways of determining the age of an item. Carbon dating is an example (there are other methods). We can *test* that carbon dating is accurate within a certain range of error by testing modern fragments that have a known date. We can use that same technique to determine the age of a fossil within a certain range of error. Thus, while I cannot give the exact hour a fossil was created, I most certainly can say that is older or younger than 10000 years.

>Perhaps God decided to create a world that contained a fossil that
>only now appears to be 10,000 years old.

What�s this �god� thing you are talking about? How do we test your hypothesis that this supposed being A: exists and B: faked us out?

Perhaps we should formalize what we mean by �the earth was created.� Do we mean the current planetoid on which we live? Do we mean animal life forms? Do we mean the start of written history?

>Let�s view evolution under these points: for 1 and 2, just because
>a lof people believe it doesn�t make it true.

Again, you don�t understand how science works. You have complete liberty to test the theories and hypotheses on which evolutionary theory is based. Anyone of any religion can verify the techniques used to establish whether the theory is based on faulty data. Science is self-corrected. It is designed to provide the means to find error.

The fact is that the evolution theory is quite accurate at predicting results and fits the current natural phenomena

>I don�t think 3 really applies the other way,
>but if you were to argue that creation is wrong and that therefore
>evolution is right, you�d be wrong

That was never the discussion. Evolution theory is accurate because it meets all the requirements of a science theory. The Creationism hypothesis is not accurate because it does not meet the requirements of a science theory. There have been times in the course of science where two competing theories were both established to be true (e.g. light is a particle and light is a wave).

>However, there�s no way to verify that evolution
>occurred or can occur (I don�t think we�ll ever know
>the structure of the primeval earth well enough to attempt experiments).

Wrong again. We already have evidence of identical species living in different environments diverging over time. In other words, the evolved or adapted based on their environment.

>These factors only support an older universe,
>but they can�t disprove a younger one created with pre-existing records.

The universe cannot, by definition, be both old and new. We have reams of evidence to establish that the planet Earth is billions of years old and that life on Earth is hundreds of millions of years old.

Go to a museum. Take some real courses in science from a non-religious university. Learn how science finds truth because you clearly haven�t the foggiest clue how to find truth using the scientific method.

# 36 Mike Voice said, on September 16th, 2004 at 12:50 pm

John asked:

I�ve seen some of these folks promote something like 4000-6000 years? Who is doing these calculations?

Answer: Bishop Ussher, and his contemporary, Sir John Lightfoot. Apparently, Lightfoot published his calculation of 4004-years in 1644, while Ussher didn’t publish his calculation of 4004-years until 1658 – but Ussher’s calculations reached a wider audience, and became “canon” – or nearly so.

one link: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm

Most “young earthers” seem to use these numbers – or similar ones, based on modern biblical scholarship.

# 37 Give it a rest said, on September 17th, 2004 at 8:57 am

Wait, Rob, about your statement and the link you provided:How did ancient civilizations in Mexico know how to make structually correct dinosaur figurines which were discovered in the 1940s when our scientists were not nearly as accurate about this in the 1940s?

Do you REALLY think that dinosaurs were alive 2500 years ago?

I want to know, because that way I can save some time, and completely skip reading your nonsensical posts and links.

Still trying to rest…

# 38 Mike Voice said, on September 17th, 2004 at 10:32 am

Rob McEwen wrote:
I think that when creationists (1) make facts fit how they think they should fit ..or.. (2) do silly and preposterous reconciliations between evolution and creationism� they end up doing more damage to the cause of creationism (and the gospel) than good.

Well stated. That is the main reason I don’t take most “creationists” seriously – they are acting in defense of their faith, and often in seemingly desperate defense of their faith. They are not trying to argue for the “abstract” idea of a creator involved in developing life on earth, they are championing the Biblical creator. As I am – best guess of a label that fits – Agnostic, using the Bible as a reference in a scientific argument does not carry much weight with me.

Rob goes on to state:
That is one reason that I carefully support all my assertions in this thread with evidence that is either irrefutable or that the evolutionist cannot answer very well, if at all.

Which is why I have enjoyed reading Rob’s comments and links. I’m always interested in reviewing evidence that is “irrefutable”.

# 39 Thomas said, on September 18th, 2004 at 10:05 am

Gentlemen, Radio-carbon dating is accurate within defined parameters. We can take an item that is say 1000 years old and use a double-blind test to see what radio-carbon dating determines the ago to be. Further, we can use a battery of other dating techniques to do the same thing. So, when we take a fossil that is claimed to be say two million years old and say it is at least over 10000 years. We can rest upon five or ten different techniques used to date that fossil in addition to radio-carbon dating. While each technique might have a range of difference, none of them will state that the fossil is less than say 30000 years or more. Yes radio-carbon dating as been proved to be *not as accurate* as other techniques and yes it really can only go up to 50000 years theoretically, but more like 40000 with any confidence. However, that does not mean we cannot use it to determine if a fossil is at least as old 10000 years. In other words, we can use multiple techniques in double-blind tests to state with some accuracy *at least* how old the fossil is. That fact in and of itself refutes creationism.

Secondly, creationism provides no scientific answer whatsoever to the question of how we got so many species on the planet that have genetic ancestry with each other in only 10000 years. It is simply not possible. Basically it is the *poof* theory.

Technically, yes there are dinosaurs living today. Crocodiles happen to be an example. Certain species of shark may be another. However that is a far cry from saying any sort of significant number of species are alive and that still means that creationist theory does not explain the enormous breadth of life found in the fossil record. Furthermore, AFAIK, there are no animals from the Triassic or Cretaceous period alive.

> Yes� and when you go there, ask them �where are the transitional forms?�

Wrong question. Instead, I would ask, �How did you determine the date of the fossils?� Like I said, to disprove the 10000 year old Earth, I need only find one scientifically valid fragment from a living animal that is older than 10000 years. Only one! As it turns out there are mountains of that evidence all over the globe in museums and research facilities. Furthermore, there *are* transitional forms for humans. That doesn�t mean we have *all* transitional forms, but we do have many.

Do you note that creationists have not devised a scientific dating technique (meaning one that be independently verified by someone not of the originator�s religion) that establishes the date for this mountain of fossil record?

# 40 Rob McEwen said, on September 20th, 2004 at 1:26 pm

…oops… I also forgot to mention this regarding ages of the geological layers.

But, again, especially read this for an overview of the problems of radiometric dating and how radiometric dating results are likely explainable within the context of a young earth.

# 41 Thomas said, on September 20th, 2004 at 3:07 pm

Rob,

> Old earth creationists (like Dr. Hugh Ross of
> ReasonsToBelieve.org) & young earth creationists are much
> more confident (absolutely confident) in that evidence
> which unites us compared to that which divides us.

Not sure what you mean. Does that mean we all accept that both the planetoid on which live as well as animal life is millions of years old? If so, then we clearly have a contradiction in that the Earth as well as animal life cannot have existed for both a short period of time as well as a long period of time. They are mutually exclusive.

So, where does that leave us? Well, we have reams of evidence to establish that the Earth is billions of years old. That alone makes the �new earth� creationist hypothesis scientifically invalid. If we are merely talking about animal life and not the planet (something which again refutes the typical creationist source), we again have reams of evidence of animal life that is millions of years old. There are many dating techniques that have done nothing but substantiate each other in terms of the relative age of animal fossils. You would have to disprove every possible dating technique and the fact is that you cannot.

You seem to look past this statement: We HAVE evidence of evolution at work. We HAVE evidence that it has happened within our lifetime. We have modern evidence of species adapting naturally and forcefully through human intervention. Many animals on Galapagos are examples of species that were separated from similar species in other areas that developed differently. Dogs are good example of humans forcing the creation of sub-species (i.e. new races).

Increased genetic complexity has not been proven impossible. Keep in mind that the *odds* of something happening has no bearing on whether the theory that it *did* happen is valid. What are the odds that time will slow down as you get closer to the speed of light? What are the odds that light can bend? The discussion of odds is moot. We have evidence that these theories do explain current and past phenomena.

Speciation
Perhaps you don�t understand the definition of speciation:

�The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually
by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.
The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language, 4th edition.

�The evolutionary process by which diverse species of animals or plants are formed from a common ancestral stock.�
On-line Medical Dictionary, 1997-1998 Academic Medical Publishing & CancerWEB

Would you like to try the speciation argument again? Speciation is nothing more than an alternative to gradual evolution. It still means that evolution happened, just not in a methodical, gradual process. Ok. That�s still evolution.

Creationism has no basis in science. It provides no methods to scientifically verify its findings by unbiased observers. None, nadda, zippo. The moment they hit �and a superbeing made�� they stop being scientific. The moment you hit, �You have to have faith�� you stop working science.

As far as Mr. Behe�s fantasy, I can find armies of scientists that can find all kinds of holes in this theory. Here’s one

# 42 Thomas said, on September 21st, 2004 at 7:31 am

Again, you fail to understand how science finds truth. That fact alone makes this a discussion with a mad man. You are making assumptions about what does and does not work without understanding the true science behind the methods.

Fact: Substantial modern and fossil evidence exists that species adapt and evolve based on environment. I have given many examples which you have ignored. That evolution is possible is a moot point. There is no question that it is possible. How it progresses over time is clearly up for debate.

Fact: We have evidence of rock older than 10000 years. To dispute that the planetoid is less than 10k years I need only find ONE rock! Only one! Even if every rock fossil found was less than 10 years old and I was able to scientifically date a single rock at as little as 20k years, I destroy the creationist theory that the planet is 10k years old. There are mountains of geological evidence that support that the earth is billions of years old. However, you do not want to believe (key word) that could be true. Multiple branches of science substantiate this claim. Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry all provide additional evidence of the age of this planetoid.

Fact: We have evidence of animal fossils older than 10000 years. That blows away the theory that animal life is only 10000 years old. Again, I need only find one fossil to disprove your claim. I would suggest you discuss your claims with a paleontologist doing real research into the subject. They can help you to understand the true science behind dating techniques. Further, I would suggest you take courses in Chemistry to fully understand how half-lives work and how they are evaluated.

You are trying to use cute explanations that seem to revolve around probability rather than science. Like I mentioned before, what are the odds that mass grows infinitely as you get closer to the speed of light? What are the odds that light bends? What are the odds that light is both a particle and a wave? Which is more mathematically probable: that we evolved over millions of years from lower forms of life or that a drunkard built a raft and somehow herded all the world�s animals onto it during a flood? The volume of excrement alone would be enough to sink the ship�.or this discussion.

Let�s be clear, there are two distinct discussions here. First, does creationism hold any scientific truth whatsoever? Second, does evolution hold any scientific truth?

As to the former, the answer is a clear, �No.� Creationism has no basis in scientific truth. There is absolutely no debate about this. Scientific truth can be independently verified and creationism cannot. The moment you use �and an uber-being created�� you stopped being scientific. Creationism is belief not science.

As to the later, you have no idea the breadth of explanation needed to dispute evolution. Beyond the areas of paleontology, you have areas of genetics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, physical anthropology, and more that have to be explained. All these areas have research that substantiates the claim that life and this planet are far older than 10k years. Probability has nothing to do with this discussion. There is substantial scientific evidence to support the evolution theory. Period. You can jump and down and rant about probabilities until you are blue in the face. Until you understand how to use the scientific method, we are unable to continue our discussion. The fact remains that using the scientific method, evolution theory can be substantiated and creationism cannot. That you think that there are areas that evolutionists cannot explain is self delusional.

I would suggest you continue your discussion with real scientists that actually work with dating fossils or chemical half-lives or genetics or physical anthropology or cultural anthropology or �

Lastly, I would suggest Carl Sagan�s book �The Demon-Haunted World � Science as a Candle in the Dark.�

# 43 Rob McEwen said, on September 21st, 2004 at 11:09 am

Thomas,

First, the particular times that I lean on probability as evidence strongly correlate with those times where Evolutionary theory is devoid of proof or “laboratory examples” and instead provides highly speculative, hypothetical, and sketchy models.

Also, most of the really good critiques of Irreducible Complexity give Behe much more respect and acknowledge that he has made some genuinely good points. Still, Behe’s critics’s responses require evolution to do more and, thus, to work faster. Spetner proved that experiments/observations in the lab practically never (if ever) yield mutations which add complexity. Therefore, at the least, “irreducible complexity” ends up strengthening Dr. Spetner’s already rock solid case. How? This is analogous to a car which already has no engine and which now has an even more distant destination.

The kind of science you describe is not interested in the truth, but rather attempts to rubber-stamp naturalist philosophy, at all costs and despite the scientific evidence.

# 44 Thomas said, on September 21st, 2004 at 1:54 pm

Here is some additional reading:

Creationism in the Science Curriculum?
The Short Proof of Evolution

# 45 Thomas said, on September 22nd, 2004 at 8:56 am

The evolutionary theory can be stated simply as:
1. There is a variety of species. This is self-evident.
2. All life requires a parent. There has never been a scientifically documented case of life spawning from non-life.
3. Older forms of life are less complex that more recent forms. This comes from the fossil record. Both in dating and in other techniques such as homology. An example would be that whales have a hip bone. Why would they have a hip bone if they have never been able to walk? The answer as it turns out is that whales probably did have the capability to walk as seen in fossils of animals related to whales.

Notice this has nothing to do with *how* we got to where we are. I�m stating nothing about Darwinism or how smoothly the evolutionary process worked. Rather, it simply states that using the above three criteria we evolved from less complex forms.

Further, science as you mentioned, in general is not in the business of finding truth. Rather, in general, science is in the business of filtering out falsity. Science is founded on establishing whether a theory is �not true� rather than a theory is �true�. Thus, there has been no credible scientific evidence that the evolutionary theory is not true. There is, however, evidence that the creationist theory is false.

# 46 John C. Dvorak said, on September 25th, 2004 at 6:45 pm

This is where you lose me. I see this so-called refutation with the following moniker:

Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
Department of Molecular & Cell Biology
University of California, Berkeley, California, USA

This clearly implies that this guy (a Christian conservative) is associated with Cal. He’s not. He went there and got a degree like the hundreds of thousands of others, myself included. He’s not in the department as implied by this. He taught some during a postdoctoral stint, that probably meant he was a TA or teaching assistant at Cal. This sort of misleading attribution is only used to bolster credibility and doing it this way is highly dishonest. I suspect research into any of this will show a lot more dishonesty than honesty which is ironic since these folks are so holier-than-thou about all this.

# 47 Rob McEwen said, on September 25th, 2004 at 7:26 pm

John,

I think that trueorigin.org was trying to explain, as stated in Wells’s bio, that he “has a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from UC Berkeley”. However, you do make a good point that the heading at trueorigin.org implies more. However, it is very likely that this was a much more innocent mistake than you suggest. In fact, I’ll even extend your point by admitting that Wells’s went into his studies with a pre-bias towards proving creationism. Nevertheless, Well does have a knack for explaining the best creationists arguments and evidence very well and that is why I reference him… and I’ll let his arguments and evidence stand on their own apart from his biography… (which, BTW, “ain’t nothing to be ashamed of”)

But… to be sure, many other creationists that are respected scientists (particularly Spetner and Behe), were very committed and convinced Evolutionists (with no particular “axe to gind”) who only became Creationists when the evidence (eventually) pointed them in that direction. For example, read this about Behe.

# 48 Thomas said, on September 25th, 2004 at 10:25 pm

Homology is another corroborate piece of evidence. It is another field of study for which creationism has no explanation. Creationism has no explanation for vestigial organs. Your famed professor completely overlooked the fact there must be a reason the DNA of vastly different animals produces similar structures. The only explanation is that all organisms are related by decent.

Perhaps we need to ask a more fundamental question. Do you believe that species can adapt and change?

Let�s take an example of that adaptation. In 1859, 12 European wild rabbits were imported to Australia. By 1886, their decedents were colonizing new areas of southeastern Australia at a rate of 66 miles a year in all directions. By 1907, they had reached the west coast. So, sometime in the 1940�s biologists came up with the idea of using myxomatosis, a viral disease normally carried by mosquitoes. This disease was non-lethal to South American rabbits but was fatal for European rabbits and harmless to all other lifeforms. By the 1950�s it had wiped out most of the rabbit population. Now, what would creationism theorize would come next? How would creationism scientifically postulate what would happen? Evolution, as it turns out, as a very simple explanation. The rabbits would adapt and a variant of the rabbit would take over that was resistant to the disease. Indeed that is exactly what happened. Creationism has no scientific explanation for this phenomenon. It has no predictive ability to determine what would happen.

Your arguments against Darwinism are completely irrelevant. Darwinism is simply an explanation for *how* evolution might have occured. It says nothing about *whether* it occured or not. Your link only shows an example of why Darwinism might not be true. Thus, you have provided no evidence that refutes the claim that evolution happened.

As I said, evidence of evolution can be established and tested in today�s world. We can take two groups of animals of the same species, separate them into areas of different environmental influence and they will eventually evolve differently and some cases into different species. The only explanation is that they adapted and changed.

>�Older forms of life are less complex that more recent forms.�

That is not a tautology. Perhaps you don’t understand what it means for a statement to be tautology. “Tomorrow is another day.” That is a tautology. It is a self-evident statement. If you accept that older forms of life are less complex than more recent forms of life, then you are accepting that evolution happened.

Creationism as a hypothesis has no scientific means to establish its authenticity as a scientific theory. This is in part because it cannot be falsified and thus is not a valid scientific hypothesis. Creationism is not science. Regardless of whether you believe in evolution, this is a cold, hard fact. It should not be taught as science. It should not be accepted as science.

Evolution does have mountains of evidence from a variety of fields of study that all substantiate the theory that species adapt and change based on environmental changes and, in general, variants that are best suited to their environment survive. Numerous fields substantiate evolution�s predictive value including Homology, Paleontology, Paleonanthropology, Biology, Genetics, Cosomology, Chemistry, Stratigraphy, Biogeography, Embryology the list goes on.

# 49 Thomas said, on September 26th, 2004 at 10:28 am

Let me mention some serious flaws in Behe’s logic by the way. His leap that there must be an intelligent designer because there are areas of biochemistry which have not been explained is ridiculously sophomoric. So much so, that I seriously question his scientific credentials.

This argument equates to people 500 years ago, unable to explain disease, claiming that an uber-being caused people to be sick. Unknown has a place in the world of science. It does not in the world of religion. He provides *no* evidence of a �designer.� Stating that we don�t know something provides absolutely no evidence that a designer exists and created something. That is a basic mistake in logic for someone supposedly versed in science. Furthermore, complexity, in and of itself, is not evidence of a designer. He is also discounting the numerous silly, useless things in our genetic makeup (e.g. a tail bone, a reticulated spine etc.) that would indicate that any such designer should be fired.

His �leap� about the donkey is also specious as donkeys and horses (and zebras) share genetic ancestry. Zebras are a good example of an animal that eventually became a new species from its ancestral horse by adapting to its environment.

His arguments about finding biochemical systems developed in a Darwinian fashion are also ridiculous and quite wrong. There is plenty of evidence that natural selection happens in biochemical environments. Antibiotics are a good example. If you are sick and the doctor prescribes antibiotics he will tell you to take the entire prescription. Why? If you only take half of it, the bacteria causing you to be sick will have a chance to adapt and hit you harder as well as the previous medicine will not be as effective. The bacteria that cannot withstand the medicine will die. The bacteria that evolve will survive. Another example is the intense concern of viral adaptation in a biochemical attack. While we might be able to synthesize a vaccine for the original agent, it is very possible that the virus will adapt, evolve if you will, into something on which the vaccine will no effect.

# 50 John C. Dvorak said, on September 27th, 2004 at 1:03 am

DEBATES OVER THE VALIDITY OF CREATIONISM IS OVER. It’s idiotic. Unless the conversation is about BUSH and creationism all posts will be rejected at the moderation level.

# 51 Rob McEwen said, on September 27th, 2004 at 1:16 pm

I did find an interesting and recent article at Wired.com about how scientists view Bush (Election: Science Plays Politics”). But, admittedly, the article doesn’t portray Bush very well (no surprises, when has academia every liked Conservatives?). But most interesting is that I didn’t see anything about creationism/Evolution anywhere in that article. As others have said, there is too much to lose and not enough to gain for either presidential candidate to “show their cards” on this one.

BTW, I’m sad our side-bar debate has been cut short, but I understand and most of Thomas’s last two posts were already answered in my previous posts: #50, #58, see links in post #55, and especially post #18.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!