After a few dozen hours spent examining the creationist literature and the response of the scientific community to this literature, I find certain patterns inescapable:

1) These two groups are talking right past one another, since their approaches are mutually inverted. Scientists believe data and evidence matter, that theories should rest on the data, and that that theories should be changed in light of new data or new ways of looking at old data. Creationists believe their dogma matters, that data and evidence should be selected and interpreted in light of this dogma, and that the data and evidence are what should be changed as necessary to fit the dogma.

Martin Luther King captured the creationist spirit wonderfully when he stated that God approves of lies that help the church. Scientists simply cannot comprehend why creationists continue to repeat thoroughly discredited notions, and present them as "facts", for years after those same creationists have admitted they are false. For creationists, the truth lies in the dogma, not in the facts.

2) The logic of the debate equally fails to translate. For scientists, honest argument considers all the facts in the light of best understanding. For creationists, honest argument makes converts and achieves political ends. So scientists bridle at the constant misinformation, distortion, lies, misrepresentation, and similar techniques used by the creationists. To the scientists, this demonstrates fundamentally immoral character, since it is clearly deliberate. Creationists cannot understand the scientists' concern with the accuracy of facts. Why can't the scientists realize that the truth is something you start with, not something you derive. All's fair in the battle for the soul.

3) The vast bulk of creationist literature consists of attacks against the theory of evolution. This in turn leads to some further failures to communicate.

First, scientists never seem to tire of pointing out that even if creationists' dismissals of evolution had any factual basis, this still doesn't prove creationism, anymore than proving the sky is not yellow proves it's red. Logically both views can be wrong, even though both cannot be right. So disproving one does nothing toward proving the other.

To creationists, this argument is irrelevant. The "debate" has nothing to do with determining the truth, which is already known. Instead, the goal is to get the religious viewpoint into the schools where it belongs. And it belongs as the necessary foundation on which ALL other subjects are built, most especially including science. The goal isn't really to "disprove" evolution, so much as to discredit and remove the only current competitor to the religious viewpoint.

Second, we are dealing with fundamentally different standards of evidence and argument. To scientists, an argument and its associated evidence must withstand scrutiny by trained specialists, and must be discarded if it proves unsatisfactory or inaccurate. To creationists, the standard is plausibility to the untrained. An argument need be discarded only if its refutation has penetrated public awareness to the point where it is no longer effectively persuasive. Since an argument need not necessarily be honest to be persuasive, honesty is not a relevant criterion. The scientist asks "Why do you continue to make claims you yourself admit are false?" To which the creationist replices, "Because they still work!"

4) Scientists continue to misunderstand the format of the playing field. Creationists continue to challenge scientists to debates, and scientists (confident of the accuracy of their position) continue to accept these debates. These debates are funded by the creationists, who sell their literature there, and bus in church groups as their audience. Creationists are well aware that if the first lawyer gets to pick the facts in the case and the second lawyer gets to pick the jury, the second lawyer will always win. Scientists seem geared to remain blissfully unaware of this (and would NEVER be selected for that jury!)

Once the debate begins, the scientist finds himself facing several critical disadvantages. First, to an untrained audience a false assertion sounds as good as a true assertion. How would they know? Second, a false assertion can be made quickly and plausibly, while an honest refutation requires the presentation of far more background and technical detail than time permits. The impression is that the creationist has made a simple statement of the obvious, while the scientist is dodging and obfuscating. Third, these creationists are trained debaters. They have a canned presentation, know all the tricks of misinformation, and are skilled public speakers. By contrast, the scientist sounds unconvincing and his arguments, severely constrained as they are by the necessity to be correct, are confusing at best.

5) The world of science is competitive and often acrimonious. Scientists are forever trying to refute one another's ideas. This has the effect of eliminating error quickly. Scientists are constantly correcting the mistakes they make and trumpeting these corrections (at least within the scientific world).

By contrast, creationists do not admit error. Indeed, scientists who join the ICR (Institute for Creation Research, Duane Gish's organization) must sign a "loyalty oath" stating the Official Beliefs of the ICR, and agreeing to question neither these beliefs nor anyone arguing in their favor, however falsely. Creationists correct their errors (that is, claims so widely understood to be false so as to be unpersuasive) by simply dropping such claims without comment.

However, creationists are quick to find scientific errors and advertise them endlessly, never mentioning that the error was long since corrected. And once again, when the scientist asks "Why do you represent that old error as current 'scientific belief' knowing full well nobody accepts it anymore?" the creationist responds, "Because our audience *does not know* it was corrected."

6) "Scientific Creationism" embodies this failure to communicate as well as anything in the literature. Scientists continue to point out that the very essence of any scientific theory is that it be falsifiable in principle, whereas creationism is not. Creationists cannot understand why anyone would even want to TRY to falsify the Received Truth. Creationists continue to claim evolution is not falsifiable, and to ignore the extensive lists of observations evolutionists have presented that would constitute falsification if made, because the (incorrect) "not falsifiable" accusation against evolution continues to have persuasive force.

But scientists can't understand that the issue here has nothing to do with whether "Scientific Creationism" is scientific in any sense. The real issue revolves around the goal of getting "equal time" in primary and secondary school curricula. Since the courts have consistenly prohibited the introduction of religious indoctrination into such curricula, creationists have found it expedient to repackage their beliefs as an "alternative scientific theory." The fact that it's no such thing is irrelevant, except insofar as it proves an effective tactic.

Anyone interested in this topic might pay a productive visit to www.talkorigins.org and spend a while browsing around. A very interesting disconnect, to say the least.

Another usefile site is:

http://icarus.uic.edu/~vuletic/cefec.html#1.1

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 20, 2000

Answers

Seems like a straw-man here Flint. Personally, I have no problem in seeing evolution as a part of creation. I don't even come close to believing Genisis is literal truth. But I do believe that everything derives from a Creation. Do I care if evolution is a mechanism of that creation? Not at all.

The problem with science is that its so-called truths are always changing. Two hundred years ago the modern scientific view was that the world was Newtonian, a clockwork of precise relationships. How quaint this seems now. How quaint today's scientific "truths" will look in another 200 years.

I can live with such changes. They are exciting, interesting. What gags me is the arrogance of some scientists that they actually think they know everything. Another "elemental" particle was recently discovered. Scientists have been discovering elemental particles for a hundred years. The harder they look, the more they find. A microcosm within, a macrocosm without. Starting to look like all is fractal, all is uncertainty, there will never be a Theory of Everything.

Until science can answer the basic question of WHY, it will never satisfy human longings. Why what? Why everything? Why are we here? Why does it matter that we are here?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), July 22, 2000.

Indeed, Lars. For every question answered, a thousand more present themselves. Rent "Run Lola Run".

-- moderate (punch@is.good), July 22, 2000.

I've seen it and liked it. The notion that one minor change in a sequence of events can totally change an outcome has always intrigued me. Too bad Lola didn't meet a hairdresser who would give her a makeover. That orange hair was the pits. Thanks for reminding me of that unusual movie.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), July 22, 2000.

Lars:

I'm not sure I understand your point. So I'll comment on your statements, and maybe you can tell me if I'm missing it, OK?

[Seems like a straw-man here Flint.]

Yes indeed. Evolutionists continue to point out that creationists are either criticizing a theory of evolution nobody holds, or are deliberately ignoring clear refutation of these criticisms for political purposes. You don't address the genuine issues (which definitely exist) by careful and deliberate misrepresentation of those issues, or by creating fake issues without factual foundation.

[Personally, I have no problem in seeing evolution as a part of creation. I don't even come close to believing Genisis is literal truth. But I do believe that everything derives from a Creation. Do I care if evolution is a mechanism of that creation? Not at all.]

This is fine. I wasn't talking about those who postulate Divine guidance behind what is actually observed and understood.

[The problem with science is that its so-called truths are always changing. Two hundred years ago the modern scientific view was that the world was Newtonian, a clockwork of precise relationships. How quaint this seems now. How quaint today's scientific "truths" will look in another 200 years.]

But this is the very strength of science, not in any sense a "problem". Science *requires* that our understanding can always be improved, that mistakes are inevitable, and that correcting mistakes is always desirable. Science will have emphatically *failed* if today's theories don't look quaint in 200 years.

[I can live with such changes. They are exciting, interesting. What gags me is the arrogance of some scientists that they actually think they know everything. Another "elemental" particle was recently discovered. Scientists have been discovering elemental particles for a hundred years. The harder they look, the more they find. A microcosm within, a macrocosm without.]

Scientists who think they know everything are in the small minority (and many of them work in "creation research"), and these few also gag the rest of the scientists. Scientists share your interest and excitement, because so much *is* unknown. The cutting edge of science is always confusion and guesses, due to inadequate data, insufficient tools, not enough understanding to make better guesses or build more appropriate tools. But this is where the excitement lies, for this very reason.

[Starting to look like all is fractal, all is uncertainty, there will never be a Theory of Everything.]

But you have chosen a false goal here. No real scientists would dispute the claim that our understanding can continue to be improved indefinitely, nor would they be uncomfortable with this claim. We currently accept (always conditionally, by definition) that at some level, phenomena can only be described in terms of statistical probabilities. But so long as such understandings are founded on our best evaluations of objective reality, so be it. No problem,

[Until science can answer the basic question of WHY, it will never satisfy human longings. Why what? Why everything? Why are we here? Why does it matter that we are here?]

But this is explicitly NOT a scientific goal. The scientific method was neither designed nor intended to address such questions at all. Creationists make the conceptual error of conflating their notion of the meaning of life onto scientific investigation of the mechanics of the universe. This error is in turn based on a literal-minded need to find meaning where it wasn't intended. What's strange is the incredible, constant effort made to distort reality to force it to fit a misinterpretation. There are always people who would rather be certain than right. If they require nonsensical simplicity for their certainty, they spare no effort to fabricate it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 22, 2000.

Flint--

I would like to answer you thoughtfully but my daughter and her husband are coming to visit for the weekend and I must get ready. Briefly, I admit that I overreacted with the strawman remark. That is because people like Tarzan seem to deliberately belittle anyone who even acknowledges the word Creation. I thought you might be doing the same thing. Personally, I have no problem reconciling a created universe with the process of evolution. Not all Creationists believe the world was magically formed in 6 days approximately 6500 years ago.

Thanks for your response.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), July 22, 2000.

Flint, even your title is inaccurate. Why should anyone accept the rest of your biased assertions? There are scientists who are evolutionists and there are scientists who are creationists. Evolutionists, such as yourself, cling to their dogma just as fervently as to a religious faith. Misapplication of MLK's statement to creationists likewise reveals a personal bias, though not much else. This current hatchet job, wherein you repeatedly accuse creationists of dishonesty and immorality, for reasons of your *own* devising, effectively destroys any claim you may make to objectivity. One of those unfortunately demonstrable facts is that evolution "science" is uncharacteristically (or perhaps characteristically) fraught with fraud and deceit, to the extent that any honorable scientist would, from sheer embarassment, disavow any association with the term. By casting aspersions at the opposition, the evolutionist is exhibiting a severe case of pot-kettle syndrome. Surely you can do better than that?

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), July 22, 2000.

Hi Elbow:

I cannot find a single correct statement in your entire post. I spoke at some length about this precise tactic, and provided links for illustration in depth. Thanks for the validation.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 22, 2000.

>>I cannot find a single correct statement in your entire post.<<

Flint,

That's funny. You do a completely unsupported hatchet job, using every underhanded techniques possible. I respond with examples of your inaccuracies, and you cannot find a correct statement. Unfortunately I cannot do anything about your reading comprehension, but you should have your eyes examined. I am forced to point out that your latest effort is yet another attempt to quell any disagreement. It's an oldie, but a goodie, honed to a fine edge by many an evolutionist. Obviously, your religious fervor on this subject has gotten the best of you.

To continue, you claim that creationists primarily attack evolution. Yet you disquise your critique as some sort of balanced assessment, use the exact same tactic, and at the same time whine about the opposition's use of it. Evolutionist arguments have never held the high ground. *Your* words are validation of that.

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), July 23, 2000.

Elbow:

I provided the links, so anyone interested in the subject can decide for themselves. You have produced two content-free attacks, consistent with the creationist approach (READ the links) of attacking "the enemy", devoid of support for their own position. This is a political tactic -- a politician wins when his opponent loses. The scientific reality doesn't depend on you being wrong -- your errors are irrelevant, the real world is what it is. Your attacks, by contrast, aren't intended to inform but to confuse. Like any dishonest politician, you REQUIRE that your audience not bother looking at the record. A time-honored technique -- when none of the facts support you, ignore the facts and few will know the difference.

At first, I thought you were simply, woefully misinformed. After reading all that stuff, I now know better and realize you do too. IF you have a point with semantic content, present it. Provide sources. Repeated hollow attacks don't cut it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 23, 2000.

Flint,

Where and how have I kept anyone from reading your links? Your accusation is patently absurd. You *began* this thread as an attack on creationists, not creationism. *You* are attacking "the enemy". You inaccurately titled it as though it were an analysis of why the two sides don't communicate, but it boils down to: The "scientists" try their best but the opposition doesn't know how, or doesn't want to communicate. Snort. You draw a false contrast between "scientists" and "creationists." You cast your "scientists" as white knights and the "creationists" as villains, scoundrels and politians. *Your* techniques are *designed* to discredit and confuse, just as you are trying to use them on me. These are *your* initial tactics, *your* errors; errors *you* feel are irrelevant; errors *you* refuse to acknowledge. You know full well what you're doing, so don't hand me any of that "hollow attacks" crap, because all you've shown me is political posturing. There is a greater lesson in our interchange as to why evolutionists and creationists talk past each other than anything in your initial post.

Elbow

PS The talkorigins site has a wealth of information. (From the evolutionary POV) Thanks for providing it. I ran across an interesting comment there that bears directly on your "political" nonsense. I will be interested to see how you deal with it.

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), July 23, 2000.

Elbow:

Thanks for providing the "case" for creationism so eloquently. The illustration you provide wasn't really required, but is still a nicely emphatic ratification of what I wrote. Facts, zero. Specific points addressed, zero. Non-attacking sentences, zero. Marvelous!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 23, 2000.

First of all, I am not religious. I am most certainly not for either creationism nor darwinism. I've read far too much to debunk both. So, with that in mind...

I just can't help asking the question of radiocarbon dating....I would welcome anyone to blow a hole in the following...just make sure you keep it within the range of comparing apples with apples.

Radio Carbon Dating problems

A: Let me first explain how carbon dating works and then show you the assumptions it is based on. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950s. He calculated the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), and assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breathe CO2 and animals eat plants. Carbon 14 is the radio-active version of carbon. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy produces radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays into normal, stable carbon 12. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C- 14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only 1/4 of the original C- 14. It goes from 1/2 to 1/4 to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 30,000 years old.

Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Let me illustrate. If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying out simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. This would mean the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.

The carbon in the atmosphere normally combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants breathe CO2 and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to normal C-12. The older an object is, the less carbon-14 it contains. One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C-14 decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 11,460 years old (the sample has gone through two half lives) and so on.

Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two simple assumptions. They are obviously assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable. An illustration may help. Imagine you found a candle burning in a room. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, seven inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would obviously have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and the initial height of the candle. The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950s. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.

In addition to the above assumptions, dating methods are all subject to the geologic column date to verify their accuracy. If a date obtained by radiometric dating does not match the assumed age from the geologic column the radiometric date will be rejected. The so- called geologic column was developed in the early 1800s over a century before there were any radiometric dating methods. Laboratories will not carbon date dinosaur bones (even frozen ones which could easily be carbon dated) because dinosaurs are supposed to have lived 70 million years ago according to the fictitious geologic column. An objects supposed place on the geologic column determines the method used to date it. There are about 7 or 8 radioactive elements that are used today to try to date objects. Each one has a different half-life and a different range of ages it is supposed to be used for. No dating method cited by evolutionists is unbiased. For more information, see video tape #7 of the CSE video series on Creation, Evolution, and Dinosaurs; Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow, or Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris (all available from CSE).

A few quotes about radiometric dating:

"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30.

"One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9- 10,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30

"The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. --In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124

The two Colorado Creek mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 670 and 16,150 230 years respectively." --In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124

"A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology Center, [Carl] Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human fossils. Last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930s by testing the sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens, erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans." --Kaufman, Leslie, "Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us?" Newsweek (December 23, 1996), p. 52.

"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." --ORourke, J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), July 23, 2000.

OR:

Sigh.

Here is the claim:

Many radiometric dating tests have yielded false results. Evolutionists discard all those that are inconsistent with their prior assumptions and keep those that "verify" their theory.

Here is the reality:

There have been thousands of dating tests performed by independent laboratories with a wide variety of radioisotopes. Virtually all of the results correlate with evolutionary expectations. The few anomalies in radiometric dating disappear when the samples are reanalyzed (Eldredge, 1982, 103).

Now, what I wrote originally was, when corrections are made, creationists are careful NEVER to mention this. I said, "when the scientist asks "Why do you represent that old error as current 'scientific belief' knowing full well nobody accepts it anymore?" the creationist responds, "Because our audience *does not know* it was corrected."

Here we have more examples of the same. OR is also careful NOT to mention that most of his cases are presented by creationists, who *as a matter of policy* propagate errors while never noting corrections. The same refuted information is recycled over and over. It's fair game until the audience finally knows better, which might be never.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 23, 2000.

>>Thanks for providing the "case" for creationism so eloquently.<<

Flint,

You do have a perceptual handicap, Sir. You made creationists the issue, not creationism, and trashed them. Read your own words. There's proof enough there. They stand on their own as a reprehensible example of the evolutionist thought process.

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), July 23, 2000.

Elbow:

The perceptual problem is not mine. A careful and thorough reading of the literature shows that creationism neither has a case, nor tries to present it. Instead, creationists spend their time creating the appearance of poking holes in scientific processes, or repackaging their dogmas a junk science to make an end run around church-state separation.

This is what's so frustrating -- the constant "look over there" style of argument. Scientists have never had any real difficulty refuting fraudulent creationists claims of a scientific nature. The problem is a difference of goals, between understanding and indoctrination, between increasing our knowledge and preventing it for "moral" purposes.

As a result, evolutionists find they aren't debating competing theories, they are debating fanatics with social agendas. This is what I meant by a misunderstanding of the playing field. The ground rules are different. An agenda founded on deception throws scientists into confusion. If this agenda were made explicit, and we were discussing the social merits of religious indoctrination in public schools, rather than billing indoctrination as "science" to try to *sneak* it into the schools, the issue would be much clearer.

But I notice you address neither the pseudoscience (because I cited the refutations) nor the hidden underlying sociology (because you can't deceive if you make that deception explicit). So you just attack me personally, over and over. Well, life is tough sometimes, eh?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 23, 2000.

>>The perceptual problem is not mine. <<

Oh, but it is. You introduce this subject and do not seem to realize we two are playing it out as we speak. You've attacked the opposition and then complain when your opinion is attacked using your own techniques.

>>This is what's so frustrating -- the constant "look over there" style of argument. <<

Are you so wrapped up in your opinion that you are unaware that you began this thread with just that sort of sleight of hand? If you're not taking potshots at the opposition, what do you think you're doing?

>>As a result, evolutionists find they aren't debating competing theories, they are debating fanatics with social agendas.<<

Well, for once you use the correct term. Again, you seem to be oblivious that evolutionists are equally fanatic about squelching any opposition to their doctrine. First there is the false dichotomy: evolution is science, creationism is religion. Then, with that as a given, they (you) preach that religion has no place in public schools. Excuse me? Why are evolutionists so concerned with church- state issues anyway? It is not science that concludes that school children will be "damaged" by exposure to creationism; it's the moralizing evolutionists. If one doctrine is so superior to the other, present them both. A sure sign of an indoctrinational agenda is to enforce a single viewpoint by any means. Now which side is doing that? No, this is about eliminating the competition politically. As I said, the evolutionists hold no high ground, regardless of their delusions.

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), July 24, 2000.

The questions addressed were not fully answered. The bottom line is that radiocarbon dating is not reliable.

Many of the radiometric dating methods used for determining the age of fossils are quite unreliable. Carbon-14 dating is usually sound within a few hundred years span of time. But there are exceptions to this. For example, a living mollusk was dated using the carbon-14 method. The readings said it had been dead for 3000 years. Lava rocks from a volcano in Hawaii which erupted in 1801 were tested, using the potassium-argon method. The readings showed them to be nearly 3 billion years old. Moon rocks were tested by various radiometric methods, yielding dates ranging from 700 million to 28 billion years.

Dating methods such as potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and rubidium- strontium, are based on assumptions. These methods are based on chemical change (uranium to lead, etc.) where the parent material (ie., uranium) is converted to the daughter material (ie., lead) at a known rate, called a half-life. These methods cannot be trusted on the basis that too little is known. In order to come up with a correct date, you must know:

1. how much of the parent material was in it at the start, 2. how much of the daughter material was in it at the start, & 3. if there has been some type of contamination since. In obtaining dates now, scientists assume the answers to or ignore these questions. The fact is that we cannot know how old a specimen is unless we were there when it was formed.

Also, Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found. All known species show up abruptly in the fossil record, without intermediate forms which would prove macro evolution, the cruxt of the darwinist theory...all life forms evolved from slime. What HAS been found over and over again, and wrongly and irresponsibly pointed at to prove the theory is micro evolution. BIG, BIG DIFFERENCE.

There are so many holes that can be blown in the *religion* of evolution, it is ridiculous. However, simply because the theory can be knocked over so easily does not in any way, shape, or form validate any other theory, most especially creationism.

I would simply be content for the scientific community to come clean and say they really don't know...it's all a guess.

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), July 24, 2000.

Elbow:

This is a clever reply, but the situation is not QUITE as you present it.

Imagine a group of people absolutely determined that children be taught that 2+2=5, the earth is flat and the moon is made of green cheese. Imagine that as "documentation", they claim the infallibility of text written thousands of years ago, interpreted literally even though the material was written as illustrative allegory.

Now, these doctrines might properly be addressed within the context of courses on religion or anthropology or abnormal psychology. They have no place in courses covering mathmatics, geography or astronomy. Like creationism, they have no substantive, empirical basis at all. Within the context of "beliefs firmly held in defiance of all known observation", their examination might well help us understand human nature a bit better.

You are quite correct that it's considered the "proper" goal (by most people) to teach our most accurate current understanding of *every* subject. There is indeed a "doctrine" that children not be deliberately taught nonsense -- that such a practice defeats the goal of education as we understand it. Educators in general are fanatical about squelching such a practice across the board.

We can only be thankful that no political action group interprets the Bible as saying that addition lacks the property of being commutative. Otherwise, it would be the *mathmaticians*, as well as the evolutionists, who would be "enforcing a single indoctrinational viewpoint" on our children, and the "orderists" would be demanding equal time in math classes!

OR:

It's quite true that various radiometric dating methods have their difficulties and limitations. Nonetheless, you might spend some useful time reading what these methods really ARE, rather than draw all your conclusions from materials written by people whose goal is to find some way, ANY way, to reject the validity of such methods. The authors you're reading have set a subtle trap for the unwary, implicitly assuming that if we don't know everything, we don't know *anything*. You have leapt into this trap feet first. I can see you're happy in there, but the truth can still set you free.

[Also, Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found.]

My goodness, wherever did you "learn" this? Anyway, this statement has been so frequently, resoundingly, and unequivocally refuted that it's a waste of space to refute it here. Follow any of my original links, and start browsing. There are numerous websites devoted to EACH of the transitional sequences found, of which there are hundreds of examples. It might take WEEKS to read them all. This qualifies as one of those statements creationists rarely use anymore, since it's so widely recognized as ludicrous by the general population.

But I should probably point out that creationists have now moved from denying any transitional forms have been *found*, to denying that they are *possible*. This lets them declare that all of the long, gradual transitions we've found aren't really transitions at all. They just *seem* that way to those not properly trained to reject the evidence of their own lying eyes.

[I would simply be content for the scientific community to come clean and say they really don't know...it's all a guess.]

This is like asking the astronomical community to "come clean" and admit they really *don't know* whether the sun goes around the earth or vice versa -- they're just *guessing*!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 24, 2000.

Flint, I gotta go with Elbow. You attack the creationist and their "style" of debate. If that wasn't your intention, then you should restate those points. Even so, I agree with your opinion in all this but I'm wondering what's your objective?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 24, 2000.

OR, consider these for a moment:

- Darwin established the theory of the origin of species through descent with modification long before the carbon 14 dating method was ever conceived. The theory never rested on the validity of this method. Certain interpretations of individual pieces of evidence rest upon this method. Even if you throw away the dating method, the actual evidence remains to be interpreted. Do you have an alternative interpretation that fits the evidence better? If so, what is it?

- The facts you refer to in regard to the reliability of carbon 14 dating are facts that can be subjected to scientific scrutiny and proved or disproved. The chances are that the very weaknesses you find so important were discovered and reported by scientists. Without the aid of these scientists (and their openness and honesty) or the tool of the scientific method, what are the chances you would know about the weaknesses in carbon 14 dating?

What are the chances that a scientist understands these weaknesses better than you do, and allow for them in his or her understanding and interpretation of the evidence (once the weaknesses were brought to his or her attention)?

In my view, the very evidence you cite against the the soundness of the conclusions of biologists in regard to the theory of evolution actually speak well in favor of their methods and their judgement.

When science is applied in its proper domain, it is a self-correcting process, arriving at successive approximations of the truth. Biology is one of science's proper domains.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 24, 2000.

Maria:

I suppose in a larger sense, I'm posting material I believe is worth thinking about. If you're asking why anyone bothers to post anything, I can't answer you. Boredom?

More specifically, my overall point is that it takes a theif to catch a thief. One of the underlying assumptions of the scientific worldview is that objective reality makes no effort to be *deliberately* misleading. It might be infinitely complex and subtle, but it isn't trying to trick anyone.

Scientists carry this assumption over into their dealings with people. Those who publish misinformation are presumed to be honest but misinformed, and amenable to correction. It's the wrong model. It makes scientists highly susceptible to the machinations of hoaxers, con men, psychics and the like.

As a result, scientists spend their time meticulously deconstructing the kinds of smokescreens Elbow and OR produce, while the real action is happening in the world of school boards and textbooks, courts and legislatures and teacher recruitment and public perception.

The critical question is, do we want us or our children exposed to accurate knowledge or to "approved" beliefs, *especially* when these are in conflict? This is a purely political question, flimsily disguised as scientific criticism so it can be fought on scientific grounds, however fraudulently.

Fighting it on political or legal grounds has proved fruitless, because politicians and lawyers are *experts* at deceit, and can see exactly what the creationists are doing. By contrast, scientists are suckers, naturally geared to miss the political steak while they address the scientific sizzle.

Finally, part of my purpose here is because I, too, thought the issue was simply a matter of getting the facts straight. After earlier debate, I tentatively decided that those who for some reason were irrationally determined not to *learn* the facts would never get them straight.

It wasn't until I really dug into this that I learned that the facts are considered irrelevant, and the scientific "debate" is nothing more than a redirection ploy, a devious strategy to paint a coat of scientific-sounding camouflage over a straight religious doctrine to get it taught via the back door when the front door has been effectively locked.

Brian:

Your response to OR is thoughtful, well expressed, accurate, educational, and no different from the response he got the last time he posted *precisely this same material*! This rock-headed ineducability stands as a shining example of Elbow's ideal goal, the sort of Pavlovian belief system that embodies true morality.

In a nutshell, scientists are trying to "cure" the ORs of the world, and the creationists are trying to *produce* them. Scary.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 24, 2000.

Scary? Why? This is what Y2k was really all about. It was the first effort of the Fringe to use the Net to mobilize. North got 100 times the exposure he ever dreamed of. His subscription base was a whopping 14,000 after 20 years "in the business".

Gary North represents that same fraction of "believers" who have been fighting the "rear guard" action over the centuries against the emergence of "truth and light". He is hardly alone. Behind a smokescreen of rhetoric about "family values" there is furious activity lead by Dobson and Pat Robertson. For both Y2k was just another clear sign from THEIR Lord that America was heading to the cesspool. Robertson was told personally by de Jager and Simpson in Summer, 1998 at Robertson's Y2k conference that enough work was underway to prevent the worst, Robertson has contacts that confirmed that and STILL he kept his **spurious** Y2k pages online with the crap similar to North because he is convinced its the "End Times" anyway and people should be "prepared". For the Robertsons of the world, "know little" is a big advantage. It permits them to Propagandize for their agenda in what seems a "logical path". It should be noted that even Jim Bakker, ex of Tammy Faye, tried a Y2k Comeback.

On the other side are the vast majority of other "believers" who use the same Bibles and religious beliefs to "accomodate" KNOWLEDGE. North and other Fundies consider :

Newton one of the first "secular humanists"

Science as a "tool of the Devil"

They justify using "technology" by claiming they do so in "His Service".

In the end, over time, their numbers decline. The Christian Recons did a survey and found out that 2/3 of their children give up the CR/Fundy beliefs. For that reason and I'm not joking: they advocate large families. Many have from 6-12 children. All endorsed by "be fruitful and multiply".

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 24, 2000.

Flint,

Your response was predictable; more sleight of hand. You *do* understand the difference between imagination and reality, don't you? No one is arguing "mathmatics" (sic), flat earth, or green cheese. Once again, you use a tactic for which you've condemned the opposition: offering an argument long since rebutted. To wit: The Bible is not and has never been viewed as a science text by creationists. As an aside, and only incidently relevant, its accuracy has been proven to be above reproach archeologically.

You continue to present false comparisons. Do you honestly believe that the discipline of mathematics falls into the same category as evolutionary "science"? Are 90% of the natural log tables missing? Are you unsure of the product of 9 and 8? Does the sum of two numbers change randomly? There is no comparison and you know it.

As far as "beliefs firmly held in defiance of all known observation", you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel, as exemplified by your response to OR concerning C14 dating. "All known observations" do not support evolution, and "all known observations" do not contradict creationism. Your excessive use of hyperbole cripples your position.

>>...it's considered the "proper" goal (by most people) to teach our most accurate current understanding of *every* subject...<<

Once again, false terminology. Evolution is definitely not a "subject" like Algebra. Pardon my misuse of a term myself, but evolution is an attempt to integrate across a large number of disciplines. Students are not going to grasp the technicalities or the scope; they are expected to *believe* what they're taught, and indeed, a belief is what they're being taught. From personal experience: Ninth grade biology, a classmate had the temerity to answer "Survival of the fittest" when the teacher expected "Natural Selection". The teacher literally screamed and foamed at the mouth at the student's error. It was quite a memorable demonstration of religious fanaticism for me.

>>..There is indeed a "doctrine" that children not be deliberately taught nonsense...<<

Then evolution has no place in public schools either. The dogmas of evolution of thirty years ago are not the dogmas of today, and today's evolution will be replaced in thirty years with a different set. Teaching evolution in public schools and declaring with absolute certainty that "THIS IS HOW IT HAPPENED AND IT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED ANY OTHER WAY," while hiding behind the evolutionist's (soto voce) mantra that "It's our current best guess." is so completely self-contradictory and dishonest that one must be delusional to resort to it in a serious argument. When the teacher of evolution speaks with certainty, he is no longer referring to science; he has crossed over into preaching religious Truth. How could one allow an opposing view and still speak The Truth? This, better than anything else, explains such fanatic opposition to what is publicly derided as lightweight pseudoscience. How schizophrenic! Here is the lofty evolutionist, behind a facade of Science, advocating censorship. (We can't let children hear these things!) I suspect that if a third theory of origins appeared, it would receive the same treatment.

Who determines what is nonsense? It just depends on who's placing the labels and whose position has the upper hand politically.

Elbow

(Question to self: How can someone use the commutative property in a mathematical example, but misspell mathematics?)

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), July 24, 2000.

Elbow:

Sorry about the misspelling. I thought it looked funny, but didn't have a dictionary handy. I notice that, as with other minor errors, you wave it around and make a big deal of it. Best you can do?

Anyway, you make some good points here, worth discussing:

[The dogmas of evolution of thirty years ago are not the dogmas of today, and today's evolution will be replaced in thirty years with a different set.]

No, dogmas are what YOU chant. You are carefully avoiding an important issue, though. Evolution, like gravity or the moon, is a fact. *Theories* of evolution, like theories of gravity or the moon's origin, are not quite what they were 30 years ago, and (hopefully) not what they'll be 30 years hence. For example, we know that relativity contradicts quantum mechanics with respect to gravity. They are both theories with excellent predictive and explanatory value within their domains, but they CANNOT both be correct.

This hardly means either gravity or the moon is an illusion or the product of a dogmatic faith, any more than evolution. Our evolving theories do not address *whether* there is gravity or evolution or a moon. Instead, they address the underlying processes, which may never be fully understood in every possible detail. Claiming there's no such thing as evolution or gravity because they're not fully understood is plain silly.

[Teaching evolution in public schools and declaring with absolute certainty that "THIS IS HOW IT HAPPENED AND IT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED ANY OTHER WAY," while hiding behind the evolutionist's (soto voce) mantra that "It's our current best guess." is so completely self-contradictory and dishonest that one must be delusional to resort to it in a serious argument.]

The grain of truth underlying this statement is hidden behind a cloud of rhetoric, unfortunately. *Every* scientific theory is our current best understanding, subject to change so long as people remain curious about their universe. (The word "guess" demeans you).

The issue of most effective pedagogical approach for children of different ages (or for students at different levels of study) is problematic, I admit. Nearly every course of study begins with simplified basics suitable for the age level. As students mature (and specialize), they delve ever deeper into these subjects. Invariably, in ALL subjects, they encounter history, ambiguity, complexity, and untimately the unknown.

But this approach is neither dishonest nor self-contradictory. It's how people learn. You may as well claim that the study of optics in high school physics is "dishonest" unless the students are plunged into current experiments in quantum mechanics -- without any of the necessary background! The study of optics in high school isn't "dishonest" just because we don't understand everything about light.

I agree that there are poor teachers. I went to high school in New York, and my math teacher was on the Board of Regents, and drew up the math questions on the Regents exam New York students must take. His lessons were like, "Today we study question TWO. Take the number after the first "and", multiply it by the number immediately before the word "bushels"..."

His students always did VERY well on the Regents exam, and learned nearly nothing of math. And perhaps if I were in possession of a Received Truth that math is inherently fraudulent, I might use him as an illustration of a fraudulent subject of study. Not having any such Received Truth, however, I just consider him a poor teacher. You might contrast this with your approach and your conclusion.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 24, 2000.

Flint,

Below is my response, for what it's worth. But I find it to be a bit disjointed, which is a sure sign that I'm losing interest. So I'll probably be signing off with this post, unless you continue with something really outrageous. :-)

But overall, I think that your side is really missing an opportunity. This business of trying to hold on to sole possession of the bully pulpit in the classroom smacks of so much sectarianism and political maneuvering, whereas offering general overviews of the competing models would go a long way toward conveying the implicit message that "This is our current best understanding." Or, at least, "These are our choices." Objectively, what is the harm in saying: We have two mutually exclusive theories of origins. One is held by the majority of scientists, the other by a relative few. The first has been around a couple hundred years and is entirely deterministic, the other model is more recent, and is to some extent based on descriptions in a religious document.

Elbow

>>Sorry about the misspelling.... Best you can do?<<

No, admittedly some of my worst. I hate when spelling is made an issue. I apologize.

>>No, dogmas are what YOU chant.<<

"Dogma" is a term used by evolutionists when referring to creationism in order to create a false contrast between the two, similar to the evolution-science/creationism-religion attempt. By transferring the shoe to the other foot, I am illustrating how ridiculous the fallacy is.

>>Evolution, like gravity or the moon, is a fact.<<

Not like. Not at all like. Your comparisons are horrible. But, hey, with that as a starting point, who needs data? Sorry, I cannot agree. I challenge you to answer this question: What is the single fact that proves evolution? You're trying so hard to avoid saying that evolution is *true*. *That* is what you really mean, but unfortunately, it sounds sooooo dogmatic.

[Teaching evolution in public schools and declaring with absolute certainty that "THIS IS HOW IT HAPPENED AND IT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED ANY OTHER WAY," while hiding behind the evolutionist's (soto voce) mantra that "It's our current best guess." is so completely self-contradictory and dishonest that one must be delusional to resort to it in a serious argument.]

>>The grain of truth underlying this statement is hidden behind a cloud of rhetoric, unfortunately. *Every* scientific theory is our current best understanding, subject to change so long as people remain curious about their universe. (The word "guess" demeans you). <<

A couple dozen words is a cloud of rhetoric? Then how do you classify your epic responses? And you miss the point entirely in order to comment on my use of the word "guess"? Is that the best *you* can do? I don't care; substitute "understanding" for "guess" and read it again.

>>But this approach is neither dishonest nor self-contradictory.<<

The "this approach" you referring to is not what I was talking about. We're not talking about *every* scientific theory; we're talking about one theory that purports to be scientific. There is no "Elementary Evolution" in the curriculum, but it intrudes into many classroom studies by subterfuge.

>>The study of optics in high school isn't "dishonest" just because we don't understand everything about light. <<

Again with the tortured comparison. How can you honestly compare a cross-discipline amalgamation with a hard, testable, repeatable science like physics or optics? The best comparison I can think of is, surprisingly, with the Y2K controversy. And it fails because there was a definite moment where the questions were resolved.

>>And perhaps if I were in possession of a Received Truth that math is inherently fraudulent, I might use him as an illustration of a fraudulent subject of study. Not having any such Received Truth, however, I just consider him a poor teacher. You might contrast this with your approach and your conclusion. <<

That's a rather smarmy statement. Your illustration relates to the method of study rather than the subject of study. But I think you are seriously underestimating the part that personalities (and personal philosophies) play in molding student attitudes in the school environment. What Received Truth did you need to realize that there was something wrong with your math teacher's method?

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), July 25, 2000.

LBO,

What good does it do to tell us that the theory of evolution is flawed because Flint's presentation of it is flawed, or his characterization of creationists is flawed? This only tells us your views about Flint, not about creationism or evolution.

Instead, I propose you to start a thread giving us your best, most cogent, most rational argument why Creationism is the best theory to explain life on earth and what evidence supports your contention. making attacks on evolution does nothing to establish creationism as a better theory, just as attacking the idea of an income tax does nothing to establish the correct form of government.

You do have a positive argument to make in favor of creationism, don't you? I'd like to hear it.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 25, 2000.

Flint; Don't waste your time with someone using debating sematic tricks to "discuss" Science. Scientific methods and results are not a topic for debates *outside* the Peer Review process.

What you are witnessing here is the typical reaction that has gone on since before the "Monkey Trial" where people who don't like the results try to use a few shreds of evidence to deny all of Scientific facts re: evolution. Most of them hardly know what they are talking about for what they really resent is not "evolution" but rather the Darwin-Mendel Synthesis which has been under constant revision since first posited. The nay sayers who don't understand how Science "grows" and "revises" usually are the same Twits who respond with "science confirms every last word in the Bible."

What they really want is to ---->Teach Their Religion in Public Schools <<----- and to get that they would try to get this mish mash of garbage on an equal footing with True Proven Science. The result would be to make the USA the laughing stock of the Educated World. But that doesn't bother the Know Littles one iota.

-- Bad Ass Dude Hates Doomers (BadAss@tb2k.com), July 25, 2000.

LBO?

L-eft B-ack then dropped-Out. But he spent 1,000s of hours "researching dah TROOOOOOF".

-- Bad Ass Dude Hates Doomers (BadAss@tb2k.com), July 25, 2000.

For those who don't know the difference, Mathematics is not a "Science". It is a tool of Science and often referred to as the "Hand Maiden of Science".

The ref. to "Evolution" as an "amalgamation of cross disciplines" is hogwash. As "Knowledge" expands, assorted topics become a "discipline". However, the tools of measurement that "Science" uses apply across the board.

This implies that there is in fact, "a way to do Science". And I can assure you that "Creationism" is not one of them. It is an attempt to shore up those inflexible beliefs that derive from an "A Priori" system. To dare teach it as "science" makes a mockery of Science itself and as such could well be regarded as "SIN" by simply applying the "standards" of those who propose it. False Witness would be the charge for "creationism" is FICTION.

What the advocates for this sham forget is that Evolution does not deny God nor does it deny a Creator. It is possible for even a trained Scientist to believe that God did in fact Create the Universe, All of it.

-- Bad Ass Dude Hates Doomers (BadAss@tb2k.com), July 25, 2000.

Elbow:

Whew! First some specific responses, then a summary essay. And at that point, I'm burnt out as well...

[Objectively, what is the harm...]

Sigh. From my perspective, this is *exactly* what should be presented when there are in fact two (or more) competing theories. Indeed (at least at the college and graduate levels) multiple competing theories are *always* presented, provided there is what the courts call a genuine case or controversy. Before college, I simply got the majority view shoveled at me as "fact".

With respect to creationism, however, there really isn't any scientific "case or controversy." This is true for two reasons. First, creationist claims don't qualify as a theory from a scientific perspective, being neither testable nor falsifiable. One either believes or one does not. Creationism may be true and it may not -- God may have created the universe in situ ten minutes ago, complete with all our memories. Who could prove otherwise, or even find a fruitful course of investigation?

And at least at the college level, you'd have problems finding any program that didn't point out that many people, including some scientists, do not accept evolution. They even point out that creationist claims come in multiple flavors - special creation, scientific creation, old-earth and young-earth creation, etc. But if they cannot be falsified in principle, they are belief systems, not theories, and belong in courses where belief systems are studied.

Second, the bulk of creationist literature consists of criticisms of evolution, rather than factual or evidentiary support for creation. And from my reading, such criticisms have frequently been valuable, pointing out legitimate flaws in evolutionists' techniques or interpretations. But criticism of an existing discipline, however valid, does not constitute a competing theory. The refusal to accept, or even recognize, valid corrections to these criticisms doesn't make a theory either.

[What is the single fact that proves evolution?]

People were successfully breeding dogs, horses, goldfish, plants etc. for centuries before Darwin. Darwin didn't need to tell them *that* it worked; this was obvious. Darwin proposed a mechanism for *how* it worked, and generalized to less deliberate or focused environmental pressures. (And no, I don't want to get too far into micro- vs. macroevolution. The test was once morphological, but dogs exceeded this. The next test was viability of offspring, but now that we've achieved this with fruit flies, creationists have probably redefined macroevolution to mean something else again. With a straight face, of course).

[we're talking about one theory that purports to be scientific.]

See my essay following.

[There is no "Elementary Evolution" in the curriculum]

But there is. Several ideas here. First, I agree with you that "This is the way it is, memorize it!" is poor teaching geared to easy grading, a cop-out by the teacher. Second, I agree that evolution tends to be a meta-subject in the sense that many other fields require an understanding of evolution to become meaningful rather than arbitrary. Third, there really is "advanced evolution" wherein the student is faced with integrating and resolving ambiguities, complexities, contingencies and the like. There is field work involved here. Like ANY other subject, the more you learn, the more you realize how much remains to be learned. What came before this is, ipso facto, increasingly elementary.

[Again with the tortured comparison.]

Then I wasn't clear. Get deep enough into quantum mechanics, and those optics experiments are seen in, uh, a whole new light (groan). In this light, what we measured in optics class was partly an illusion, partly the result of limitations of our instruments, and partly an artifact of the experiments themselves. So high school optics, like Newtonian gravity, is practical. It works. But it's far from the whole truth, and leads to conclusions quite false according to quantum mechanical principles. So is it "dishonest"? I don't think so.

[Your illustration relates to the method of study rather than the subject of study.]

Yes, because your 9th grade experience did the same. Perhaps I misread, but you seemed to be criticizing the subject because the method was poor. And as Paul Simon sang, "When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school/it's a wonder I can think at all."

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

Perhaps more for taxonomic convenience than anything else, we have named many fields of study. Look at all the "names" a college student can major in. None of these names is isolated, and majoring in any name entails required study in a variety of related subjects.

Bearing in mind that all subjects overlap to greater or lesser degrees with several others, we can conceptually view subjects according to several scales or spectra.

For example, clarity of definition. At one extreme, mathematics is quite clearly defined. At the other, social studies could include nearly anything. The same goes for psychology. And "political science" is little more than history filtered through whatever philosophical filters any given professor applies.

Another scale is maturity or rate of change/discovery. Fields like electronics or geology are established well enough that developments are relatively slow, while new theories of sub-atomic physics or cosmology pop up almost daily. And the same with computer science.

As a field of study, evolution falls safely toward the mature, slow moving, well-defined end of these scales. Certainly there is nothing inherent in evolution to merit the attacks leveled at it, more than can be aimed instead at *most* other named fields far more forcefully. Especially in academia, there are areas of study going by the same name in different schools with almost no overlap of covered material between them! And there is NO field of study, however solidly grounded, immune from such criticisms -- this is inherent in the very nature of continuing study and investigation of *anything*.

So OK, just what's so special about evolution? What causes some people to single it out, in preference to so many far less solid disciplines, as a target of attack? All fields progress by trial and error, yet the errors in evolution are singled out and trumpeted long after their correction, while the errors of other fields are ignored. False claims against evolution are fabricated with great effort and repeated endlessly, yet no other field suffers this insult. Evolution is labeled a "religion", while fields of far hazier definition (often much more deserving of such a label) get off scot free. And so on.

What I suggest is that science has inadvertently been in the pedestal- smashing business. Once we had god(s) (one or more) who habitually effected terrible miracles, but science explained those miracles in mundane terms, and often gave us the ability to reproduce them on demand. Today, about the only remaining "miracles" are trivia seen on Arthur C. Clarke's World of Weird Shit. Perhaps in some sense we're the poorer for this. Certainly people struggled, often under religious banners, to retain the miracles of old.

And science deprived us of being the center of the universe, or even the solar system. It placed us on a minor rock revolving around a minor star far from the center of an unremarkable galaxy in a universe that has no meaningful center at all! And again people (under church banner) fought to discredit such discoveries and retain the old, comfy illusions.

Evolution has smashed the largest and most humbling pedestal there was. Not only are we NOT created in God's image, we aren't even created at all. Mankind is nothing more than yet another of many species, arising entirely by chance, only temporarily present, the result of an indifferent natural process devoid of any special meaning. The objective universe no longer requires God's agency in any way, even for us!

And this knowledge is more than some people can accept -- it requires a sense of humility beyond the capacity of some egos to absorb. So for nearly 150 years, an ever-shrinking but still vocal group has been in full-blown denial, trying every tactic they can dream up to turn back the clock, to make what we've learned somehow go away, to restore the one illusion they cannot live without. And as always before, it's not working. The real world is what it is, and we can't spit the apple back out.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 25, 2000.

Flint or anyone, please. Do tell...what species has turned into another in the fossil record? Oh, and make sure it is an example of MACRO-EVOLUTION, NOT MICRO-EVOLUTION, please...

The number of missing links to evolution that have wound up as front page news when discovered and then corrected months or years later as frauds/incorrect interpretations on page 26 are numerous. It would be my opinion that there is an agenda afoot here, but that's just MY opinion of course.

The Archeoraptor was promoted in National Geographic as the missing link between dinosaurs and birds. The fossil was put on display at their Explorers Hall, but it turned out to be a fraud. It was part dinosaur fossil and part bird fossil. A February 1st, 2000 US Today quote It appears that this true missing link between dinosaurs and birds somehow sprouted its remarkable tail, not 120 million years ago, but only shortly after being smuggled out of China.

Darwin himself by virtue of his own mouth pointed out a very salient issuehe was quoted as saying, in 1858, of his own book The Origin of Species It would be grieviously too hypothetical, very likely of no other service than collating some facts though I myself think I see approximately on the Origin of Species, but alas how frequent, almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas. And another quote: When we discern the details, we can prove that no one species has changed.

Darwin also wrote the number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great, assuredly if this theory be true...such have lived upon the earth.

Well, then according to the creator of the theory himself, we should have innumerable examples in the fossil record. We do not. Stephen J. Gould, a leading evolutionist from Harvard, a few years ago went on record saying that the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record was the trade secret of paleontology.

Colin Patterson, director of the British Museum of Natural History said, Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. I will lay it on the line. There is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. Another quote by Patterson: No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. As a matter of fact, no one has even gotten near it.

Sir John William Dawson, contemporary of Darwin, Pioneer of Canadian Geology, President of McGill University and President of the British Association for the advancement of science said, let the reader take up either of Darwins great books and merely ask himself as he reads each paragraph What is assumed here and what is proved? You will find the whole fabric melt away like a vision. Evolution as a hypothesis has no basis in experience nor in scientific fact.

Zoologist Albert Fleishman stated, The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.

Dr. Wolfgang Smith, recent professor at MIT and UCLA said, If by evolution, we mean macro-evolution, it can be said with the utmost rigor that Darwin is totally bereft of scientific sanction. The fact remains, that to this day, there is not a shred of bonified evidence in support of the thesis that macro-evolutionary transformations have ever occurred.

Garris J. Nelson, American Museum of Natural History It is a mistake to believe even one fossil species can be demonstrated to be ancestral to another.

For years, *Richard Leakey has tried to prove that man's half-ape ancestors were the Australopithecines of East Africa. But of these bones, Pilbeam said, "There is no way of knowing whether they are the ancestors to anything or not." Shortly afterward, Richard Leakey himself summed up the problem on a Walter Cronkite Universe program, when he said that if he were to draw a family tree for man, he would just draw a large question mark. And he added that, not only was the fossil evidence far too scanty for any real certainty about anything related to man's evolutionary origins, but there was little likelihood that we were ever going to know it.

Geneticist Thomas Morgan, Nobel Prize winner for his work on heredity wrote, Within the period of human history, we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another, if we apply the most rigid and extreme test used to distinguish wild species.

Since Darwin was ignorant of the science of genetics factoring, he simply concluded that animals could adapt to their environment in an unlimited way, unaware that no change takes place unless the genes are there first.

Modern geneticists had to overcome this genetic factor problem by saying that evolution has occurred through mutation. However, this theory has been discredited by Lee Spetner of Johns Hopkins University who has recently authored a book titled Not by Chance said, I had to make it somewhat technical because I attack a paradigm to which most biologists declare allegiance. I had to present my argument comprehensively enough to withstand any potential criticism from evolutionists. Indeed, several respected biologists, including a Nobel laureate, have praised my book and have acknowledged the force of my argument. Others have criticized the book, but none of the criticism so far has been substantive. No one has yet been able to point to a flaw in my basic argument. No one has so far refuted my conclusion.

According to the theory of modern genetistists, genetic mutations occurred in single cell life forms to produce more complex life forms. We now know this is not possible, because mutations have been found to delete information from the genetic code, never add to it. Mutations are almost universally destructive.

Richard Darkens, the most outspoken Darwinist in Great Britain, when asked to name one single example of mutation creating new information, he could not do so.

Michael Denton, an Australian microbiologist wrote a book Evolution, A Theory in Crisis. He attempted to ascertain proof of evolutionary sequence on a molecular level. He studied cytochrome C, a protein involved in creating cellular energy and found that the sequence, or lack thereof, showed amphibians are as distant from fish as mammals are. After having studied this and other cellular structures Dr. Denton said, Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms to which the evolution of a cell might have occurred, molecular biology has only served to emphasize the enormity of the gap. No living system can be thought of being ancestral to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth. The system of nature conforms fundamentally to a highly ordered hierarchal scheme from which all direct evidence for evolution is emphatically absent.

Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University has written a book called Darwins Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Behe points out that the human body has chemical systems that are so incredibly complex that it is impossible for them to have evolved step by step. He termed the process irreducible complexityi.e. blood clotting involves numerous proteins which have no other function other than clotting. Each protein depends on a certain enzyme to activate it. His question is which evolved first, the protein or the activating enzyme? It cant be the protein, because the protein cannot function without the enzyme switching on, but why would the activating enzyme evolve first, because without the protein, it serves no purpose. In other words, the system is irreducibly complex. The same theory can be applied to the human immune and vision systems. His conclusion is that the human body gives strong evidence of intelligent design. This is simply a refutation of something coming about by accident or by chance.

The basic problem is that scientists are afraid of peer ridicule and possible loss of tenure.

Sidney University anthropologist, Dr. Michael Walker stated, one is forced to conclude that many scientists pay lip service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a creator from yet another area of material phenomena, and not because it has been [empirical] in establishing the cannons of research in life sciences and earth sciences.

Then there is the curious story of Dr. Jack Cuozzo, author of Buried Alive who uncovered fraud in European museums relating to the Neanderthal skulls on and off exhibit.

Excerpted from http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/neanderthal.html

In August of 1979 in the Musee de l Homme lab in France, Dr. Jack Cuozzo examined many of the Neanderthal remains. He compared the actual fossils to the pictures and diagrams published of them. Upon examining the Neanderthal child labeled "Pech de lAze", and comparing them to diagrams in the book "Neanderthal Centenary", Dr. Cuozzo realized a horrible mistake had been made.

"On the next page there was an illustration of this skull, with what appeared to be the lower jaw out of joint. This was not a photograph, it was only a drawing. Nevertheless, it was supposed to represent the real relationships of the lower jaw to the upper jaw and the skull"

However the jaw "fit perfectly together in the sockets when the teeth were in this maximum centric occlusion position. It didnt look like the drawing at all!"

Cuozzo goes on to say that when you align the jaw and the skull correctly you see a "new non-ape-like position of the lower jaw."

Maybe this was one isolated incident of where diagrams had been doctored to fit the theory of evolution. Maybe it was an honest mistake.

- Or maybe not.

This put Dr. Cuozzo in a delicate position. He could either ignore what he had found, and go along with the notion that Neanderthal was ape-like, or he could challenge this popular notion and reveal the truth about the Neanderthal remains.

This internal struggle is best summed up with Dr. Cuozzos words:

"I knew that if I placed the lower jaw where it should be, that this would be a major clash with E. Pattes reconstruction and evolutionary theory.. This would be a shock for everyone in the department of human paleontology, in France, and eventually in the world."

To verify that the jaw had been manipulated into a different position in the book, Dr. Cuozzo tried several times to "make it fit" like shown in the picture. He could not. When he realigned the jaw to where it should have been in the first place. It fit so perfectly and so easily that there is no excuse for it ever having been wrong in the first place. Why was this mistake allowed to persist for so long?

Was this the only time a Neanderthal jaw was manipulated to fit the evolutionists preconceived idea that the jaw was ape-like? No.

Dr. Cuozzo adds:

"The exact same thing happened with the famous La Chapelle-aux-Saints skull and jaws." What effect did this change have? The manipulation totally changed the interpretation of the skull...

"This was also a new non-ape position for the lower jaw. With the jaw in the correct position it was clear that Neanderthal was not an ape man....

Evolutionists wish very much that there was an evolutionary progression from Neanderthal to Homo sapiens (us). But the truth is, there is not. In fact modern Homo sapiens have been found in layers below those of the Neanderthal fossils. Evolutionists now say this is because Neanderthal man and Homo sapiens lived at the same time. I would agree with this. But I would add that the reason they both lived at the same time is that they are both humans. Neanderthal man is 100 % fully human just like we are today.

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), July 26, 2000.

Sorry, but I cannot resist bringing in our own US genius who's stated goal is to publish his mathematical theory on god and soul.

This one is too delicuious to ignore...

http://www.abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/2020_000713_IQ_feature.html

Chris Langan does not claim to be the smartest person in the United States, but he concedes he is certainly one of them. 20/20 asked neuropsychologist Bob Novelly to give Langan an IQ test. For two hours, Langan sat in a room solving problems and puzzles. Novelly was astounded by the results. In 25 years of testing, the doctor had never seen a score so high. The results were literally off the charts, Langans IQ could not even be measured by the test. Some comparisons can help put Langans intelligence in perspective. Past measurements of his IQ have been as high as 195  a score on that level occurs only once in every 100 million people. Most individuals have scores in the 90 to 109 range. College grads average 120, and Mensa, the club for geniuses, requires 132 or better. If offered the chance to do anything he wished, Langan says he would like to make a living by trying to solve the mysteries of the universe. For some time, hes worked on an ambitious book on the subject. He describes it as a bridge between mathematics and science on the one hand, and theology and the humanities on the other. For the many seeking a millennial synthesis of human spiritual and intellectual progress, it will be just what the doctor ordered, he adds. Hes almost finished with the tome, titled 'Design for a Universe', and hopes to find a publisher for it soon.

Watch out, you diehard evolutionists. Goo goo, gah gah...only about 1 out of about 1,000 will be able to even read it and comprehend... (of course, I could be wrong in the numbers, either way) ooops!

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), July 26, 2000.

>>What good does it do to tell us that the theory of evolution is flawed because Flint's presentation of it is flawed, or his characterization of creationists is flawed? This only tells us your views about Flint, not about creationism or evolution.<<

Brian,

Answering your question as posed: You are correct; it is irrelevant. But I was not attempting to say that evolution is flawed, except in response to assertions that it is incontravertably The Truth. I was addressing Flint's use of *the same* tactics for which he criticized creationists, to condemn them! And does he cite as his source a creationist web site? No, he asks us to accept an evolutionist's characterization of creationist arguments. That is a level of hypocrisy I find astonishing. I am especially fond of his charges of political maneuverings, dishonesty and fraud, because, in the *public* record, these characterize evolutionist behavior.

A question for you: Way back up there, you answered one of OR's points on C14 dating thus:

>>- The facts you refer to in regard to the reliability of carbon 14 dating are facts that can be subjected to scientific scrutiny and proved or disproved. The chances are that the very weaknesses you find so important were discovered and reported by scientists. Without the aid of these scientists (and their openness and honesty) or the tool of the scientific method, what are the chances you would know about the weaknesses in carbon 14 dating?<<

which I find to be somewhat vague. Your "answer" is that we should simply put our *faith* in evolutionary science. (Ignore the man behind the curtain.) I have never heard *any* explanation which addresses the shortcomings of radiometric dating that OR has presented. And neither you nor Flint have come up with anything better than: "Just accept it. Don't question it. *They* must know what they're doing." Perhaps you could provide a more compelling explanation?

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), July 27, 2000.

LBO Grise,

I see you neglected to address my plain and simple request that you share with us your positive arguments in favor of creationism, either in this thread or in another that you start.

You continue exclusively to attack presumed weaknesses in the theory of the evolution of species, as if this constitutes an argument for creationism. It doesn't. It merely argues in favor of modifying or strengthening the theory of evolution.

Your comments about carbon 14 dating is a case in point. As I said before, the theory of the evolution of species does not require the technique of carbon 14 dating in order to be correct. All carbon 14 dating does is to augment stratigraphic evidence.

Imagine the Grand Canyon. You are searching the canyon walls for exposed fossils. You find two. One is in a layer that you can identify as Layer A. It occurs on both sides of the canyon and extends visibly for miles. The other you find in Layer B. This layer is also very easy to trace for miles. Layer A is above Layer B.

Is it not reasonable to suggest that the fossil you found embedded in a Layer A was deposited earlier than the fossil in Layer B?

This sort of information was carefully collected and correlated for over a century vefore carbon 14 dating was developed. This information is available for the vast majority of fossils. On the other hand, carbon 14 dating is only rarely available for any particular fossil.

As for your comment:

>> "Just accept it. Don't question it. *They* must know what they're doing." <<

First, to address the form of your comment. I am mildy offended by the quotation marks you put around something you said, while leaving the impression that I said it. That is worse than sloppy. It is an essentially dishonest rhetorical device, and one you not tolerate in others, let alone chose to employ yourself.

Now to address the substance of your comment. I did not say that. I did not imply that. I do not believe that and I do not ask others to believe it. You have, in fact, turned my point upside down and projected the opposite meaning onto it. I guess my words must have been awfully "vague" to allow this to happen. Let me try again.

Science is a highly open process for anyone who cares to find and read the literature. Scientists ar required to publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals, or their findings are simply left out of account by their peers as if they never happened. There is a paper trail for everything scientists accept, including all the relevant data to back them up.

Offhand, I can think of two possible reasons why you have never heard "*any* explanation which addresses the shortcomings of radiometric dating that OR has presented." One is that you haven't searched the literature. For that matter, neither have I.

The more important reason is the more probable and are borne out by my reading: these shortcomings are well known by the scientists who use carbon 14 dating. The margins of error for this technique have always been described as rather broad. However, when the only tool you have to do a job is an ugly, poorly calibrated tool, you use it. You use it mindful that the results will not be all you could wish. You do not try to hide the fact that the results are ugly and hacked up and barely functional. You honestly admit that they are so.

This is what scientists do. They print this admission openly in their journals. They discuss it among themselves. They explain it patiently to the newspaper reporters who write the stories that the general public reads. But they have no control over what gets said about their findings in newspapers and on tv, where all these nuances are largely ignored.

Nothing has to be taken on faith in science, LBO. It is up to you and to OR to prove that scientists are recklessly disregarding the sloppy range of accuracy of carbon 14 results by attaching an importance to them that they cannot uphold.

But it is downright silly to act as if carbon 14 dating were the rock upon which Darwin built his theory. Take it away completely and nothing comes crashing down except a few bits of nuanced information about the fossil record. Take that information away and what remains is still massive and incontrovertible. Species evolve from earlier species.

So, instead of carping about the shortcomings of the carbon 14 dating technique, how's about telling us your positive arguments in favor of creationism? (With evidence, if you please.)

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 27, 2000.

>> Is it not reasonable to suggest that the fossil you found embedded in a Layer A was deposited earlier than the fossil in Layer B? <<

Silly me. Misspoke myself. If A is above B, then it was deposited later, obviously.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 27, 2000.

Condense this whole thing as follows and you have both sides. Flint is correct. LBO is just another of the "rear guard defense team" members.

And this knowledge is more than some people can accept -- it requires a sense of humility beyond the capacity of some egos to absorb. So for nearly 150 years, an ever-shrinking but still vocal group has been in full-blown denial, trying every tactic they can dream up to turn back the clock, to make what we've learned somehow go away, to restore the one illusion they cannot live without. And as always before, it's not working. The real world is what it is, and we can't spit the apple back out. -- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 25, 2000.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 27, 2000.

Brian,

Sorry, my time is limited right now. I took your suggestion under advisement for the moment. Pardon me for not saying so.

[Aside to Flint: I see I misspelled "incontrovertibly." Don't hold it against me.]

You are, however, reading more "attack" into my post to you than is there. (Or, at least, is meant to be there.) My first paragraph is an explanation of my motive for responding to Flint in the first place: Evolutionists' methods of criticism of creationists, not about evolution. The second paragraph is simply a question to you. I used double quotation marks in this case to indicate my interpretation of your answer. You will notice I use >> << for quotations. Perhaps you use a different convention.

Here are your words the second time around.

>>One is that you haven't searched the literature. For that matter, neither have I. <<

Maybe it's just me, but when I'm asked a question, I don't respond by saying "Well, I don't know, but so-and-so knows the answer." and leave it at that. I asked if *you* had a clue, not what you suppose the scientific community has resolved about the method. I believe your words above answer that.

>>Nothing has to be taken on faith in science.<<

Well, I try to keep up, but, honestly, I'm not an expert in all fields of study. How about you? I'm not discounting the scientific method, but as laymen, we *all* place a measure of faith in the facts we are told *but cannot research for ourselves.*

Finally, Brian, you will discover that I have not claimed that C14 dating is any sort of linchpin for evolution.

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), July 27, 2000.

The-End-Of-This-Malarky

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003ZOY

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 27, 2000.

LIN K

The Local and Global Entropy Effects of Living Organisms According to creationists, the entropy of highly complex and organized configurations must be lower than the entropy of less complex, less organized ones. Clearly, if one cell is a highly complex, highly organized configuration in its own right, then surely an assemblage of, say, several trillion or so such cells should exceed the complexity of its individual cells by a factor of trillions, or so. This being the case, the entropy inventory of the assemblage must therefore be far, far below that of any of the individuals that make up the assemblage. That this is definitely not the case, follows from the well-known fact that entropy, like energy, is an extensive thermodynamic property, which means that the entropy of n cells should be roughly n times the entropy of each individual cell. In the case of our example, the assemblage should have an entropy inventory that is several trillions of times larger than that of each individual cell.  In other words, the entropy inventory does not go down with size, as the creationists complexity arguments would imply; rather it increases roughly in proportion to the number of individuals contained in the assemblage! There is no hint in the creationist literature that their thermodynamicists have addressed this seeming contradiction, which derives from the extensive nature of such thermodynamic properties as energy, entropy, enthalpy, Gibbs free energy, and many more. Now for the last idea of this article, which may prove the most interesting  of all. Were I a physiologist, I might explore this line of argument with more verve. As it is, I shall content myself to merely rough out the basic ideas. In the past, opponents have noted, quite correctly, that local entropy decreases  such as may be due to an evolving community of complex organisms  need not be regarded as violations of the second law. As long as entropy increases elsewhere overwhelm any local decreases, the entropy of the universe overall would go up, so that no violation of the second law need be considered. Rather than rehash those kinds of closed system vs open systems arguments yet again, I prefer to consider a more aggressive frontal attack on the creationists basic claim. Why take seriously their unproven, bald assertions that evolution to a more complex form implies a local reduction in entropy? They have asserted it, to be sure, but have never provided a quantitative calculation of any sort to support it, and I, for one, see no reason to take any part of it seriously.   In fact, I suspect that no living organism, whether alone or in an evolving community, is capable of lowering any overall entropy inventory  local or otherwise  under any circumstances. This may seem a bit bold, but the chain of reasoning is rather simple at least in outline, if not in detail. In every living organism, even those at rest, every cell has countless thousands, perhaps millions or billions, of irreversible processes going on inside. These are needed just to maintain a status quo. Some digestive processes would  be going on, as would some respiratory processes and so on.  (This is where knowledge of physiology would be handy, because I am not sure how many processes might be going on at any time, how rapidly their rates, or how irreversible each of them would be.) But the point is this, every one of them must be spontaneous, otherwise they could not proceed spontaneously without violating the second law of classical thermodynamics. But if they are proceeding spontaneously, as they surely must, then each of them must be churning out entropy at a net positive rate, as the second law dictates. And the more irreversible and rapid the ongoing process, the greater is the net rate of entropy production. Adding up over all the millions of such microscopic processes going on in each cell and then again over all the cells in the organism, we come to a startling realization: every organism even at rest must be continually generating incredible amounts of entropy inside its own cells and hence inside its own body. Moreover this must be going in every living organism, every second of every day of its life. Hence, the local environment  the one in which the biosphere is itself embedded  must truly be bubbling over, so to speak, with excess entropy being generated from within. And where is the local reduction in entropy to overcome all this  the one that creationists insist can not be adequately compensated  for? The burden is on them to not only prove that their claimed local decrease actually takes place, but also that its magnitude is sufficient to overwhelm all that bubbling forth from inside all the organisms that make up any local ecology. Im convinced they cant do it, for the simple reason that its just nowhere to be found. If every living organism continually churns out substantially more entropy than it consumes  as in backward running internal processes, say  then we are assured that the second law is conformed to by every organism every second it is alive. This assures us that every living  community must also be in conformance, whether evolution by natural selection is going on or not.  In other words it doesnt matter one bit how natural selection may be pruning the gene pools at any given time. The internal processes required to sustain life from minute to minute automatically guarantee that all life will, individually and collectively, will conform to the second law, no matter what kinds of weird new species may evolve from the old.   References:  1 Robbins, John W., The Hoax of Scientific Creationism, The Trinity Review, July/August 1987 issue.  The Trinity Foundation, P.O. Box 169, Jefferson,  MD 21755.   2 Patterson, John W., Thermodynamics and Probability," in Evolutionists Confront Creationists,  pages 132-150. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Vol 1, Part 3,  April 30th 1983; Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, c/o California Academy of Science, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, CA.  ( 2, 4-9) ( 2,4)  3 Anonymous.  21 Scientists Who Believe In Creation. (Pamphlet), Creation-Life Publisher, San Diego, CA; 1977.   4 Patterson, John W., Thermodynamics and Evolution, Chapter 6 in Scientists Confront Creationists, Laurie Godfrey, ed.;W. W. Norton and Co., NY, 1983.  ( 2, 4-9) ( 2,4)  5 Bronowski, Jacob, New Concepts in the Evolution of Complexity, Zygon, Vol 5, pages 18-35, 1970. ( 2, 4-9)  6 Cramer, J.A., General Evolution and the Second Law  of Thermodynamics, in Origins and Shape, D. L. Willis, ed., American Scientific Affiliation, Elgin, IL, 1978.  ( 2, 4-9)  7 Freske, S., Creationist Misunderstanding, Misrepresentation, and Misuse of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Creation/Evolution, page 8, Issue IV (Spring), 1981.  ( 2, 4-9)   8 Patterson, John W., An Engineer Looks at the Creation Movement, Iowa Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol 89,  no. 2, page 55, 1982.  ( 2, 4-9)  9 Franzen, H. F., Thermodynamics: The Red Herring, Chapter 9 in Did the Devil Make Darwin Do It?, D. B. Wilson, ed., Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 1983.  ( 2, 4-9)   10 Morris, Henry M. and Whitcomb, John C., The Genesis Flood, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, PA, 1961.  ( 10-14)  11 Morris, Henry M., Scientific Creationism, (Public School Edition) Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, CA, 1974.  ( 10-14)  12 Morris, Henry M., The Scientific Case for Creationism, Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, CA 1977.  ( 10-14)  13 Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI 1982.  ( 10-14)   14 Weinberg, Stan, Reviews of Thirty-One Creationist Books, National Center for Science Education, Berkeley, Ca, 1984. ( 10-14)  15 Asimov I. and Schulman, J. A., Isaac Asimovs Book of Science and Nature Quotations,  page 76, # 21.9, Weidenfeld and Nicolson Publishers, NY, 1988.   16 Johnson, George, Researchers on Complexity Ponder What It's All About, page B9, New York Times, Tuesday, May 6th 1997.   17 Mahan, Bruce H., College Chemistry, pages 288-289, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA 1966.     Dr. Patterson is Professor Emeritus of Materials Science and Engineering at Iowa State University at Ames. Science Citation Index has designated one of his thermodynamics- associated papers as a Classic most cited in its area. A formidable debater against the creationists most notorious platform artists, he has never hidden his Atheism and has always made it clear that he disagrees with the notion that there is no contradiction between science and religion.

  LIN K

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 27, 2000.