Creation: Gotta Be This or That?
On May 9th, 2007 actor-turned-evangelical Kirk Cameron and minister Ray Comfort (both of Way of the Master fame) debated atheistic members of the Rational Response Squad on an episode of ABC Nightline. Cameron stated that in his opinion, “the number one reason…people don’t believe in the existence of God is because of evolution.”
Cameron and his partner, Ray Comfort, then went on to attack what they felt were the major flaws of the theory of evolution. Their complete lack of knowledge regarding evolutionary theories aside, it is important to note that although they voice problems with evolution, they did not provide any separate, positive evidence for creationism—at least, no evidence more complex than the “creation-proves-a-creator” gem. I would have been more interested to see some carbon dating that proves the earth is only 6000 years old, or fossil records which clearly show no change between early and later forms–or even a talking snake. Perhaps Cameron and Comfort hoped that if they simply poked enough holes in the evolutionary theory, their viewers would automatically fall back on creationism as stated in the bible.
But one would have to be terribly myopic to assume that if evolution were proven false, creationism must be true by default. Here are just a few of the non-Christian alternatives to Darwinian evolution.
Orthogenesis
Orthogenesis is the theory that members of an evolutionary series become increasingly changed in a single direction which does not deviate. This is usually thought to happen because of some internal or external “driving force.”
Gaia Hypotheses
First suggested in a scientific paper by J.E. Lovelock in 1965, the Gaia hypothesis states that the earth is a living being that began transforming the planet into its own substance about one billion years after its formation.
Interference by Extraterrestrials
This is the idea that aliens (mistaken for gods by primitive human beings) deliberately created all life in earth. This is the point of view held by followers of the Raelian Movement. (rael.org)
Various Creation Stories from other Cultures/ Religions
The ancient Egyptians believed men were created from the tears of Ra. The Wakaranga people (of what is today Zimbabwe) told stories of Moon making love to Eveningstar, thus producing men and women. According to Japanese Shinto mythology, in the beginning there was one chaotic mass, like an egg or a thick cloud, which eventually separated to form heaven and earth. Why should a talking snake and a magical garden be taken more seriously than these stories?
Another, Currently Unknown Theory
Theists are always telling me that there are many things we don’t know about our universe. I couldn’t agree more—so why not wait and see what else science comes up with? We may not have all the answers now; that doesn’t mean we won’t have MORE answers somewhere down the line.
Please note, I am not condoning or condemning these alternate theories and ideas; only pointing out that Christian creationism isn’t the only game in town.
Although I can’t speak for every atheist, I can safely say that I did not lose my faith in God because of the theory of evolution. If evolution were to go away, I wouldn’t go back to being religious. I, like most skeptics, would simply continue to research the mystery of our origins until such times as another valid possibility could be established. I’d rather say “I don’t know,” than “I don’t know–so I guess I’ll go with this other, completely unsubstantiated claim.”
Sources:
- Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off
- Gaia Hypothesis
- From Myth to 21st Century science
- Index to Creationist Claims
- Shinto Creation Stories
You should follow us on twitter.
Thats an interesting line of logic… So you are saying that because kirk cameron didn’t produce any positive evidence for a young earth creation that there is no evidence? Are you saying that the theory of evolution being taught to christian children when they are babies in elementary school aren’t going to be lead to believe that God doesn’t exist after hearing that all their life? The problem is that there is also no positive evidence to support evolution, (i know, you think tats absurd) but yet it is taught in public schools with tax money support taken from people who don’t believe it. The idea that evolution didn’t happen and that the bible is accurate in its chronology, sound like complete nonsense because since you were a baby you were told things like, carbon dating proves that the world is millions of years old.. you may have been told that human beings have vestigial organs and therefor these are evidence for evolution.. Name one organ that has no apparent use. You may have been told that ice core samples are evidence for millions of years because of the many annual rings. Text books today tell kids that beneficial mutations are the mechanism for evolution and then proceed to give only examples of bad mutations… You people need to wake up. The reason that evolution is taught in school when your a baby and its on tv and in the museums etc. is not because it is a fact or even close to being a fact. All the so-called evidence for evolution does not work in the real world (maybe you can challenge me with your best one piece of evidence for evolution). The geological column doesn’t exist in reality, only on paper. A true scientist needs to try and be critical of every claim and the same holds true with the theory of evolution and millions of years.
Of course the scientists don’t have all the answers now, but the implication in your article is that so far all the evidence points toward evolution and as long as it does we will believe it. However i believe that you can show me any so called evidence for evolution or long ages and it can be shown to be not actually evidence. The only reason that there is lots of “evidence” for evolution is because the theory is being propped up by tax dollars. The public is getting misinformation on this subject. Thats just my opinion but you might even agree that the theory of evolution is not generally believed by most people in the nation.
And by the way, what exactly would a fossil record that doesn’t show change from earlier to later forms look like? uhh… the same thing. Do you mean that if someone can dig up fossils and arrange them in a certain way this is evidence for evolution. I could just imagine the atheists digging up the bones of dogs in the future and arranging them from the poodle to the wolf and say that “this is evidence that the poodle is changing to a wolf.” You can see how the faulty logic just doesn’t work in the real world. Im sure you think i’m a nut job tho so lets debate.
Oy…our views are so far apart on this, I think debating it will only frustrate me. But I’m fired up now, so I’ll give it a go.
You have completely missed the point of my article. How carefully did you read it? Did you just skim through and then come back with the usual anti-evolution tirade? Yes, I did say that Kirk Cameron presented no evidence for Creationism—I never said that this means that NO EVIDENCE EXISTS. It’s worth noting, however, that Cameron went beyond not providing evidence for creation—he also showed, through his debating (i.e. “the crocoduck”) that he has NO IDEA how evolution works, and this discredits him completely. How can he argue that evolution doesn’t work, when his arguments have nothing to do with how evolution actually works? However, the original point I WAS making was that while Cameron attempted to tear down evolution, he took no additional step to present evidence for creation or a young earth. He did not, for example, provide evidence that the earth is only 6,000-8,000 years old. This does not mean that no evidence exists, but it does imply that Cameron believes that by tearing down evolution, creation wins by default. This is false reasoning, pure and simple—and that was my point in this article.
You say that Americans are taught “as babies” about carbon dating, vestal organs, etc. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Yes, I do remember learning a little about evolution as kid, and yes, I went to Natural History Museums, but I learned only the barest minimal, and I certainly didn’t learn any of this as a baby or toddler. On the other hand, I went to church EVERY SUNDAY since I was old enough to walk, and even took additional Catechism classes each week. My mom taught Sunday school. My point is, if ONE THING WAS FED TO ME OVER AND OVER AGAIN as a child, it was Christianity. Evolution was never denied in my house, but the suggestion that I—along with most Americans—have been brainwashed to accept evolution is absurd. Christianity, on the other hand, is fed to most of us long before we were old enough to understand or examine it critically.
The fact is, I have absolutely no emotional tie to evolution. None. If it turns out that the entire theory of evolution is false, I won’t shed any tears. You might claim that I have emotional ties to evolution, because it fulfills a need to know how the world came to be without God. You’d be wrong. Evolution and God are two separate things. I don’t think one necessarily disproves the other, nor do I think that if one turns out to be false, the other must therefore be true. If evolution is one day discredited, it will not make me a believer in creation by default. Creation would have to prove its case separately.
One of my favorite scientists, Ken Miller, a Catholic and an evolution scientist, has said, “I believe in a designer, but I don’t believe in a deceptive one. I don’t believe in one…who would try to fool us.” He was referring to the mass amounts of evidence for evolution…even though he believes in a god, he is too much of a scientist to ignore or explain away scientific evidence, as creationists have done.
Evolution isn’t about one piece of evidence; it is a massive field of study that can take years to master. If you’re looking to do some research, I will direct you to Talk Origins. It is a comprehensive evolution website, and answers many of the claims you presented here. It discusses vestigial organs http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html, beneficial mutations http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html, and the “nonexistent” geological column http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD101.html.
Ask yourself honestly if you really want the truth, or if you’d rather go on believing myths because they fulfill some need for comfort. And if you truly do think creation is true, don’t bash evolution—present evidence for creation, and the truth will speak for itself. If you have some good sources on creation, feel free to pass them along. I am always open to learning more on the subject.
Sara
Sara, thank you for your thorough response. I just want to start by saying that it is a delight for me to discuss this topic, so at no point feel that I am getting offended or emotional about your responses. At the conclusion of your response you challenged me to truly decide if i want to seek out truth. I don’t want to believe a lie. I feel that it’s an important question to ask myself if i am willing to surrender to the truth. I will promise to be humbly defeated if i lose the debate. I will also at that point stop believe bible myths.
Did I miss the point? I think i understood the point the first time thru, but i also feel like i understand better after the refresher… You say his debating shows that he has no knowledge of evolution. I would contend that the reason he comes across ignorant might just be because he doesn’t believe evolution happened. This is why he goes on to give reasons he doesn’t believe evolution. You make the statement “you cannot show how something doesn’t work without first understanding how it works.” I don’t think i understand how one who is looking at something that doesn’t work can understand how it works. Do you see how that, well… doesn’t work. You are absolutely correct to say that evolution and creation are to independent ideas and therefore must have positive evidence. But theres no point in showing evidence for creation so long as one believes in evolution. We are all looking at the SAME evidence both creationists and evolutionists. The question then becomes the interpretation of that evidence. Creation and evolution as far as i can tell are two different world views that both interpret the same evidence in different ways. This means that the “evidence” cannot be looked at as, “one pile of evidence on this side for the evolutionist and one pile on the other for the creationist.” Therefore instead of providing evidence for creation, i will talk about the evidence for evolution and deal with the different ways that it can be interpreted.
Before doing this however, i want to respond to your paragraph about your background. its good to know our backgrounds because these will help determine both of our biases. When i was a child i went to private christian school as a 7th day adventist christian. Growing up, i myself became a 7th day adventist christian in my own life. Which brings me to my first point. Obviously i am going to struggle with bias (so you have permission to keep me in line), but you must understand that there is a vast difference between the Catholic christianity and my christianity. You may know that there are many versions of christianity. The main difference between our two versions is that my version seeks to be biblical on all points, i.e. the bible is the master over the religion. The Catholics however use the bible as one of many important documents, that, is not necessarily always true (according to them). You may recognize this in the fact that the early catholic church was so adamant about keeping to bible out of the hands of the public that they actually punished people for having it or reading it (please note that im not trying to bash catholics, but im not shy to say the religion was never based on the bible, and they admit it). Im not going to say much more here about the differences between adventist and catholics but hopefully this will help us understand each other. We/I believe the bible has a unique ability to validate its own authenticity, im not going to get into this however, unless you ask.
Now, your response covered many points so it is impossible to cover them all at once. We will start with the vestigial organs and move on from there.
It appears that we are observing the evidence of organs that have no apparent use or at least can be done better. The interpretation is that this is a trace of something left behind. furthermore the link describes the reasons this dis agrees with creationism. I believe genetics has the answer. We know for a fact that animals that can breed together and produce offspring are able to make different offspring. eventually a fish can come out without functional eyes. The genes for eyes are always present in fish, but in the case of the cave fish, the genes that produce eyes are expressed differently in order to adapt to its environment. The designer argument doesn’t mean that every expression of the genes was part of gods design. Just like God didn’t create every variety of dog, he simply created the dog. And the dog has all the genes necessary to produce offspring that live in a variety of circumstances and environments. Note that the cave fish is still a fish. To say that it is turning into something else or that it came from something other than a fish is pure imagination, and is a “interpretation of the evidence” not “evidence.” It is a fish and today we have many varieties of fish. The same as how white people and black people are not in different stages of evolution, but they are two different gene expressions of skin that are well suited for the environment we are in. The skin of the negro is better suited for the intense sun and the skin of whites is better suited for cold. I live in southern california and every summer i practically turn black form the sun (that was a joke, tho not far from the truth).
I think it is a subtle misstep to say that “a vestige is a trace of something left behind” as if it were a fact. This is not a fact but an interpretation about a fact. I agree that it is “irrelevant if vestiges have functions.” But the reason i ask for an example of a vestigial organ is because we must be careful that fable is not being pawned off as fact as to what these weird organs mean. The bible is not in any kind of conflict with “useless”, or not so well used, organs because in the creation, God didn’t need to make black people and white people, or the cave fish and open water fish and deep sea fish, etc.. It is only necessary to begin with any given kind. All the genetic information to produce the variety in any given kind of animal is there in the original. All the observation shows us that a fish will produce fish offspring and a dog a dog..etc… To say that a strange gene expression means something is changing into a different kind of animal is where i have a problem. All the genetic research shows that natural selection reduces genetic complexity (i.e. an eye that doesn’t work, a toe that doesn’t work etc..). Anytime an animal is selectively chosen (by nature or human intervention) to alter the gene expression, all that happens is that, a gene, that was in the original animal in creation, is shut off, or back on. Every new combination will yield a different characteristic without adding any information. i.e. One can never breed dogs that have feathers because there is no gene for feathers in a dog. Sure genes can be shut off or perhaps lost in late generations but one cannot say that we lost things and thats how we got everything.
Im having trouble believing that a “vestigial organ” is evidence for evolution because it doesn’t explain how we got everything. It seems to only explain that we can loose the use of things.
The fact that there are vestiges, is not a good argument for evolution and it is also not a good argument against creation. in fact the creation scenario as described in the bible, can account for the idea that some things change (i.e. the thorns and thistles that appear after the fall of man into sin). Today we know that a thorn is a result of a gene being flipped upside down. Instead of the leaf gene unfolding the leaf as it grows, the gene causes the leaf to fold on itself and the end of the leaf dries and hardens into a thorn. This makes that plant more suitable for dry weather. God didn’t “design” thorns, but his design allows for plants to survive thru a variety of conditions.
You can hopefully see how the vestiges argument is bad for evolution, because it doesn’t help explain it, and good for creation, because it shows that the bible is correct in saying that plants and animals can change. Vestiges however cannot prove or disprove evolution or creation, but only, support or not support. In this case i will contend that vestiges are better for creation than evolution.
Thanks again for your response, you can see why its hard to cover all your points in one post. Its getting a little long so i’ll let you respond. thanks
I also enjoy discussing this topic…although this is such a complicated topic, it’s hard to cover everything in these posts. But like you, I enjoy debating it, and like you, I do want to know the truth. I am no expert on evolution, but I am continuously learning more, and I am continuously researching claims made by creationists, as well. As I have said before, I have no emotional ties to evolution. If I ever find the claims of evolution to be faulty, I will abandon it in a heartbeat. This wouldn’t make me automatically accept creation or god, (that would take additional evidence) but as always, I’m open.
As for Kirk Cameron, I was discussing the Nightline debate, during which he pulled out a picture of a “crocoduck” (a half crocodile, a half duck creature) and proclaimed that unless we find creatures like this (half one thing, half another thing) evolution is false. As I said, this discredits him completely, because evolution doesn’t work that way. There’s no way we’d ever find something like that, and if we do, it would show that we are totally wrong about evolution, anyway. You say that one can’t look at something that doesn’t work and fail to understand how it works. I say, you can look at how something is CLAIMED to work by its proponents, and that’s what you have to address. Similarly, if I’m going to say that I don’t believe in Christianity, I have to address the specific claims being made by Christians. I can’t make up my own ridiculous version of Christianity and argue against that. If I said that because we don’t see children born with wings, like angels, Christianity must be false, you would (rightly) say, “What the hell? That has nothing to do with how Christianity works!” Yes, Kirk doesn’t believe in evolution, but based on his arguing, he has NO IDEA OF HOW SCIENTISTS DEFINE EVOLUTION , nor of what evidence of evolution would look like. One does not have to be a biologist to disprove evolution, but you need to at least have a basic understanding of the claims before you call it out completely. I suspect that Kirk, like many creationists, has an idea in his head of what evolution is, and spends a lot of time trying to disprove the imaginary, straw-man evolution that he’s invented himself.
About my background, I agree with and acknowledge the differences in our Christian upbringing. And yes, this may have biased me…I never realized I had to take the bible as literal history…but the point I wanted to make originally was that I was still spoonfed the central Jesus story since I was old enough to talk, and spent much more time in church than I ever spent learning about evolution. In fact, I don’t remember learning much about evolution at all as a child. Sure, I got some basics, but overall, I learned MUCH more about Christianity. I’m willing to bet that most Christian Americans end up in church at a very early age, and also in additional Christian classes. You mentioned that you were raised Christian and went to a private Christian school. So it tends to bug me when Christians claim that American children are being force fed evolution. If there’s one thing American children are being force-fed at an early age, it’s religion. I think it’s worth noting here that the first time I was ever told that evolution wasn’t a valid science, I was about 19 and still a believer in god. I wondered if evolution was like, well, like the story of George Washington chopping down a cherry tree—a nice story, but ultimately, a myth. However, I did some research and came away relatively convinced that evolution was as valid as any field of science. And again, this was due to adult research, not anything I’d learned as a kid.
This is already getting way long, but I need to talk about the vestigial organs. I understand what you’re saying there—essentially, I believe you are saying vestigial organs are likely the result of minor changes that occur within a species, but that this doesn’t prove conclusively that one species can change to another. I don’t agree that vestigial organs are “bad” for evolution, but I do agree that vestigial organs are not proof of evolution by themselves—although of course I view them as one piece of a larger puzzle, just as you probably do. The overall argument you’re making here is a common one made by creationists, usually summarized as micro evolution vs. macro evolution. Small changes, i.e. micro evolution, are common, but LARGE changes, such as one thing changing to another, macro evolution, have not been proven. The term “macro evolution is actually a creationist invention; I believe they invented it so they could basically explain away the small changes we witness, and still not have to concede that these small changes lead to bigger changes. But yes, that is how evolution works: small changes add up over many generations so that the animal you see at the end of all those years may be vastly different from the animal that existed all those generations before. Creationists keep saying that they want to see something like a kangaroo giving birth to a lamb—this will NEVER happen. But the small changes (which everyone knows occur) eventually accumulate over time until you have something that can be classified as a different species. It’d be impossible for this NOT to happen. Remember, we humans were the ones who have classified animals into species in the first place—basically, if two animals can reproduce together, they are the same species, and if they can’t reproduce, they are two different species. Given enough time, enough small changes accumulate in offspring so that they would now be unable to reproduce with their the creatures who were their great ancestors many generations before. This is speciation, and it has been observed. There’s no reason to think that the lines between species are impossible to cross; in fact, there’s every reason to believe they can be crossed easily. Here are some examples of new species that have arisen: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
I don’t at all expect that either of us could ever cover all arguments in one post—you’ll never hear me accuse you of not having an argument just because you haven’t at time or space to post it. In fact, this post is getting way too long (I’ve never been good at keeping things short) so I’m going to cut it off here. If we continue this discussion, I’d like to talk more about DNA evidence for evolution, as well as some differences I’ve observed between the methods used by scientists vs. the methods used by creationists.
It’s true, religion gets you when you’re young and impressionable. It’s almost not fair; liking shooting fish in a barrel.
So I don’t think the “kids are force-fed evolution” argument is going to fly here.
I too was caught at an early age and finally started to seriously question it at the age of 25 or so. I learned religion waaaaayyy before I learned science, much less biology and evolution.
Where the rubber meets the road is in the evidence and the weight of the arguments. If i understand correctly you are saying that “micro” evolution extrapolated over a longer period of time is an adequate mechanism for “macro” evolution. I have to confess i object to using the term “evolution” when describing any kind of adaptation because the implication is… as you said… But I’m going to try to make the important point. And that is this… Genetics studies show that “adaptation” or “micro-evolution” is not a sufficient to explain relationships between different kinds of animals. The reason why is because the genetic information in any given animal is sufficient to produce only the same genetic information (in various combinations) in its offspring. For example, it would be fallacious to claim that dinosaurs turned to birds, because a reptile does not have genetic information for feathers. No matter how much you select and rearrange the genetic information of a reptile, it cannot produce a feather because there’s no information for a feather in the genetic code of a reptile.
You bring up speciation… I believe it shows exactly what I’m talking about. A new “species” can come up when there is another rearrangement of the genetic code. But the new “species” does not have any genetic information that’s new when compared to its ancestor… even if they can no longer breed. I object to the word “species” simply for the reason that it makes a distinction sometimes where it is unnecessary. The entire taxonomy in entrenched in the theory of evolution so as to make it a mechanism for classifying living things. When you see the way genetics works (as i described) it becomes clear that the entire classification system used in evolution is not good at showing relationships. Maybe they should base it on genetic research.
I can say that the word “species” and “evolution” are words invented by atheists as well as one can claim that “micro-evolution” is made up by creationists. It’s not bad it just needs to be understood as a interpretation and therefore evaluated based on the science.
Just a passing point too… Not all Christianity is the same. There’s even some “Christians” who believe god guided evolution, and are in good standing at a church… Going to church and singing on Sabbath does not make one a “bible” Christian. Until one reads the bible and understands the claims of the BIBLE, they cannot understand what it says and claims. Thus they cannot believe it, in the proper sense. Remember that even religion contains a huge body of study that deals in history, symbolism, and philosophy, even science. Don’t think that if you study religion it is antithetical to science. I commend anybodies study of evolution, or religion. But to understand religion one also needs to study. This takes independent force of will to find out the claims of the bible its themes its viewpoint on the evidence etc… There’s a lot there and i would encourage you to embark on a study. Don’t stop being skeptical.
It was a pleasure to read. You guys make me think…
Let me start by saying that I also have enjoyed this debate…it’s been a while since I discussed this topic, and I appreciate the fact that I’ve been forced to go back in, do a little additional research, and become even more knowledgeable on the subject of evolution. It’s always good to be forced to defend things you think. When you can defend them, you feel validated—and when you can’t you’ve been shown that it’s time to make a change.
Now, back to the adaptation vs. evolution discussion. You said, “Genetics studies show that “adaptation” or “micro-evolution” is not a sufficient to explain relationships between different kinds of animals. The reason why is because the genetic information in any given animal is sufficient to produce only the same genetic information (in various combinations) in its offspring.”
On this matter, you are simply wrong. Disagreement on the above point is, I believe, the main thing that separates you and me. Until this issue is resolved (and I’m not sure that we will be able to resolve it) we will never agree that either of us has won or lost this debate. This is what it all comes down to: do small changes accumulate enough over time to cause new species to arise? Is the genetic information in one animal sufficient to produce traits of different animal? The answer—according to the evidence—is yes. See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html, and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html .
The study of genetics frequently confirms the similarities between species. Consider what happened when we compared our genome to that of a chimpanzee. Here’s a short video in which scientist Ken Miller (who is also a Catholic) explains genome sequencing: http://bit.ly/a59ZZ Please note what he says at the end: “In the broadest sense I would say I believe in a designer, but you know what—I don’t believe in a deceptive one. I don’t believe in one…who would try to fool us.”
I acknowledge—and have long been aware of—the difference between the different Christian groups out there. Yes, some Christians (like myself, many years ago) believe the central Jesus story, but do not take certain old testament tales, like the creation account in Genesis, to be factual. To them, Genesis might be more of a fable, meant to teach a lesson, but never intended as literal history. I am no longer that type of Christian (obviously, I’m not a Christian at all) but I do understand the mindset, and realize that a person can believe in god and Jesus, but also accept evolution as fact.
On the other hand, there are also Christians who believe all events in the bible should be read as history and literal truth. When I have talked with people who fall into this category, they often say that one must agree that everything in the bible is true—otherwise, none of it can be true. Also, they often insist that Christians who not believe as they do don’t really classify as “true Christians.” You have not come right out and said this, but I wonder, is that how you define a true Christian?
You said that I should not think that religion is antithetical to science. Growing up, I never thought that they were antithetical. I thought (as I stated above) that it was very easy for some to believe many of the claims of Christianity, while still also accepting the scientific facts that could be proven with evidence. It is the biblical-literalists Christians I later met who tried to convince me otherwise—according to them, the creation story in Genesis was fact. And if man was created in one day by God, he couldn’t have evolved into his current form over a long period of time. And if the earth was 6,000 years old, it couldn’t be billions of years old. If those are the specific claims being made, than in that particular case they can’t both be true. Would you agree with that?
The fact is this: what’s true is true, despite anyone’s personal beliefs. If the earth is 6000 years old, the evidence should show that. And it should show it whether or not I am religious. While many, many scientists are atheists, others fall into theist category. As was mentioned before, Ken Miller is a Catholic, and yet he refuses to ignore the evidence for evolution. You might say that Ken Miller is not a biblical literalist; therefore he does not feel the need to interpret evidence in light of scripture. That may be true, but the fact remains: EVOLUTION IS NOT A SOLEY ATHEISTIC PURSUIT. Many theists have also accepted evolution as fact. I admit I can’t name any biblical literalists who accept evolution, but I must ask you this, and I would like an answer: “Can you name one creationist who is NOT a biblical literalist?” Let’s make it even easier: Can you name one person who believes the world is around 6000 years old who is NOT a biblical literalist? As I said, the age of the earth is the age of the earth DESPITE anyone’s personal beliefs. And if the earth is around 6000 years old, as many creationists claim, it stands to reason that there MUST BE SOME SECULAR SCIENTISTS who recognize that the evidence points that way. These guys may not be too familiar with the biblical story of creation, but still, 6000 years is 6000 years. Can you provide even one name of a secular—or at least, non-Christian—scientist who thinks this way? I admit that I don’t expect that you can, but I welcome you to prove me wrong on this one.
My argument is this: the facts of evolution are clear, even to different types of people who believe different things about the existence and/or nature of god. Why is it that creation, on the other hand, appears to only seem obvious to a very specific group of people? I’m NOT SAYING that the majority opinion should determine truth; I’m simply saying that if one can only come to certain conclusions if coming from an extremely specific, biased starting point, the conclusions they reach are questionable. This is how creationism works, but the same is not true for science. Here’s Ken Miller again, explaining what makes something a valid science, and what criteria must be met before any science can be taught in a science classroom: http://bit.ly/9nerOe Creationists have not yet met the established criteria. If biblical literalist Christians have their own interpretation of the scientific method, as well as their own interpretation of evidence, it is only fair that they keep these interpretations in their own churches and private schools. I am not asking you to reject your religious faith—and as I said, I don’t expect us to come to an agreement on the facts of evolution—but I hope you and I can at least agree that evolution belongs in a science class room, and creationism belongs in church.
Just came across this other great video that compares the claims made my creationism and evolution. This covers a few of the things we’ve talked about, i.e the fossil record, vestigal organs, genetic similarities between species, etc. I hope you’ll take a few minutes to check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c&feature=related
That was a very good video. It seems to have covered exactly what we are talking about. The beginning of the video shows the difference between the two “trees” of life correctly. I love this video because he follows a very plain line of logic to test the two theories. It is important to consider the ramifications of both proposed theories.
I will now outline the predictions and findings as outlined in the video so we can see how the science is being analyzed…
The first prediction is that, if evolution is true, the fossil record should show the more simple organisms at depth. If creation is true there should be no stratification i.e. the fossils should be mixed together, humans and dinosaurs, together etc… The science findings show that the complexity is related to the depth of the fossil found. If evolution is true, organisms will have vestiges, i.e. teeth in chickens. If creation is true, chickens should not have the genes for teeth. However findings show that chickens have genes for teeth and humans have genes for tails etc… this would be expected from evolution. If creationism is true there should be a discontinuity between dinosaurs and birds. If there are no major gaps between the transitions it would support evolution. i.e. t-rex has much in common with a bird. It is furthermore not valid to say that Jesus made it that way and therefore that’s why it looks the way it does. Therefore creationism does not fit in the realm of science because the evidence presented does not support it.
I don’t think the findings are exactly what the video says. There are trees that run thru multiple layers of strata and other finding people don’t hear about. http://www.prophecyandtruth.com/evolve2.htm .. Here are human footprints with dinosaur footprints http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm… interesting drawings on stones, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXv2Z6dinSA. The man in your video doesn’t acknowledge there is a debate about this but states that the evidence supports the expectations of evolution. There’s lots on this subject so let me know if you want more. But the point is that lots of evidence out there that conflict with the evolution story.
He makes the statement about vestiges, i.e. teeth in birds and tails on humans… We need to be careful how we interpret the tail on humans.. Everything I’m seeing on the subject seems to say its like a fatty tumor. A “tail” has muscles and bones and is significantly more than a tumor. Sometimes there are mutations in the genetic code, but it is not a genetic throw back or vestige of the past just like any other mutation is not a vestige. But you can note with the “tail” mutation that it is both a bad mutation, and it is a mutation that contains no new information. The birds with teeth doesn’t show a ancestral relationship because there are still vast differences between the fundamental structure of a bird and a lizard, i.e. the heart is completely different, one is cold blooded, feathers, hollow bones, etc. I agree there are some similarities, scales teeth claws (sometimes). But is it enough to classify them as transitional? There are still huge gaps between the two structures without intermediate fossils. I suppose you can make the point that there must be some kind of relationship seeing that different kinds of animals all have bones, blood, teeth, eyes etc. But if you want to look at what is different, there are huge gaps and differences. There are however symbiotic relationships between all life, but this is necessary if you think of the entire collection of life as a single unit that helps each other to live. This idea is not anti-bible or anti creation. Actually one would expect that living things that rely on each other, cannot evolve independently from eachother. I believe there are major gaps between the different kinds of animals as I described with birds and lizards.
On a side note. I think if you take a look at both sides of the argument, one would have to conclude that the evolution establishment is corrupting and filtering evidence for the public, because all the public research money is funneled to evolutionist, and they cannot claim to find evidence for creation because public money cannot go to support religion with a separation of church and state. Unfortunately there’s even politics in science. So I don’t expect the debate about evidence will end anytime soon in this climate.
I also agree that it is not scientific to say Jesus just did it that way but is it scientific to say evolution just did it that way?
hey sara,
Im sorry, i diddent see the response before your last response. thats why i dont respond to any of it. I will look it over and respond
It’s late and I’m tired, but I wanted to address some of the specific claims you made here.
First, the fossilized trees standing vertically. These are known as “polystrate” fossils, and as far as I can tell, they present no problem for conventional geology. In fact, it seems as though these supposed “problems” were answered and solved over 100 years ago. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
You said human footprints have been found with dinosaur footprints. The link you provided led me to the Interactive Bible, but the info has been moved. I searched the site myself and came up with a number of trails, all located near Glen Rose, Texas. These claims have also been refuted over and over again. Even some creationists have conceded that. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html There is a lot of information available on this.
The Ica stones: I did some quick research on these, and found them to be debunked as forgeries. From what I’ve read, the farmer who first brought the stones to Dr. Cabrerra’s attention has admitted to creating them himself. Even if these stones were not forgeries (and even if ancient humans did indeed carve giant lizards onto these stones) this by itself is not enough to refute the approximately sixty-four-million-year gap in the fossil record when there are neither dinosaur nor human fossils. Humans have invented countless magical beasts over the years. Corroborating evidence is still required; in other words, we should expect to find traces of humans and dinosaurs together, or at the very least, we shouldn’t see such a vast separation between them. Until such evidence can be found, the only conclusion a responsible person can reach is that humans and dinosaurs did not coexist. ***As a side note, when I first viewed the Ica stone video, I watched it with the understanding that the stones were genuine, but I was still unimpressed due to the reason I previously stated. However, I did a brief google search to learn more and discovered, by accident, that the stones were likely forgeries. Rather than post yet another link here, I invite you to try googling it for yourself.
Based on the evidence you present here, I have to wonder about your standard of evidence. I don’t mean to be rude, but how could you possibly find the Ica stone video convincing, and ignore the masses of corroborating evidence that supports evolution? You pointed out that the man in the video doesn’t acknowledge the debate on the above issues. He doesn’t do this because there IS NO SERIOUS DEBATE. There are only a few, highly-questionable drops in the bucket against an ocean of evidence—this does not equal a serious debate.
I’m sure there are politics in science, just as there are in any manmade institution. And yes, all humans operate with some degree of bias. This is why the scientific method is so important, however; it is designed to help us circumnavigate human bias so that we have the best chance to arrive at correct conclusions. You said, “one would have to conclude that the evolution establishment is corrupting and filtering evidence for the public, because all the public research money is funneled to evolutionist, and they cannot claim to find evidence for creation because public money cannot go to support religion with a separation of church and state.” Yes, the separation of church and state does keep us from funding and/or teaching religious creation (as it should) but much of what you mentioned above could still be studied from a secular viewpoint, and there’s no reason why it couldn’t. The claim that dinosaurs and humans existed side-by-side, for example, could be a totally secular one. If it’s true, it’s true regardless of anyone’s religious beliefs, or lack thereof. As I mentioned in my other post, the age of the earth is along the same lines. If there are valid reasons to think that dinosaurs and man coexisted, or that the earth is 6000 years old, it stands to reason that these should be visible to non-Christian scientists. If a scientist came forward with fossil evidence stating that dinosaurs and man coexisted, there’s nothing inherently religious about this claim, and as long as he presents a reasonable hypothesis, there’s no reason why a study like that shouldn’t be funded. I have always been fascinated by dinosaurs, and would personally be thrilled to learn that dinosaurs and men coexisted. I imagine there must be at least a few dinosaur-crazy paleontologists who feel the same way. If someone were to make a discovery like that, that scientist would become a household name, for crying out loud. This wouldn’t prove that god exists, but it would call into question what we thought we knew about paleontology. Still, as I said, nothing religious about it, no reason it can’t be funded. Ironically, however, when I searched all the topics/ problems with evolution you offered, the only place I could find serious mention of them were religious websites. If there is so much real evidence supporting the claims you brought up, why is it they are ignored or lambasted by mainstream science, and championed only by members of a very specific brand of Christianity? If creationist Christians are reaching these conclusions because their strict views of the bible require them to twist the evidence in such a way that doesn’t threaten religious beliefs they’ve acquired for mostly faith-based, emotional reasons…well, this doesn’t seem to me to be the most reliable method for determining real universal truths about our planet.
Anyway, sounds to me like a cop out to say that the public isn’t being made aware of these findings because of the politics involved. Come on–if human and dinosaur remains were found together, there’ just no way it could be covered up. It would be a conspiracy the likes of which the world’s never seen.
I know you still have another post of mine to respond to, so I will end this for now and try to address the remaining points at a later time.
I’m glad you like the debate. Me too. At this rate I’m apt to learn something if I’m not careful. Its nice that although we disagree we can still have a rational debate on the subject.
It will be difficult to agree on the adaptation vs. evolution discussion because, as you know, the two paradigms are completely different. You ask the question, is the genetic information in one animal sufficient to produce traits of different animals? The easy answer is no. Although, I suppose it depends on how one decides when an animal is a different animal. That’s why I bring up the subject of taxonomy. But when you look at the mechanism, the “way” the changes happen genetically we can see there are limits. Do you agree there are limits to the variety of genetic expression possible? A creationist will look at living things with a different perspective. This lecture will maybe help you to understand the paradigm I’m coming from if you have time to watch it, http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/c/29/Medium_Quality/.. (see #106, creation to restoration). It’s a little long so I understand if you don’t want to sit thru it. The examples given of bacteria becoming resistant, or yeast in a low phosphate environment do not constitute anything “new” in the proper sense. I’m going to try to think of a analogy to illustrate this… if you line up ten people (the bacteria) and handcuff them to arrest them (the drug), then what is happening when the bacteria is becoming resistant? Some of the ten have their hands removed and therefore cannot be arrested with handcuffs. In the same way, the bacteria is not gaining anything to achieve its “new” adaptation. Although in one sense they are “new”, in that the combination has not been seen yet, they are not “new” because the information to produce the new bacteria was always there. The variety that we see in living things is the result of rearranging information and not evolution. I don’t want to sound like a broken record so I’m going to move on.
The point is made about the 2nd chromosome in humans being evidence of relationships to chimps. I think it is too early for anyone to say what that means because neither the evolutionist nor the creationist can explain the purpose of the “fused” chromosome. Is there a more objective way to show that the chromosome comes from a chimp? I don’t think it’s a good idea to make a claim about something we know so little about at this point. It is just conjecture to say that this phenomenon is because of a fusion of the chimp chromosomes. But what we see is that there are fundamental differences between chimps and humans, feet, brain size, arm length, skeletal structure in general, etc… given that there are such big differences that cannot be accounted for by simple genetic variety, it doesn’t seem logical to assume they are related because of a chromosome. Unless one is starting with an idea and setting out to find evidence of what they already believe, there is nothing in that to say we are related to chimps. If the difference between humans and chimps is so slim that genetics can account for it, then it should not be difficult to create the “human” variety out of the “chimp” variety.
I suppose you can believe in god and evolution, but it would certainly not be the god of the bible. You also touch close to one of the reasons that the bible can be confirmed correct, and trusted in regards to supernatural claims. The bible is confirmed valid because of, Daniel 2, 7, &8. The fact that the bible has accurately outlined 2500 years of world history and has been shown correct is a strong reason to believe that the bible is authentic. Part of the history the bible has accurately predicted is the dividing of Rome, and then the emergence of the roman church state of the dark ages, the Catholic Church. Although the bible does not say “catholic church,” it does say, it comes out of Europe, it reign for 1260 years, it kills the saints, it changes “times and laws”, speaks blasphemy, uproots three of the ten kingdoms that Rome divided into, and comes out of pagan Rome. It seems like this is an example of somewhere that if the bible was wrong, it could be falsified by the history, but instead the history confirms that 2500 years ago the bible was accurate about specific world events. This is also not a unique or new interpretation of modern times, but ALL the early reformers agreed that the Catholic Church fit the criteria of the little horn of Daniel 7exactly, as seen in the sculptures on the courthouse in Nurnberg Germany made in the early 16th century. Read Daniel 7 and you will see that the sculpture matches the description in Daniel 7 with the corresponding king related to each “beast.” (Constantine being the emperor corresponding to the beast with the little horn). If you look up the history of the Catholic Church you will see that it is a mixture of pagenism and Christianity. In fact, the images and statues of the “saints” in the catholic churches are the same images and statues of the Greek pagan gods. Not only that but the Sunday worship of the Christian world comes from the sun worship of the pagans and not from Christians, who worshiped on Sabbath (7th day Saturday), in remembrance of the six day creation with a 7th day rest in the genesis account (this also shows that the patriarchs and prophets believed in a literal 6 day creation). I know it sounds elitist to say that there is only one brand of “real Christianity” but given the facts in the history and the information in the bible, it would appear to be so. I define a true Christian as one who has the same faith that Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Daniel, Jesus, Paul, and John had. If you don’t believe like Christ, then you cannot be a Christ-ian. All the Christians in the bible believed scripture was true, so why should we now think Christians are at liberty to not believe it is true and still be christian? Especially when the bible warns about false science in 1 timothy 6:20…
I think the claims that cannot both be true are the ones like… “t-rex was very similar to a bird” and “t-rex is significantly different from a bird”, or “natural selection reduces genetic information” vs, “natural selection adds information, or complexity.” These statements cannot both be true. I also agree with the statement that the world cannot be both young and old.
Are you implying that one cannot be both a scientist and a biblical literalist. The scientist in the video I provide in the beginning of this comment is an example of somebody who was a evolutionist, and a professor at a university, but became a literalist based on the evidence. And he is still a scientist. You need to see the film, “expelled, no intelligence allowed.” This shows that there are many scientists who don’t believe in evolution based on the evidence. Evolution may not be an atheistic pursuit, but it does lead to atheism when followed to its logical result. this is why you cannot believe both the bible and evolution. As you yourself may personally know. The movie “expelled” gives many examples of people who don’t believe in evolution, and are not literalist. 6000 years tho… I don’t know, do you know anybody? seems like if you don’t believe evolution, and you believe in a young earth, it would make it hard not to be a literalist. I don’t think its out of the question to say there is young earth advocates who are atheist. Although it may not be commonplace for people who want to keep a science related job. I agree that the age of the earth does not depend on anybodies beliefs. Even if everyone believes the wrong thing, it doest become automatically true. There are secular scientist who change their position from old earth evolution to young earth creation based on the evidence. To claim that there’s not seems a little narrow, don’t you think? Look at the video I provide the link for, Walter Veith changed his mind based on the evidence.
I’m not advocating creation being taught in school. I just think the evidence should be taught and the students should be trusted to form an opinion based on that. A real education teaches you how to think, not what to think. I agree with the principle that Ken Miller seems to be presenting, but I think he fails to recognize the fact that scientists are not willing to have a debate on the issue because they consider the case closed. Therefore if someone questions the evolution paradigm in a peer reviewed article they loose their job, not because of bad science but for disagreeing with the establishment. This is both bad for science and unfair. I would agree that creationism belongs in church, but I also think evolution belongs in a church as well. With the discussion we’ve been having about genes, would you agree that genetic research shows there are limits to the variety possible in any give kind of animal? If there is no limit in your view, doesn’t that require faith to believe, given the fact that it goes against the research?
I apologies for my mistake in not answering your posts fast enough. I guess I need to catch up so as to not leave you hanging. Looks like I’m burning the midnight oil tonight. I thought some of the comments in your last post looked important and I didn’t want to make you wait.
I’m not sure I want to try to defend the evidence you are claiming to be false. It seems like you are quite convinced these are bad examples. Although, it should be noted that the “debate” on some of these examples of evidence are not a shut case just because there is an evolutionist feels they can interpret it differently. So you are saying the trees going thru layers (alleged to be millions of years apart in age) does not constitute evidence that the layers are similar ages? Because to me that just seems intuitive. Are you saying that there is no debate about the footprints? Or just that the people saying this are not actual scientists? At least we can acknowledge there is a disagreement among scientists with different worldviews. It looked to me that there were castings of human looking tracks, but that they are getting less detailed as time erodes them away. I don’t want to give, “out of date” data though, so maybe I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. But there is some interesting, alleged developments… http://www.6000years.org/dinosaurs.html
I had no idea that those ica stones were fake. To tell you the truth it disgusts me to think that somebody would fake evidence instead of make an honest living like the rest of us. I’m truly sorry for not checking that one better. But the fact remains that this is not the only alleged evidence of dinosaurs being young.
Since I’m on the subject of “fake evidence”, it might be important to note that the disgust cannot be directed only at the creationists. We have all heard of the forgeries of missing links over the years, more than one is undisputed. Not to mention the misinformation in textbooks like: the fake Haeckel drawings that got him kicked out of his university, and still appear in textbooks today as proof of evolution even though they have been admitted fakes 100 years ago. There’s the multitude of alleged vestigial organs, like the whale “pelvis” (which is now known to be necessary anchor point for important muscles dealing with reproduction), the human vestigial “tail” bone (which has 9 muscles attached to it, without which one cannot poop), the vestigial snake claws (used in mating), the appendix (associated with the immune system and the production of t-cells), the vestigial “gill slits” in a human embryo (these are now known to be flaps of skin that develop ear bones and throat, still in textbooks today). We can mention the “annual rings” in ice cores cited as evidence for old earth, even though we now know ice rings don’t occur annually, (look up the “lost squadron”, and see how many “annual layers” formed over it in only 50 years… far more than 50). Textbooks say that stalactites take millions of years to form even though there are 3 foot long stalactites under the Washington monument today. There’s the “belief”, stated as fact, that molten rock hardened into granite even though molten granite does not harden into granite, (as a matter of fact granite cannot be reproduced in a laboratory). There’s the supposed “325 million year old index fossil”, lobe fin fish, which has been discovered alive today. I think these constitute more than a “drop in a bucket.” These are some of the reasons I have thought there is a possibility that evolutionists corrupt the evidence. Of course you can only find serious mention of this stuff in an evolution book. If evolutionist atheists are reaching these conclusions because their strict views of evolution require them to twist the evidence in such a way that doesn’t threaten atheistic beliefs they’ve acquire for mostly faith-based, emotional reasons… well, this doesn’t seem to me to be the most reliable method for determining real universal truths about our planet. I hope you get my point, its not meant to be rude. It is always bad to give a lie for evidence… but its worse to give a lie for evidence and use public money to preach it in public school textbooks.
Because it seems to look like there are lies going around, apparently on both sides of the argument, maybe the best thing to do is present logical and intuitive examples that can be understood based on common sense. Take for example the layers that are supposed to be different ages. If one is expected to believe that each layer was at one point in time the surface of the earth, why do you suppose there is no erosion in the layers that were once the surface of the earth “millions of years ago”? Instead we see the layers stacked like pancakes one on top of the other with flat contacts in between… how do you explain that?
I suppose I’m caught up again with my responses to you, thanks again for the fun reading.
No need to ever apologize for not responding to all my comments, or for not doing so in a timely fashion. We both have lives to live; I don’t expect that responding to my posts is the only thing you do all day.
I’ve read all your recent posts and am going to try to condense two responses into one here. In the interest of my own time, I am going to start to take a bit longer to actually complete a post (I just don’t have the time right now to continue completing them so quickly). Also I’m going to be a bit more selective about which points I respond to. This does not mean that any points are not worthy of discussion; it just means that I have to draw a line somewhere in the interest of time, so I’m going to focus on issues I feel strongly on, or know the most about. Besides, if this discussion continues I would rather we both do an excellent job focusing on a viewpoints, rather than spread ourselves too thin over too many.
For this reason, I won’t comment here on polystrate trees or ice circles. At this point, all I could is research these and come back with what I find, but it seems silly—if you would like to have an extended debate on these issues, there are probably plenty of people out there who study these for a living who’d be happy to talk to you. I’m also not saying that you shouldn’t mention these in your future post to me; please do, if you feel they prove a point. It’s just that I’m going to have to be more selective here, and in this case I’d rather address a few other things.
One more thing about dinosaur footprints, though; I want to make sure you know that even the CREATIONIST ORGANIZATION “Answers in Genesis” counts the Paluxy Trail among “Arguments that should be avoided.” http://www.icr.org/article/paluxy-river-mystery/ Believe me, I’m no fan of Answers in Genesis, but I appreciate the fact that they are honest enough to admit that the Paluxy Trail is far from solid evidence of humans coexisting with dinosaurs. When you initially brought up this issue, you said “here are human footprints with dinosaur footprints” as though the matter were already decided. A few minutes of research on this subject, even just on the creationist Answers in Genesis site, would have shown otherwise. I appreciate your honesty in admitting the Ica Stones were false, but again, a few minutes of research on your part would have shown you that, and would have saved me some time. I have to ask, how much research are you doing before you send your arguments? While writing my responses do you, I try to check out multiple sources and make sure I that I personally understand and can stand behind what I send. I would expect no less of myself when debating a serious issue such as this. Do you not feel the same?
I’m in the process of watching the Dr Veith video. I’ll attempt to look at its claims more thoroughly in a future post, or perhaps an article. I’ll grant that he was an evolutionist who later became a creationist, and I’m going to look into why he made this change. What I’m really interested in seeing though, as I said, are non-Christian scientists who still believe that the evidence, when reviewed in a secular light, show conclusions that match those the creationists come to. I apologize if I have not stated that clearly enough. My point here is, if a claim like “Man and dinosaurs coexisted” is a valid truth by itself, I would expect to see some scientists propose it, regardless of their religious views. If the only scientists pushing this are Christians who have an emotional interest in that being true, it doesn’t strike me as convincing. As I said, I can provide examples of theists and theist scientists who have no vested interest in atheism, who still find the evidence for evolution valid. Can you provide non-Christian scientists who do the same for the evidence for creation? Or does a person have to be a biblical literalist Christian before the truth of creation can be revealed to them? If so, I find that questionable to say the least.
I was curious what your definition of a “true Christian” was, so thank you for explaining—but of course I have no intention of arguing that point: each separate Christian group has their own definition of what this means, and it’s not my place to tell them they’re right or wrong. I don’t disagree with the accusation of paganism influencing the Catholic church, but I think all of Christianity has some of that influence, as well. Let’s save that discussion for another time, though…I don’t want to complicate this debate any further.
And no, I NEVER said that one cannot be a scientist and a biblical literalist—I already knew that wasn’t the case. I said that I know of no evolution scientist who is a biblical literalist. But more importantly, I WANT TO KNOW if there are any non Christian scientist who supports some of the claims made by creationists on a secular level.
I understand why you bring up bible prophecies, although again, I prefer not to complicate this discussion further by branching out into a different subject (and I’m unclear on how I “touched on” this subject in my previous e-mail, as you said…seems to come sort of out of left field for me…). Let’s just say that I am aware of biblical prophecy claims. I have never been impressed by these, but I will continue to look into them—particularly the ones you mentioned–and see what I can find. I will say again though, that if the bible IS TRUE, and therefore correct on issues like the age of the earth, the evidence should be sufficient to show that. Biblical prophecies, true or not, have no place in a science classroom—the scientific evidence for creation, if it exists and can be verified secularly, would have to be sufficient there.
Based on all that you said about bible prophecies, I know you would say you have good reasons for believing Christianity to be true. Would you also say you believe creationism because you think the rest of the bible is true, so therefore creationism must also be true by default? If this is the case, I’m sure you can see why that isn’t a scientific argument—but then, you admitted that creationism shouldn’t necessarily be taught in schools, so we seem to agree on that point.
You said a real education teaches kids how to think, not what to think. I agree, but when teaching any given subject, I see no problem with teaching kids what the experts are currently saying about that subject. I mean, to a point, we can’t be 100% certain that most of the history we teach is true…it’s possible, for example, that the story of revolutionary war was actually the result of a 200-year-old government conspiracy, and all of our sources are mistaken. We can’t know for sure that’s not the case, because none of us were there. Does this mean that we should preface every revolutionary war lesson with, “Okay kids, it’s possible that…” or “We have sources that say George Washington crossed the Delaware…do you believe that happened?” Doesn’t seem like a practical way to teach history.
Anyway, if you assert that we should teach kids how, not what, to think, shouldn’t religion follow that guideline, too? Shouldn’t kids not be forced into any one religion, but allowed to make their own decisions when they are older? By your own logic, a child should be kept out of church (away from places where Christianity is sometimes stated as fact) and instead, exposed to the claims of various religions, so that when they get older they can decide for themselves what they want to be. You said that you were raised Christian and that you attended a private Christian school. In your school, were you taught what to think? Or how to think? Also, you said that scientists consider the subject of evolution “closed,” and stated that they shouldn’t do so. Would you say that most Christians of your persuasion consider the truth of Christianity a “closed” subject? If they do, is it okay for them to consider it so? Personally, I have never heard any argument for Christianity (and yes, this INCLUDES biblical prophecy) that strikes me as anywhere near as airtight as DNA evidence for evolution.
Either way, your statement that evolution is “closed” comes down to semantics—I would say the matter is not closed, but it is the currently the most reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence. This is the consensus of the great majority of scientists. And this doesn’t mean that scientists are not open to opposing views. But it does mean that if someone comes along wanting to question facts which appear to be established—and they want their opposition seriously considered—they’d better HAVE DARN GOOD EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THEIR CLAIMS. And they’d BETTER BE WILLING TO GO THROUGH THE LONG, EXHAUSTIVE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS REQUIRED BEFORE THE OPPOSITION CAN ALSO BE CONSIDERED ESTABLISHED SCIENCE. Any emerging scientific field of study would be treated this way. As has already been pointed out, creationists and ID theorists have shown over and over again that they are unwilling—or perhaps unable– to go through this process. This is why they go straight to the courts, and campaign for “fairness.” Most scientists are—rightly—not buying it. By insisting that the exhaustive standards of science be met, evolution scientists are behaving NO DIFFERENTLY FROM EXPERTS IN ANY FIELD. For example, I’m an English teacher—if a small group of people came to me and said that Shakespeare’s plays were actually written within the last two hundred years by Charles Dickens, and there was a mass conspiracy to cover that up, those people had better have some fine evidence to support what he’s saying. If not, I have no intention of revamping my Shakespeare unit, or even of “teaching the controversy.” In fact, I wouldn’t blame the school for firing anyone who actually taught the “Charles Dickens conspiracy” students. Until such times as those claims could be evaluated and approved, we have to assume the kids are getting incorrect information.
I have seen “Expelled” (saw it in theaters when it first came out) and don’t believe the film adds anything new to this discussion. There’s nothing wrong with “talking about things” or “asking questions” as the films suggests, but the problem is, ID theorists want to do a great deal more than that. They want to be considered a science (given equal classroom time) without actually doing the legwork and following the scientific methods. There’s nothing wrong with a scientist believing in a god (many do, and have done so for years without fear of their jobs). The problem is when certain scientists try to bring non-scientific methods or supernatural explanations into their fields of study. As I stated above, such a thing would not be tolerated in any scientific field; evolution is not unique in this regard. Why is it evolution scientists are so often raked across hot coals by the general public, just for behaving the way any experts should? And if you think the evolution scientists are not qualified or capable of making such judgments regarding their own field of study, who should be doing it for them? The church? Regular folks who haven’t studied evolution? Who?
On a similar note, you went on for quite a while about what constitutes a “true Christian,” and l leave that definition entirely up to you and other Christians to work out. But obviously, you guys have certain standards for what would make a true Christian, or at least one: accepting the bible literally. What if I, a non-Christian, made up my own bizarre interpretation of a biblical story (“Abraham almost sacrificed Isaac because he believed his son was really a space alien in disguise, and he secretly wanted him dead…see, I’ve got the same starting point as you, just a different interpretation…”). What if I refused to follow any of your guidelines/ standards, and then went to your private Christian school and demand to be given a job teaching my side. You’d have every right to throw me out in that case—yet, when the position is reversed, you begrudge evolutionists the same right.
I do not deny that hoaxes crop up in evolution. Haekal’s pictures were indeed incorrect, but this was discovered and corrected years ago—which goes to show that science is self-correcting, and that scientists are indeed interested in the real truth. You said textbooks are presenting Haekal as fact. If you’re making a serious accusation here, be more specific. WHICH textbooks are still using Haekal’s pictures today? Can you give a rough estimate of how many textbooks do this? Were these books printed recently—say, within the past 10 years? I did a bit of my own research on this topic and found this http://bit.ly/9S2Yn9. In case you don’t have time to read, here’s a summary: in the study mentioned here, 15 books were looked at in total. Where Haeckel’s drawings appeared, that fact is noted. Of the 15 books, only 5 show Haeckel’s drawings, two in whole, three in part. Of those 5, only one presents the biogenetic law uncritically, and that book is the 1937 (note that this is no current book) H. C. Skinner, T. Smith, F. M. Wheat “Textbook in Educational Biology”. The other 4 of these 5, along with another 7 that actually mention Haeckel, either dismiss Haeckel’s laws as crude or incorrect, or else critique them in the sense that embryos resemble one another at early stages, but that adaptational pressures have obscured or removed most of the similarities.
As far as the other incorrect things you mentioned in science textbooks, I’ll do a little more research. I will however, mention the human “gill slits” now: yes, pharyngeal pouches that appear in embryos technically are not gill slits, but that doesn’t matter. They are still evidence for evolution because the same structure, regardless of its name, appears in all vertebrate embryos. Louis Agassiz (who was not a Darwinist himself) said, “The higher Vertebrates, including man himself, breathe through gill-like organs in the early part of their life. These gills disappear and give place to lungs only in a later phase of their existence” (Agassiz 1874). In other words, Darwinian evolution predicts, among other things, similar (not necessarily identical) structures in related organisms. The fact that pharyngeal pouches in humans are similar to pharyngeal pouches (or whatever you call them) in fish is one piece of evidence that humans and fish share a common ancestor. At least, it’s one more reason why we are not as vastly different as you seem to think. Either way, I see no problem with including that sort of information in today’s textbooks, since it is the consensus of the majority of scientist who study this subject.
You said, “If evolutionist atheists are reaching these conclusions because their strict views of evolution require them to twist the evidence in such a way that doesn’t threaten atheistic beliefs they’ve acquire for mostly faith-based, emotional reasons… well, this doesn’t seem to me to be the most reliable method for determining real universal truths about our planet.” In other words, you didn’t try to deny my initial claim that creationism is an extremely biased view from an extreme group of people and indeed a questionable method for determining truth—you simply attempted to turn my claim around to show me why evolutionists are exactly the same.
Here’s why you’re wrong—as I’ve stated before, Evolution IS NOT A SOLELY ATHEISTIC PURSUIT. It hasn’t been in the past, and it isn’t now. I’ve argued this before, and you responded with “I suppose you CAN believe in god and evolution.” This sounds like you’re implying that it’s extremely unusual for someone to believe in god and evolution, and then you disregarded your own words completely by bringing up the atheism agenda again. But this is not something that can be easily explained away. Many, many theists accept evolution—obviously, more than you are willing to admit. These theists may not believe in your specific god, but the fact remains—if they believe in any god, they’re not atheists. Therefore, no atheist agenda. I’ve addressed this issue already so I won’t again—but if you’d like more specific examples of the many theists who support evolution, I’ll happily provide them. I will tell you that in my case, I accepted evolution long before I became an atheist, and my becoming an atheist had nothing to do with the fact that I accepted evolution. If evolution were proved false, I would still not believe in god (that’s a separate issue) so I do not view evolution as crucial to my humanistic worldview. Based on what you’ve said, it sounds as though creationism IS crucial to your Christian worldview—but it isn’t fair to assume something is true of all atheists just because a similar thing true for you.
I REALLY wanted to respond to your comment on the genome…but this message is now over three pages long, so I have to limit myself. I’ll just say again that this is what it comes down to: I think the evidence shows no clear boundaries between species, you disagree. From what I’ve seen, the evidence is clearly in my favor, and no, it is not too early to say what genome sequencing means. Why does the “purpose” of the fused chromosome matter? What matters is that it’s there. Creationists may be looking for a purpose, so that they can turn around and say, “What you perceive as a fused chromosome is actually this other thing, which fits with a biblical worldview.” But for the purposes of evolution, the fused chromosome is what we should expect to find if we share a common ancestor with apes, and we do find it. For more info on this, check out the Human Genome Project, as well as the Chimpanzee Genome project. I’m not including specific links because there are mass amounts of info on these. I don’t expect that you to comment any time soon; it’s just something I recommend you research in the future, if you haven’t done so. The truth is, as I’ve written in a recent article, evolution is not about one big piece of evidence; it’s a complilation of many pieces of evidence which all fit together, and the more you seek to understand the big picture, the more sense it makes. Interestingly enough, another scientist who calls himself a believer in god, Dr. Francis Collins is the director of the Human Genome project. I don’t agree with him on many things, but I do agree with this statement of his: “Actually, I find no conflict [between faith and science] and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.”
Finally, to answer your question, I don’t know if there are limits to the variety of genetic expression possible. Of course, I don’t think the natural process of evolution will produce anything that defies natural laws, but other than that, I suspect that there may not be limits. The only limit is time, and we have no idea how much time is left for our planet. If there are billions of years still to come, then I would imagine things could start to emerge that we can hardly fathom today. It would be close-minded to say otherwise. This is not a matter of faith—it’s a hypothesis based on how far we’ve come already, and the patterns we’ve already observed. Anyway, I don’t know for sure but I doubt that at any point we would KNOW that a limit had been reached, and I don’t see what we gain by declaring the limit reached. Instead, it should be a matter of always continuing to observe how far it can go.
But this, again, is a difference between science and religion. Science is intended to find answers and increase our knowledge of the world around us. Religion, in many ways, believes it already HAS certain answers, and it doesn’t want to see those answers threatened for fear of losing its faith. This is why, to creationists, it’s so important that there be limits to the variety of genetic expression possible. To a scientist, there’s no reason not to keep learning, and no reason not to simply keep observing to see if perceived “limits” can be surpassed. According to Talk Origins, “Creationists have never hinted at, much less shown, any mechanism that would limit variation. Without such a mechanism, we would expect to see kinds vary over time, becoming more and more different from what they were at a given time in the past.”
Thanks for your response to my two posts. I have to say that I agree very much with your first paragraph. We should try to keep these comments more focused.
As I was reading your response, I was disappointed to see that you don’t try to answer my two questions.
Because it seems to look like there are lies going around, apparently on both sides of the argument, maybe the best thing to do is present logical and intuitive examples that can be understood based on common sense. Take for example the layers that are supposed to be different ages. If one is expected to believe that each layer was at one point in time the surface of the earth, why do you suppose there is no erosion in the layers that were once the surface of the earth “millions of years ago”? Instead we see the layers stacked like pancakes one on top of the other with flat contacts in between… how do you explain that?
The other question I was hoping you would answer for me is about the genetics and variety discussion. You seem to still be advocating that there is no limit to genetic variety that can be expressed by any given kind of animal. I think you don’t understand. Think of the genes in an animal as being the keys on a piano… whyle I agree that there are probably unlimited number of songs you can play on a piano, there is still a “limit.” You can never play a guitar song on a piano. “Believing” that genetic variation can account for all the different kinds of animals is very much like “believing” that a piano can play a guitar song. I don’t mind if you believe this, but it is not science. The “number of chromosomes” argument you made about the chimps shows that you don’t see the problem with your argument because the number of chromosomes has nothing to do with this discussion. The fact is that there are limits to genetic variety possible within any “kind” of animal. This is me “hinting” at and “showing” a mechanism that would limit variation. If you disagree then someone should be able to prove it wrong in a lab. Or at least explain how these relationships happen in light of the genetic findings in science.
I started in the beginning to address all your questions, but my post would have been too long. I see that you are still having problems with what I say. I would love to talk about everything you bring up, but I’m thinking you should condense it into maybe a couple questions so that I can answer them. Trust me, I feel bad not answering some of these points, but I need to be realistic about how to debate in this format. Thanks.
QUESTION ONE: By “layers that are supposed to be different ages,” I assume you’re referring to the geological column, correct? The layers of strata sometimes exist in the form of “pancake-like” stacks BECAUSE of erosion (not sure why you assert that there is no erosion) and also immense pressure. Take limy mud and sand, for example. As layer upon layer of these are deposited over the years, these soft sediments are tightly compressed (this is what happens when more and more layers build up on top) and cemented into pancake-like layers of solid limestone. I see nothing about this which is incompatible with a basic understanding of geology. For further reading on the geological column in general, you might check out http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/. It’s by no means light or easy reading, but this is not a light or easy subject.
QUESTION TWO: Believe me, I understand what you’re saying—and I don’t think your piano analogy works here. As long as you have basic understand of how both instruments work, you CAN play the same songs on both the guitar and the piano. http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Play-guitar-tabs-on-piano/ … that’s because all songs share the same basic “building blocks” which are musical notes–and these notes can be expressed in almost an unlimited number of ways. Guitar songs and piano songs are not as far apart as you think…so the analogy actually seems to better fit MY point.
You believe that the genetic material in each creature is limited to that specific “kind” of animal. Therefore, small changes (adaptations) are possible within “kinds” but one kind can’t change to another. You said you “hinted at” and “showed a” mechanism that would limit variation, but I don’t see it. What exactly is that mechanism? (And please note, just SAYING that there are limits between kinds is not the same as explaining a mechanism that would cause or prove this.) You also said that “genetic findings in science” seem to support these limitations. What findings? Is there a particular study or peer-reviewed paper you can reference?
I say, on the other hand, that based on current research the genetic material in each creature is more similar than you realize. We can—and currently are—proving this in the lab. That’s what projects such as the human genome project are all about. As we continue to study genome sequencing, we continue to find that our genetic make-up does not differ greatly from those of other animals. For example:
Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity) Compare to this the chimpanzee, which is around 96% to 98% similar to humans. http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD020730.html Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/11/1675.full The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans. http://www.genome.gov/10005835
It should be noted that we use fruit fly research to study a wide variety of diseases which affect humans. http://science.education.nih.gov/animalresearch.nsf/AFacts1/Tiny+Fruit+Flies+Yield+Huge+Benefits. Such research works well BECAUSE we share so much genetic material with fruit flies…if there were too many vast differences, fruit fly research would have proven useless years ago. With so much genetic similarity between differing animal groups, I don’t understand why creationists are so sure there can be no variation from one “kind” to another (and please note, the concept of “kind” is largely a creationist one, in the first place).
Please pretend for a moment that we are examining hardened mud. The quotes are from talk origins.
“There is no place on earth that has sediments from every single day since the origin of the earth. No geologist would require this level of detail from the geological column. But if there are sediments left at a given site once every hundred thousand years or so, then at the scale of the geological column, the entire column would exist. There would still be erosional surfaces contained in that column and that would mean that some days left no sediment at a given location to mark their existence”
The “problem” that there are layers missing is the result of less mud. Who cares?! This is expected and poses no problems. If however every layer is a period of time, someone needs to go into great detail to explain how the record of this “block of time” is missing. Why does it need to be so complicated? Its only complicated when one wants to think these layers represent “hundreds of thousands of years.” Here’s another quote…
“There are also intact corals of a totally different type than are alive today. The Paleozoic corals are belong to one of three groups – only one of which is found in Mesozoic rocks; the other two became extinct at the end of the Paleozoic. The four-sided corals are only found in the Paleozoic. Modern corals of the 6-sided or 8-sided kind are not found until the Triassic.”
Consider this quote from talk origins as if the Mesozoic, Paleozoic, and Triassic layers are an “interpretation” that is not true. You are looking at coral in mud. Is there anything fascinating about an extinct type of corral? Should there be something special about anything going extinct? We have things today that are going extinct. Some animals have recently become extinct. If you find an extinct animal dead in the mud, that proves exactly what we see already. We don’t need to complicate the evidence by placing an interpretation on it that is inconsistent with what we see today. It could just be that that coral was buried in a catastrophe. It’s at the bottom of the mud for obvious reasons. But instead we say its at the bottom because it’s the oldest, and that the coral is “totally different” because its primitive?! Its funny that here two types of coral are referred to you as “totally different,” but later in you comment you talk as if humans and chimpanzees are so similar you can barely tell the difference. This kind of inconsistency is the hallmark of the supposed “proof” for evolution.
I was referring to the many layers of hardened mud that are commonly called the geologic column in my question. This article shows the great effort and expense taken to explain something that should be obvious. We have layers of mud, full of dead animals, many of which are now extinct. We have very detailed fossils in the mud of animals that do not fossilize under normal slow circumstances. A jellyfish for example, will rot quickly. Lots of animals die today and they don’t leave a fossil. There are even places that have “folded” layers, indicating that the layers needed to be folded while they were still soft and malleable. I don’t doubt that there are alleged reasons that these took millions of years to happen, but frankly, they are just interpretive reasons. There is nothing here that poses a problem to a flood catastrophe if one is realistic about claims of genesis.
About question 2… you don’t understand the point. I’m not saying that you cannot play the same song with two different instruments. I am saying that you cannot play the piano with a guitar. This is exactly what you are asking me to do when you want me to believe that reptiles turned to birds. We have birds today, and we have reptiles today. Maybe they are not as “totally different” as “modern” corral and “primitive” coral in your opinion. But the differences between them are such that the genetic information for a feather (for example) are not present in a reptile. You say that “guitar songs and piano songs are not as far apart as you think.”?! They are completely different instruments. They will always sound different. While you are right that they operate on the same musical principals you ignore the point of the analogy. You cannot play the piano with the guitar. Not even in a million years. The genetic observations are aptly noted in talk origins…“genetic information specifies everything about an organism and its potential… This obviously should be one of the areas where evolutionary change is seen, and genetic change is truly the most important for understanding evolutionary processes.” …also there is this statement… “Extremely extensive genetic change has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. We have seen genomes irreversibly and heritably altered by numerous phenomena, including gene flow, random genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation. Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements. Chromosomal rearrangements include genome duplication (e.g. polyploidy), unequal crossing over, inversions, translocations, fissions, fusions, chromosome duplications and chromosome deletions.” …here the observed changes are called, “extremely extensive” when in fact this kind of “evolutionary change” is minor. The “minor” differences of coral cited earlier when they are called, “totally different”, can be explained by this observation. But nobody has ever “observed” the “minor” change from a lizard to a bird. The “mechanisms” I am talking about are the same ones listed in talk origins. Observing a genetic “rearrangement” does not explain how something got the new information. Do you agree that a lizard does not have anything in its genetic code (information) for a feather? Not one of these “extremely extensive genetic changes” we have observed are the kind of evolution you want me to believe. You certainly can get an unlimited variety of lizards thru these changes, but nobody has gotten a bird out of a lizard in 6000 years of recorded history. Just like you cant play a piano out of a guitar.
The percentage arguments you are providing are inconsequential. I agree that there are similarities, but this cannot prove common decent. Did you know that a jellyfish is 99% water, and a cloud is 100% water? You can agree that this comparison is inconsequential to the argument. Symbiotic relationships are a reason to believe that the entire system came to existence at the same time because nothing can live independently of other living things. Yes, there are many similarities between all the plants and animals, but this does not mean they are descended form each other. There are two ways to look at this situation. Creationists are sure there can be no variation from one kind to another because in 6000 years of recorded history, that’s what we observed. I have to say that so far your comment seems to have a lot of “leading” word games going on. I think it is obvious what constitutes an “extensive change” and a “minor change.” To call the big changes small and the small changes big just to get someone to buy into the argument seems to be dishonest. This kind of switching back and forth, calling minor variation within kinds extensive “evolution,” and expecting one to believe this same kind of “evolution” proves that humans are related to fruit flies, is not science. Lets be real, you don’t have to reject science to believe what I’m saying. You don’t even have to reject evolution if by “evolution” you mean the observed changes listed in the talk origins quote. This kind of stuff is what I mean when I say that a real education teaches you how to think and not what to think. Just sayin…
A cloud is not 100% water. It contains the same molecules but is not in water state. Misconstrued comment.
Steve, this seems like another example of pretty hard evidence staring you right in the face and you deeming it insufficient. If you can fully appreciate the genome project as Sara described above, you can see how closely related humans are to so many other species (many of which we do not visually resemble). As far as our genetic and molecular make-ups, humans are not special.
Unfortunately we do have to reject science to believe in creation. We also have to reject science to reject the idea that a global flood could not have happened. But they’re both in the Bible and you believe them. I see a pattern forming… and it’s unfortunate if this is how your education taught you to think.
Ok then i guess you have the right to believe that way. i guess i just like to have reasons to believe what i believe. Mantras don’t do it for me. Its unfortunate because i’m not actually against you guys. I just feel that you have been very mislead. I’ll be praying for you. thanks for you time
Steve, like I mentioned in another discussion of ours, it seems that you’re starting at the finishing point and trying to prove your point right. Unfortunately you’re forced to cherry pick from the science tree and have called out geology, physics, biology, and genetics in the process. This goes way beyond just doubting evolution.
If you want to believe because it makes you feel good or are taking it on faith, that’s perfectly fine. But you can’t claim fact on something like creation and look the other way when presented with evidence to the contrary. Thanks for being civil throughout a controversial debate.
look, i’m sorry you feel that way. So far I have good reasons to think you are starting at the finishing point and trying to prove your point right. I’ll give 2 examples:
1. in an earlier discussion with you we learned that ice rings in greenland have been used by you to prove your point before anyone actually checked to see how quick they form. Have you taken it off your website yet as evidence for an old earth?
2. Me and Sarah were talking about textbooks. Heres a quote from the study she gave me a link to: “Of the 15 books, only 5 show Haeckel’s drawings, two in whole, three in part.” “Of those 5, only one presents the biogenetic law uncritically, and that book is the 1937 H. C. Skinner, T. Smith, F. M. Wheat “Textbook in Educational Biology”.
The other 4 of these 5, along with another 7 that actually mention Haeckel, either dismiss Haeckel’s laws as crude or incorrect, or else critique them in the sense that embryos resemble one another at early stages, but that adaptational pressures have obscured or removed most of the similarities.” This makes a total of 12 of the 15 books that use his lie to say that “adaptational pressures have obscured or removed most of the similarities.”!! Thats what i call starting with a conclusion and setting out to prove it correct! And this is a defense.
I’m actually not claiming that creation is a fact. I am objecting to your claiming that “evolution” is a fact. I also (like i stated in my other comment) don’t think it is good science to claim big changes are small and that small changes are big just to support your agenda.
This “evidence” you are talking about is a mantra.
Come one Steve! Science looks at the natural world and tries to explain it. Science didn’t have anything it was trying to prove when it initially tried to explain how the natural world came to be. Creationists have the Bible’s account as a starting point.
If we can’t agree on that, than to continue any kind of discussion is pointless.
I can’t, just can’t respond further to your claim the we are starting at the finish line. All I can say is that you’re just plain wrong on that one.
Okay, I promised myself I wasn’t going to comment any more on this, but I’ve just got to respond to Steven’s misunderstanding on the Haekel study.
Steven, here we go again:
“Of the 15 books, only 5 show Haeckel’s drawings, two in whole, three in part.”
This means that of all the books they checked, only five show Haekel’s incorrect drawings AT ALL. The other books do not contain the false pictures.
“Of those 5, only one presents the biogenetic law uncritically, and that book is the 1937 H. C. Skinner, T. Smith, F. M. Wheat “Textbook in Educational Biology”.
So yes, one book provides the incorrect information uncritically, but note that book is from 1937! In other words, it’s an old book with very old info, and it’s unlikely to be used to classrooms today. Also, since only one book of 15 has uncritically presented this wrong information–and that one book is very old–it’s highly unlikely that new textbooks are currently being printed with these “lies.”
The other 4 of these 5, along with another 7 that actually mention Haeckel, either dismiss Haeckel’s laws as crude or incorrect, or else critique them in the sense that embryos resemble one another at early stages, but that adaptational pressures have obscured or removed most of the similarities.”
So four other books contain Haekel’s drawings. Another seven mention him in some context. These books either a) dismiss Haekel’s drawings altogether, or b) critique them further–in other words, they use his drawings to point out the problems, and teach the facts as we now understand them.
So, in the end, we are looking at only ONE book with completely incorrect information. One out of 15. The rest either a) don’t mention Haekel b) mention Haekel in some context (possibly historical) or c) dismiss or critically examine his drawings. There’s nothing wrong with critically examining incorrect information. Students do this in nearly all subjects, as it seems to be a very good way for them to learn “how to think,” as you are so fond of saying.
Either way, this study does not seem to support the accusation that school textbooks are rife with false information, as you originally implied. How on earth did you read this information and come up with the conclusion that 12 of the books teach or use a “lie”?
Anyway, that is now my last word on this discussion, regardless of whatever else may be posted here. I enjoyed the debate at first, but now I just feel like I’m bashing my head against a brick wall…it’s time to move on to other things.
I’m sorry you two are not wanting to continue. I was hoping to address more of the points you brought up in the long comment. I’m not wanting to get emotional about it.
look… maybe somebody can explain how they can say: …”adaptational pressures have obscured or removed most of the similarities.”
How would you know if they were “removed”. Unless of course someone wants to believe in spite of the lack of evidence. You use the word “incorrect”, but if it was just a mistake that would be different.
Your right about starting with the bible. I start with what the bible says and figure that if it is true there will undoubtably be evidence left behind to corroborate the claims. If it is false then it should be easy to prove the falsehood being that it contains specific information about the alleged history of the world. You might say that the bible contains a theory, and i am trying to prove that it is false. Just like an evolutionist starts with a theory (that god doesn’t exist and therefore everything must have a natural explanation) and tries to prove it false. Or are they trying to prove that its true?
So does that mean you still have the “annual rings” evidence up on your site even tho it is not true? There wasn’t much “looking at the natural world” when that claim was made. Doesn’t that make you a little mad that you were taught that ice rings in greenland prove the ice is hundreds of thousands of years old? I was a little pissed when i found out. Your gonna have to think for yourself on some of these issues because people will and do lie. Sorry i’m giving you all a hard time about this.
Steve, you gotta let go of the ice rings. It was never in my original article; it was linked. Even so, I responded. I’m sorry if you don’t like the explanation, but that doesn’t make it untrue. I’m sorry if we lead you to believe that you scored a major blow against evolution there. There’s also the rest of the article.
But this is what we need to get passed if we are ever going to see eye to eye on anything:
You should be trying to disprove your theory. If you can’t disprove it, than you have something… (in this case evolutionists are trying to disprove evolution, and can’t). Follow?
I’m not against the Bible or anything and had a Protestant upbringing myself (meaning I’ve changed my stance). I’m not ‘out to get creationists’ as it seems you are out for evolution’s blood.
The Bible is not a science book; would you agree with that?
Steven, neither of us is really swaying in our stance. I don’t know what we could possibly say to you to make you change your mind. I’m assuming it’s nothing.
Here’s something that might sway me: Find me a non-theistic scientist who believes in a creation theory.
(find an unbiased believer of creation)
I don’t want to give the impression that i’m out to get evolution. I don’t even want to say you are out to get creationists. The reason I go on a forum like this to debate with people like you who are so strongly convicted that there is no God and the bible is not factual, is because I want to see if the bible can be proven wrong. The bible is not a science book. It is a collection of historical accounts given by many different people, at different times in history, thru a religious context.
I don’t think you are being rational. You want me to “Find me a non-theistic scientist who believes in a creation theory.” Obviously the moment a scientist believes the creation theory they automatically become theist. You have basically said to me that you will not allow yourself to be convinced. I can give you plenty of examples of scientists who were non-theistic and, when they saw the creation theory, changed their mind and became theistic. http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/c/29/Medium_Quality/
Walter Veith is the name. I suggest you take a look…
I must say that it is disappointing that you seem to be trying to move the debate away from a discussion about evidence and into a discussion about who thinks what. Even if the entire world believed something wrong, it does not therefore automatically become truth.
Its also too bad that Sarah has decided to shut off discussion. I was enjoying the strong spirited debate. You guys seem to want to call me out as having emotional attachments to my view but so far it looks like the emotional reactions are coming from your side of the table. I don’t think angry people can think clearly. It seems like the reaction i’m getting from you when I give you answers is one of frustration and anger. Are you willing to learn a new perspective? Or do you start with the idea that i have no answers and haven’t thought my way thru the questions? I may be religious but this does not automatically make me irrational and unswayable.
As i said in the beginning of this discussion, “I promise to be humbly defeated if i lose the debate. I will also at that point stop believing bible myths.”
That’s a total cop out. Sorry. I’m looking for some one without bias.
You do seem to have an emotional attachment to religion, which is fine. Really! It doesn’t make me angry one bit. You got a right to believe what you want.
But so do I… I’ve had the Christian upbringing and am not unfamiliar with this new perspective you’ve been pitching. I’m not convinced there is no God, just think atheism has a more convincing argument right now. I don’t question the entire literal validity of the Bible, we’re just talking about creation here.
While you haven’t become frustrated or angry in your comments, you’re dancing around many of our arguments and the ones you do acknowledge you reject as not good enough.
In however many comments we’ve exchanged, we haven’t said anything to make you second guess your stance. See a pattern forming?
Given your responses, I have my doubts that you’re here to try and prove the Bible wrong.
This is not time well spent anymore.
I know I shouldn’t be writing this, but I just can’t stop myself…
Steve, you are absolutely right about one thing—I AM frustrated. Not because I am emotionally invested in the theory of evolution, but because I CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH. I am frustrated because, when it comes to the topic of evolution, biblical literalist Christians generally fail to grasp the actual claims of the theory itself, then go on to spread hoaxes, misunderstandings, and sometimes outright lies. They are entitled to their personal beliefs, of course, but they are NOT entitled to halt the progress of science. They are not entitled to misrepresent the theory of evolution to school children. I have seen these things happen time and time again, and this frustrates me. But I’m not here to continue arguing this point.
You say: “I may be religious but this does not automatically make me irrational and unswayable.” Very fair statement; I agree. However, your religious views aside, you have frequently shown yourself to be irrational throughout our debate. For example:
1) You frequently ignore our responses to your claims–then you wait through a few more posts, and bring up the exact same argument again, without ever acknowledging, or explaining why you disagree with, our responses. Sure, I get that you don’t always have time to respond to every point—but you must respond to the points if you intend to bring up again later. For example, I have argued time and time again that evolution need not be an atheistic pursuit. I have presented names of theistic (NOT literalist Christians, but theists) scientists who accept evolution. You simply wait a few days, than go right back to saying the evolutionists have atheistic agendas. You have never even attempted to explain away the theistic scientists.
2) You offer hoaxes and outdated information as opposition to the evolution theory. Case in point: the ICA stones (hoax) and the Paluxy trail (which even the AIG folks would admit isn’t a wise argument to use). Even a minimum amount of research would have shown you the weaknesses of either of those arguments; yet, they were still presented to me as valid reasons to think that maybe scientists were wrong about humans and dinosaurs. This is not the way to present yourself as “rational.”
3) You say that creationism is not a science (which I appreciate). But then, you continue to think that common creationist arguments count as serious opposition to actual science. If creationists have valid scientific information to present, they have science. If they don’t, they have faith—but faith that the bible is true, and an interpretation of evidence based on that faith, does not count as valid opposition to such things as say, geology. So…if creationism is not sciencific, why should it factor into our discussion here at all? Yet, nearly every evolution counter-argument you offer comes from creationism. If their are valid scientific reasons to think that the age of the earth is around 6000, leave creationism out of it and just present the scientific arguments. If there are no secular scientific arguments that suggest the age of the earth is 6000 years, what are we even doing here?
4) When presented with DNA evidence, you responded that such evidence is inconsequential. WHAT?! DNA evidence is quite valid when resolving cases of paternity—yet, in this case, you think it has nothing to do with showing common ancestry? And how can you say that our genetic material is limited, then turn around and say that a study showing similarities in genetic material is irrelevant? At the very least, I would expect that fair-minded person would say, “Hmmm…not sure about that one. Let me look into it further.” This is pretty much where I decided that this discussion was not going to end with either of us convincing the other. ****And by the way, I never said that humans and chimps are so alike you can “barely tell the difference” as you misrepresented. I simply pointed out—correctly—that our studies of our DNA shows unmistakable similarities. This does not mean that we popped out of monkeys overnight (not what evolution claims, anyway) but it does support the theory that we share a common ancestor with chimps.
I expect that you’ll want to respond here with your own list…fine. Feel free to do so. But either way, I’m done. Each and every one of my responses to you as taken a long amount of time to put together (I research and double-check everything). And I simply don’t have the time to devote to this anymore. You can bet, though, that I will continue studying evolution, and I will continue to look into the oppositions to it. I will certainly continue to write on the subject.
All that seems to be a far better use of my time than continuing this particular debate.
Hey, those are both great responses. I’m going to try to address all of your points. A lot of them are good and I have no conflict with them. We all have a right to believe whatever we want, but its not a good idea to believe anti scientific things. That’s just not the kind of faith I am interested in. and I don’t think you are either. That said, we need to be careful what we consider anti-science. This is after all, what the debate is about. I’m trying to address all you points but if there is something I miss, I assure you I’m not trying to “dance around your many arguments. You can call me out if there’s something you consider important that I miss.
Sarah, please forgive me for frustrating you. I agree that there are changes and that the science proves that living things have changed over time. We have observed this. The extensive genetics research and the human genome project and the fact that there is evidence of different animals in the past are all facts that I am not meaning to contest with you. Where I have a problem is with the conclusions you are reaching based on the science facts.
Let me address the specific points you bring up…
1) You say I am ignoring your responses to my claims. I’m sorry, I know there are some things I ignored. This is because the responses are long and as you yourself said, we need to be more selective about what we respond to. I agree that evolution is not an atheistic pursuit. I acknowledge that one can believe in “a” God and evolution. But I am talking specifically about the God of the bible, and the religion of the bible. Because the bible says that God created everything in 6 days, and that there was a flood that covered the whole earth etc… its not consistent with the bible or the god of the bible to say that he used evolution. This however does not make evolution wrong because the bible disagrees with it. There are many scientists who don’t have a religious motivation to say that Darwinian evolution is wrong. I’m not saying that evolutionists have atheistic agendas, but I do say that Darwinian evolution leads to atheism in most cases. Many people have become atheist because of the theory of evolution. A theistic scientist who believes evolution is not in agreement with the bible or the God of the bible. I’m sorry, I thought we came to an agreement already about this because you said… “I can’t make up my own ridiculous version of Christianity and argue against that. If I said that because we don’t see children born with wings, like angels, Christianity must be false, you would (rightly) say, “What the hell? That has nothing to do with how Christianity works!” Someone who believes Darwinian evolution and Christianity is making up a ridiculous version of Christianity. Evolution is not an atheistic persuit, but is an anti bible persuit. As was already aptly said, there are no biblical literalists who also believe evolution.
2) You said I am offering hoaxes and outdated information. Like I said already, the ica stone hoax was news to me. Perhaps they were a hoax. But there are many other examples that can be used, heres the link I already provided, http://www.6000years.org/dinosaurs.html . The paluxy trail was something I wanted to address. The link you gave me said that… “However, little significant fieldwork was done at the site by the anti-creationists until 1982, when “The American Humanist Association . . . financed a team of four scientists to thoroughly investigate the claims first hand.” Heres one thing they say… “Fifteen years of erosion (contrary to the usual effects of erosion) seems to have “improved” the quality of the trackways.” I’m not an expert on tracks, but this seems strange and I’m sure you would agree. Maybe this example of dinosaurs with humans is bad but your forgetting that there are many similar kinds of evidence of dinosaurs with humans, including many tens of thousands of sightings of loch ness, ogo-pogo, the “Champlain monster,” and others… I don’t think its “rational” to automatically think that there is no evidence just because the Paluxy trail “might” be non human. This guy goes on for an hour in his video showing evidence of dinosaurs with humans, even interviews with eye witnesses. http://www.drdino.com/dinosaurs-and-the-bible-seminar-part-3/ …you can just look at the end (about 1:30 into it). It stands to reason that if just one of these examples are legitimate, then you have a serious problem. Is there something to make one discount the mass of evidence all together as illegitimate? Or do we need to go thru each 1 by 1?
3) You say here that… “you continue to think that common creationist arguments count as serious opposition to actual science.” I don’t think this at all. To say that creationists oppose science is a mantra. Creationists do have valid scientific information to present, but this is of course the point of contention between us both. I feel that the evolutionists are doing what you say I am doing. Obviously we disagree about this, which is why we are having a debate. The reason I say that biblical creation is a religion is because I know that I can’t demonstrate scientifically that God exists. It is also impossible to prove beyond the shadow of doubt that the bible is exactly true even though the evidence seems (at least to me) to indicate that it is. Darwinian evolution, I believe, is also a religion because nobody can demonstrate scientifically (beyond the shadow of doubt) that all living things have a common ancestor. I would like you to acknowledge this fact, but this is what we are debating. There are plenty of secular scientific arguments that suggest that the earth is within the range of 6000 years old. The evolution counter arguments I am presenting are in an effort to show that Darwinian evolution is also religious. You say… “nearly every evolution counter-argument you offer comes from creationism. If their are valid scientific reasons to think that the age of the earth is around 6000, leave creationism out of it and just present the scientific arguments.” this statement is basically saying that “creationism” is naturally against science, it is not. There are many limiting factors that show the earth cannot be millions of years old and that it is young. One of many examples is the fact the rotation of the earth is slowing down. If this is true, it cannot be millions of years old because the rotation would be to fast to sustain life on earth. Another is that our moon only has enough dust on it to account for a few thousand years. Even the current human population curve suggests that mankind began a few thousand years ago.
4) I don’t think DNA evidence is inconsequential. But the DNA evidence you presented is inconsequential because you, and the catholic guy in the video, seem to think that a comparison of the number of chromosomes shows a relationship. This is simply not true, a chimpanzee has the same number of chromosomes as a tobacco plant, but obviously they are not closely related. I can say that our genetic material is limited because this is what we observe. Do humans have genes for leaves? This is a limit. The similarities that exist universally in all living things do not magically make the differences go away. So you acknowledge that humans did not pop out of monkeys overnight, but somehow adding millions of years overcomes the obvious scientific problems? How is that? Although you don’t say you can barely tell the difference between humans and monkeys, you say that… “Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity) Compare to this the chimpanzee, which is around 96% to 98% similar to humans.” We can see then, that a 1.5%-3.5% difference between humans and chimpanzees is huge, because you were offended at the prospect that one cannot tell the difference between humans and chimps.
Our points of views are still very far apart.
thats why i love about talking with the two of you. Did you have any thoughts on other specifics about the exchange going on? Like the DNA evidence. Do you tend to agree still with sarah that the 1.5%-3.5% difference between humans and chimpanzees is small enough that we can believe they are related ancestrally to each other? If this is true, why cant the scientists create a human out of a chimp in the lab via selective breeding, mutations, transposons, or any of the other observable means by which evolution is supposed to happen? Even if the problem is time, certainly we can make a human foot, or human brain or some other uniquely human feature in a lab out of monkeys if the genes are close enough.
Steve, as long as you think things like…
• evolution is an atheist pursuit.
• Darwinian evolution leads to atheism in most cases
… I simply cannot take your arguments seriously. I know you want to discuss details, but I can’t expect them not to be twisted and taken out of context after hearing you say the things above. I mean check this out. This is what it sounds like in my mind. Kinda wild, right?
yah… I can see that your having a problem with these two points. I don’t think that evolution is an atheistic pursuit. Unless you want to loosely interpret what I am saying. There are evolutionists who have a belief in god, but it cannot be the same god in the bible right? The pursuit of evolution is to explain life. The pursuit of the bible is to explain life. The main difference between the two is that evolution tries to explain it from a naturalist perspective, and the bible tries to explain it from a supernatural perspective. Both are logically difficult. But we are here, so we should let the evidence speak for itself and take us where it leads. I just think the evolutionists are arriving at conclusions that go farther than the evidence can take us. The only way i know to explain why they do this is that some people want to exclude the possibility of the supernatural. Therefore the only option left is evolution. The problem is that this also is supernatural because we don’t see evolution happen (at the level you believe) in the natural world. Therefore evolution and biblical creation are supernatural religious perspectives. If someone wants to remain purely scientific, they can at most, only say that they are agnostic and don’t know for sure how we are here based on scientific evidence.
When darwinism is taught as if it is a fact of nature, (even tho it is not) it causes an honest person who believes they are being taught facts to not believe the bible because it does not line up with the perceived facts. It is impossible to believe the bible is true and that evolution is true. Some christians therefore decide to believe that the bible has error. The christian then has a choice to either 1) invent a new version of christianity, or 2) become an atheist all together.
I thought you had something there. The beginning was spot on, but after you said “I just think the evolutionists are arriving at conclusions that go farther than the evidence can take us” it all fell apart.
I don’t agree with anything you said from this sentence on. That’s why I think we should end this now.
And the fact that we’re not discussing the original article anymore… that too.
So is that is your defense? You just don’t agree… ok, like i said, everyone is entitled to their religion. Makes me think of this passage in the book of romans…
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
I don’t feel that I need to defend myself. In spite of your efforts, you haven’t offered a good reason to consider that evolution is not backed by valid, testable science. The fact that you’ve referred to evolution as an atheistic pursuit, latched onto pro-creation arguments that have been debunked, and used someone as bat-shit crazy as Kent Hovind to make your points tells me we have different standards when it comes deciding what is reasonable.
In my prior comment, I was trying to be polite in saying that we should agree to disagree. I am disappointed that you took another parting shot by implying we are dumb and blind. I mean you take Kent Hovind seriously? And we’re dumb and blind??? Ouch.
We have no interest in chasing down more outdated, already-debunked Creation arguments. We’ve said all we can say here but you’ve given us a lot of fodder. Stay tuned for an upcoming article or two…
Its not very compelling to use the mantra that pro-creation arguments have been debunked, and to call certain creationists “bat-shit crazy,” without giving any intelligent reason. At least not when you want to talk with people who think differently than you. I can see I got you riled up. I didn’t think you were going to be so sensitive about a bible verse, all fairy tails remember… If you want to combat what I said in some of your other articles, sounds interesting. Otherwise, enjoy the fodder. Thanks for your time…
Steve I’m not riled up (please stop thinking you’re riling us up; it’s getting annoying that you think this).
Regardless I was just a little taken aback by what you deem as good evidence. I’m sorry that you don’t see how delusional Kent Hovind is. I’m guessing you didn’t click on those links. Or view any video of him talking about vegetarian dinosaurs… I mean dragons.
Through our discussions, it’s clear that your bar it set much lower than ours when it comes to deciding what’s a valid argument or piece of evidence. If you want to have a serious debate, please make your research more critical.
Steven, I presented you with DNA evidence for evolution. You presented us with moon dust (debunked here http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/moondust.html, here http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE101.html and even here http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/moondust.asp. (Note, even the guys who originally put forth the moon dust argument, Snelling and Rush, have come to agree that it is not proof of a young earth–read the first link.)
Also, you gave us dinosaur sightings. So let me ask, are the 658 UFO sightings from last month alone proof of anything? http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/ndxevent.html Do bigfoot sightings prove anything? Seriously, are you saying that such sightings count as scientific evidence, even before we actually have any samples in our possession to study?
If you are sincerely trying to convince us that that there are real problems with the theory of evolution and the age of the earth, you’re only hurting your cause more with each post. Can you really not see how the arguments you submitted above are outdated and outlandish, respectively? Can you not see how this hurts your credibility? Seriously, at first I thought you were just lazy with research, but now I think you might be playing a practical joke on us…
Anyway, if you really think Kent Hovind is a voice of reason, I suggest you do a little more research on him. As for me, I’m writing an article on the Hovind video you sent over…should be up sometime this week.
Hey thanks for the responses. I can see you both think I’m a nut case. I just don’t yet see the reason for that. I don’t see that what Kent Hovind says is crazy in spite of the vegetarian dinosaurs thing. I can see how one who believes as fact that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago has a huge bias against this kind of thing.
I thought we already talked about the DNA evidence. It was looking to me like the “evidence” you presented is nothing more than word games where small but observable changes that are called “extensive” are used as evidence to prove obvious huge changes that are called “small.” You also provided me with information regarding the number of chromosomes and symbiotic relationship percentages. This is not compelling in light of the fact that a tobacco plant and a chimpanzee have the same number of chromosomes, yet everyone knows they are very different, therefore it should not be thought significant that chimps and humans have close to the same number of chromosomes. Furthermore, I don’t see how one can take the symbiotic relationship percentages seriously when we can plainly see that they are very different. Just because living things are made out of the same “stuff” does not force the conclusion that they must be related somehow. Now if you can give an example where scientists can use a selection process to create new information i.e. a feather on a reptile, you might have something. I started the debate giving you DNA evidence that evolution cannot happen. We know this because, while variation within animals happen, we observe that there are limits because information cannot be added using natural selection, mutation, etc… this is all repeat information so I will assume you don’t have an answer since you seem to continue the “DNA evidence” mantra without addressing my points.
The moon dust example shows that the previous calculation had to be “re-adjusted” to fit the evolutionary model. I’m not convinced that we are being to told the truth about what the evidence can logically conclude. Much in the same way that you are taking DNA evidence way to far in you conclusion and don’t seem to see the problem, the same sort of thing no doubt happens often when someone starts with the assumption the world is millions of years old and bases the calculations on the faulty assumption. The Greenland ice rings, and radio carbon dating are just a couple good examples of this same sort of thing, both of which nobody wanted to answer.
I don’t think the 650 UFO sightings every month are all crazy people who want to make things up. However it is not reasonable to think that these are space aliens in light of the fact that we have a military that no doubt tests all kinds of strange flying machines. It doesn’t make sense to say that everyone is lying when you have that many witnesses. I would refer you to your own logic about a crime scene. For example, if 100’000 people witness an airplane crashing into a building, this is compelling information in spite of a theory that it did not happen. So you are telling me that the hundreds of thousands of sightings of loch ness, or the many other eyewitnesses accounts are all crazy people and liars? Why, because it goes against the theory of evolution? I’m getting the impression that your bias is the primary reason for the disbelief on your part. Everyone has some bias but ridicule does not provide the place for a lack of answers. (please don’t take my language the wrong way. I don’t mean any disrespect.)
I’m looking forward to the Hovind video article. May I suggest you do an article on some of the Walter Veith videos as well?
I agree with you. It’s the equivalent to saying that “evolution is an atheistic worldview”. Kenneth Miller argues in his book Finding Darwin’s God that he believes in God because he believes in evolution (or was it vice versa?). Thus, the “evolution” argument against theism or atheism is ridiculous IMHO.