As a techie, I continually fall into the error of assuming that people are rational. That we as a society should have realized some basic things about our economy by now -- like the interdependence between parts of the economy, the extensive reliance on computerization, and the horrible track record of software projects. These things aren't exactly secrets! But then I read articles like the following, which show that as a society, we've just barely accepted the idea that the earth is round. Other more recent concepts developed during the last 150 years still have not completely sunk in....

So should I be surprised that the government and public in general cannot accept the idea that their future will be radically changed by a simple software problem?

http://www.nando.net/nation/story/0,1038,500046365-500075769-500176613-0,00.html

Minnesota science teacher seeks to debunk evolution

Copyright ) 1999 Nando Media
Copyright ) 1999 Associated Press

By JULIA LIEBLICH

FARIBAULT, Minn. (October 16, 1999 10:55 p.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) - Rodney LeVake, a high-school biology teacher, says believing in evolution is as absurd as thinking the Earth is the center of the universe.

LeVake is speaking over apple pie in a restaurant in this quiet southern Minnesota town of 20,000 that has become the scene of the latest flare-up in the debate over teaching evolution in high school.

"I'd like an evolutionist to look me in the eye," he says, "and tell me one thing about evolution that is true."

Though LeVake calls evolution a godless philosophy, he told local school officials that he wanted to teach the subject, anyway, to 10th-graders in biology class at Faribault Senior High School. Without conveying his own religious views of creation, he says, he hoped to point out what he calls overwhelming scientific evidence against evolution.

He was assigned instead to teach freshman science, which does not take up the theory. LeVake felt this was a deliberate move that violated his right to religious freedom, and the American Center for Law and Justice, a religious-rights advocacy group, agreed to represent him in a civil lawsuit against the school district.

The dispute grew from there. Earlier this month, Jay Sekulow, the group's chief legal counsel, charged at the Christian Coalition's annual meeting in Washington that LeVake has been a victim of "educational McCarthyism."

.... etc. The article never does get around to describing any of his actual arguments against evolution...

-- You Know... (notme@nothere.junk), October 17, 1999

Answers

No, "You Know", you really DON'T KNOW much if you think that evolution is some kind of "established" fact. It isn't. It is a THEORY. There exists evidence for it, there exists evidence against it.

Just like CREATION. It is a theory. There exists evidence for it, there exists evidence against it.

One more frigging time: Evolution is not some kind of fundamental axiom. It is scientific theory. And not much of a well supported one at that.

C'mon Flint and the rest of you scalawags, I'll take all of you on! Macroevolution my ass!!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 17, 1999.

KoS, I'm simply intrigued by what you suggest. What is your theory regarding the appearance of humans on this planet then? I certainly have heard others and am not arguing with you. Simply curious.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), October 17, 1999.

KOS, I agree that evolution is a theory to explain many observed facts, and might not be complete or even right. But creationism is just a mythology based on no evidence at all. I may be proven wrong (that's a hallmark of any scientific theory), but creationism cannot be proven right or wrong. It's just a nonrational belief system.

People who attack evolution generally ignore the even more solid evidence about the age of the earth and of fossils. If you are willing to believe that the earth is 4+ billion years old, it becomes even more ridiculous to believe that there have been no changes to life on earth during that time. And if there have been changes, do you have a better explanation than evolution? Or has God just been leaving these fossils around to mess with our heads?

And as for the "just a theory, no one was there to see, so you can't know.." argument, how do these people explain drug resistant diseases and pesticide-resistant crops? That's evolution happening within our lifetimes. Hard to ignore...

-- You Know... (notme@nothere.junk), October 17, 1999.

Evolution happening in our lifetime? Under our very noses?

Please........name me ONE new species.

Adaptation and trait selection are NOT evolution.

-- JIT (justintime@rightnow.net), October 17, 1999.

Look, dude, complexity does not just happen. Complexity is the result of creativity. I mean, the TV that I am using to type this (I use WEB-TV) certainly did not assemble itself via random chance. Complexity itself consitutes support for creation.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 17, 1999.

You know, You Know, both creationism and evolution have one very important thing in common.

They both require faith.

The big obstacle for the evolution crowd is the alternative is unacceptable to them. This forces them to accept a theory with virtually no factual support and to do it with a religious zeal that would make any southern evangelical proud.

Before you relegate me to the Flat World Society, allow me one example of why the science is bad supporting evolution and hence why the zeal is so passionate and dominating. ( Who was it that said , "You raise your voice when you should be strengthening your argument."?)

Vertebrates and molluscs separated 530 million years ago, yet they have the same eye...

A gene group, Pax-6, is a key regulator in the development of eyes in all vertebrates. Its analog has been found to control development of the visual systems of molluscs, insects, flatworms, and nemerteans ( ribbon worms). These represent five of the six phyla that have visual systems. ( the sixth has not been studied to date) The molecular similarity among these analogs is nothing less than astounding. The paired domain of the gene contains 130 amino acids. The match of these amino acids between insects and humans is 94% and between zebra fish and human the match is 97%.

Could five genetically separate phyla have evolved these similair genes individually by chance? There are twenty different amino acids available to fill each of the 130 spaces on the gene.

This means there are 20*130 or 10*170 possible combinations. There are one hundred million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion ways the amino acids can arrange themselves in those 130 slots on the gene.

The number far exceeds the number of particles in the universe.

Any combination is possible one time. Getting the same or even similar combinations a second time is the statistical problem. The likelyhood that random mutations would produce the same combinations five times is 10*170 raised to the fifth power.

There is no way this same gene could have evolved independently in each of the five phyla, it must have been present in a common ancestor.

The gene that controls the development of eyes was programmed into life at the level below the Cambrian. That level is either the amorphous sponge-like Ediacarans or one-celled protozoa.

BUT NEITHER HAS EYES.

Evolution is not a free agent, the laws of chemistry, biology and physics determine which structures can evolve.

The statistical improbability of pure chance yielding even the simplest forms of life has made a mockery of the theory that random choice alone gave us the biosphere we see.

Convergent evolution cannot have occured by chance. The evidence is that evolution is CHANNELED in particular directions. In essence, we are written into the scheme.

And we haven't even brought up the fact that evolution is not supported in the fossil record.

There is more to this world than we know.

Always question authority, especially if you agree with it.

Regards,

Will

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), October 17, 1999.

yep i'm gonna quietly sit this one out. no use trying to convince people about the merits of evolutionary theory. no use in getting stuck in the semantic mud. no use in giving people a windy lecture they won't want or pay atttention to. this forum is for people concerned about y2k or people who are "concerned" about people who are concerned. evolution is a wonderful way to explain certain aspects of reality, but it seems like most people can by through life without having to ever use the word.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), October 17, 1999.

"A gene group, Pax-6, is a key regulator in the development of eyes in all vertebrates. Its analog has been found to control development of the visual systems of molluscs, insects, flatworms, and nemerteans (ribbon worms)."

Oops. Looks like you forgot to include INVAR in your series.

-- -- (a@b.c), October 17, 1999.

KOS, the Boa still has remants of its back legs.

Our parent is the Periodic Table and we can be traced back to it. It and ourselves are one and the same. We have never shed our umbilical cord from it, and if we did, we would lose our animation to say the least.

I think some people have confused what "teaching evolution" is and is not. It is the missing links between ourselves and the Period Table, but there isn't any getting around the Periodic Table as the be all and the end all of ourselves. I think what has happened is instruction of the Periodic Table has been left out. It has caused people to feel as if theories are hanging by a thread and a whim of the day.

We're still the peculiar creature that came out of the sea. To ourselves and daily conditioning we are on "dry land" but we're not. We've moisture in our atmosphere. What we describe typically as "air" is a wet entity. In short, we're living in an aquarium due to our protective atmosphere and our unusual level of gravity. Our bodies are still mostly water. We have to drink water to survive and we sweat water. One of the dangers to colonizing Mars and even sending homo sapiens to Mars is that once we leave this gravity, being still such sea cratures, we literally start to dry up in our bones and become brittle. We lose a third of our muscle build and our heads enlargen. We're just not this miraculous and unique being Christians would love to be true. We're not a different thing standing amongst plants and animals. As a whole we are making up a living and breathing entity no one thing seperate from another.

KOS, homo sapiens still stand outside the cave, our evolvement has been almost comical. Someone looked at the suns process, copied, and made nuclear weapons. Another looked at our brain, copied, and made computers. We copy what nature has evolved to further our civil and social advancement. Molecular Nano Boxes are simply the copy of how a cow puts it all together to make a steak. Homo spaiens just don't think magical things out of the air. It always has its earthy connection. Thomas Edison, a man hailed as "Brilliant," was out playing with the lightening and a kite. The "genius" is always the most earthy one around. I think sometimes white Christians especially are confused about where the big ideas for the leaps came from and what those leaps are.

The search through apes per se is simply finding Grandpa who is M.I.A. It doesn't change who were are, what we are, or where our own beginning was, but fills a blank, and maybe by that exploration we'll know who and what we'll be down the road. Are we doomed forever to stand outside our caves with our spears and loin cloth marvelling over the sun? So Einsteins brain was probed, pulled out from a jar and dissected, with much of humanity asking, "Are we moving ahead now? I sosmething different starting to happen? Is a more advanced line evolving and leaving us behind as a less fit specie?" And it is serious KOS, other species almost identical stood next to ourselves, and due to a slight difference we survived and they did not. Now we know for sure, 100% for sure, that some of us at this time, though rare in number, have a different and superior brain.

What are you going to do by ignoring science? Refuse to acknowledge that some superior and different beings now walk amongst us? Do we continue to call them "Homo Sapiens" or do we give them a different name? The creationist myth does not say, "And then off to the side over here is a superior and distinctly different breed of homo sapien than Adam."

Seek and ye shall find the truth, and Jesus and his disciples did not come up with that saying, you ought to be recognizing it from a Greek. Seek and ye shall find the truth and the truth shall set you free.

-- Paula (chowbabe@pacbell.net), October 18, 1999.

coprolith, good call! If I was a troll who wanted to distract the forum folks from any serious discussions (like the CIA Senate report, RC's latest posts on the oil companies, etc.) I would start a thread on evolution vs creationism! After all, the same damn thread got over a hundred hits just a few weeks ago and wrapped up some of the regulars for days. If y'all really want to know (ad nauseum) what anybody here thinks of this subject, find it in the archives and read it!

*****Please Folks, Don't Feed The Trolls******

I just wish it wasn't so easy for them to lead us around by the nose sometimes...

-- (OhFerPetesS@ke.com), October 18, 1999.

OK, I admit it. I was being a troll. There was a post farther down along the lines of "look at how society is going to hell", with the usual religious slant. So I posted my version of that sentiment -- look how ignoring science and technology got us into this mess where people cannot seem to take Y2K seriously and the press cannot do any independent thinking when reporting on it. All part of the same no-nothing attitude, if you ask me...

Anyway, there wasn't any new Y2K info today. And it's Sunday, a good day to tease the Christians.

-- You Know... (notme@nothere.junk), October 18, 1999.

Great one Paula! Now why don't you explain why evolution is exempt from the second law of thermodynamics, which states that all things tend to disorder. I'd really like a scientific proof that mankind is exempt from that one.

-- haha (haha@haha.com), October 18, 1999.

* * * 19991018 Monday

You know, if the Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel fable were true, the human race would have devolved by virtue of the incestuous generations of offspring, expressing any of the following potential biological consequences: two heads, three-eyes, hemophiliacs, and who knows what else.

Y2K is about human nature, cognitive dissonance and inattention to details with unintended consequences! IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IRRATIONAL FAITH OR BELIEF SYSTEMS!

Regards, Bob Mangus

* * *

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus@hotmail.com), October 18, 1999.

Paula, you have posted a great example of where evolution is accepted as an AXIOM not a theory. Commonality of design across species (e.g., apes and humans) can just as well be explained by a common creator. The fact is that the evidence that demostrates the evolution of one species into another species (macroevolution) is simply not there.

Yeah, colprith reminded us that there is agtually a thread of a couple of months ago that was on this very subject. It was pretty winded alright, with about a zillion posts.

I don't know, day in and day out we argue about what should be taken as being "the truth" about Y2K. Government reports. Self-reported assessments. Assumptions. Statistics. Annonymous e-mail. Etc.

So it really bugs me when (and now for the second time) somebody tries to establish belief in the theory of evolution as some kind of "watermark" to be judged against, implying that to not accept it shows just how irrational some people can be. That really pisses me off. Like with whether Y2K will be a disaster or not, there is evidence both for and against, that needs to be seriously weighed. Nothing should be taken for granted.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 18, 1999.

I meant coprolith, sorry dude.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 18, 1999.

>> Now why don't you explain why evolution is exempt from the second law of thermodynamics, which states that all things tend to disorder. <<

The *actual* second law of thermodynamics states that all *closed* dynamic systems tend to disorder. The earth is not a closed dynamic system. It receives an excess of energy from the sun. That excess of energy is organized by life into an orderly *local* system.

Now think for godd*mned moment. The second law was postulated by a human being. As a human being, it was *obvious* that our local system was more orderly than the cosmos as a whole. Everything on earht screams this fact.

Why do you think someone intelligent enough to formulate that law would willfully overlook the ENTIRE EARTH in order to state a law CONTRADICTED BY EVERYTHING HE LOOKED AT ON A DAILY BASIS????? IOW, if the second law didn't apply to life, it would NEVER have been formulated. Don't you see?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 18, 1999.

You know is correct. To elevate creationism to a theory it must be based in science. It is not. It doesn't even want to be. It is a faith system. You can't compare apples and oranges. One is religion and one is science. Does that make science right or religion right?

Personally, I have no problem with BOTH being right. I believe in God. I am a Christian. I also am an engineer. I believe in science. The time period that creationists use may be in error. The bible states that to God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years a day. Diversity is all around us. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. You see that in development of a fetus. We have a tail and gills at one point. To me it is obvious that some aspect of evolution has taken place. To those who say show me...look at the horse. We have a fairly complete evolutionary history of the equine.

Does that mean that God had no hand in creation. Of course not. I believe in the domino theory. I believe that God set up the universe in such a way that as time passed and "things happened" that man and other life forms came into existence. I believe that he molded us and shaped us for our role on this planet. Nothing in the bible refutes that position. Nothing in science does either. Maybe we need to relax a little and listen to the "other" sides.

-- Ynott (Ynott@incorruptible.com), October 18, 1999.

So you're saying that God created evolution?

hey, that's an idea

-- (not@now.com), October 18, 1999.

Sorry, but some of the best scientists are also creationists, and obviously feel they have scientific evidence backing their belief. Yes, both views do require faith, but it is accurate to say that evolution requires as much, if not more. Some prominent 'evolutionists' now propose that the earth was seeded by aliens. They prefer this theory to that of a Designer.

Questions... where did the matter for evolution come from? Where did the aliens come from?

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), October 18, 1999.

I would like to jump in here from another point of view. While there is little doubt that random behavior doesn't exist (look at chaos theory), there is sturcture in the sciences (systems theory), we are dust from the stars (Cosmology) and many other examples in disiplines over the years, it doesn't make a whole picture.

While there are many on the forum that are very well educated I kind of wonder how many artists there are here. One of my hats is being and artist for over 20 years.

It is not important when being creative to design the best of what you can do. It will never happen. That is because a person "grows" and it is more important to "grow" than it is to create. The act of creating is the evolution of your being not what is being created. If you are an artist long enough you watch not just the evolution of your art but the evolution of your being. Creation is just the seed, and evolution is the tree.

Creation is something commonly reffered to as the "spark", read up on Einstien some times, he knew of the "spark". It is an impression that you "intuit", then you hold it and nurture it to an idea. Sometimes that idea is so powerful it can consume a persons mind. In the act of creation, be it an idea or a tangible thing the most important thing is to keep your objectivety. This is because over the duration of time the idea - disipline will evolve in its own right. The path in which it evolves is not the creators choice, it is a path set from the structure of the universal order.

Often the greatest of pursuits must be achieved over a life time. Einstien may have actually been able to understand his findings clearer if he had put the equations in a drawer and went fishing. He was racked with doubt till his death that the god he understood didn't conform with the findings of science. The reality was there but the meaning was not.

Science has shown repeatedly that the technical achievements far outstrip mans attemps at finding meaning in the acheivements. This appears to me to be a total lack of understanding the creative process and subordinating ones self to do it. The desire of achievement cancels out the ability of growth. This growth is "evolution" of our being.

KOS maybe should be clearer in his meaning and the evolutionists should be clearer in their meaning. I believe there is common ground in the aurgument that Creation theory and Evolution theory can coexist. But is the individual ready to take the learning curve to both understand the creative process with the objectivity demanded by science? This to me is the real question. Is humanity mature enough to have the disipline required to take the "quantum leaps" of their own personalities and live what they learn? Or is it just cheap words of those that fear to go farther.

Sometimes it is not faith that is needed but the courage to know that you may not be right.

So here is a trick in regards to personal evolution, the more disipline you apply to your pursuits, the more momentum will build in your life towards your pursuits. The momentum may not be what you expect, it is your growth that is important not the pursuit. The pursuit may even become secondary to the real meaning in your life.

So a person has to "get out of the box" of their pursuits and let life evolve you to what you may not expect.

Once you understand, you will not need faith because you will live it.

Then you throw it away because you are back at the begining.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), October 18, 1999.

I would like to recomend a book for everyone interested in the subjects of creation and evolution. It is 'The Phenomenon of Man', by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Creation and evolution are both highly misunderstood, and not necessarily mutually exclusive. Please, everyone, read this book, and we won't have to have this same discussion again. It will truely enlighten your understanding of the subject and enrich your life.

Teaser: Teilhard was a Jesuit paleontologist. He was branded by the Church as a heretic, and forbidden from publishing his work. The work was published after his death in 1950, and is one of the most important of the Twentieth century.

Godspeed,

-- Pinkrock (aphotonboy@aol.com), October 18, 1999.

I get a giggle out of this,considering coprolith's comments. Isnt a coprolith fossilized dino poo? Now, thats evolution for ya....LOLOL

-- LauraA (Laadedah@aol.com), October 18, 1999.

King of Spain: You are absolutely right. As a former public school science teacher, I was appalled at the audacity of textbooks and films we used in class which treated evolution as an undisputed fact. Lots of brainwashing's been going on for the last 100 years to make moral behavior pointless because with evolution we don't need a God, there are no consequences to "sin" and everything is OK. Sounds like the witchcraft rules are taking over without a battle.

-- shirley (fether@ipa.net), October 18, 1999.

YOU KNOW,

Here is a link to explore the evolution/creation question when you have a minute. By the way, Kenneth Hovind is a major GI. There are some good arguments here for the intelluctualists.

http://www.drdino.com/FAQ.htm

If creationists/Christians are right, you could have some big problems. If evolutionists are right, well..... nothing matters anyway.

-- the Virginian (1@1.com), October 18, 1999.

Sorry, but I have heard that tripe before...."some of the best scientists support creation"...ever read the "science" they put out? I have. It is trash. I never heard of any of the "scientists" before and when their credentials were checked they were without exception tied to a fundamentalist Christian college. Sorry, the best don't support the idea. And that's a fact. NOw as to whether that means that they are wrong? That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Just don't thump down that tired and worn out cliche anymore.

Ever read their "supporting evidence"? I have. It is non existent. Basically they shoot holes in evolutionary theory. That's fair. It has many holes. That doesn't support creationism one whit. Sorry, that is science. They always fall back on God. You can't prove God. You can't prove creationism and that is what we mean when we say it isn't science. Sorry, you can misquote me all you want. Creationism isn't science. Guess what. Most of science is theories. So, let's not teach any of it okay? Let's live on a flat earth until somebody can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Oh--spacecraft....won't fly...Pictures of a spherical earth? I think those photos were rigged.

Basically, what we have here is a failure to communicate. I have found upon reading posts and talking with folks that after high school people don't argue about truth anymore. They argue about how right they are. Unless somebody agrees with your position, then they are all wet. That goes for conspiracy folks, alien abduction supporters, Clinton bashers, and yes military strength.

Schools support science, not religion. I don't want my kids taught creationism. I want them taught evolution. It is closer to reality. I take them to church for religion. Guess what? Not everyone on the planet is Christian. Not all religions support God and creationism. If I were Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, etc...I'd raise quite a ruckus to hear it spouted as "science". Teach your kids creationism and watch them fail their SAT's. Heck my kids don't need to go to no college where they don't believe the TRUTH...you say now. You'll be supporting them later. Good luck.

-- Ynott (Ynott@incorruptible.com), October 18, 1999.

This simply does not matter.It is useless metaphysical speculation that will distract you from the things that make a differance in life.What matters is 1.suffering 2.the absence of suffering 3.the cause of suffering 4.the practice that removes the cause of suffering and the realization of the absence of suffering.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), October 18, 1999.

haha wrote: "Now why don't you explain why evolution is exempt from the second law of thermodynamics, which states that all things tend to disorder."

And I ask: Where do you not see, feel, and hear disorder here upon the earth, and in the uni-verse that we can perceive? Evolution is a very disorderly business. The Newtonian/Cartesian clockwork as a means to understand in 'simpler' times, has been found incomplete. Quantum mechanics see tendencies, probabilities, interconnections, wholes. I ask again. Where do you not perceive disorder?

And speaking of interconnections, jaunt on down to a thread below this entitled Y2K and the management of Chaos.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 18, 1999.

shirley brought up something that gives the "other side of the coin" from what Paula said: the desire of people to use either evolutionary theory or creation theory (yeah, I know, by attaching "theory" to either I probably have angered some) to promote their agendas. Paula said that creation is used by religious types to promote their beliefs, because of their "need" to have a personal God setting standards for them (I think that is what she was saying in essence).

Well, as shirley alluded to, evolution has sure been used to promote various agendas, because when you have a belief system that entails such rules as "random selection", "survival of the fittest", etc., that too can turn out to be very convenient when you have a "need" to have a world without rules. Obviously, not everyone who believes in evolution falls into this category (as evidenced by many of the above posts defending it), but the fact is that one can have as many "personal agenda" type reasons for promoting evolution as creation. Which is why many refuse to acknowedge that BOTH are credible SCIENTIFIC THEORIES that should be evaluated on their merits. (You can, for instance, believe in creation without accepting any religious dogma whatsoever. But to do so probably does make you a little nervous....)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 18, 1999.

http://www.netexpress.net/~syn23/c_gods_ft_beliefs.html

Essay on the problems of belief and thought

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 18, 1999.

Ynott,

For a "scientist," you are spouting the worst sort of nonsense. Circular reasoning seems to be your forte; you made use of it three times in one post. If the thread "lives" long enough, I'll address some of those issues. In the meantime, do yourself a favor: Prove this worn-out fallacy: Ontology recapitulates Phylology. This old chestnut was debunked by *evolutionists* long ago. That you continue to perpetuate the lie speaks volumes about your definition of science.

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), October 18, 1999.

Yeah, Ynott, and while you are at it, tell us about "Piltdown Man", big frigging evolutionist hoax that propelled the "scientific evidence" to stardom.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 18, 1999.

Yes, King of spain...as I said before... you take the same approach as most creationists...shoot holes in the evolutionary theory...produce hoaxes that have been perpetrated on it and say, "aha! it is trashed." No such luck for you big guy.

let's talk about the crusades, indulgences, holy water, the Inquisition, jeez the list is endless. For a long time they even proclaimed the earth as the center of the universe and persecuted some REALLY famous scientists like Copernicus and Galileo and Da Vinci...heard of them?

Did I just dissuade you from creationism? I think not. You see, shooting holes in somebody else's theory does not support your own.

-- Ynott (Ynott@incorruptible.com), October 18, 1999.

So...what ratty college does Michael Denton belong to?

You are simply not correct.

-- Vagueaccusations (don'tfly@here.com), October 18, 1999.

"You can, for instance, believe in creation without accepting any religious dogma whatsoever. But to do so probably does make you a little nervous....)"

You are summoned to my kingdom KOS!

-- Queenof (Mudpuddlevania@wrestle.com), October 18, 1999.

Actually that other thread is entitled: Tao of the 21st Century: the management of Chaos.

Mea culpa,...

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 18, 1999.

YNOT-" You can't prove creationism and that is what we mean when we say it isn't science. "

If you took the time to read my previous post, you would see that science does in fact prove that the code which creates us was present from the beginning( meaning it emerged, it did not 'evolve'). That means that any evolutionary changes are merely modifications and begs the question of origin.

The code for the eye existed BEFORE THE EYE. It could not have randomly evolved as it did. It is statistically impossible.

This is scientific fact.

Your position that evolution is proveable by the scientific method and creationism is not is simply untrue and reflects your personal biases.

One cannot be a good scientist if one cannot maintain objectivity in the face of facts that conflict with one's personal preferences.

Will

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), October 18, 1999.

If man evolved from apes, why aren't all the apes people by now?

-- Just Wondering (wisdom@bible.God), October 18, 1999.

King of Spain-

Do you Primordial Slime wrestle?

-- (sorry@couldnt.resist), October 18, 1999.

Will:

Some of your terminology may be misleading you.

You speak of "the eye", but what's that? The number of utterly different photoreceptor ("eyelike") mechanisms observed in nature is very large, ranging from primitive (to photosensitive cells on the surface of a paramecium) to sophisticated (like the octopus). Your implication that there is only a single kind of eye need work.

Also, you speak of the statistical notion of random chance. Yet if there is anything that clearly emerges from the many millions of observations that comprise the fact of evolution, it is that evolution is a directed, highly nonrandom process. You may as well argue that gravity doesn't exist because a dropped brick falls downward a million times out of a million, which violates random chance so severely that gravity must be a hoax.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 18, 1999.

The time it would take to grow coral reefs is one thing used to say that the earth is really really old, as I'm sure you've heard. They've now found that the skeleton of the reefs is actually not coral after all. They just grew on top of calciferous algae, if I remember the article correctly.

And why aren't the oceans more salty than they are, if the earth is so old? My professors never could answer that one, and I wonder if someone has ever done so.

I'll be honest, though. In the end, I believe in God because I am here. I am a person, not merely a machine, and I choose, experience, and think. Science can't explain that naturalistically because my personhood goes beyond science's venue. I also can't believe that I and what I see "just happened." I just can't force that to seem real or logical, no matter what explanations I read or hear. So I interpret the evidence to support what I believe, as does everyone. So far, I'm pretty happy with how it all hangs together for me, with only a few uncomfortable areas. Coral reefs are off that list now.

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), October 18, 1999.

Flint said, "...evolution is a directed, highly nonrandom process." Well, you know, once upon a time scientists just HAD to have something to explain the atmosphere, so they invented something called an "ether" to explain it. Everything having to do with space, waves of light, radiant heat, electromagnet radiation, etc., was always explained in terms of this "ether".

The ether was kicked out after it was realized that it was completely unnecessary to explain anything, because there was no reason for it. Perhaps evolution can be viewed the same way -- it merely acts as a convenient subtitute to obscure the obvious: that complex designs are the work of a creator.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 18, 1999.

S Kohl:

I don't know the physiology or lifecycle of coral, and I haven't read that article. But either way, the coral reefs would only be a few million years old -- a geologic eyeblink. None of the observations supporting the actual age of the Earth (about 4.5 billion years) involve coral reefs.

KOS:

You're right, the "ether" theory has long been superseded by better explanations. That doesn't mean that what the "ether" theory explained didn't exist, only that the explanation was poor. As I also wrote (but you skipped), the fact of evolution is supported by many many millions of direct observations. Our efforts to explain these observations continue to be improved. Your notion that they "just are" may satisfy you, but those with curiosity aren't so easily satisfied. They'd prefer to understand.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 18, 1999.

KOS mentioned

"that complex designs are the work of a creator."

I think that this is bang on and satisfies my view, still the complex designs do have to fall within universal laws. But we as a people are far away from seeing the "big picture" as created by whatever means.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), October 18, 1999.

Flint, " You speak of "the eye", but what's that? The number of utterly different photoreceptor ("eyelike") mechanisms observed in nature is very large, ranging from primitive (to photosensitive cells on the surface of a paramecium) to sophisticated (like the octopus). Your implication that there is only a single kind of eye need work"

Flint, allow me to be more specific;

Let us consider the octopus. Again, the phylum Mollusca seperated from the vertebrates 530 million years ago but the eyes are virtually identical. Althought the choice of proteins is different, both have eyes with cornea, functioning iris, lens, vitreous humor, three-layered retina with rods, pigments for moderating light intensity to the retina, a ganglion of nerves connecting the retinal photoreceptors to the brain, amd most subtly of all, lateral inhibition, the mechanism by which adjacent optic neurons interact in order to enhance the perception of boundaries between two similar colors.

I'll close with a quote from SCIENCE magazine;

" The hypothesis that the eye of the cephalopods [ie , the octopus and squid] has evolved by convergence with the vertebrate eye is challenged by our recent findings of the [human] Pax-6 related gene sequences in octopus and squid."

Regards,

Will

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), October 18, 1999.

Will:

I'm not sure I get what you're driving at here. Without question there are similarities between human and octopus eyes. There are also important differences -- the octopus eye is considered a superior design since it lacks the blind spot inherent in the human design. As for the similarities, we can speculate, hypothesize, and observe. That's what science is all about.

Many eye designs are completely different (like insect eyes). Since eyes don't fossilize well, we have a much poorer history of eye development than we do of bone structure, which in turn is not as rich as our history of teeth! There's a standing joke that most of what paleontologists study is how teeth evolve to produce slightly different descendent teeth.

Your general argument sounded to me like saying that because you consider our current explanations insufficient, that what we are trying to explain doesn't exist. I think almost every theory we have can be improved, sometimes drastically (as in cosmology). And in some ways we're still completely baffled. I wrote in another thread that Darwin's theory (explanation) of the fact of evolution is currently undergoing vigorous challenge. Much of Darwin's explanation (theory) may soon be superseded by a better one, more consistent with the massive body of observational evidence. It's an exciting time.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 18, 1999.

Flint,

What I am getting at is not my opinion, it is the logical result of the science. Let me try again.

The code for you and me was present from the start. The eye really does clinch this. The math is irrefutable. Evolution does not exist. Not to any significant degree anyway. Rather what is happening is an unfolding, an emerging of one form after another. THAT is why we have an appendix, the whale has residual legs, etc. The blueprints are all there already. That an occasional construction occurs that harkens to another, earlier time merely demonstrates that we continue to manifest the occasional odd bit of DNA.

It does not mean that we mutated from that old form in response to our world. And that IS the definition of evolution.

And like it or not, at this point in time, the only rational explanation for this fantastically complex biosphere, is that it was created...

By Whom is a question I have no interest in debating. It is merely my observation that the creation/evolution debate generally divides along Theist/Athiest boundaries.

And those are both religions.

Regards,

Will

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), October 18, 1999.

Will:

What I fail to understand is, what observation can I make that would prove the "theory" of creation wrong? Any theory must be susceptible to disproof by observation, and the observation must be possible.

My understanding is that the creation theory is not disprovable by definition. Anything I could possibly observe was just created that way. And any theory that cannot be disproved in principle is a statement of faith, not science. A scientific theory must in principle be capable of being modified, improved, extended, or discarded based on observation.

So tell me, what observation will disprove your theory?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 18, 1999.

Will:

Here's a link that will help you out (many thanks to original poster)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 18, 1999.

Sorry, Flint,

Although your entrance into the fray is a significant step above Ynott's poor efforts, it is still inadequate to the task. Your constant (and unsupported) repetition of the "fact of evolution" litany simply does not make it so. Your comments make it clear that you've first *chosen* your religion, and then repeat its articles of faith like a secular rosary. You believe in billions of tiny individual "nonrandom, directed" miracles, but have no explanation of the mechanism. You follow the preachings of a priesthood which, of all the "scientific" disciplines, is most notorious for its charlatans, fakes, hoaxes and fabrications. You *know* evolution is true, though the "explanation" changes almost daily. Defending *these* things, proselytizing these beliefs with such fervor, ignoring the multitude of contradictions (you see, I can use hyperbole as well) require an incredible, unshakeable, unreasonable and illogical faith. But that is not science; it is your personal belief system.

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), October 18, 1999.

Elbow wrote

"You believe in billions of tiny individual "nonrandom, directed" miracles, but have no explanation of the mechanism"

Have you ever heard of strange attractors? Now there is a potential mechanism that is a strange beast. I think that evolution and creationism are infantile definitions, they are just starting consepts to what we will really find. To think we have any idea of the fundamentals of life is laughable.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), October 19, 1999.

Good over view of Fractals. The "religion" of the 21st Century.

  Fractal Frequently Asked Questions and Answers 

From the newgroup

  sci.fractals

-- Brian (imager@home.com), October 19, 1999.

Never heard of your "famous scientist"...nor has my physicist/atheist/evolutionary believing hubby.

Nobody reads my posts completely so I will stop with this one.

I never said that evolutionary theory was fact. I simply said it was science. I said it was full of holes, but it is still the best science we have to explain what we see.

Creationism is NOT science. "Let there be light"....is NOT science.

Tell you what guys...You prove God and you prove creationism. You can't because it is a belief system. Sorry, it may very well be true. I said that in a previous post which you still didn't read either. My premise and was that it isn't science. I also believe that the two are in agreement. I believe both. But creationism is NOT science and should not be taught in the schools.

-- Ynott (Ynott@incorruptible.com), October 19, 1999.

King, creationism is not a *scientific* theory. Get over it! It is a religious belief nothing more. Check out alt.atheism newsgroup sometimes. You may learn something.

-- Darla Nice (dnice@hgo.net), October 19, 1999.

So you're saying that God created evolution?

hey, that's an idea

-- (not@now.com), October 18, 1999.

I strongly suspect that "evolvability", itself, has evolved and will continue to evolve.

On the eye...yeah. The major molecular aparatus for sensing light has been with us since the days of bacteria. Most eyes are variations of bacterio-rhodopsin networks....with adaptations of course.

Molecular evolution is pretty easy because of the modular design of genes. Typically it is one exon per protein domain. There is far more space between exons than exons themselves, making the likelihood that chromosome breaks occur in "junk" DNA far more likely than in coding regions.

Translation: it's extremely easy for proteins to mix and match in such a way that many (if not most) have two or more "hands" with which to do two or more functions.

Translation: evolution does not necessarily have to be "directed" to work--it can still happen randomly and produce the diversity of molecules and living things we see today.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), October 19, 1999.

Elbow Grease:

I'll respond to your criticisms as well as I can. I'm not a professional author, and I have to keep trying to express myself well. And from what you write, I can see that I have not done so. But I'm willing to try again.

[Although your entrance into the fray is a significant step above Ynott's poor efforts, it is still inadequate to the task.]

I apologize for this. I'm doing my best, honest.

[Your constant (and unsupported) repetition of the "fact of evolution" litany simply does not make it so.]

I was making an attempt to distinguish between two different usages of the word "evolution". The fact of evolution is embodied in many millions of observations. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain those observations.

[Your comments make it clear that you've first *chosen* your religion, and then repeat its articles of faith like a secular rosary.]

Actually, I've read a lot of the evidence and try to keep up with current efforts to make sense of them. Those efforts are now in a state of flux, which I find rather exciting. I admit I accept current scientific theories as being the best we can do right now. I do NOT expect them to hold still, because I believe we can always do better.

[You believe in billions of tiny individual "nonrandom, directed" miracles]

I believe that the observations have been (on the whole) properly and accurately made. I also accept that these observations, taken together, are highly consistent with a nonrandom process. We're trying to understand that process. I don't accept that the process is "miraculous" simply because it's not fully understood.

[but have no explanation of the mechanism.]

There are currently several competing explanations of the mechanism, These proposed explanations nonetheless agree for the most part, disagreeing only on some specific aspects. While this is far from "no explanation", I admit that I don't ever expect a full, complete and perfect explanation. We can always learn more and do better, in my opinion.

[You follow the preachings of a priesthood]

I think this is a misnomer. Scientists aren't preaching what's known, they're investigating what isn't known. I do follow these investigations out of curiosity.

[which, of all the "scientific" disciplines, is most notorious for its charlatans, fakes, hoaxes and fabrications. ]

Yes, there have been many. You will notice that they have been exposed. This leads to two good points: That the theory has not be undermined by these fakes, and that the theory has been solid and complete enough to identify the fakes as being fake. The study of fraud and error in science is very interesting.

[You *know* evolution is true, though the "explanation" changes almost daily.]

Again, this is a confusion of meanings. The observations are true. The explanation of those observations will probably never be perfected. We just do the best job of explanation we can given the data and human limitations. It's an ongoing process.

[Defending *these* things, proselytizing these beliefs with such fervor, ignoring the multitude of contradictions (you see, I can use hyperbole as well) require an incredible, unshakeable, unreasonable and illogical faith.]

But I'm not defending current theories of the mechanism as being correct. I'm defending the process of collecting and analyzing data. I'll readily admit to an unshakeable faith in the process of collection and analysis. But you do this all the time -- you use your senses, take in information, figure out what it means, and react to it. Are you "unreasonable and illogical" for doing so? You may think so, but I think you're being entirely reasonable.

[But that is not science; it is your personal belief system.]

On the contrary, that's exactly what science is. An effort to explain. Science is an iterative process -- examine the data, propose an explanation for it, derive other things that should be observable if the explanation is correct, and go observe them and collect more data.

To quote Darwin, "How can an observation be of any use, if it is not for or against some view?"

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 19, 1999.

Flint, "What I fail to understand is, what observation can I make that would prove the "theory" of creation wrong? "

I don't know, Flint, perhaps there isn't one. But that works both ways, I can't PROVE it is so. What does work is to begin with the a priori assumption that the universe was created and then construct a theory based upon real world measurements that adequately explains the observable universe in a manner that does NOT include a creator. ( If this is the case, then it MUST be possible. The reverse isn't necessarily true.)

This has not been done, certainly not with current evolution theory. Your bias is showing.

Remember, all theories that adequately explain observed facts are EQUALLY VALID. The onus is on anti-creationists to present a supportable alternative. Evolution theory fails outright. The math says it didn't happen that way.

Wishin' won't make it so.

Regards,

Will

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), October 19, 1999.

Will:

Any explanation that cannot be disproved is faith. Even those who hold to any given theory MUST be able to say, if *this* is observed (which is inherently observable), then my theory is false. If you cannot do that, you are making a statement of faith.

Incidentally, did you follow that link? Evolution is not mathmatical in any real sense. Your mathmatical arguments may satisfy you, but they fail to address the issue completely -- they are simply not relevant to the observations and the explanations for those observations. You are being fooled.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 19, 1999.

Flint,"Any explanation that cannot be disproved is faith. Even those who hold to any given theory MUST be able to say, if *this* is observed (which is inherently observable), then my theory is false. If you cannot do that, you are making a statement of faith. "

Take the theory that the Sun revolved around the Earth. That was the prevailing theory, based on faith, for centuries. Once Copernicus correlated Tycho Brahe's observations, he was able to present a measurable counter proposal. Bing, end of faith based theory.

You think that evolution is comparable, as did scientific minds of the late 19th century, but deeper analysis in this century has shown gaping holes that cannot be resolved. THE THEORY IS FATALLY FLAWED.

But like any other faith based belief, the faithful will hear no evil, see no evil and speak none.

I am 45, Flint, and I grew up and was trained as a scientist and evolutionist. I understand this dogma intimately. My position today is based not on faith, but upon a closer examination of the data.

Flint,"Incidentally, did you follow that link?

Yes.

Flint,"Evolution is not mathmatical in any real sense."

Of course it is. This statement by you reveals your own lack of understanding here. All things in our universe must follow mathematical law. Probability does in fact determine our reality. To say otherwise is to rely on faith.

People don't grasp mathematics. Statistics and probability theory might as well be Martian heiroglyphics. Evolution is accepted blindly because it is easy for the common man to imagine anything happening if given enough time.

This isn't true, however.

While I am uninterested in a point-counter-point, I must take down one of the link's strawmen just a little.

There is NO evidence of evolution in the five million year old Cambrian explosion. Each animal in this era makes its first appearance fully developed.

IT WAS THE SUDDEN NATURE OF THIS 'EVOLUTIONARY' DEVELOPEMENT THAT LED WALCOTT TO REINTER THE BURGESS SHALE FOSSILS!

The idea of a massive multi-faceted evolutionary change occurring in a few generations simply does not stand up to the scrutiny of statistics. This was established in 1967 at the Wistar Institute Symposium which brought together leading bilogists and mathematicians in what turned out to be a futile attemt to find a mathematically reasonable basis for the assumption that random mutations are the driving force behind evolution.

I will close with a quote from Ilya Prigogine, Nobel prize winning chemist from "Physics Today"'

" The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of the spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore improbable, even on the scale of billions of years."

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), October 20, 1999.

Will, you bring up a real brain tickler, and I offer it up to the peanut gallery at large:

Since the time that Charles Darwin forumlated his THEORY of evolution, we obviously have had a wealth of scientific study. If Darwin could be with us today, and look at the findings, does anyone think that HE would find it to be well supported by the evidence? Personally, I would not think so.

Darla: Do you like to mudwrestle?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 20, 1999.

KOS:

I tend to agree with you. By now, we have enough evidence to suggest fairly strongly that Darwin's theory (that reproductive success drives evolution) is incomplete. It is becoming increasingly clear that other mechanisms are involved. Not that reproductive success is not a *component* of the cause of evolution, but that there are additional components as well.

As a scientist, it's highly likely that Darwin would recognize this, and work to improve his own theory.

To hear Will Huett tell it, ANY non-random process in nature is *ipso facto* evidence of the Hand of God. And as many have pointed out, this explanation cannot be challenged. It basically says "Go thou and collect data, and whatsoever thou shalt find is proof of God's handiwork, regardless!" Such an explanation cannot possibly be modified, improved, or contradicted. And that approach has the advantage of satisfying the terminally insecure, and the disadvantage of preventing rational understanding. You get to take your choice.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 20, 1999.

Flint."To hear Will Huett tell it, ANY non-random process in nature is *ipso facto* evidence of the Hand of God"

Aww, c'mon Flint. If you don't understand what I'm pointing out say so, don't put words in my mouth.

Flint,"It basically says "Go thou and collect data, and whatsoever thou shalt find is proof of God's handiwork, regardless!"

No it doesn't.

Flint,"Such an explanation cannot possibly be modified, improved, or contradicted.

Of course it can, it just hasn't to date.

Flint,"And that approach has the advantage of satisfying the terminally insecure, and the disadvantage of preventing rational understanding. "

Quite the contrary, I am being both rational AND honest. As I said earlier, all theories that accurately explains observed phenomena are equally valid. Evolution does not as the evidence I have posted cannot be explained therein. Your postion cannot be defended with integrity and you then insist that it is I that am being obtuse.

What a poor argument.

-- Will Huett (Willhuett@usa.net), October 20, 1999.

Will:

Sigh. I asked what observation *you* would consider sufficient to contradict your own explanation. You had no answer.

I've repeatedly said that I don't consider Darwin's explanation complete. Current evaluation of the evidence strongly suggests that Darwin may have identified only part of the answer, and that theories explaining the fact (the observations) of evolution seem to have a long way to go. That's part of the process.

I may be misunderstanding you, but you seem to be arguing that if one explanation has (admitted) difficulties, that a competing explanation must therefore be true. This is not at all logical. There is surely a very large number of different ways to explain the evidence. If any *one* of those different ways seems inadequate, this says absolutely nothing about the possible correctness of any given competing explanation. For all we know, *all* proposed explanations may be wrong, and nobody has hit on the best one yet.

The only *necessary* thing that all competing explanations must have in common to be scientific, is that they all must be disprovable according to agreed-upon contradictory observations. It's not sufficient simply to decree that you don't accept any current observation as being contradictory -- anyone can say that about any theory. You must *specify* something that is both inherently observable and contradictory. And you haven't.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 20, 1999.

Flint,"You must *specify* something that is both inherently observable and contradictory. And you haven't. "

Of course I have.

The code for the eye existed prior to the eye. It exists in more than one branch of the animal kingdom. It is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for this to have occured as your theory outlines.

Game, set, match.

Now, if you are insistent that there can be no Creator at the beginning of this reality, fine. But you need a new theory. Your theory must answer the above conundrum. ( not to mention several other flaws)

Evolution theory states that the biosphere we observe is a result of spontaneous, random organizations that self select and modify over time, with the most efficient eventually succeeding.

This is manifestly, verifiably untrue. I have repeatedly given you one very, very good reason. And Flint, ONE IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED TO KILL ANY THEORY.

It is back to the drawing board for all serious evolutionists. But here we run into the faith problem. It is all too human not to want to give up a treasured world view, ESPECIALLY when the only current alternative is personally distasteful.

I am objective in this, you are not.

Given an alternative to creationism that does not fly in the face of the science and I would be the first to acknowledge it.

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), October 20, 1999.

Will:

While I recognize that you are satisfied with your one-size-fits-all explanation-of-everything, I'll address some of what you said for those whose prefer their thinking not be quite so stunted.

[The code for the eye existed prior to the eye.]

The genetic coding for "eyelike" structures developed in slow stages, the most useful of which were passed on. There is ample evidence to suggest that most such structures developed from other structures that were originally unrelated to photoreceptivity. It didn't happen all at once, it took a long time, a great deal of trial and error. Nor has every lineage that could make good use of such a structure ever developed one. Perhaps because no prior structure could be incrementally co-opted for this purpose. Genuine investigation proceeds. So does evolution. As an example, what used to be eyes are now evolving into something else in creatures (some insects, some fish) who live in total darkness and no longer need the prior eyes.

[It exists in more than one branch of the animal kingdom.]

The ability to sense and react to the outside world appears to be a useful survival characteristic. Once it begins to develop, it is retained. Superior versions reward their possessors. The use of light in this process is natural, since much of the biosphere is lit much of the time. It would be surprising if such an ability had not evolved in many branches of the animal kingdom under the circumstances. Given that all creatures face the same physics of optics and work with similar organic materials, one would expect to find similarities as well. The number of 'good' ways to accomplish a given task can be constraining.

So I don't see your point here.

[It is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for this to have occured as your theory outlines.]

The theories of evolution describe a process. Not all processes result from random chance -- those that are random are not even considered processes at all. The mathmatical approach is really rather surprising in its irrelevance. It assumes randomness in a nonrandom process, and it assumes biological structures appeared suddenly, poof!, in all their current glory. The use of mathematical chance as a supporting argument for creationists is stunningly weak.

[Game, set, match.]

On the contrary. False, irrelevant and irrelevant. You are forcing obvious misconceptions and known false assumptions onto reality to justify an insupportable fixation.

[Now, if you are insistent that there can be no Creator at the beginning of this reality, fine.]

I insisted nothing of the sort. As I've written at some length, I see no conflict between science and religion. Each has its appropriate sphere, within which each can inform us to our great benefit. Forcing religion to address matters for which it is inappropriate leads only to great confusion. As you demonstrate.

[But you need a new theory. Your theory must answer the above conundrum. ( not to mention several other flaws)]

Current theories of evolution, properly understood, answer this so- called 'conundrum' in great detail and entirely satisfactorily. Chanting thoroughly debunked arguments makes them no stronger, and reflects poorly on the chanter. All you have accomplished is to demonstrate that a false concept is false. And since your picture of "the eye" appearing full-blown by sudden magic is entirely false, it matters little that you can demonstrate that it's false. Nobody is contesting this.

[Evolution theory states that the biosphere we observe is a result of spontaneous, random organizations that self select and modify over time, with the most efficient eventually succeeding.]

No, this is at best a sincere error on your part. The organizations you speak of are not random, and with very limited exceptions are not spontaneous either. And I can well understand how this misconception can mislead you. Again, there is a process at work here.

[This is manifestly, verifiably untrue.]

And I agree. Your description of evolutionary theory is false. That's now how it works at all. But crafting a false description and claiming it's false doesn't forward your argument at all. Once again, I agree that false things are false. But if you wish to *usefully* criticize evolutionary theory, you must address the theory itself, not some simplistic misconception of that theory.

[I have repeatedly given you one very, very good reason. And Flint, ONE IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED TO KILL ANY THEORY.]

No, you have not. You have repeatedly made a statement any evolutionist would recognize as grievously mistaken, and repeatedly claimed that your mistake 'kills' a theory you fail to address. I freely admit that current theories of evolution may not fully match the evidence on which they are based. We're trying to improve them all the time.

[It is back to the drawing board for all serious evolutionists.]

Not quite that far back. Most of current evolutionary theory is well supported.

[But here we run into the faith problem.]

You can say that again.

[It is all too human not to want to give up a treasured world view, ESPECIALLY when the only current alternative is personally distasteful.]

Have you looked in a mirror lately? I agree with your statement. I'm always uncomfortable when observations contradict my convictions. This forces me to change my convictions, never an easy task. But still, in my opinion preferable to deny or seriously misrepresent the observations so as to preserve convictions. As you are doing.

[I am objective in this, you are not.]

Apparently, the only way you allow me to be 'objective' is to agree with your errors. I'm not saying your explanation of life's development is incorrect. You may be right. But if you wish to find flaws in competing theories, you must address what those theories actually say, rather than addressing a simplistic misconception.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 20, 1999.

Flint,

Sorry for the delay. Things have gotten "busy" and I haven't been able to get my forum fix as often as I'd like. I appreciate the gracious tone of your response. Am I to assume you've conquered the nicotine?

Flint>> I'll respond to your criticisms as well as I can. I'm not a professional author, and I have to keep trying to express myself well. And from what you write, I can see that I have not done so. But I'm willing to try again.

I believe I've understood you correctly, and that your subsequent comments have confirmed that impression. Part of the problem is mine for responding with a metaphor. In a single sentence, my point is that evolution is a belief system, and not science.

EG[Your constant (and unsupported) repetition of the "fact of evolution" litany simply does not make it so.]

Flint>> I was making an attempt to distinguish between two different usages of the word "evolution". The fact of evolution is embodied in many millions of observations. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain those observations.

I understood your meaning, Flint. I maintain that there is *no* "fact" of evolution. There is a *concept* of evolution. Without the concept, those millions of observations are not facts *of* anything; the raw data does not come from the ground with "evolution" stamped on it. They are simply facts, unless you are arguing backward from a foregone conclusion, as you are apparently doing. You believe in the concept, regardless of the explanation. To repeat, the choice of a worldview comes first, then the use of "science-so-called" to select the facts to provide validation of the worldview.

EG[You believe in billions of tiny individual "nonrandom, directed" miracles]

Flint>> I believe that the observations have been (on the whole) properly and accurately made. I also accept that these observations, taken together, are highly consistent with a nonrandom process. We're trying to understand that process. I don't accept that the process is "miraculous" simply because it's not fully understood.

*If* evolution were true, *then* the process would have to be nonrandom. Statistically, the odds argue overwhelmingly against random chance at many levels. Beyond that, the basic (observable) characteristics of the DNA code; stability, multiple redundancy, error-checking and correction, conservation of information, etc., diametrically contradict the existence of these postulated but unobserved processes.

EG[You follow the preachings of a priesthood]

Flint>>I think this is a misnomer. Scientists aren't preaching what's known, they're investigating what isn't known. I do follow these investigations out of curiosity.

In the case of evolutionists, I agree 100%. They are not describing objectively integrated data, they are preaching what they *believe* is true, but which is not known, not observed, not repeatable and not proven. Again, a case of belief in the theory, in spite of or in the absence of the facts.

EG[which, of all the "scientific" disciplines, is most notorious for its charlatans, fakes, hoaxes and fabrications. ]

Flint>> Yes, there have been many. You will notice that they have been exposed. This leads to two good points: That the theory has not be undermined by these fakes, and that the theory has been solid and complete enough to identify the fakes as being fake. The study of fraud and error in science is very interesting.

On the contrary, it further illustrates how easily the "scientific" community can be misled, how easily and frequently "objective research" is corrupted, how subjective beliefs provoke deliberate fraud and misinformation, how that fraud can be propagated as fact to the general populace and repeated as fact long after it has been exposed. The question certainly is not how much we should believe, but how much more of this research is made up from whole cloth. I make no joke when I say that evolutionary science is singularly populated by men with feet of clay.

EG[You *know* evolution is true, though the "explanation" changes almost daily.]

Flint>> Again, this is a confusion of meanings. The observations are true. The explanation of those observations will probably never be perfected. We just do the best job of explanation we can given the data and human limitations. It's an ongoing process.

There is no confusion of meanings, except perhaps your use of the royal "we." My point remains that regardless of whether panspermia, spontaneous generation, or "nonrandom, directed mutation" is the latest and greatest explanation du jour, the concept that life *somehow* evolved is never in doubt.

EG[Defending *these* things, proselytizing these beliefs with such fervor, ignoring the multitude of contradictions (you see, I can use hyperbole as well) require an incredible, unshakeable, unreasonable and illogical faith.]

Flint>> But I'm not defending current theories of the mechanism as being correct. I'm defending the process of collecting and analyzing data. I'll readily admit to an unshakeable faith in the process of collection and analysis. But you do this all the time -- you use your senses, take in information, figure out what it means, and react to it. Are you "unreasonable and illogical" for doing so? You may think so, but I think you're being entirely reasonable.

As I said above, the issue is not defense of current theories, it is defense of the *belief* in the concept that life *somehow* evolved, despite significant opposing evidence.

EG[But that is not science; it is your personal belief system.]

Flint>> On the contrary, that's exactly what science is. An effort to explain. Science is an iterative process -- examine the data, propose an explanation for it, derive other things that should be observable if the explanation is correct, and go observe them and collect more data.

Then evolution (the concept that life *somehow* evolved) is not science. The *concept* has taken precedence over the data. The question is: How does this new data corroborate the *concept?* If it does not, we come up with a different explanation. If it contradicts the concept, we throw out the data.

To quote Paul the apostle: Romans 1:19-22 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them [unrighteous men]; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), October 20, 1999.

Flint wrote: "I don't know the physiology or lifecycle of coral, and I haven't read that article. But either way, the coral reefs would only be a few million years old -- a geologic eyeblink. None of the observations supporting the actual age of the Earth (about 4.5 billion years) involve coral reefs."

The magazine has been thrown away because we have to keep from getting junked out of our house. But it was in FAMA (Fresh and Marine Aquariums) a month or two ago. The study was done by the navy, if I remember correctly. Prior to dropping the H-bomb on coral reefs they studied their growth, or something like that.

Coral reef growth has been cited as a reason the earth could not possibly be as young as many creationists think in coversations I've had with evolutionists, including theistic evolutionists. I truly considered their arguments' merit, which is why until I read that article the subject was an "uncomfortable" anomaly for me. Obviously I'm glad to take yet another item off my list of things that I can't yet explain according to the "creation" model of origins that I choose to accept.

After that, I doubt you'll be surprised to read that I don't accept that the "actual age" of the earth is about 4.5 billion years. The reason is not that I'm either stupid or just uneducated/uninformed. I got my Chemistry degree in three years, performing pretty well compared with graduate students in the few graduate courses I took for undergraduate credit (so as to finish early), so its not because I'm stupid or too uneducated. And the alternative is not that I've been brainwashed either. Evolutionists had their chance at that, and I resisted until I could check for myself--now I have checked.

The real reason I reject 4.5 billion as the age of the earth is I don't NEED to accept it, because creationism is a valid alternative theory, and fits the same measurements and observations, or facts, quite well, given different assumptions no more and no less falsifiable than the ones underlying athiestic evolutionary theory.

I am able to admit that there are still some uncomfortable areas for me, such as starlight. But I nevertheless think that there are many more uncomfortable areas for evolutionists. But so far, evolutionists have the advantage of control of the educational apparatus in passing on that theory, and promoting belief in it. So maybe that evens the playing field a bit after all.

I mean really, I am GLAD that there is an omnipotent, omniscient Creator, so why should I abandon a theory that both fits the facts and includes Him? I can see how peer pressure, sanctions from other scientists, or a repugnance for "God", especially the Biblical one, would make someone choose the "evolution" possibility. But I don't share those incentives, so there's absolutely no reason for me to accept evolution.

I'll put it this way: I had the most doubt about creation while in highschool, when I understood the least science. As I studied more science, I became much more confident.

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), October 20, 1999.

Might I interject with a biblical fact? Genesis 1:1 is the creation of the heavens and the earth... Genesis 1:2 is the destruction of the same, as the earth "became" null and void, (as opposed to "was" - this is why one "was" in the verse is italicized and the other not; the italicized one was added by the KJV SCRIBES and the non- italicized "was" is simply a transliteration, as opposed to a true translation). The katabole' in the Hebrew was the casting down, or overthrow after Satan's initial rebellion, when 1/3 of "the stars of heaven" were drawn away." It is IMPERATIVE to have an understanding of the languages in order to understand not only what was written in their day, but what it meant to them as well. This creation that was destroyed was referred to as "eternity past" to which all fossils and remains belong... countless years ago, (ref 2nd Peter 3:6+. Today's seminary-indoctrinated SO-CALLED Christian ministers are merely too stupid to do their own homework to "prove all things" as we are admonished to do. That's exactly why they can't go into a courtroom and argue properly for the teaching of creationism, at least beside the alternative, so that an objective conclusion can be drawn between the alternatives. Any scientist worth his moxy can easily make them look like the idiots they are when they stand up and say "this earth is only 6000 years old. That is not only contrary to Scriptural teaching, it's contrary to common sense! Make no mistake, the Scripture is the deepest well of knowledge on the planet... bar NONE. It does not lend itself to *dabbling* as so many are prone to do today, including the so-called men-of-the-cloth.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), October 21, 1999.

Elbow Grease:

OK, I see what you are saying. I should at least make one more attempt to point out that doubt about one theory does NOT logically constitute support for another. Even utterly destroying one theory does absolutely nothing to make a competing theory more likely.

I think an analogy here would make some of the points we're discussing a bit clearer. You are invited to disagree.

Let's say a driver enters a freeway, and exits exactly one hour later, and exactly 60 miles away. We have six observations -- the act of entry and the act of exit, the locations of entry and exit, and the times of entry and exit. And that's it.

Now, the evolutionist might theorize that the driver actually drove between entrance and exit, averaging exactly 60 mph. He supports this theory with an abundance of related observations -- that freeway driving is very common, that we can observe that the freeway is full of cars in motion, that 60 mph is a commonly observed speed on freeways.

The creationist might theorize that God caught car and driver into heaven, depositing both at the exit exactly one hour later. And the creationist supports this theory NOT with observations, but rather with attempts to discredit the "actual driving" theory, to wit:

1) We have no way to identify any witnesses to the actual driving. Therefore the evidence is insufficient.

2) The precise average rate of speed (whatever it was) was so statistically unlikely as to defy mathematical probability. Additionally, the car could have moved in any direction at any given instant. The probability that at random the car stayed exactly on the highway is so infinitesimally small that any such suggestion is ludicrous on the face of it.

3) The millions of supporting observations were amassed by those with an irrational belief in the "actual driving" theory and therefore cannot be accepted as objective or valid.

4) Given these points, the "actual driving" theory is hopelessly unlikely, and THEREFORE the "caught up into heaven" theory *must* be correct. QED.

Yes, I admit this analogy is highly simplified. I present it to highlight both the nature of the observations we're dealing with, and the form and direction of the arguments being used. Also, I'm trying to remove the highly emotional issues that always arise when we're talking about the nature of human beings. Of all established and solidly grounded fields of scientific investigation, evolution is most difficult for many to accept because we take it personally. Any field of study that says things about us that we really don't want to hear is met with desperate eagerness to accept any counter arguments, however specious.

And while I defend your right to reject any theory you choose, I cannot defend your right to prevent me (or my children) from even learning about it. I'd much rather we understand what we are rejecting and why. On another thread, Will Huett was arguing not against evolutionary theory as it is understood by evolutionists, but rather against an absurd caricature. I prefer to believe that Huett was sincerely parroting arguments created by dishonest creationists, rather than being dishonest himself. I regard this as one example of the fallout of poor education.

(As a footnote, I simply cannot figure out *why* some people don't seem to realize that (1) It is NOT valid to criticize a theory for something that theory does not claim; and (2) Even a valid objection to theory A in no way supports theory B.)

I'm convinced that if I could control the environment in which enough children were raised, I could create a troublesome subpopulation of devout believers in the "caught into heaven" theory of freeway driving as well. By the age of adolescence, they'd be sincerely arguing against the "actual driving" theory with all their hearts. And they'd consider themselves objective and scientific as well!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 21, 1999.

I think it becomes difficult to explain a few things with that interpretation of Genesis (the gap theory, isn't it?). Not that I have a corner on knowing the truth either. But...

Genesis 1:31 says that God saw all that He had made, and it was very good. Regardless of the length of the period by which the phrase "in the beginning" in Genesis 1:1 is separated from "and the earth was/became" in verse two, there could not have been anything bad in that time, or 1:31 is made false. Isn't it?

And: Romans 5:12 says that death entered the world through one man's sin. I think that allegorizing this verse, and others like it, turns the Bible into jello, and it becomes the justifier of our own made-up standards, rather than the source for our standards.

Although it is good to intellectually pay attention to detail, spiritual truth is spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14). Parsing can make the Bible say anything. Even Satan used scripture to tempt Jesus to sin. It just depends on the definition of what "is" is, so to speak :-).

My favorite non-Christian science fiction author, Isaac Asimov, did a reference work on the Bible, if I remember correctly, yet he didn't see the truth in the Bible at all or accept salvation and Jesus' Lordship. He remained a humanist atheist until death.

For another example, the religious leaders of Jesus' day, who did all the parsing of scripture you could ask for, were the ones who desired Jesus' death most (not the "sinners" of the day). They "strained at a gnat, but swallowed a camel" (Matthew 23:24). They worried about details but missed the big picture that was more important (Matthew 23:23).

Death is bad. It is the "last enemy to be destroyed" (1 Cor. 15:26). Animal death is bad too, not just our death. Romans 8:22 talks about everything God created suffering because of sin. It is not just a matter of our spiritual death, or our spiritual separation from God.

Matthew 12:11,12 implies it is good to save animals from suffering or death, Matthew 10:29 implies that the lives of sparrows have worth to God, though humans' lives are worth more, and Isaiah 11:6-9 shows that the restoration of what God has created to what it should be will include the removal of predatory behavior even from the animal kingdom, and will not include anyone or any creature being harmed or destroyed.

So I personally believe that death entered the world we live in through sin--spiritual and physical death. And so there could not have been death until after Adam sinned. I find death of any kind to be "not very good," and believe God when He lays the blame on our sin, because death is the consequence of sin (Romans 3:23). And thus I hope not only to be reunited with my dead loved ones, but also to be released myself from the bonds of the dying that began the moment I was conceived, and which will result in my physical expiration within the next 60-80 years (or less) one way or another. I believe that one day things will again be "very good" (Titus 1:2 et. al.). What a wonderful hope to have!

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), October 21, 1999.

Flint>>OK, I see what you are saying. I should at least make one more attempt to point out that doubt about one theory does NOT logically constitute support for another.

I agree.

Flint>>Even utterly destroying one theory does absolutely nothing to make a competing theory more likely.

Here I disagree. For instance, consider a hypothetical archeological discovery, the finding of the Ark of Noah, high in the mountains of Ararat. This one datum would go a long way toward destroying one theory, and confirming another. (And if you don't see that, you don't understand special creation.)

Flint>>I think an analogy here would make some of the points we're discussing a bit clearer. You are invited to disagree.

If I were in a more querulous mood, I might try to pick apart your analogy piece by piece. I've already observed that most analogies exhibit more dissimilarities than similarities. Hopefully, you realize you've loaded the dice. You and I can observe your scenario and we will agree *at the outset* on the hypothesis that is more likely true. In reality, we have neither the luxury of that objectivity nor a perfect understanding of the mechanism of either theory. (As an aside only: A creationist could argue that he offers the better "actual driving" theory, and that the evolutionist is insisting that the vehicle at the entrance is not the same one observed at the exit. Eh?)

Have you seen Carl Sagan's film "Contact" with Jodie Foster? I believe it offers a better analogy. What *did* happen when her pod dropped through those rings? Did she (1) meet her father? (2) meet an alien? (3) meet God? (4) hallucinate the experience? (5) actually go anywhere? (6) not go anywhere? And there are other permutations and possibilities of course. Observers in the control room saw nothing at all. Yet she emerges from the pod with an outlandish story. As observers in the theater, we know *something* happened, but which of the above options is "the truth"? Well, which explanation do you favor?

Flint>>And while I defend your right to reject any theory you choose, I cannot defend your right to prevent me (or my children) from even learning about it. I'd much rather we understand what we are rejecting and why.

Let me first admit that I am making three inferences from your statements. (1) You are referring to teaching in public schools. (2) You think that I wish to have evolutionary teaching removed from public schools. (3) You think I advocate preventing you from learning about it. With that understanding, I can state unequivocally that I defend your right of freedom of religion. But teaching your religious belief to the exclusion of all others has no place in our public schools. :-} Seriously, though, I'd prefer to see the theories of evolution and special creation given equal time in schools. After all, I'd much rather we understand what we are rejecting and why. :-}

Flint>>On another thread, Will Huett was arguing not against evolutionary theory as it is understood by evolutionists, but rather against an absurd caricature. I prefer to believe that Huett was sincerely parroting arguments created by dishonest creationists, rather than being dishonest himself. I regard this as one example of the fallout of poor education.

Flint, I'm not sure how these comments apply to this thread. I haven't read Will's arguments and cannot speak to them. However, we've already touched on the issue of veracity in the evolutionist community, and I believe you've conceded the point. Also, I have seen similar behavior by apologists of evolution, starting with the false dichotomy that evolution is SCIENCE and special creation is (gasp) RELIGION. Sorry. Anyone accepting that misleading statement has no understanding of special creation, and this is without a doubt the result of our present educational system which parrots this standard line.

Flint>>I'm convinced that if I could control the environment in which enough children were raised, I could create a troublesome subpopulation of devout believers in the "caught into heaven" theory of freeway driving as well. By the age of adolescence, they'd be sincerely arguing against the "actual driving" theory with all their hearts. And they'd consider themselves objective and scientific as well!

John Dewey put those same thoughts into action many moons ago; to use "education" to effect social change, to indoctrinate children with "correct" thinking, to popularize evolution. If you want to place blame for "the fallout of poor education," start there.

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), October 21, 1999.

Elbow Grease:

Well, I have some comments here. First, you write:

[For instance, consider a hypothetical archeological discovery, the finding of the Ark of Noah, high in the mountains of Ararat. This one datum would go a long way toward destroying one theory, and confirming another. (And if you don't see that, you don't understand special creation.)]

I admit I'm not familiar with the term "special creation" so I cannot comment on that. Nor do I understand what theory would be undermined, and what supported, by such a discovery. Archeologists have been looking for such evidence for some time. If found, it would certainly lend support to the story of Noah. I for one would very much like to see such a discovery. And I don't know if you've been following the recent controversy surrounding the dating of the Third Interregnum period in Egypt. If the emerging (and in my opinion well-supported) dating scheme is correct, it lends great credence to a great deal of the biblical history, at least for the period from (roughly) Judges to the time of Rehoboam. I find these developments very exciting.

As for loading the dice in my "actual driving" analogy, yes of course I did. I tried to explain that I was illustrating both the nature of evidence and the form of reasoning being used. My goal was to place these things into a less emotionally loaded context (like, "that's MY granded you're talking about, buddy!)

I want to emphasize that this business of taking things personally colors most of any discussion such as this. I've written that I regard science as a process of investigation and analysis. IMO, science is an appropriate tool to understand the nature of anything that can be observed and measured. I agree that we have what are called hard and soft sciences (physics and chemistry are hard, while political science and (often) computer science are soft). We also have experimental and observational sciences. Physics and chemistry have the advantage of being experimental, while astronomy and evolution are primarily observational.

I know it's a simplification, but I regard theories which can in principle be contradicted by observation as scientific, and theories which cannot as being based on faith. Scientific theories imply predictions about future observations. Any scientist must be able to say, "If we observe such-and-such (which must be inherently observable), then my theory is incorrect." To my knowledge, no creationist has used his theory to make any such falsifiable predicted observation.

Astronomical and geological theories suffered from biblical resistance for quite a while, but eventually came to be recognized as valid fields of useful study. Evolution (I think) is the only science with a long history supported by a solid body of evidence that continues to encounter resistance in this respect. I believe (I don't know for sure) that it's because people take evolution too personally. As I said, they don't *want* to hear what it says.

Most arguments against evolution are preposterous. Yours is less so, and I regard it as more devious. Because by your argument, any field of legitimate investigation whatsoever can be regarded as no more than an arbitrary and irrational belief system. In this respect, your approach is similar to solipsism, the belief that only you exist and everything else is a figment of your imagination. While there is no way to contest either one, I contend that both are essentially nihilistic; at best they are semantic games and at worst they discourage useful curiosity.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 21, 1999.

Flint,"While I recognize that you are satisfied with your one-size-fits-all explanation-of-everything, I'll address some of what you said for those whose prefer their thinking not be quite so stunted. "

You are an insulting man.

Flint,"The genetic coding for "eyelike" structures developed in slow stages, the most useful of which were passed on. There is ample evidence to suggest that most such structures developed from other structures that were originally unrelated to photoreceptivity. It didn't happen all at once, it took a long time, a great deal of trial and error"

This is not true, but either you haven't the wit to grasp the concepts or you are too narrow minded and dogmatic to try.

I have continued our dialogue primarily for the benefit of others, but you are poorly equipped for this debate and have begun not only to insult me, but to bore me as well.

-- Will Huett (Willhuett@usa.net), October 21, 1999.

Will:

Got it. As a last resort, you are reduced to taunts. Your "reasoning" consists of flat denial ("this is not true") without support. You call me witless, narrow minded, dogmatic, poorly equipped and boring.

And oh yes, insulting! [gotta love that one]

However, I'm sorry to see the effects a thoughtful discussion has had on you. I wish you the best in your efforts.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 21, 1999.

Flint,"Your "reasoning" consists of flat denial ("this is not true") without support."

You know, in my past life on this forum, long, long before you and most here showed up, I was not nearly as nice a guy as I am now.

I have tolerated our discussion and your imbecilic "without support" comments as long as I will. I will leave it to the others to decide if I have supported my position or not.

The truth is you can't respond to my points so you obfuscate. This in an attempt to hide a stupendously average grasp of the subject.

And you are boring. I mean, watching the grass grow while the paint is drying kinda boring.

Insults couched in polite language are no less insulting, my good friend.

Oh, and Flint, sincerely, I wish you all the best in your efforts as well.

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), October 21, 1999.

Will:

I have responded in detail to each point you have made. I have been met with flat denial and insults. I have tried to describe a theory, and you have responded with caricatures of that theory. I've tried to describe a method, and you've rejected it. I've talked of process, and you've responded with irrelevance. And more insults.

I cannot help but conclude that you have chosen to commit to memory an exhausting list of specious arguments against an idea that threatens you. I regret that you feel threatened, since it inhibits rational thoughts in most of us.

I repeat that in the long run, your theory may prove superior. I can't make it any clearer than I have, that attacking a theory with which you disagree, even should you argue against claims knowledgeable people make rather than against claims nobody makes, can at best serve to undermine *another* theory. Doing so does not support your theory. Just because theory A is wrong doesn't mean theory B is correct. Theory C may be better yet.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 21, 1999.

Flint & Will: On behalf of those of us in the peanut gallery, thanks for a great debate. You both have given us all something to ponder. (Not that I think we originated from ponds or anything....)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 21, 1999.

Flint," Just because theory A is wrong doesn't mean theory B is correct. Theory C may be better yet. "

Absolutley correct. But at this point in time and space, theory A is wrong, and theory C has yet to come. That means right here, right now theory B is King of the Hill.

Oh, and I don't feel threatened in the least ( LOL ).

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), October 21, 1999.

Will:

Rereading this thread, I find that at one point we failed to communicate properly. I request that you provide something we can go observe, which would prove *creationism* incorrect. However, you responded with what you consider (but no evolutionist considers) an observation contrary to evolution.

To be honest, you should be able to specify an observation which renders *your* theory incorrect. The closest you came was to say that perhaps this cannot be done. Your theory should also be able to make predictions, which subsequent observations will either bear out or not. For example, evolutionists predicted that we'd find an intermediate step between whales and land animals. Within the last decade, four such examples have been found.

Most of your position rests on the misapplication of probability, as I illustrated with my "actual driving" theory in response to Elbow Grease. As you've implied, the proper application of probability is not trivial, despite your convictions. And as the old saying goes, figures don't lie but liars figure. Caution is advised here.

As Elbow Grease states so well, we all choose what we believe in. Your efforts to undermine the beliefs of others does you no credit (especially given the hard fossil evidence, but let's let that ride). It's equally invalid for an evolutionist to make stupid claims about your beliefs as straw men, so as to shoot them down with sophistic arguments.

Ultimately, I believe scripture has much to teach us about behavior, morality, and man's relationship with God. When scripture is stretched in an attempt to speak authoritatively about fossilized teeth, it runs into the troubles you've encountered here. Science and religion come into conflict only when either one steps over the line into the territory properly addressed by the other.

Your faith is profound and valuable. Applying that faith to evolution is like using prayer when an oscilloscope is called for. But when used properly, it gives your life meaning, purpose and direction. (And I promise I won't try to measure God's love with a scope).

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 21, 1999.

Flint,

Alright, I will give you an example.

But first,I must tell you that I fail to understand why you continue to insist that my position is based upon faith while yours is on rational science. As I have said earlier, my change in position on this issue was based upon science, not on the fact that I wanted Creationism because it made me feel better or fit my world view.

While this is certainly true among many creationists, the same is absolutely true among evolutionists yet as a whole, they insist that they are not vulnerable to it, and are usually quite sanctimonious in their insistence that rational thought is on their side.

I am not using probability to mask anything. The Pax-6 gene is the same in all phyla and this could not have happened according to evolutionary theory after the phyla separated. The mathematics here isn't a debatable issue.

530 million years ago the basic anatomies of all currently existing animals, from sponges to vertebrates appeared simultaneously. The different phyla DO NOT HAVE A COMMON ANCESTOR ABOVE THE LEVEL OF PROTAZOA!

Keep in mind that this explosion of life in the Cambrian happened in a geological millisecond. This is why the evidence was intentionally hidden for so long, there wasn't time for evolution to have occured and proponents of the theory didn't want the opposition to have any more ammo!

Now then, you have asked me for an example where my theory could be wrong.

Ok.

Since it has been shown that the genetic code for undeveloped, unimagined structures was present eons before any organism would need or manifest said structures, then the argument for a grand design is very powerful. Some might say undeniable. Therefore, an alternative to a Divine Creator is simple.

Life on this planet was designed and introduced in one molecule that over eons gradually grows and turns on new individual genes resulting in an ever changing, apparantly evolving, biosphere the end result of which cannot be known at this time since the process is still happenning. (as an aside, perhaps this is why some people today apparantly have a new brain structure)

This seeding was done by an unknown alien race via direct innoculation or cometary seeding or some as yet unknown method for unknown reasons.

There.

Now, this is equally possible. It supports the facts as well as Creationism does and IMO it is why you hear more and more these days from the more daring evolutionist on this possibility. They have the courage to sound like kooks to their own and endure the ridicule of Creationists that say they are grasping at straws. But what they are honestly attempting to do is fit the FACTS in with their fervent desire that a solution be found that doesn't include God.

I have no problem with that. In fact, the arena of debate SHOULD be who dunnit. That is consistent with ALL the information, including your intermediate forms. If gene activation is in fact responsible for new forms, and it certainly is the leading candidate at present, then the time span between forms will be quite small with probably very few in-between steps. This would account for the dearth of intermediate forms in the fossil record ( which is one of the very weakest links the evolution theory) and would account for the Cambrian explosion as well.

-- Will HUett (willhuet@usa.net), October 22, 1999.

Will:

Thank you, I find this approach much superior. And as you may be aware, I am not an evolutionist and so I'm unable to reply in as much detail as I'd like.

[Alright, I will give you an example.]

Good start.

[But first,I must tell you that I fail to understand why you continue to insist that my position is based upon faith while yours is on rational science. As I have said earlier, my change in position on this issue was based upon science, not on the fact that I wanted Creationism because it made me feel better or fit my world view.]

I see I haven't expressed myself well again. I admit I'm suspicious of any theory which is not testable in some way. In this case, we're dealing in an area where evidence is in many cases tantalizingly incomplete. Under these circumstances, I'd be suspicious if only one theory were being actively investigated. Your position is one of many possiblilities. What tends to bother me about Creationism in general is that no matter how much evidence we may be fortunate enough to find in support of any other theory, Creationism remains just as valid an alternative. And it strikes me that's because there is no mechanism I know of for demonstrating that it's not correct. I don't accept that finding ample support for a competing theory is sufficient. A scientific theory is inherently *disprovable*, which goes beyond simply being on a par with some other theory given current evidence.

[While this is certainly true among many creationists, the same is absolutely true among evolutionists yet as a whole, they insist that they are not vulnerable to it, and are usually quite sanctimonious in their insistence that rational thought is on their side.]

Well, I can't speak for the sanctimoniousness of specific individuals. I agree with you here.

[I am not using probability to mask anything. The Pax-6 gene is the same in all phyla and this could not have happened according to evolutionary theory after the phyla separated. The mathematics here isn't a debatable issue.]

OK, agreed. Like you, I can't accept that this gene evolved identically and independently in all phyla. You have proposed some good options -- Creationism, panspermia, alien inoculation. Now, how do we test these? Additionally, developmental evidence is extremely limited for that period of time, and may not even exist anymore. My reading of what you write is that you are equating absence of evidence with evidence of absence (sorry if I'm reading you wrong). If we cannot explain a phenomenon due to hopelessly inadequate data, then it isn't really explainable. Yes, we can speculate that it was caused by some sort of untestable deus ex machina "outside" influence. Such speculations have the advantage of being plausible, but the lack of good evidence one way or another remains problematic.

[530 million years ago the basic anatomies of all currently existing animals, from sponges to vertebrates appeared simultaneously. The different phyla DO NOT HAVE A COMMON ANCESTOR ABOVE THE LEVEL OF PROTAZOA!]

This is *definitely* absence of evidence confused with evidence of absence. Shouting that there is no common ancestor shouldn't disguise the fact that no such ancestors have been found yet. This doesn't mean that such ancestors never existed. The Cambrian explosion happened within a geologically very short time. To trace ancestries during this time, we'd need a whole lot of evidence-filled "time slice" discoveries within that period. We haven't made them and perhaps there aren't any. But this is just absence of evidence. Most of these life forms were soft and fossilized only under the most fortuitous of circumstances, and plate tectonics over 530 million years have buried almost all formations of suitable age. This is not an argument *against* rapid evolution occurring at that time, it's simply lack of evidence *for* that evolution.

[Keep in mind that this explosion of life in the Cambrian happened in a geological millisecond. This is why the evidence was intentionally hidden for so long, there wasn't time for evolution to have occured and proponents of the theory didn't want the opposition to have any more ammo!]

Yes, estimates of the duration of the Cambrian explosion run from 5 to 25 million years, with the stronger indications being toward the shorter end of this range. But here, beware of loaded words. For a while, nobody understood just what had been found. Also, evolutionary theory at the time of discovery implied that such an explosion could not happen, which inhibited proper identification for a while (except among a few people). There was a definite resistance to accepting the implications, among evolutionists. But saying they knew what it meant and deliberately kept it hidden is mostly misleading. I doubt that intentional hiding was the primary reason for lack of publicity. YMMV.

[Now then, you have asked me for an example where my theory could be wrong.

Ok.]

Good.

Since it has been shown that the genetic code for undeveloped, unimagined structures was present eons before any organism would need or manifest said structures, then the argument for a grand design is very powerful. Some might say undeniable. Therefore, an alternative to a Divine Creator is simple.]

This is not in accord with my understanding. Evolutionary theory holds that genetic codes themselves are what undergo evolutionary change. So what is being claimed is that one genetic code can evolve into another *provided* that each incremental genetic change is either beneficial or at least neutral for the organism. As a simple analogy, it's like those puzzles where you turn one word into another by changing one letter at a time, with the restriction that each intermediate word must exist. Wholly new codes should not appear full- blown. However, we've found that quite minor genetic changes can lead to major physiological differences during an organism's development -- for example, the small genetic change that turns teosinte into corn. I'll agree that a genetic code that has the potential to change into the code for an unimagined structure through beneficial or neutral intermediate steps, must exist. So (for example) the code for a human eye may not be able to evolve into the code for a better- designed octopus eye because there is no possible non-harmful intermediate stage.

[Life on this planet was designed and introduced in one molecule that over eons gradually grows and turns on new individual genes resulting in an ever changing, apparantly evolving, biosphere the end result of which cannot be known at this time since the process is still happenning. (as an aside, perhaps this is why some people today apparantly have a new brain structure)]

Is this another theory? I'm a bit lost here. To my knowledge, nobody claims that some single molecule just appeared somewhere already containing all possible genes. I don't know of any proposed model of how many different single-cell organisms in different places may have appeared, or of more than mathematical modeling attempting to describe *how* one or more may have appeared. Nor is evolutionary theory inherently directional toward greater complexity. Some creatures (like some parasites) devolve, becoming less complex. Over the course of time, we would see (according to probability, anyway) a bell curve of complexity. But the fact that there is a lower limit to complexity chops this curve in half. At random, life on the whole will tend to become more complex simply because the less-complex half of the curve does not support viability.

[This seeding was done by an unknown alien race via direct innoculation or cometary seeding or some as yet unknown method for unknown reasons.]

As a science fiction buff, I'm partial to this theory myself. And as you say, it's given some serious consideration given the organic components of some celestial objects. As a mechanism for getting the process started, it's as good a speculation as any. If we find actual living organisms on any meteorites (or evidence of life having been there), this would go a long way toward a panspermia theory. So far, we don't have such a smoking gun.

[There.]

There what? The goal here was to suggest an actual observation that would prove Creationism *wrong*, not to suggest plausible alternative theories. I don't mind any number of plausible explanations, just so long as it's inherently possible to *disprove* each of them through observation.

[Now, this is equally possible. It supports the facts as well as Creationism does and IMO it is why you hear more and more these days from the more daring evolutionist on this possibility. They have the courage to sound like kooks to their own and endure the ridicule of Creationists that say they are grasping at straws. But what they are honestly attempting to do is fit the FACTS in with their fervent desire that a solution be found that doesn't include God.]

Again, this is a bit loaded. Creationism still defies disprovability, making it unsatisfying for investigators. Panspermia is being evaluated seriously, which I applaud. But my reading is that this is NOT motivated by a desire to exclude God, but rather by the inherent testability of this theory. As (or IF) we develop superior space travel, we can surely collect more evidence for or against panspermia. With what little we know now, it remains a speculation for which there is very indirect and limited support, but so far nothing is known that can rule it out.

[I have no problem with that. In fact, the arena of debate SHOULD be who dunnit. That is consistent with ALL the information, including your intermediate forms. If gene activation is in fact responsible for new forms, and it certainly is the leading candidate at present, then the time span between forms will be quite small with probably very few in-between steps. This would account for the dearth of intermediate forms in the fossil record ( which is one of the very weakest links the evolution theory) and would account for the Cambrian explosion as well.]

I admit I'm not familiar with anyone who holds strictly with the "gene-activation" viewpoint. Genes evolve and develop. They change. They can become more or less complex. I certainly agree that evidence suggests an abundance of junk DNA, and many recessive or otherwise inactive genes. But current evolutionary theory certainly doesn't claim that all possible genes already exist, or that evolution is no more than being fooled by the artifact of selective activation.

Also, you must be aware that intermediate forms are being found all the time. In a large sense, ALL forms are intermediate, of course. But in a more limited sense, we are finding fossils that suggest forms intermediate between previously known forms. And as more forms become known, this process snowballs. The more pieces of the puzzle we find, the more complete the whole picture becomes.

While I'm personally excited at the accelerated rate at which such forms are being discovered, of course I recognize that the fossil record is a very long, long way from being comprehensive. Unlike you, I don't regard this as a weakness, but rather as one of the rules of the game. I consider it a valid critique of a theory that it's based on insufficient evidence. I don't consider it valid to claim that evidence that has not yet been found does not exist. And surely you can see that a theory is strengthened if the evidence being discovered is in accord with the predictions that theory made. To me, that's good science.

And finally, I await any suggestions you have as to what I might observe, that would lead you to say "Oops, I guess Creationism cannot be true after all." I'm not asking for a competing proposal, but rather a way to discredit any and all existing proposals, including Creationism.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 22, 1999.

Flint,

In your last post to Will: Did I read that right? You are not an evolutionist? Could you expand on that?

Flint>>I admit I'm not familiar with the term "special creation" so I cannot comment on that.

This certainly illustrates my original point: that one first chooses one's worldview, then seeks evidence for it. Why shouldn't I beat you up over your lack of knowledge of special creation?

Flint>>Nor do I understand what theory would be undermined, and what supported, by such a discovery. Archeologists have been looking for such evidence for some time. If found, it would certainly lend support to the story of Noah.

It begs a series of questions: (1) When was the boat built? (2) What would persuade someone to build such a craft? (3) How long would it take to build it? (4) How would said boat find its way to the top of a mountain range? Each question generates its own tree of implications.

Flint>> As for loading the dice in my "actual driving" analogy, yes of course I did. I tried to explain that I was illustrating both the nature of evidence and the form of reasoning being used. My goal was to place these things into a less emotionally loaded context (like, "that's MY granded you're talking about, buddy!)

I'm sorry, Flint. Maybe I was reading more into it than you intended. But, since you seem to keep harping on the "emotionally loaded" nature of the issue, let me reassure you in that regard that the analogy was unnecessary.

Flint>> I've written that I regard science as a process of investigation and analysis. IMO, science is an appropriate tool to understand the nature of anything that can be observed and measured.

I quite agree. But that's not the subject in question here.

Flint>> I know it's a simplification, but I regard theories which can in principle be contradicted by observation as scientific, and theories which cannot as being based on faith. Scientific theories imply predictions about future observations. Any scientist must be able to say, "If we observe such-and-such (which must be inherently observable), then my theory is incorrect."

Yet when examples are offered in opposition to a tenet of evolution, you keep returning to what I consider an irrelevant response: that casting doubt on one theory does nothing to bolster another. Let's consider *that* as a given and put it to rest. In your own words, it is valid to expose shortcomings of a theory, because that's the scientific method. Period. Kindly provide an example where evolutionary theory has successfully predicted a future observation.

Flint>> To my knowledge, no creationist has used his theory to make any such falsifiable predicted observation.

Ah, those first three words make all the difference in the world, don't they?

Flint>> Most arguments against evolution are preposterous. Yours is less so, and I regard it as more devious. Because by your argument, any field of legitimate investigation whatsoever can be regarded as no more than an arbitrary and irrational belief system. In this respect, your approach is similar to solipsism, the belief that only you exist and everything else is a figment of your imagination. While there is no way to contest either one, I contend that both are essentially nihilistic; at best they are semantic games and at worst they discourage useful curiosity.

Earth to Flint! You've left the solar system with this one. Such a wild tangent is a clear sign of desperation. I have not (yet) argued against evolution per se; I have studiously adhered to one principle: evolution as non-science. You have absolutely no justification for your overgeneralization and the resultant erroneous conclusions. Your imagination, not your reason, is running away with you.

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), October 22, 1999.

Elbow Grease:

Again, I'll answer as best I can. I fear we are not communicating very well at all, for which I'll be glad to shoulder any blame. But I'll keep trying.

[In your last post to Will: Did I read that right? You are not an evolutionist? Could you expand on that?]

I'm an engineer, working in computer hardware and firmware. I have studied various writings on evolutionary theory asa hobby and interest, but it is neither my profession nor my formal training.

[Flint>>I admit I'm not familiar with the term "special creation" so I cannot comment on that.

This certainly illustrates my original point: that one first chooses one's worldview, then seeks evidence for it. Why shouldn't I beat you up over your lack of knowledge of special creation?]

A better question might be, why do you fail to define this term? I'm glad to admit ignorance when I don't know. I learn as much as I can from what I've exposed myself to, but this term is not among those things. I've been trying to explain what my understanding is of what I've studied on my own. I find it difficult to regard not having encountered a term in my reading as "choosing a worldview." Had I read enough to grasp what "special creation" is, I could try to explain that as well. I wouldn't feel that I deserved being beaten up for an inadvertent gap in my knowledge.

Flint>>Nor do I understand what theory would be undermined, and what supported, by such a discovery. Archeologists have been looking for such evidence for some time. If found, it would certainly lend support to the story of Noah.

[It begs a series of questions: (1) When was the boat built?]

There are various dating mechanisms, the most common three being carbon-14, tree rings, and historical context.

[(2) What would persuade someone to build such a craft?]

On a less exalted plane, what persuades some people to amass huge bottle collections or build entire houses out of hubcaps? People have spent their adult lives building structures whose secret (if any) dies with them.

[(3) How long would it take to build it?]

There are approaches to this question as well. We have good estimates of the time required to build such ancient structures as the pyramids, the mounds of the mound builders, stonehenge, etc. We've tried to use the technology available at the time.

[(4) How would said boat find its way to the top of a mountain range?]

I'm sure this would lead to a host of speculation. There's a good selection of ways to accmplish this to choose from.

Each question generates its own tree of implications.

And as I've tried to say, each question can be considered more or less independently on its own merits. So?

[Flint>> I know it's a simplification, but I regard theories which can in principle be contradicted by observation as scientific, and theories which cannot as being based on faith. Scientific theories imply predictions about future observations. Any scientist must be able to say, "If we observe such-and-such (which must be inherently observable), then my theory is incorrect."

Yet when examples are offered in opposition to a tenet of evolution, you keep returning to what I consider an irrelevant response: that casting doubt on one theory does nothing to bolster another. Let's consider *that* as a given and put it to rest. In your own words, it is valid to expose shortcomings of a theory, because that's the scientific method. Period. Kindly provide an example where evolutionary theory has successfully predicted a future observation.]

Two points here. The examples offered in opposition, I regard as having been satisfactorily addressed, more or less. In some cases, evolutionists simply plead insufficient data. A theory is not necessarily incorrect if data are lacking -- this is a different thing from data being contradictory. And as I wrote above to Will, I consider insufficient data to be a valid criticism of a theory. Some aspects of evolutionary theory strike me as no more than unsupported speculation.

Second, (I lose track of these threads), I've mentioned several recent discoveries of intermediate forms (like the proto-whales) predicted by evolutionary theory. We continue to find such predicted evidence almost daily.

[Flint>> To my knowledge, no creationist has used his theory to make any such falsifiable predicted observation.

Ah, those first three words make all the difference in the world, don't they?]

It's hard to answer a rhetorical question. Again I can observe that you do not mention any such observations sufficient to falsify creationism. If any creationists have said, "If we observe *this* then creationism must be false", please fill me in. I have read treatises by evolutionists commenting on creationism at great length, and this same lack-of-falsifiability objection is always raised.

[Earth to Flint! You've left the solar system with this one. Such a wild tangent is a clear sign of desperation.]

What an informative conclusion. If I misunderstood your point, then it's a clear sign of confusion. I admit, however, to increasing desperation in my efforts to parse your meanings.

[I have not (yet) argued against evolution per se; I have studiously adhered to one principle: evolution as non-science.]

I regard this as a contradiction. Efforts to improve evolutionary theory, to better fit all the observations, is a quintessentially scientific process. It *sounded* like you were saying that scientific investigation *in general* is an artifact of an irrational belief system. If I misunderstood, I'm sorry. I'm doing my best.

[You have absolutely no justification for your overgeneralization and the resultant erroneous conclusions. Your imagination, not your reason, is running away with you.]

OK, so I misunderstood what you were saying. Perhaps you need to be more concrete. In what specific way is evolution nonscience? We can surely both see the process of collecting observations, analyzing them, proposing an explanation for them, often enough making predictions about what further observations are likely to find, and using those predictions to go observe, to find either what is predicted or what is contrary to the theory. This is nonscience? You've lost me.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 22, 1999.

Science worshippers versus those of faith. Again? Tired subject.

Why don't we all discuss boxers versus briefs?

Sweet and Low versus Equal?

Big brains with empty souls, pointing fingers at their *idea* of small brains with full souls. In the end, which one matters more?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), October 22, 1999.

Flint,"And finally, I await any suggestions you have as to what I might observe, that would lead you to say "Oops, I guess Creationism cannot be true after all." I'm not asking for a competing proposal, but rather a way to discredit any and all existing proposals, including Creationism."

This is can't be done, Flint. Given the premise of an omnipotent, omniscient Creator acting on this universe from outside it, anything is and always will be possible.

And again, only athiests and agnostics should care. The position that somehow faith and science are opposed is false. Faith and science are two sides of the same coin.

And that coin is Reality.

In this century, beginning with quantum theory and 'evolving' to chaos and complexity theories, science is coming ever closer to full cirlce. Science will in due time complete the journey and the prodigal son will come home.

God did not give man a mind without expecting its use, and God is not a prankster or liar. As we solve the mysteries of creation, science will lead us back to a certain knowledge of a higher reality. In the meantime, the apparant separation is illusory, but understandable given the tremendous success of early scientific effort with primitive tools and limited data.

You misunderstood me if you thought that I proposed the initial existance of all genes. What is suggested by the evidence is gene activation, the expression of which is additional genes (inactive) in the genome. Hence, at the level of protazoa, the formation of the Pax-6 was initiated by the activation of some currently present gene. This resulted in the replication of the new gene, inactive, for eons. This process has gone on ever since, which is why most of our DNA is currently inactive and unknown.

If activation of some of this suddenly gave man two heads, 100 million years from now the evolutionist would argue that this occurred gradually over a long period and granted two headed man a competitive advantage (he could see coming and going) and so the new man eventually outbred the old one.

When it is more consistent with the data to recognize that gene creation and activation can occur suddenly and without long periods of trial and error. But this postion requires a Master Plan, and no matter what you say, I contend that THAT is what most dogmatic evolutionsts object to. In the end it is ideology, not science that motivates them. To this end, history is replete with examples of evolutionists' attempts to hide and fabricate evidence.

It is one thing to investigate and try to discern the answers to questions of our origin, it is another to insist from the beginning that one possible answer cannot be true.

Now, I can hear you thinking that once more I am attacking 'your' theory, not my own, thereby revealing my intractable bias. Nothing I can say will probably be of any use here. Your initial insistence that somehow all theories be proven wrong never ever happens.

After all, theories survive by the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest.

-- will huett (willhuett@usa.nwt), October 24, 1999.

Will:

Just a few comments, since we seem to be reaching the heart of the matter. You write:

"This is can't be done, Flint. Given the premise of an omnipotent, omniscient Creator acting on this universe from outside it, anything is and always will be possible."

I understand, and I've defined this as a tenet of faith rather than science. It inhibits (IMO) issues of process and testability.

"When it is more consistent with the data to recognize that gene creation and activation can occur suddenly and without long periods of trial and error."

This is indeed consistent with my reading as well. I know that Gould has recognized this in the data and has suggested his own explanation. I don't know how he proposes that it be tested, though it implies a prediction -- that we will find speciation happens suddenly rather than gradually. But within species, gradual trends to fit environmental niches still occur.

I don't read into this issue that evolutionists are insisting that one possible answer cannot be true, only that it cannot be tested, or improved as further data should surface. And if a theory makes claims that by all known evidence are clearly falsified (such as a very young age for the planet), then that theory must be at least modified in light of such data. If parts of a theory are by definition untestable, while other parts are clearly in error (but NOT rejected), then that theory is based on faith and not evidence per se.

Also, I recognize that scientists are not saints. I'm in accord with much of what you write on this topic. There's an old saying (and true) that scientific theories don't tend to be supplanted with newer theories on the basis of the evidence, but rather because their adherents get old and die off, and are not replaced. If you wish to describe older scientists defending outmoded theories (and younger scientists arguing for the newer versions) as faith-based bias, I won't argue with you.

So long as investigation continues and isn't replaced with untestable convictions, I'm happy.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 24, 1999.

Flint>> Again, I'll answer as best I can. I fear we are not communicating very well at all, for which I'll be glad to shoulder any blame. But I'll keep trying.

Flint, for your part, I think you're doing a fine job. I feel that I understand what you're saying (mostly) and I'm aware that sometimes I'm unconsciously obscure, sometimes deliberately obscure to see where it will take the conversation, so if there's blame, I share it.

EG>>Flint, you say you're not an evolutionist?

Flint>>I'm an engineer, working in computer hardware and firmware. I have studied various writings on evolutionary theory asa hobby and interest, but it is neither my profession nor my formal training.

Ah! Such an interesting way to answer! I was well aware of your profession. I thought you were answering in terms of your philosophy. You know, some biologists are evolutionists, some engineers are creationists...

EG>>Why shouldn't I beat you up over your lack of knowledge of special creation?

Flint>>A better question might be, why do you fail to define this term?

Deliberate obscurity. I've done the evolution debate thing for a long time and when I find myself with such an advantage, I sometimes wait a beat or two. I'm petty that way. :-)

Special creation (SC), like evolution, does not deal with the formation of the earth itself, although in a number of cases, deductions based on nonbiological data serve to support the theory. Also, like evolution, SC admits to insufficient data within the fossil record. The major difference is that SC rejects the notion of long eons of time. Consistent with the early fossil record, SC posits that all life appeared contemporaneously on the order of 10000 years BP but makes no attempt to explain the mechanism. SC further posits that the biological classification of living things more closely resembles a field of wheat than a tree, with major groupings only generally defined. At inception, within each grouping were large numbers of similar types having a spectrum of small variations, the vast majority of which have since become extinct but no longer exist within the fossil record. SC posits that environmental conditions at the time were much more conducive of biological growth causing organisms to grow larger, faster and/or longer. SC also posits a world-wide deluge and flood 6000-7000 years BP (also consistent with the geological record) concurrent with drastic environmental and atmospheric changes during which a large portion of the existing biosphere was destroyed. These are some, but not all of the suppositions of SC. Since most evolutionary research involves looking for evidence of great age, much of SC research centers around searching for instances of processes not requiring long periods of time which could easily explain data that is problematical for evolutionary time frames.

Flint>>I wouldn't feel that I deserved being beaten up for an inadvertent gap in my knowledge.

But I didn't beat you up, did I? That's not to say your admission is not illustrative.

EG>>It begs a series of questions: (1) When was the boat built?

Flint>>There are various dating mechanisms, the most common three being carbon-14, tree rings, and historical context.

Of course. I hadn't expected a response to each question, and I think you were trying to be helpful, but (though the cliche has come to be an insult, I don't mean it that way.) are you missing the forest for the trees?

EG>>(2) What would persuade someone to build such a craft?

Flint>>On a less exalted plane, what persuades some people to amass huge bottle collections or build entire houses out of hubcaps? People have spent their adult lives building structures whose secret (if any) dies with them.

In this case, the significance could easily be of a higher order than: Why were the pyramids or Stonehenge built?

Flint>>And as I've tried to say, each question can be considered more or less independently on its own merits. So?

The point is, the answers to these questions could be determined from the vehicle itself, without a great deal of difficulty or controversy. And if (A *big* if from your perspective to be sure but I *did* specify the ark of *Noah*) it were determined to be a vessel with a volume equal to 600 freight cars, built 7000 years ago, over the course of 100 years, sealed with pitch from the outside, carrying a representative subset of all known species on a single voyage lasting 12 months, coming to rest in a mountain range *and* preserved for 7 millennia, do you think this just might weigh against evolution and for creationism?

Flint>> [On providing an example of evolution predicting a future observation.] (I lose track of these threads), I've mentioned several recent discoveries of intermediate forms (like the proto- whales) predicted by evolutionary theory. We continue to find such predicted evidence almost daily.

If you're not an evolutionist, what does the "we" mean? In addition, special creation predicts the discovery of "intermediate forms" as well, although defined differently.

[Flint>> To my knowledge, no creationist has used his theory to make any such falsifiable predicted observation.

EG>>Ah, those first three words make all the difference in the world, don't they?]

Flint>>>It's hard to answer a rhetorical question. Again I can observe that you do not mention any such observations sufficient to falsify creationism. If any creationists have said, "If we observe *this* then creationism must be false", please fill me in. I have read treatises by evolutionists commenting on creationism at great length, and this same lack-of-falsifiability objection is always raised.

To my knowledge, Flint, no evolutionist has used his theory to make any such falsifiable predicted observation. Doesn't sound like a very compelling argument, does it? It speaks far more of a *lack of knowledge* than it does of an encompassing statement of fact. Does that explain the rhetorical question any better?

Flint>> In what specific way is evolution nonscience? We can surely both see the process of collecting observations, analyzing them, proposing an explanation for them, often enough making predictions about what further observations are likely to find, and using those predictions to go observe, to find either what is predicted or what is contrary to the theory. This is nonscience? You've lost me.

We've been around that maypole already, Flint. The *concept* of evolution is a naturalistic religion; a belief that natural processes could *somehow* create all life from non-life over the course of long periods of time. When one theory falls apart, another takes its place under the same banner of "Evolution." The *use* of scientific methods to paint a false facade of legitimacy on the religion does not make it any less a religion.

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), October 24, 1999.

Elbow Grease:

You should perhaps read my last reply to Will. There, I spoke of what I consider faith in a scientific theory.

"The *concept* of evolution is a naturalistic religion; a belief that natural processes could *somehow* create all life from non-life over the course of long periods of time. When one theory falls apart, another takes its place under the same banner of "Evolution." The *use* of scientific methods to does not make it any less a religion."

Not quite. Again to my knowledge, evolutionary theory does not speak to the origin of life itself, seeking to explain the mechanism of its diversification over time. As I said, I like the notion of life arriving in the form of spores from space. Why not? We really have no clues as to how the first life on Earth originated. And gaps in the fossil record of the tree of life aren't sufficient to throw the general shape of the tree into doubt, though of course many many details are still missing. And there really *are* ancient seashells embedded in sedimentary rock on the tops of the highest mountains (and the rate of mountain building can be measured quite accurately).

I think it's misleading to talk of one theory "falling apart", to be replaced by a (by implication) completely different theory. At most, this happens with small areas of the whole theory, it's happening now, and it's (to my mind) a positive sign. Scientific theories are *meant* to be questioned and modified.

You wrote that evolutionary theory also can't be falsified. I assume you meant (from your mention of the inadequacy of the fossil record) that evolutionists can simply claim that any new discovery enhances rather than undermines the big picture. Yet this isn't the case. Darwin's theory (reproductive success making very slow incremental changes) is indeed contradicted by the emerging fossil record, which indicates very sudden appearances of new species, typically followed by (in most cases) an unchanging physiology until extinction. And these observations contradict Darwin. At best, he didn't get the whole story, and perhaps almost none of it!

But this sort of change of theory in the light of new evidence or superior understanding of existing evidence is a far different process than just "painting a false facade of legitimacy on a religion." If you want to call the scientific method a religion, I can understand this, but I think it's confusing. When Einstein's theory challenged Newton's, do you really consider this "one theory falling apart and another taking its place under the same banner of 'physics'"? I suppose that's true, but it doesn't render physics a sham and a religion in any respect. Why should investigations into the nature of evolution be any different?

Finally, when I say 'we' I'm speaking of people in general. It's most likely that even creationists (including special creationists) evolved, whether they like it our not. We are all 'we' in life together.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 24, 1999.

Flint>>You should perhaps read my last reply to Will. There, I spoke of what I consider faith in a scientific theory.

I did read it, and understand the point. In fact, I have no argument with it.

Flint>> Not quite. Again to my knowledge, evolutionary theory does not speak to the origin of life itself, seeking to explain the mechanism of its diversification over time.

and

Flint>>I think it's misleading to talk of one theory "falling apart", to be replaced by a (by implication) completely different theory.

I concede your points here, but only because my intent was merely to recap, and my wording was not very precise.

Flint>>As I said, I like the notion of life arriving in the form of spores from space. Why not? We really have no clues as to how the first life on Earth originated.

I find panspermia to be one of the less credible ideas. (1) Now cosmology theory enters into the equation. (2) It merely pushes the primary question back one complete evolutionary cycle plus transit time. (3) It requires two (or more) evolutionary cycles. (4) Since the universe has a finite age, the statistical likelihood that the *first* cycle could occur decreases, as the time factor is shortened, and heavier elements are less abundant. Just makes all the old arguments even harder to overcome.

Flint>>And there really *are* ancient seashells embedded in sedimentary rock on the tops of the highest mountains (and the rate of mountain building can be measured quite accurately).

Correction: The *current* rate of mountain building can be measured. Uniformitarianism is done for the day.

Flint>>You wrote that evolutionary theory also can't be falsified.

No, Flint! I guess I *am* being too obscure. I was turning your statement around to illustrate that prefacing any statement with "To my knowledge" moderates the statement almost to the point of nullifying it.

Flint>>I assume you meant (from your mention of the inadequacy of the fossil record) that evolutionists can simply claim that any new discovery enhances rather than undermines the big picture. Yet this isn't the case. Darwin's theory (reproductive success making very slow incremental changes) is indeed contradicted by the emerging fossil record, which indicates very sudden appearances of new species, typically followed by (in most cases) an unchanging physiology until extinction. And these observations contradict Darwin. At best, he didn't get the whole story, and perhaps almost none of it!

So Darwin was almost totally wrong? But this is a classic example of evolution-as-religion. The concept remains, though yesterday's theory is supplanted by a contradictory one. In that sense, the concept cannot be invalidated. A couple comments here: (1) the issue of species stability is a long-standing *creationist* argument. Perhaps the evolutionists are beginning to take a real look at the data. (2) Punctuated equilibrium is a conclusion drawn from *lack* of evidence.

Flint>>But this sort of change of theory in the light of new evidence or superior understanding of existing evidence is a far different process than just "painting a false facade of legitimacy on a religion." If you want to call the scientific method a religion, I can understand this, but I think it's confusing. When Einstein's theory challenged Newton's, do you really consider this "one theory falling apart and another taking its place under the same banner of 'physics'"? I suppose that's true, but it doesn't render physics a sham and a religion in any respect. Why should investigations into the nature of evolution be any different?

No, I'm not calling the scientific method a religion. Don't generalize. I am saying that adherents of evolution-as-a-concept are using science to distance their theory from the appearance of a religion. If Newton's theory involved reading tea leaves and Einstein's was based on rolling bones, I'd make the same argument about physics.

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), October 25, 1999.

[Flint>>As I said, I like the notion of life arriving in the form of spores from space. Why not? We really have no clues as to how the first life on Earth originated.

I find panspermia to be one of the less credible ideas.]

Grin. Yes, I know, lots of problems with this idea. I didn't mean I considered it most likely. I was just trying to say that a theory ought not be criticized for something it doesn't address.

[Flint>>And there really *are* ancient seashells embedded in sedimentary rock on the tops of the highest mountains (and the rate of mountain building can be measured quite accurately).

Correction: The *current* rate of mountain building can be measured. Uniformitarianism is done for the day.]

Only partially. Yes, we can observe that even today some mountains grow faster than others. But if you propose a rate of mountain building not 2 or 3 times today's rate, but rather 4 to 6 orders of magnitude greater, this constitutes an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. My suspicion is that this would require an entirely new mechanism for mountain building. What such mechanism do you postulate, and how could we look for evidence of it? What should we look for? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm only looking for a testable formulation.

Also, we have some fairly good astronomical evidence supporting theories of the process and timing of planet formation, and some good geological evidence of the nature of the radioactive material on which our plates ride, in conjunction with good evidence from physics as to the decay rate, resulting temperature, hence the fluidity of the material and thickness of the mantle. From this, we can deduce past plate movement rates and calculate past mountain building rates. Etc.

[Flint>>You wrote that evolutionary theory also can't be falsified.

No, Flint! I guess I *am* being too obscure. I was turning your statement around to illustrate that prefacing any statement with "To my knowledge" moderates the statement almost to the point of nullifying it.]

Really now. This sounds suspiciously binary, that anyone who lacks all knowledge has no knowledge. I've been trying to say that this is not my profession. I cannot be versed in the full details of many different fields. I merely recognize that just because I haven't encountered something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. No matter how much you know about anything, you should recognize that even within your field your knowledge is limited. IMO.

[Flint>> And these observations contradict Darwin. At best, he didn't get the whole story, and perhaps almost none of it!

So Darwin was almost totally wrong?]

No, I said he didn't get the whole picture. More on this later.

[But this is a classic example of evolution-as-religion. The concept remains, though yesterday's theory is supplanted by a contradictory one. In that sense, the concept cannot be invalidated. A couple comments here: (1) the issue of species stability is a long-standing *creationist* argument. Perhaps the evolutionists are beginning to take a real look at the data. (2) Punctuated equilibrium is a conclusion drawn from *lack* of evidence.]

This is not my understanding. First, Darwin's theory is not being supplanted, but rather extended. Second, you appear (to me) to be contradicting yourself. You say that evolutionists are taking a real look at the hard data (I agree), then you say that a theory based on these hard data is instead based on *lack* of data! Oops.

I'll stick with the hard data, and claim that punctuated equilibrium is based on them. By now, paleontologists (along with geologists) have amassed enough evidence from enough different strata to notice that wholly new species (even phyla!) appear overnight (geologically speaking), within what now appears not nearly enough time for the gradual process of reproductive success of minor individual variations to account for it. Again to my knowledge, we know of (at least) three other mechanisms that could account for sudden genetic change -- radiation, inaccurate DNA copying during reproduction and development, and close symbiotic/parasitic relationships at the level of the cell nucleus (we see this in bacteria all the time). There may be yet other mechanisms for sudden significant genetic change.

The "ether" theory was a good case in point. That theory did a good job of explaining a set of observations theories of the time couldn't account for (some of which remained for Einstein's theories to explain). Problem was, there isn't any "ether". The *process* of discarding bad theories in favor of better ones doesn't render science into religion. Quite the opposite!

[If Newton's theory involved reading tea leaves and Einstein's was based on rolling bones, I'd make the same argument about physics.]

So essentially, you are saying that evolution is based on what you consider insufficient data? If so, this is a tough issue. New data are being collected all the time. At what point would you consider the data to be sufficient to transform analysis of such data from a religion to a science? Or would you claim that even *presuming* to analyze the data is religious? I'm not trying to claim that the analysis is necessarily well-directed. Abundant indicatons of past glaciation were misunderstood for many decades, while scientists tried to force the data to fit Noah's flood.

Also, other disciplines are involved, as you imply. Evolution is hardly a science in a vacuum. As an example, for Special Creation to be correct, it would be necessary to discard not only evolution, but nearly all of geology and paleontology, large chunks of astronomy and cosmology, well-established portions of biology and genetics, etc. This is really wholesale rejection! And while I don't mean to put words in your mouth, if the primary 'evidence' in favor of such rejection is composed of tales in holy book of one of the world's many religions, I can't consider that adequate. Or even evidence!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 25, 1999.

EG[Correction: The *current* rate of mountain building can be measured. Uniformitarianism is done for the day.]

Flint>>Only partially. Yes, we can observe that even today some mountains grow faster than others. But if you propose a rate of mountain building not 2 or 3 times today's rate, but rather 4 to 6 orders of magnitude greater, this constitutes an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. My suspicion is that this would require an entirely new mechanism for mountain building. What such mechanism do you postulate, and how could we look for evidence of it? What should we look for? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm only looking for a testable formulation.

Gee, Flint, if a car impacts a concrete wall at 60 mph, how long does it continue in motion at 60 mph? And five minutes after the impact, could you predict the previous speed of the car based on the current speed of the car? New mechanism for mountain building? You mean new explanation? The *mechanism* is poorly understood at this time, that's all. As for a testable measurement: look for a decreasing rate of change, which would be indicative but not conclusive of higher rates in the past.

Flint>>Also, we have some fairly good astronomical evidence supporting theories of the process and timing of planet formation, and some good geological evidence of the nature of the radioactive material on which our plates ride, in conjunction with good evidence from physics as to the decay rate, resulting temperature, hence the fluidity of the material and thickness of the mantle. From this, we can deduce past plate movement rates and calculate past mountain building rates. Etc.

Come on, Flint; what is this supporting astronomical evidence of planet formation? Point out one other known planet with tectonic behavior similar to the earth's. Apples and Oranges. When science cannot accurately determine even whether the earth is experiencing a net heat gain or loss, one must be quite gullible to believe the layers of speculation you've proposed.

[Flint>>You wrote that evolutionary theory also can't be falsified.

No, Flint! I guess I *am* being too obscure. I was turning your statement around to illustrate that prefacing any statement with "To my knowledge" moderates the statement almost to the point of nullifying it.]

Flint>>Really now. This sounds suspiciously binary, that anyone who lacks all knowledge has no knowledge. I've been trying to say that this is not my profession. I cannot be versed in the full details of many different fields.

A little touchy? "...anyone who lacks all knowledge has no knowledge." I had some trouble parsing this one. It can be read with two opposing meanings. Of course you mean anyone who lacks *complete* knowledge.

Flint>>I merely recognize that just because I haven't encountered something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. No matter how much you know about anything, you should recognize that even within your field your knowledge is limited. IMO.

Total agreement. But that means one should not be too dogmatic about theories and speculations outside one's area of expertise.

EG[But this is a classic example of evolution-as-religion. The concept remains, though yesterday's theory is supplanted by a contradictory one. In that sense, the concept cannot be invalidated. A couple comments here: (1) the issue of species stability is a long- standing *creationist* argument. Perhaps the evolutionists are beginning to take a real look at the data. (2) Punctuated equilibrium is a conclusion drawn from *lack* of evidence.]

Flint>>This is not my understanding. First, Darwin's theory is not being supplanted, but rather extended.

Well, reread your own words. I was not commenting on Darwin's theory, but to your words about his theory.

Flint>>Second, you appear (to me) to be contradicting yourself. You say that evolutionists are taking a real look at the hard data (I agree), then you say that a theory based on these hard data is instead based on *lack* of data! Oops.

Not at all. You are too eager to catch me in a faux pas. I'm saying that if evolutionists are concluding that the fossil record argues for species stability, then they are beginning to take a *real* look at the data. But punctuated equilibrium attempts to fit species stability into an evolutionary framework. Essentially, the argument is: There is no evidence of an evolutionary process, therefore it must occur where we can't see it. This proves punctuated evolution. Ha Ha.

Flint>> I'll stick with the hard data, and claim that punctuated equilibrium is based on them. By now, paleontologists (along with geologists) have amassed enough evidence from enough different strata to notice that wholly new species (even phyla!) appear overnight (geologically speaking), within what now appears not nearly enough time for the gradual process of reproductive success of minor individual variations to account for it. Again to my knowledge, we know of (at least) three other mechanisms that could account for sudden genetic change -- radiation, inaccurate DNA copying during reproduction and development, and close symbiotic/parasitic relationships at the level of the cell nucleus (we see this in bacteria all the time). There may be yet other mechanisms for sudden significant genetic change.

Sorry, Flint. *None* of these three mechanisms have been observed to provide the nonrandom, directed genetic change required. Statistically, and empirically, they've been shown to cause destructive or devolutionary changes, *almost* without exception. BTW, how about an example of "close symbiotic/parasitic relationships" *above* the level of bacteria?

EG[If Newton's theory involved reading tea leaves and Einstein's was based on rolling bones, I'd make the same argument about physics.]

Flint>>So essentially, you are saying that evolution is based on what you consider insufficient data?

Not *just* insufficient data. I'm saying that the *concept* of evolution is a holy grail and a mystic vision.

Flint>> Also, other disciplines are involved, as you imply. Evolution is hardly a science in a vacuum. As an example, for Special Creation to be correct, it would be necessary to discard not only evolution, but nearly all of geology and paleontology, large chunks of astronomy and cosmology, well-established portions of biology and genetics, etc. This is really wholesale rejection! And while I don't mean to put words in your mouth, if the primary 'evidence' in favor of such rejection is composed of tales in holy book of one of the world's many religions, I can't consider that adequate. Or even evidence!

Flint, that is disingenuous. Special Creation makes no claims regarding cosmology or astronomy, explains biology and genetics better than evolution, and offers good explanations to portions of geological and paleontological phenomena. For instance, it has been proven that the pressures under petroleum domes could not be maintained for the millions of years required by evolution. Geologists don't care about that; they just know where to look to drill for oil. Studies into the amount of time these pressures could be contained yield numbers on the order of 6 to 10 thousand years. Imagine that!

Flint, this has been a stimulating conversation for me. Thanks for hanging in there. I appreciate the equanimity with which you've defended your position and hope we can continue another time, another thread. I am truly sorry to have to bow out, due to the demands of business and an impending trip. See ya around the cracker barrel.

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), October 26, 1999.