B5-1-Creation Graham Kendall Modified 1/26/2008 Email grahamkendall74135@yahoo.com I am found on IRC Efnet, Undernet, Dalnet as glk Files found at http://www.grahamkendall.net All are free to use any of this material without limit. ******************************************************************************* ===== A Harris poll published last December found that more people believe in a devil, hell and angels than in evolution. == Creation claims "Cambrian Explosion". "Abrupt Appearence "Fossil Gaps". "Created Kinds". "Microevolution and Macroevolution" . "Bats have no fossil ancestors". "Flowering plants appear suddenly". "Common structures are the result of common function". "Common structures are just convergence" . "Haeckel's drawings show that darwinists are liars". "Mutation and natural selection can't produce new structures". "Peppered moths were faked". "DNA can only change within fixed limits". "Evolution is just an assumption". "Biological information cannot increase". "No new genetic information" . "No beneficial mutations". "Goldschmidt' s monster". "Behe and the flagellum". "Irreducible complexity". "Evolution is a tautology". "The big bad scientific establishment crushes dissent". "Teach the Controversy" "Evolution is only a theory" "Many current scientists reject evolution" "Many scientists find problems with evolution" "Intelligent Design theory is scientific" "teach the controversy" "Interpreting evidence is not the same as observation" "Evolutionists interpret evidence on the basis of their preconceptions" "Federal law (Santorum Amendment) supports teaching alternatives" "Intelligent Design theory is scientific" challenge established dogma", "Intelligent Design theory is scientific" "Creationism and evolution are the only 2 models", "Problems with evolution are evidence for creation" "Scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma" == Creationists Mike Behe David Berlinsky Walter Bradley Bill Craig Bill Dembski Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer Phil Johnson Robert Kaita Steven Meyer J. P. Moreland Paul Nelson Robert Newman Nancy Pearcey Del Ratzsch John Mark Reynolds Hugh Ross Siegfried Scherer Jeffrey Schloss Jonathan Wells Luder Whitlock Sherwood Lingenfelter Mark Whalon Alvin Pantinga Fritz Schaefer Rich McGee == Arkansas Act 590 of 1981 "AN ACT TO REQUIRE BALANCED TREATMENT OF CREATION-SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION- SCIENCE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS; TO PROTECT ACADEMIC FREEDOM BY PROVIDING STUDENT CHOICE; TO ENSURE FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS EXERCISE; TO GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF BELIEF AND SPEECH; TO PREVENT ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION; TO PROHIBIT RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION CONCERNING ORIGINS == "Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims," says Richard Dawkins, biologist, bestselling author and figurehead of the so-called New Atheists. "A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without." == http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf Dover decision == The Evolutionist says there is no proof of there even having been a Flood... yet, God has given the rainbow as the sign that there will never be a Flood of such magnitude even again, which virtually everyone has seen in the sky at one time or another. == In Texas, a Line in the Curriculum Revives Evolution Debate AUSTIN, Tex. The latest round in a long-running battle over how evolution should be taught in Texas schools began in earnest Wednesday as the State Board of Education heard impassioned testimony from scientists and social conservatives on revising the science curriculum. The debate here has far-reaching consequences; Texas is one of the nations biggest buyers of textbooks, and publishers are reluctant to produce different versions of the same material. Many biologists and teachers said they feared that the board would force textbook publishers to include what skeptics see as weaknesses in Darwins theory to sow doubt about science and support the Biblical version of creation. These weaknesses that they bring forward are decades old, and they have been refuted many, many times over, Kevin Fisher, a past president of the Science Teachers Association of Texas, said after testifying. Its an attempt to bring false weaknesses into the classroom in an attempt to get students to reject evolution. In the past, the conservatives on the education board have lacked the votes to change textbooks. This year, both sides say, the final vote, in March, is likely to be close. Even as federal courts have banned the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in biology courses, social conservatives have gained 7 of 15 seats on the Texas board in recent years, and they enjoy the strong support of Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican. The chairman of the board, Dr. Don McLeroy, a dentist, pushed in 2003 for a more skeptical version of evolution to be presented in the states textbooks, but could not get a majority to vote with him. Dr. McLeroy has said he does not believe in Darwins theory and thinks that Earths appearance is a recent geologic event, thousands of years old, not 4.5 billion as scientists contend. On the surface, the debate centers on a passage in the states curriculum that requires students to critique all scientific theories, exploring the strengths and weaknesses of each. Texas has stuck to that same standard for 20 years, having originally passed it to please religious conservatives. In practice, teachers rarely pay attention to it. This year, however, a panel of teachers assigned to revise the curriculum proposed dropping those words, urging students instead to analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence. Scientists and advocates for religious freedom say the battle over the curriculum is the tip of a spear. Social conservatives, the critics argue, have tried to use the strengths and weaknesses standard to justify exposing students to religious objections in the guise of scientific discourse. The phrase strengths and weaknesses has been spread nationally as a slogan to bring creationism in through the back door, said Eugenie C. Scott of the National Center for Science in Education, a California group that opposes watering down evolution in biology classes. Already, legislators in six states Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri and South Carolina have considered legislation requiring classrooms to be open to views about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory, according to a petition from the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based strategic center of the intelligent-design movement. Stephen C. Meyer, an expert on the history of science and a director at the Discovery Institute, denied that the group advocated a Biblical version of creation. Rather, Mr. Meyer said, it is fighting for academic freedom and against what it sees as a fanatical loyalty to Darwin among biologists, akin to a secular religion. Testifying before the board, he asserted, for instance, that evolution had trouble explaining the Cambrian Explosion, a period of rapid diversification that evidence suggests began about 550 million years ago and gave rise to most groups of complex organisms and animal forms. Of the Texas curriculum standards, Mr. Meyer said, This kind of language is really important for protecting teachers who want to address this subject with integrity in the sense of allowing students to hear about dissenting opinions. But several biologists who appeared in the hearing room said the objections raised by Mr. Meyer and some board members were baseless. The majority of evidence collected over the last 150 years supports Darwin, and few dissenting opinions have survived a review by scientists. Every single thing they are representing as a weakness is a misrepresentation of science, said David M. Hillis, a professor of biology at the University of Texas. These are science skeptics. These are people with religious and political agendas. Many of the dozens of people who crowded into the hearing room, however, seemed unimpressed with the body of scientific evidence supporting evolution. Textbooks today treat it as more than a theory, even though its evidence has been found to be stained with half-truths, deception and hoaxes, said Paul Berry Lively, 42, a mechanical engineer from Houston who brought along his teenage son. Darwinian evolution is not a proven fact. Other conservative parents told board members that their children had been intimidated and ridiculed by biology teachers when they questioned evolution. Some asserted that they knew biology teachers who were afraid to bring up theories about holes in Darwins theory. Business leaders, meanwhile, said Texas would have trouble attracting highly educated workers and their families if the states science programs were seen as a laughingstock among biologists. The political games we are playing right now are going to burn us all, said Eric Hennenhoefer, who owns Obsidian Software. == Dembski has written a book called, "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology" == http://www.antievolution.org/topics/law/ --- Anti-Evolution and the Law As with other controversies, there is significant interaction between Anti-Evolution and the law. Legislation, court cases, and political action are all part and parcel of this social and cultural component to anti-evolutionary action. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Contents * Anti-Evolution Legislation Anti-Evolution Legislation The USA has had a long and complex history of anti-evolution measures proposed and sometimes passed at the state level. The following list gives information on items in reverse chronological order. The status is given as BILL or LAW and color-coded as either green (for a bill under consideration or a law in force) or red (for a defeated bill or a law which has been vetoed, repealed, or struck down by the courts). 2001, US Senate, SB1, AMENDMENT This amendment was drafted by Discovery Institute Advisor Phillip E. Johnson for Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. Santorum offered it as an amendment to Senate Bill 1, which is known as the "No Child Left Behind" bill. It was removed from the bill in the conference committee, and thus is not part of the law, but the language was put into the conference report. The important point to remember is that the amendment was specifically considered and rejected. Further information: * Congressional Record of discussion when the amendment was proposed: Senate 2001/07/13 pages 6147-6208. 2001, Louisiana, House Bill 1286, BILL This bill directs that the state shall not print or distribute any material containing claims known to be false or fraudulent. It also specifically provides for any citizen to be able to sue the state using the provisions of this bill. Text of LA HB1286 [Personal note -- Does the state of Louisiana ever print either a transcript of their legislative sessions or Environmental Impact Statements for government projects? I wonder how they expect to do either without being hit by multiple civil suits per document... -- WRE] 2001, Michigan, House Bill 4382, BILL A bill proposed by Rep. Gosselin (House Bill 4382) seeks to amend 1976 PA 451, "The revised school code". The bill directs that all references to "evolution" or "how species change through time" should have additional words added that students should be informed that evolution is an unproven theory and that students should explain the "competing theories" of evolution and "THE THEORY THAT LIFE IS THE RESULT OF THE PURPOSEFUL, INTELLIGENT DESIGN OF A CREATOR." Text of HB4382 Further information is available at this page. 2001, Washington, Senate Bill 6058, BILL The Washington State Senate considers a bill to require the same "disclaimer" that Alabama required for their textbooks. Text of SB5068 Web page critical of SB6058 2001, Georgia, House Bill 391, BILL This bill directs teachers to distinguish between "philosophical materialism" and "authentic science", and extends to teachers the "right" to present and critique any scientific theory of the origins or life or species. Not expected to be considered in 2001. Text of HB391 2001, West Virginia, House Bill 2554, BILL An "equal-time" style anti-evolution bill. Text of HB2554 2001, Arkansas, House Bill 2548, BILL A bill proposed by Rep. Jim Holt of Arkansas would make it illegal for public funds to be used to purchase materials containing known false or fraudulent claims. A list of putative false or fraudulent items was included in the text of the bill. These items were apparently produced by Holt going over the anti-evolutionary literature in a series of short skips and hops. Certain items in the text of the bill were exact quotes of the Jack Chick cartoon tract, "Big Daddy?" Holt enlisted the assistance of Kent Hovind, who testified before the Arkansas State House as an "expert". Holt also claimed to have been influenced by Jonathan Wells' book, "Icons of Evolution". A critique of HB2548 documents likely anti-evolutionary sources for much of the text of the bill, points out conceptual and factual problems, and provides links to further information. HB2548 failed in a House vote on 2001/03/23, with 45 yes votes, 36 no votes, and the rest either absent or not voting. 51 votes were required for passage. A vote to expunge the earlier failing vote occurred on 2001/04/03. 67 yes votes were needed to expunge the vote; 62 yes votes were cast, 22 no votes, and the remainder were absent or not voting. It seems likely that Holt will re-introduce HB2548 or similar legislation at his next next opportunity. 2001, Montana, House Bill 588, BILL House Bill 588 by Rep. Joe Balyeat, R-Bozeman, was presented as an "objectivity in science education" measure, and would have directed the approval of evolution and creationism materials by an appointed six-member committee. Failed in committee, 14-4 vote, 2001/02/20. 1981, Louisiana, "Equal-Time" Legislation, LAW TBD 1981, Arkansas, Act 590 "Equal-Time" legislation, LAW Wendell Bird, a graduate of Yale Law School, penned a draft resolution for the Institute for Creation Research. The ICR printed and distributed thousands of copies, with the advice that the resolution was intended to be used at the level of local school boards. Paul Ellwanger modified this draft resolution and distributed it, but with the intent of having it passed as law by states. Although Ellwanger's draft bill was proposed in many states, it only passed in one: Arkansas. There, it followed a path from Ellwanger to a minister, A.A. Blount, to an Arkansas state legisltor, James L. Holsted. Introduced late in the legislative session, Act 590 was quickly moved through the Senate and then the House with little discussion. Act 590 was signed into law by Governor Frank White about a week after its introduction in the Senate ([TAE]). 1976, Kentucky, LAW Kentucky passed, as a non-controversial law, legislation that allowed teachers to instruct students already believing in biblical creation the tenets of biblical creationism, and allowed such students to earn credit for correctly learning the material ([TAE]). 1973, Tennessee, Senate Bill, LAW This bill mandated both the labelling of evolution as "a theory" and the devotion of equal space in textbooks to "other theories", explicitly citing the Genesis account of creation as one of these. The bill, with a number of amendments, became law without the governor's signature ([TAE]). 1928, Arkansas, LAW Arkansas voters approved the anti-evolutionary Initiative Act 1 on the November ballot ([TAE]). 1926, Mississippi, LAW Mississippi was the first state to adopt an anti-evolutionary law following the Scopes Trial ([TAE]). 1925, Tennessee, The Butler Act, LAW This law outlawed the teaching of evolution as the descent of man from lower animals. As the most famous example of early anti-evolution legislation, it also provides us with information about what really bothered the anti-evolutionists: the teaching of the continuity of descent of man from non-human primates. This is the real issue that all later legislation would like to address, but does so only obliquely. The Butler Act was the statute under which John T. Scopes of Dayton, Tennessee was charged, leading to the famous Scopes Monkey Trial. The Butler Act was upheld on the legal issues raised in Scopes' appeal, but the court reversed Scopes' conviction on the technical issue (not raised by the defense) that the fine had been set by the judge and not the jury. The appeals court further requested dismissal of the case by the prosecution, which complied. With no grounds to move the case to a higher court, the Butler Act remained the law of Tennessee until 1968. 1923, Tennessee, BILLS Anti-evolutionary bills were introduced in both the house and senate, but neither passed ([TAE]). 1923, Florida, LAW An anti-evolution resolution based upon William Jennings Bryan's views was adopted as law on May 25th, 1923. This marked the second anti-evolution law enacted within the USA ([TAE]). 1923, Oklahoma, LAW An anti-evolution amendment attached to a free textbook bill passed, marking the first enacted anti-evolution legislation in the USA ([TAE]). The free textbook law and its anti-evolutionary sucker were repealed shortly after 1925. 1922, Kentucky, BILL An anti-evolution bill was introduced by Rep. George W. Ellis. Ref: [TAE], which notes that 45 more anti-evolution measures were introduced in the next ten years acroos the USA. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Anti-Evolution Court Cases Where there are laws, there are court cases. Some of these have been notorious, and others more low-profile. 1981, Arkansas, McLean v. Arkansas A test of the "equal-time" legislation passed by the legislature of Arkansas in 1981, this court trial featured a long list of plaintiffs, including ministers, rabbis, bishops, and theologians, who opposed the attempt to have a narrow sectarian anti-evolution account taught as science. A variety of experts testified on the issues, and the "equal-time" legislation was struck down by the trial judge, William R. Overton, in a much-admired decision. The McLean v. Arkansas Trial Documentation Project has taken up the challenge of preserving the actual trial records from this historic case. 1981, California, Segraves v. California Kelly Segraves challenged the teaching of evolution in schools on the grounds that it infringed upon religious freedom, in that he asserted the teaching of evolution as fact meant that children were told with the authority of the state that their parents' beliefs were wrong. The court ordered that the California State Board of Education must disseminate its 1972 "anti-dogmatism" policy to educators ([TAE]). 1977, Indiana, Hendren v. Campbell The ACLU, on behalf of Jon Hendren, sued the West Clark school board for solely adopting a creationist textbook. The trial court found for the plaintiff, finding the textbook to be sectarian in content and entangling the state with religion ([TAE]). 1974-75, Tennessee, Steele v. Tennessee and Daniel v. Tennessee These two suits separately questioned the constitutionality of the "equal space" anti-evolution statute passed in 1973. A federal court of appeals for the Daniel case ruled the measure unconstitutional on Establishment Clause violations (explicit mention of "Genesis" and prohibition of "satanic" theories in the text). The Tennessee Supreme Court cited the Daniel decision in finding for the plaintiff in Steele ([TAE]). 1974, Washington, D.C., Willoughby v. National Science Foundation and Crowley v. Smithsonian Institution These suits challenged the constitutionality of federal support for evolutionry education, in preparing the BSCS textbooks in Willoughby, and in preparing exhibits in Crowley. Both cases were dismissed, and in both cases the US Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal. The courts in these cases deferred to scientific opinion on the facts. Successful anti-evolutionary challenges would have to dispute the status of evolution and promulgate as scientific their own alternative view ([TAE]). 1970-72, Texas, Wright v. ? Referred to by Larson simply as the "Wright case", the mother of Rita Wright brought suit to contest the constitutionality of teaching evolution as a fact without giving time to alternative explanations ([TAE]). Wright's case was dismissed on procedural grounds. Various appeals affirmed the original decision to dismiss, and the US Supreme Court eventually (1974) refused to hear an appeal of the lower court's ruling. 1969-70, Mississippi, Smith v. Mississippi The Mississippi Supreme Court cited Epperson v. Arkansas as its basis for striking down the Mississippi anti-evolution law ([TAE]). 1967-68, Arkansas The Arkansas Supreme Court overturned the decision in Epperson v. Arkansas, reinstating the Arkansas anti-evolution law as a valid exercise of state power. In 1968, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear Epperson's appeal of the Arkansas Supreme Court ruling. The state's defense was weak, due to a change in Arkansas politics between 1965 and 1968. The US Supreme Court overturned the Arkansas Supreme Court ruling and held the Arkansas anti-evolution law unconstitutional ([TAE]). 1967, Tennessee A challenge to the 1925 Butler Act was deferred by the trial judge pending relevant legislative action to repeal the act. During this process, a teacher, Gary L. Scott, was fired from his position under the Butler Act, and brought suit. The Senate defeated the repeal measure. Scott's case brought support from the ACLU, the National Science Teachers Association, the NEA, and the AAAS. Scott was reinstated with full back pay, but Scott at this point filed a federal class action lawsuit attacking the Butler Act. The Tennessee Senate re-considered the repeal measure that had earlier been defeated, and this time passed it. 1965-66, Arkansas, Epperson v. Arkansas Susan Epperson, a native Arkansan first-year science teacher due to soon leave the state, became the plaintiff in a test case on the constitutionality of the Arkansas anti-evolution law from 1928. The trial judge struck down the law as unconstitutional ([TAE]). 1925, Tennessee, The Scopes Trial Arguably the most famous court trial concerning anti-evolution, the Scopes Trial has passed into the cultural consciousness as an almost mythic event. Unfortunately, there are a number of assertions commonly raised about the Scopes trial whose mythic content really is fictitious. See the Scopes Trial Frequently Rebutted Assertions page. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Anti-Evolution Political Action 2001, West Virginia, Kanawha County Board of Education A group of 30 parents signed a complaint presented to the Kanawha County Board of Education that biology textbooks were using "false and fraudulent' information aobut evolution. 1999, Kansas Board of Education TBD 1974, Texas, State Board of Education Under continuing complaints from Mel and Norma Gabler, the Texas State Board of Education formally decreed that textbooks should explicitly teach evolution as "a theory" uproven by scientific fact, and that texbooks should not limit what young people might conclude about the meaning of human existence ([TAE]). All BSCS biology texts were rejected under this ruling. 1969-70, Texas, State Board of Education Based upon complaints by Mel and Norma Gabler, the Texas State Board of Education removed two BSCS textbooks which mentioned evolution from its approved list. In 1970, the board directed that all textbooks must identify evolution as "a theory". 1969, California, State Board of Education The Science Framework for California Public Schools asserted the equal scientific standing of evolution and "creation theory", mandating that both be taught. 1963, California, Superintendent of Public Instruction In response to the petition of Segraves and Sumrall, ordered that textbooks identify evolution as "a theory" ([TAE]). 1963, California, State Board of Education Nell Segraves and Jean Sumrall petitioned the California Board of Education to have a curriculum balanced between evolution and creationism for the purpose of neutrality ([TAE]). 1926, Louisiana, Superintendent of Education The Louisiana Superintendent of Education ordered the deletion of evolution from textbooks ([TAE]). 1925-26, Texas, State Textbook Commission The Texas State Textbook Commission directed that all mention of evolution would be deleted from textbooks ([TAE]). 1924, North Carolina, State Board of Education The North Carolina State Board of Education directed that no textbook giving a statement of human origins other than that of the Bible would be used ([TAE]). 1924, California, State Board of Education The California State Board of Education issued a directive that teachers should present Darwinism "as a theory only" ([TAE]). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Other Resources The National Center for Science Education A non-profit organization dedicated to keeping science content in science classrooms, and non-science out of them. Offers a number of resources concerning the legal status of anti-evolutionary tactics, plus a lot more general information about the anti-evolution movement. The NCSE is the place to call to get help in opposing anti-science or non-science initiatives. They could also use your membership. Compared to the anti-science or non-science special interest groups (Discovery Institute, Institute for Creation Research, Answers In Genesis, etc.), the NCSE runs on a shoestring budget. Join up and lend a hand. The Talk.Origins Archive This web site collects together a large number of files which give the mainstream scientific response to anti-evolutionary claims. There are a number of essays aimed at introducing evolutionary concepts to the layman as well. The site is run entirely by volunteer effort. Six Days or Forever, by Ray Ginger, 1957. This book chronicles the context leading up to the Scopes Trial, with many fascinating insights into the participants. Ginger demonstrates that the Scopes Trial was a human drama and not just a clash of ideas. Trial And Error, by Edward Larson. This book is a scholarly overview of the history of anti-evolution measures brought to trial in the US courts. It covers anti-evolutionary action from before the Scopes Trial through the Supreme Court's decision in 1987 on the Louisiana "balanced treatment" law. == Texas creation Evidence continues to accumulate that calling for teaching the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution in Texas is, in practice, simply a form of stealth creationism. For example, in a post on the website of the San Antonio Express-News (December 12, 2008), a representative of the San Antonio Bible Based Sciences Association offered to provide "scientific evidence of weaknesses in evolution and for creation," including "the fact that evolution violates the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, as well as the Law of Biogenesis," as well as "creation evidence in the fields of microbiology, genetics, probability, biochemistry, biology, geology and physics which support creation and undermine evolution." And in a December 1, 2008, post on its blog, the Texas Freedom Network examined how members of the antievolution faction on the state board of education have responded to a Texas religious right organization' s questionnaire over the past few election cycles. According to TFN, in 2008, they strongly favored" forcing publishers to include strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution" in biology textbooks, while in 2006, they "strongly favored" the teaching of intelligent design" as a viable" theory in public school science classrooms, and in 2002, they "strongly favored" the same -- even though the question was prominently, and not inaccurately, labeled "Creationism" then. "Who," TFN asked, "do they think they're fooling?" == Mike Oard "Flood by Design" have now taken a critical step in their crusade to water down instruction on evolution in public school science classrooms. Teacher and academic work groups have proposed strong new science curriculum standards regarding evolution, a concept that provides the foundation for the study of all the biological sciences. Now, however, the state boards creationist faction is moving to undermine that proposal. The Texas Freedom Network has learned that evolution opponents on the state board are trying to pack a formal curriculum review panel with supporters of teaching intelligent design/creationism. The panel was supposed to include science experts, yet three of the six appointed by the state board are strident evolution critics. In fact, two are authors of an anti-evolution textbook, Explore Evolution, that the state board could consider approving for Texas public schools in 2011. == Texas State Board of Education Puts Strident Anti-Evolution Critics on Science Standards Review Panel Two Authored Anti-Evolution Textbook, Presenting Serious Conflicts of Interest October 15, 2008 AUSTIN - Texas Freedom Network President Kathy Miller today sharply criticized the inclusion of three strident evolution opponents, including two authors of an anti-evolution textbook, on a panel that will review proposed new science curriculum standards for Texas public schools. The inclusion of the two textbook authors raises serious questions about conflicts of interest and whether political agendas took priority over giving Texas students a 21st-century science education, Miller said. Its simply stunning that any state board members would even consider appointing authors of an anti-evolution textbook to a panel of scientists, she said. Are they coming here to help write good science standards or to drum up a market for their lousy textbook? The textbook, Explore Evolution, is intended for secondary schools and colleges, according to its U.S. distributor, the anti-evolution Discovery Institute in Seattle. Because of that, the State Board of Education could consider it for the states approved list of science textbooks in 2011. The two authors are Stephen Meyer, who is vice president of the Discovery Institute, and Ralph Seelke, a professor of the department of biologyand earth sciencesat the University of Wisconsin-Superior. A third panel member, Charles Garner, is a professor of chemistry at Baylor University in Waco. All three are supporters of the anti-evolution concept intelligent design/creationism and have signed the Discovery Institutes Dissent from Darwinism statement. In addition to their textbook, Meyer and Seelke testified in 2005 against evolution in hearings called by religious conservatives who controlled the Kansas State Board of Education. Texas state board membersnominated all six panelists. The three other members of the review panel are Texas scientists with long, distinguished resumes: David Hillis, professor of integrative biology anddirector of the Center of Computational Biology and Bioinformatics at the University of Texas at Austin; Ronald K. Wetherington, professor of anthropology at Southern Methodist University and director of the Center for Teaching Excellence Gerald Skoog, professor and dean emeritus of the College of Education at Texas Tech and co-director of the Center for Integration of Science Education and Research A number of respected Texas scientists contacted TFN to say that they had asked state board members to serve on the review panel, Miller said. None appear to have been named to the panel. Texas universities boast some of the leading scientists in the world, Miller said. Its appalling thatsome state board membersturned to out-of-state ideologues to decide whether Texas kids get a 21st-century science education. == Most people don't get creationism directly from God (or from a damaged mind). They get it from someone persuasive - I had in mind a preacher in a pulpit. The audience don't go out and test it directly - unless, say, they choose to skip this year's flu vaccine - any more than a science lecture class really goes out and tests most of what it's told. Now perhaps you could regard an uncritical acceptance of a religious preacher's representation of the world as unwise or even insane - certainly such persons are often permitted to speak with less scepticism on the part of the hearers than is allowed to most of us - but it is so very widespread that I am reluctant to call everyone who follows religion and follows preachers, crazy. == About two centuries ago, the founders of the science of Geology came, regretfully, to the conclusion that nowhere on or under the Earth was there evidence of a worldwide flood. Being devout and honourable Christians they accepted therefore that the Bible was never meant to be a science book. == http://www.godandscience.org/ http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html == W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, Cambridge University Pres, 1998. L. Witham, By Design, San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003, p. 149.) The Design Inference == The Discovery Institute and ID proponents have a number of goals that they hope to achieve using disingenuous and mendacious methods of marketing, publicity, and political persuasion. They do not practice real science because that takes too long, but mainly because this method requires that one have actual evidence and logical reasons for one's conclusions, and the ID proponents just don't have those. If they had such resources, they would use them, and not the disreputable methods they actually use. The DI has both an immediate goal and an ultimate goal. The immediate goal is to diminish the evolution content in modern biology textbooks that will soon be adopted in Texas. To achieve this, the DI used three devious tactics. First, they presented the SBOE with an analysis of the biology textbooks that claimed the books were deficient in presenting the "scientific weaknesses" of four evolutionary topics: the Miller-Urey experiment, the Cambrian explosion, peppered moths, and drawings of vertebrate embryos. Unfortunately for the DI, their entire analysis was derived from the book by creationist Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution. This book has been reviewed and refuted by a number of scientists who have revealed that it is a paragon of pseudoscholarship and pseudoscience. It misrepresents scientific data, quotes scientists out of context, uses illogical and specious arguments, and in general presents a false picture of modern evolutionary theory. The DI analysis of the Texas biology books was quickly examined and discredited by a number of Texas scientists, including myself. In fact, the biology books presented these topics correctly when used as examples of evolution and the abiotic origin of life. (There was one exception: one book still used the faulty Haeckel drawings of vertebrate embryos, but all the others had long corrected or omitted these.) The problem with the DI's purported "weaknesses" is that they are not scientific, as required by the curriculum. The DI hopes the SBOE will compel the biology textbook publishers to insert these bogus, unscientific weaknesses in the books to weaken only the evolution and origin of life topics. By focusing on these topics, they hope that students will learn that only evolution is controversial and teachers will avoid or water-down their presentation of these "controversial" topics. This will accomplish their goal of damaging scientific instruction about evolution in public schools. Indeed, just the publicity from the controversy now makes all Texas biology teachers think twice about how they present the topics. Almost all high school biology teachers in Texas today avoid discussion of human evolution, and many teach about evolution in the context of ecological "adaptation" and genetic "change," not in terms of speciation and common descent, which fundamentally distorts the topic. The DI wants this distortion to continue and increase. The DI's second tactic was to give the SBOE the same papers they extracted from the scientific literature that they had presented to the Ohio Board of Education in an attempt to convince them that genuine scientific controversy existed about evolution. These papers, all written by legitimate scientists, investigated different aspects of evolutionary theory and contained speculative and differing views about specific aspects of the theory. While not unusual, the DI claimed these papers showed that evolution was a "theory in crisis," and that this must be presented to high school students. "Teach the controversy," they said. But this tactic was a deliberate misrepresentation. The National Center of Science Education contacted the authors of these papers to ask them for their correct meaning; most replied and all who did repudiated the DI interpretation of their work. Some aspects of evolutionary theory are controversial and are the subjects of advanced research among evolutionary scientists, but these aspects do not (and should not) find their way into introductory biology textbooks. To claim that the presence of these controversial aspects--similar to those all scientific theories possess--means that evolution itself is controversial and that this should be presented in introductory biology textbooks, is completely wrong and extremely devious. The DI's third tactic was to obtain and publicize an open letter signed by 24 Texas university professors and a statement signed by 40 Texas "scientists," all asking that Darwinian evolution be fairly taught to Texas students, including the "weaknesses" and flaws, and that Darwinian theory should be questioned. As it turned out, only a few of the professors were scientists, and only a handful of the scientists were biologists. Some actually never signed a statement but were only contacted for their assent; they were not aware how the DI was going to publicly use their names, and they later objected to their exploitation. I did a detailed analysis of these two statements and showed why they were illegitimate and irrelevant to the Texas controversy. For example, the two statements constantly refer to "Darwinian theory" and "Darwinism," not modern evolutionary theory. If I really thought they were truly referring to Darwin's theory, I would have signed the statements! But they don't: the DI was trying to use these statements to attack modern evolutionary theory using their patented bait-and-switch technique, and that was a misrepresentation. The ultimate goal of the DI is to get intelligent design creationism inserted into the Texas science curriculum. They are not asking for this now, but that is their future intent. They tried to get intelligent design inserted into the Kansas and Ohio science curricula, but failed. Now, the DI officers and fellows think Texas is their best hope for a small victory that will lead to achieving their ultimate goal. Members of the Texas SBOE are overwhelmingly conservative and religious, and the DI thinks most can be convinced to vote in favor of their effort to insert bogus "weaknesses" about evolution into textbooks. If this succeeds, the DI will next ask that the Texas science curriculum be revised to accept intelligent design. Working step by step to achieve change is an old political practice, and this time the DI is trying this strategy. But even religious conservatives may want to vote to make changes to the state's public school science textbooks and curriculum that are opposed by the state's scientists and business leaders, so the DI may ultimately fail again. 3. Didn't the Discovery Institute officers publish a Zogby Poll that they claimed showed that Texas citizens overwhelmingly supported their views in the biology textbook adoption controversy? The DI used a flawed Zogby poll to prove this claim, stating that 83% of Texas citizens "say the state board of education should approve biology textbooks that teach both Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific evidence against it." . There are actually dozens of divergent creationist views, but at bottom they all hate Darwin and modern scientific evolution--in fact, they all hate modern science (and its method of critical inquiry) in toto, but they can't openly express that view since it would inform the public that they are only pretending to be scientists. All use pseudoscientific methods to a greater or lesser extent in promulgating their views. Since pure Biblical or religious creationism has no legal legitimacy in public schools, textbooks, or science curricula--as mandated by a number of Federal Court decisions--creationists have had to turn to pseudoscience to subvert secular science education. But this was an easy turn for them, since creationist pseudoscience has been an American tradition since the 1920's and the days of George McCready Price. Intelligent design is recognized as just another form of creationism, albeit a very sophisticated form with many scientific trappings and arguments. Intelligent design is a form of creationism because it unavoidably posits the existence of an intelligent designer who designed and created all species of fossil and living organisms. The ID proponents are coy about the true identity of the intelligent designer, allowing for the possibility that it could be a natural super-human extraterrestrial alien, but no one seriously thinks this is a possibility, because such aliens are obviously more interested in sexually molesting and experimenting upon the bodies of abducted humans than in designing tapeworms, petunias, and mullets. Perhaps if there was some actual evidence for a super-alien designer, scientists would take the idea more seriously. In any event, ID proponents all have a common characteristic: they are all believers in a supernatural deity, and many of them have identified the designer with this entity. So ID advocates are really trying to pervert science by slipping supernaturalism into its practice. No, none are legitimate scientists. I agree that some of the ID proponents have received scientific training, but this training was gained to learn terminology and understand biological processes in order to better oppose the scientific establishment and its support for evoluiton. Many of the ID advocates are knowledgeable about science and some even have science doctorates, but these individuals are not scientists because they do not behave like scientists. Real, legitimate scientists share the following characteristics: * they accept the practice of methodological naturalism in scientific method, eschewing the supernatural in science; * they perform experiments and make observations to answer question and solve problems within a common theoretical framework accepted by the scientific community; * if they disagree with the common theoretical framework, they are obligated to produce genuine evidence and logical reasons that casts doubt on modern theory; * they publish their scientific work in peer-reviewed science journals, saving educational, historical, cultural, and philosophical material for books; * they take to heart the cogent criticisms by their colleagues and make corrections, not obstinately refuse to change a word and instead make up ad hoc arguments to save appearances; * they do not indulge in pseudoscholarship: specious arguments, sophistry, illogical reasoning, hidden false premises, assumed presuppositions that have no basis in fact, deliberate misrepresentation and misunderstanding, quotes out of context, quotation mongering and credential peddling, etc.; * they do not attempt to use raw political power to authoritatively accomplish educational goals that they cannot legitimately accomplish using reasoned discourse, responsible inquiry, and scientific persuasion. The ID proponents fail all of these tests, thus clearly revealing themselves to be pseudoscientists, not real scientists. But what about Dr. Michael Behe, who is a tenured biology professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. I fully agree that his scientific work conducted prior to earning tenure at Lehigh was legitimate science, and he was a real scientist then. But now his research focuses on intelligent design, as he himself states, which is a philosophical, pseudoscientific program Dr. Behe actually accepts quite a bit of modern evolutionary theory, but he insists--contrary to all evidence--that an intelligent designer was necessary to get the evolutionary process going early in Earth's history by somehow creating the first irreducible complexity in nature. He and his other ID associates identify this intelligent designer with the Christian God, but he claims this is irrelevant for a scientific understanding. Well, that's nonsense; the identity and characteristics of any presumed intelligent designer would have to be susceptible to empirical study by other scientists, but this can't be done when dealing with the supernatural. Many scientists, including myself, have published reviews of his writings that demonstrate that his concept of irreducible complexity of structures and processes is wrong, and criticize him for his refusal to explain the methods by which the intelligent designer actually created the first complex organism. But Behe continues to indulge in ad hoc arguments to maintain his beliefs. This is not the mark of a true scientist. == Woodward 'Doubts about Darwin' == The core concept behind Phillip Johnson's writings,and I think the driving force behind the ID movement, is definitely *not* detecting complex patterns in nature, which is reasonable information science, but the "theory" completely alien to information science that science should not be limited to naturalistic explanations. === History has shown many times when people have used a mysterious intelligence or god explanation for something that was then not clearly understood, science would eventually come along and fill the gap, sending god packing and looking for other areas of human ignorance to exploit. Just because science cannot answer every single question regarding biology, cosmology, evolutionary, ect, does not give you or anyone else the right to exploit it. Again, intelligent design takes refuge in human ignorance, the only place it can, and the only place that has worked for it in the past when it was properly called Christian creationism. == "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory (Dembski 1999, 84). " Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion" W. Dembski, Intelligent Design , p.207 " As Christians we know that naturalism is false" W. Demski, Mere Creation, p.14 "But a Darwinist cannot invoke angels adding staples to traps, because the angels are on OUR side" Michael Behe, at Calvary Chapel, March 6th 2002 "Yes. That's exactly right. I wrote the book. I try to stay completely in my role as a scientist although I'm certainly a Christian and I believe the designer is God." From "The Bible Answer Man" with Hank Hannegraff and Michael Behe talking about Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution", aired Monday, March 20, 2000 "The gospel is not the writing. It's described in the writing, but the Book of Mark isn't 'the Way, the Truth, and the Life'-Jesus is. It's apparent in the Christian gospel that he is a living presence with whom you can make contact today. I sometimes say, when speaking in Christian circles, that I'm convinced that Jesus was who he said he was and did what he set out to do... Phillip Johnson, advisor of The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." (American Family Radio, Jan 10, 2003 broadcast, in which Johnson "discusses his book The Right Questions, encouraging Christians to actively debate issues of eternal value." "Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message. ... The evangelists do what they do very well, and I hope our work opens up for them some doors that have been closed." ("Keeping the Darwinists Honest", an interview with Phillip Johnson, Citizen Magazine, April 1999) "Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message. ... The evangelists do what they do very well, and I hope our work opens up for them some doors that have been closed." ("Keeping the Darwinists Honest", an interview with Phillip Johnson, Citizen Magazine, April 1999) == The "theory" that science should in principle not rely on naturalistic explanations is a distinct turn away from causal explanation, since there is no plausible mechanism for things outside of nature to interact with things in nature, even if a big complex intelligent thing does exist. It requires a miracle for them to interact. That was the reason for the death of Cartesian substance dualism: defining different kinds of substances that are independent of each other defeats the point of science to explain how things interact with and cause each other. 5. Tolerance of miracles which permit divinity or non-natural forms of intelligence to interact with the natural world is something that strongly and unavoidably divides different kinds of explanations. This core distinction, and not neccessarily "shoddy treatment of evidence" or "fraud" is the pivot point between ID and modern science. In my opinion. Your reply to Todd I. Stark's post: Guidelines == Darrell Falk called "Coming to Peace With Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology." The author is a biology professor at a Nazarene college and writes from the "inside position" of an evangelical who fully embraces his religion and evolution. == The courts have ruled repeatedly that creation is a religious concept and not legally science, and thus has no place in a public school classroom.² == Beginning in 2002, Ohio's 10th-grade science teachers were required to critically analyze evolution to explain how life began. That controversial requirement was removed in 2006. == It would be a lot more intellectually honest if you would just state that you cannot accept evolution because of your religious beliefs. That's perfectly OK and anyone can buy that. But to try to use science to "disprove" evolution is an exercise in futility and undermines your thesis. Evolution is a scientific theory, beholden only to science, and is supported by a mountainous body of discovery and observation, all of it reinforced by other scientific disciplines, such as geology and paleontology. On the contrary, there is absolutely no scientific evidence of the biblical 7-day creation or world flood. == Texas university scientists criticize attempts to water down evolution instruction. Scientists from Texas universities on Tuesday denounced what they called supernatural and religious teaching in public school science classrooms and voiced opposition to attempts to water down evolution instruction.The newly formed 21st Century Science Coalition said so far it has 800 members who have signed up online."Texas public schools should be preparing our kids to succeed in the 21st century, not promoting political and ideological agendas that are hostile to a sound science education," said David Hillis, a professor of integrative biology at the University of Texas at Austin.The State Board of Education is considering new science curriculum standards. It is expected to vote next spring. Because Texas is such a large purchaser of textbooks, its ongoing science debate affects textbooks nationwide.An academic work group proposed that Texas standards for biology courses eliminate the long-held language of teaching students the "strengths and weaknesses" of theories.The science coalition supports that language change because it says talking of "weaknesses" of evolution allows for religion-based concepts like creationism and intelligent design to enter the instruction. The Texas Freedom Network, an Austin-based group that says it monitors the influence of the religious right, also praises the proposed language change.But they say they fear State Board of Education members, led by chairman and creationist Don McLeroy, will switch the language back before the final vote.Even at Baylor University in Waco, the world's largest Baptist university, professors don't teach creationism because it's not based on science, said Richard Duhrkopf, an associate professor of biology."We shouldn't be teaching the supernatural in science classrooms," Duhrkopf said. "It's time to keep religion and faith in the Sunday schools and not in the public schools."McLeroy denies he is trying to force religion and the supernatural into Texas schools."I'm getting sick and tired or people saying we're interjecting religion," he said. "We're certainly not interjecting religion. Not at all."McLeroy says he supports restoring the "strengths and weaknesses" language and said working groups left some form of that language in the proposed standards for chemistry and astronomy. He also said he supports the "testable explanations" approach advocated by the National Academy of Sciences."Texas students need to understand what science is and what its limitation are," McLeroy said Tuesday, repeating part of an opinion piece he wrote in August. "I look at evolution as still a hypothesis with weaknesses."Federal courts have ruled against forcing the teaching of creationism and intelligent design. So teaching the strengths and weaknesses of theories such as evolution has become "code" for pushing those religion-based ideas in schools, said Dan Quinn, spokesman for the Texas Freedom == Attorneys for the school district contend Freshwater openly discussed religion in the classroom, had a box of Bibles for students, gave extra credit for students who memorized Bible passages, and oversaw spiritual healing sessions on school time, all against the public school district's policies. == Genesis contains real history‹ it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII) . . . The historical existence of Noah's Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent) == Explain the nested hierarchy we see in DNA sequences between species, without reference to evolution. Explain the increasing problem of resistance of bacteria to antibiotics, without reference to evolution. Explain the sequence of primitive to modern life forms we see in the fossil, record without reference to evolution. Explain the between the other great apes and us, including retrovirus remnants and errors, without reference to evolution. == "Another school board overtaken by Dominionists, another unwary community exposed to millions of dollars at the mercy of the ignorant. This time it's the board members of North Carolina's New Brunswick Independent School District putting their voters in financial peril: "It's really a disgrace for the state school board to impose evolution on our students without teaching creationism, " county school board member Jimmy Hobbs said at Tuesday's meeting. "The law says we can't have Bibles in schools, but we can have evolution, of the atheists." == Creationsits -- Jeremy L. Walter Jerry R. Bergman John K.G. Kramer Paul Giem Henry Zuill Jonathan D. Sarfati Ariel A. Roth Keith H. Wanser Timothy G. Standish John R. Rankin Bob Hosken James S. Allan George T. Javor Dwain L. Ford Angela Meyer Stephen Grocott Andrew McIntosh John P. Marcus Nancy M. Darrall John M. Cimbala Edward A. Boudreaux E. Theo Agard Ker C. Thomson John R. Baumgardner Arthur Jones George F. Howe A.J. Monty White D.B. Gower Walter J. Veith Danny R. Faulkner Edmond W. Holroyd Robert H. Eckel Jack Cuozzo Andrew Snelling Stephen Taylor John Morris Elaine Kennedy Colin W. Mitchell Stanley A. Mumma Evan Jamieson Larry Vardiman Geoff Downes Wayne Frair Sid Cole Don B. DeYoung George S. Hawke Kurt P. Wise J.H. John Peet Werner Gitt Don Batten == Persuaded by the Evidence: True Stories of Faith, Science, and the Power of a Creator (Paperback) by Doug Sharp and Jerry Bergman (Author) In Six Days Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation Edited by Dr. John Ashton == Equador art Experts said the artifacts range from 2,000 to 5,000 years old. Some of the oldest pieces are from South America's Valdivia culture dating to 4000 B.C. Those include small ceramic and shell figurines, once rubbed on the body part of an ailing person and then broken in half in the belief that they released evil spirits == The 2005 Harris Poll #52 indicated that almost two thirds of adults in the United States (64%) agree with the basic tenet of creationism, that ³human beings were created directly by God.² == The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Catholic faith VATICAN CITY - The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago. Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican's culture minister, was speaking at the announcement of a Rome conference of scientists, theologians and philosophers to be held next March marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's "The Origin of Species." Christian churches were long hostile to Darwin because his theory conflicted with the literal biblical account of creation. Earlier this week a leading Anglican churchman, Rev. Malcolm Brown, said the Church of England owed Darwin an apology for the way his ideas were received by Anglicans in Britain. Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans in 1950 and Pope John Paul reiterated that in 1996. But Ravasi said the Vatican had no intention of apologizing for earlier negative views. "Maybe we should abandon the idea of issuing apologies as if history was a court eternally in session," he said, adding that Darwin's theories were "never condemned by the Catholic Church nor was his book ever banned." Creationism is the belief that God created the world in six days as described in the Bible. The Catholic Church does not read the Genesis account of creation literally, saying it is an allegory for the way God created the world. Some other Christians, mostly conservative Protestants in the United States, read Genesis literally and object to evolution being taught in biology class in public high schools. Sarah Palin, the Republican candidate for the U.S. vice presidency, said in 2006 that she supported teaching both creationism and evolution in schools but has subsequently said creationism does not have to be part of curriculum. THEISTIC EVOLUTION The Catholic Church teaches "theistic evolution," a stand that accepts evolution as a scientific theory and sees no reason why God could not have used a natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species. It objects to using evolution as the basis for an atheist philosophy that denies God's existence or any divine role in creation. It also objects to using Genesis as a scientific text. As Ravasi put it, creationism belongs to the "strictly theological sphere" and could not be used "ideologically in science." Professor Philip Sloan of Notre Dame University, which is jointly holding next year's conference with Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University, said the gathering would be an important contribution to explaining the Catholic stand on evolution. "In the United States, and now elsewhere, we have an ongoing public debate over evolution that has social, political and religious dimensions," he said. "Most of this debate has been taking place without a strong Catholic theological presence, and the discussion has suffered accordingly, " he said. Pope Benedict discussed these issues with his former doctoral students at their annual meeting in 2006. In a speech in Paris last week, he spoke out against biblical literalism. == http://www.csama.org/ creation organization == Creationists think that faith in a scientific hypothesis is equivalent to the same faith that one has in religion. The scientific one is provisional faith whereas the religious faith is dogmatic. The latter yields to no facts or evidence that challenges religious beliefs. You have shown ample evidence of religious faith but no evidence of scientific faith which allows one to disabuse themselves of 2000 year old myths about a young earth, global floods, and special creation of humans. == Revelation 21:8 "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." That's interesting "and all liars" does that include those who declare they have "scientific evidence" which proves their religious beliefs to be true? == Dover case There were several board members in Dover that opposed the introduction of creationism into the Dover public schools. If I recall correctly all of them were Christians. These people eventually resigned from the board when the others went forward. The remaining members decided to lie about what they were trying to do in court. When the four board members that had been involved with the fiasco from the beginning gave their depositions all of them lied about discussing creationism in open board meetings and out of the public view. They actually claimed that the reporters were lying rather than admit their own dishonesty. One problem was that there was video tape of one of the four openly talking about wanting to teach creationism. The strategy of the other three and their lawyers was to distance themselves from the fourth and use his drug addiction problem to discredit him. No lie, it was the creationist lawyers that brought up Buckinghams drug addiction problem as an excuse for his "rogue" behavior. This didn't help Bonsell when he was caught lying on the witness stand, and questioned about it by the judge himself. The other two claimed to be flakes and admitted that they didn't know what intelligent design was, but just went along with Bonsell and Buckingham. One of them was actually giggling as the judge asked her questions to clarify her possible perjury under oath. Not a good showing for the creationist side. == Brunswick NC school board to consider creationism teaching "It's really a disgrace for the state school board to impose evolution on our students without teaching creationism," county school board member Jimmy Hobbs said at Tuesday's meeting. "The law says we can't have Bibles in schools, but we can have evolution, of the atheists." When asked by a reporter, his fellow board members all said they were in favor of creationism being taught in the classroom. The topic came up after county resident Joel Fanti told the board he thought it was unfair for evolution to be taught as fact, saying it should be taught as a theory because there's no tangible proof it's true. "I wasn't here 2 million years ago," Fanti said. "If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?" The board allowed Fanti to speak longer than he was allowed, and at the end of his speech he volunteered to teach creationism and received applause from the audience. When he walked away, school board Chairwoman Shirley Babson took the podium and said another state had tried to teach evolution and creationism together and failed, and that the school system must teach by the law. "Evolution is taught because that's what the General Assembly tells us to teach," Babson said, adding that she doesn't agree with it, but that students must learn it to graduate. In 1997, proponents in the N.C. General Assembly tried to amend the law to say that evolution must be taught as a theory and not as a fact in public schools, but that did not pass. Then at the national level in 2005, a federal judge barred the school system in Dover, Pa., from teaching "intelligent design" - which claims organisms must have been created by a higher power and that it's compatible with evolution - as a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state. Board attorney Joseph Causey said it might be possible for the board to add creationism to the curriculum if it doesn't replace the teaching of evolution. Schools' Superintendent Katie McGee said her staff would do research. Babson said the board must look at the law to see what it says about teaching creationism, but that "if we can do it, I think we ought to do it." The issue will continue to be discussed at the board's committee meetings on Oct. 21. == In Texas, the state school board is one vote short of approving new educational standards in March that allow a curriculum that highlights the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution. It's all part of a gradual rhetorical shift away from talking about creationism and intelligent design toward casting doubt on evolution == Fully 40-45% of Americans think Jesus will come soon or within their life time, also about 50% of Americans think Earth is 6,000 years old. === Sadly, the extreme, fanatical, 'out of touch' elements of Christianity have desperately used religion/God as a 'power-play' to attempt to discredit evolution, using nothing but outright lies and 'knee jerk' distortions to try and further their own misguided agendas. Little do they realize that legions of Christians or others who believe in a God, also believe in the truth and logic of evolution. Which of course, makes them appear all the more foolish and delusionary. == Most important of all, he urges, the movement is creating a scientifically illiterate population. In a highly competitive technological world, such a condition bodes ill. Denial of evolution, he notes, reaches into domestic realms such as health care and agriculture. Allowing ideologues influence into the political realm is liable to result bad decisions with long-term effects. == He blames the advent of creationism since the late 1950s for fostering scientific illiteracy among Americans, and noting that this threatens our future economic success as we compete with other, better educated, countries like those in Europe and East Asia in a global economy increasingly dominated by science and technology. He also argues persuasively that denial of evolution is harmful to our health and well being. People with a particular fundamental religious agenda would abandon honor and reason, redefine science, to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. == http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#refs == Humans and frogs seem to have had a common ancestor about 380 million years ago, since when both lineages have acquired significant differences that would require some quite exceptional circumstances to undo. == The example of the evolutionary transition from reptiles to birds, as represented by the fossil Archaeopteryx, is without a doubt the most famous in the world, and nearly every biology textbook that discusses evolution cites Archaeopteryx as an example. Six specimens of Archaeopteryx lithographica have been found, the first just two years after Darwin's "Origin of Species" was published. In appearence, the specimens resemble the skeletons of small therapod dinosaurs--it is only the unmistakable imprints of feathers surrounding the fossil bones which indicate that we are dealing with a bird (in fact, the resemblance is so close that one of the skeletons was misidentified for several decades as a small therapod, and another was misidentified as a pterodactyl--a mistake not corrected until someone noticed the faint impressions of feathers). One almost could not ask for a better example of a transitional fossil than Archaeopteryx. It exhibits an unmistakeable mixture of reptilian and avian characteristics. A bird, of course, is defined by the presence of feathers. Flight feathers of Archaeopteryx are well- preserved, and are virtually indistinguishable from those of modern birds. They possess the central shaft and side barbules found in any songbird of today. The feathers are also asymmetrical and are wider on the trailing edge than the front edge--an adaptation shown by flying birds but not by flightless birds such as penguins or ostriches. This indicates that Archaeopteryx was probably capable of flight (although the fossil lacks the large keeled breastbone which all modern birds use to attach their flight muscles, and the attachment points were themselves much smaller than in modern birds--thus it is possible that Archaeopteryx was only a glider and was not capable of powered flight). The large contour feathers are the only kind found on Archaeopteryx skeletons--no smaller downy feathers have been found, although these are possessed by all modern birds. Apart from the feathers, however, Archaeopteryx exhibits a number of characteristics which are not birdlike at all, but are shared by the therapod dinosaurs--and some of these are found in no other group of animals. Among the dinosaurian characteristics exhibited by Archaeopteryx are: simple concave articulation points on the cervical vertebrae, rather than the elongated saddle-shaped articulation found in birds; vertebrae in the trunk region which are free and mobile, rather than fused together as in birds; the presence of gastralia, or abdominal ribs, which are found in reptiles and therapods but not in birds; a rib cage which lacks uncinate processes and does not articulate with the sternum, rather than the strutlike uncinates and sternum articulations found in all birds; a sacrum consisting of only 6 vertebrae, rather than the 11-23 found in birds; mobile joints in the bones of the elbow, wrist and fingers, rather than the fused joints found in birds; a shoulder socket that faces downward like a therapod's, rather than outward like a bird's; solid bones which lack pneumatic sacs, rather than the hollow air-permeated bones found in birds; and a long bony tail with free vertebrae, rather than the short fused pygostile found in birds; The Archaeopteryx skull is also typically reptilian in structure, exhibiting: a number of openings or "fenestrae" in the skull, arranged as in therapod dinosaurs and not birds; a heavy but short quadratic bone which is inclined forward as in reptiles; a bend in the jawbones behind the tooth row; a long retro-articular process, which is found in reptiles but not in birds; a thin straight jugal bone as in reptiles; a preorbital bar separating the anteorbital fenestra and the eye socket (a reptilian characteristic); an occipital condyle and foramen magnum that are located above the dorsal end of the quadrate bone as in therapods, rather than below the quadrate as in all other birds; and a brain structure which exhibits elongated and slender cerebral hemispheres which do not overlap the midbrain (in birds, the cerebral hemispheres are heavy and extend over top of the midbrain). There are also some features present in Archaeopteryx which are present in primitive form in the therapods but in more advanced form in the birds. In the therapods, for instance, the hallux, or big toe, is located on the back of the foot and forms a short claw that doesn't reach the ground. In birds, this toe is greatly elongated and is used for perching. In Archaeopteryx, the hallux is reversed, but is elongated to an extent midway between the therapods and the birds. In therapods, the fingers of the front arms are long; in birds, the fingers are reduced to tiny nubbins. Archaeopteryx is midway between these conditions, In birds, the wings are supported by the furcula, or wishbone, which is composed of the two fused clavicles, and Archaeopteryx also possesses a fused furcula (though not as strong as that in modern birds). A few of the therapods had clavicles, including such birdlike species as Velociraptor. And a therapod species known as Oviraptor is believed to have possessed a fused furcula, as in birds. It is thus apparent that Archaeopteryx, although it possessed feathers and must therefore be considered to be a bird, nevertheless demonstrated many more characteristics which were unique to therapod reptiles, and must be viewed as an evolutionary transitional from therapod dinosaur to birds. And how do the creationists deal with this fossil which exhibits clear characteristics which are unique to two different "kinds"? "The so-called intermediate is no real intermediate at all because, as paleontologists acknowledge, Archaeopteryx was a true bird--it had wings, it was completely feathered, it FLEW. . . . It was not a half- way bird, it WAS a bird." (Gish, 1978, p. 84) "Archaeopteryx had an impressive array of features which immediately identify it as a bird, whatever else may be said about it. It had perching feet. Several of its fossils bear the imprints of feathers. These feathers were identical to those of modern birds in every respect. The primary feathers of non-flying birds are distinctly different from those of flying birds. Archaeopteryx had the feathers of flying birds, had the basic patterns and proportions of the avian wing, and an especially robust furcula (wishbone). Furthermore, there was nothing in the anatomy of Archaeopteryx that would have prevented it being a powered flyer. No doubt Archaeopteryx was a feathered creature that flew. It was a bird!" (Gish, "As a Transitional Form, Archaeopteryx Won't Fly", ICR Impact, September 1989) Gish is here playing a word game. By arguing that Archaeopteryx is "a true bird", with nothing reptilian about it, since paleontologists classify it as a member of the bird class, Gish is ignoring the taxonomical naming requirements as they apply to the classification of transitional fossils. Birds are defined as any organism that has feathers, and Archaeopteryx undoubtedly has feathers. But classifying Archaeopteryx along with the birds does not in the least detract from its reptilian characteristics--there simply is no classification method which allows us to place Archie as a "half-reptile, half-bird". Our classification schema forces us to put it in one category or the other, and since feathers define a bird, the class Aves is where Archaeopteryx is placed. The characteristics which Gish says establish Archaeopteryx as a bird are largely wrong. Archaeopteryx did NOT have perching feet (neither do many modern birds), and its hallux was not as well-developed as those of modern birds. The flight feathers are virtually identical to modern birds, but no downy under-feathers have ever been found on an Archaeopteryx skeleton. And, while Archaeopteryx did possess the furcula and flight feathers of modern flying birds, it did not have the large breastbone keel or the fused arm joints that are such a necessary part of flight, and it is questionable whether Archaeopteryx was capable of powered flight. If the creationists are to argue that Archaeopteryx is really just a bird, and not a transitional between therapods and birds, they must explain all of the obviously reptilian characteristics which appear in the skeleton. Some of the reptilian characteristics found in Archaeopteryx are also found in primitive extinct birds such as Hesperornis and Icthyornis; other reptilian characteristics of the Archaeopteryx skeleton are not found in any other species of bird, living or extinct. Archaeopteryx had, for example, a full set of socketed teeth, which were typical of those found in therapod dinosaurs. While the primitive Hesperornis also possessed socketed teeth, they are no longer present in any modern bird, and according to paleontologists, these reptilian teeth were lost by the ancient birds as the avian bill began to develop. The creationists, however, are at a loss to explain why, if birds did not descend from reptiles, these primitive birds had typical reptilian teeth which later disappeared. Henry Morris, unable to give any convincing scientific explanation for this, instead invokes the Deity: "Most birds don't have teeth, but there is no reason why a Creator could not have created some birds with teeth . . . For some reason, those that were created with teeth have since become extinct." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 85) Gish, on the other hand, attempts to explain the reptilian characteristics of Archaeopteryx by simply denying that any exist: "Research on various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx in the last ten years or so, however, has shown, in every case, that the characteristic in question is bird-like, not reptile-like . . . When the cranium of the London specimen was removed and studied, it was shown to be birdlike, not reptilelike." (Gish, "As a Transitional Form, Archaeopteryx Won't Fly", ICR Impact, September 1989) As we have already seen, this is simply not true--the skeletons are so reptilian in character that two of them were actually mis-identified as reptiles for several decades, and study of the cranial structure has shown it to be much more reptilian than avian. Unable to explain how Archaeopteryx came to possess characteristics of both reptile and bird, some creationists have turned to yet another explanation--the fossils are themselves deliberate fakes, fraudulently manufactured to convince the world that evolutionary theory is true. The theory that the Archaeopteryx fossils are actually forgeries was first put forth in 1985, by two astronomers, Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are widely known for their extravagent and controversial claims--they are probably best- known for their theory that life began on another planet in outer space and was carried here either on comets or on extraterrestrial spaceships, as well as their theory that insects are actually more intelligent than human beings, but engage in a widespread conspiracy to prevent the humans from finding this out). They argued that the fossils had been faked by treating an ordinary Compsognathus skeleton (a small therapod dinosaur) with a paste made of limestone dust, and pressing the imprints of modern feathers into this mixture before it dried. The British Museum conducted an extensive study on their specimen of Archaeopteryx and refuted all of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's claims. The team found that micro-cracks in the limestone fossil extended into and beyond the feathered areas in an unbroken line, indicating that no material had been added later to the original rock. The team also found feather imprints underneath the fossil bones, which would have been impossible for a hoaxer to accomplish. Ultraviolet photography of the feathered and non-feathered areas of the fossil showed them to be identical. Despite the fact that no evidence of a forgery has ever been found, creationists tend to take a two-pronged approach when discussing Archaeopteryx during a debate or discussion. On the one hand, they will argue, the fossil is "100% bird" and has no reptilian or dinosaurian characteristics at all. On the other hand, they will argue that the fossil is a fake anyway, made by modifying an ordinary dinosaur skeleton. The inherent contradiction between these positions-- the fossil has no dinosaur characteristics, but was faked using a dinosaur skeleton--apparently doesn't concern them. Some creationists, moreover, have seized on yet another argument against the transitional status of Archaeopteryx by arguing that true birds existed several million years before Archaeopteryx, and therefore Archie cannot be an ancestor of birds. As Gish breathlessly point out, "A fossil of an undoubted true bird has been found in rocks of the same geological period as Archaeopteryx! . . . Obviously, Archaeopteryx cannot be the ancestor of birds if true birds existed at the same time." (Gish, 1978, p. 87) The reference here is to a fossil found in Texas by Sankar Chatterjee, consisting of a number of skull and limb fragments. Although Chatterjee has refused to allow other paleontologists to examine the fossils, he has published a description of them (particularly the skull area), and has concluded that, as well as typical reptilian characteristics (teeth, a long bony tail, and clawed fingers) they possess a number of birdlike characteristics. Chatterjee has named the bones Protoavis, or "pre-bird". The Protoavis fossils pre-date Archaeopteryx by approximately 75 million years. Unfortunately for the creationists, the hypothesis that Protoavis was a true bird cannot yet be supported. A number of paleontologists have questioned just how birdlike the fossils really are (Chatterjee has refused to make the fossils available for the type of independent study which would settle the question one way or the other), and have concluded instead that they are a type of therapod dinosaur which possessed some birdlike characteristics (all of the therapods are very birdlike in their structure). The one structure which would definitely establish Protoavis as a proto-bird, feathers, has not been found. Even if it were definitely established that Protoavis was a bird, however, this would not help the creationist cause. Protoavis would then have to be considered as a birdlike ancestor of Archaeopteryx, and Protoavis itself would have to be considered as the earliest reptile-bird transitional. Our picture of the evolution between dinosaurs and birds became even clearer in the late 1990¹s, with the discovery of several fossils in China. In 1996, Chinese paleontologists discovered a typical small theropod skeleton with a surprise‹it was covered in fine downy threadlike fibers, which accorded perfectly with incipient feathers. The dinosaur, named Sinosauropteryx ("Chinese lizard-bird"), probably used the featherlike covering as insulation. A few years later, two more fossil species were found in the same area. Both Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx were typical theropods, but were covered with recognizable feathers. Although both species had short forelimbs rather than wings, and neither was capable of flight, both had symmetrical feathers on the arms and tail, consisting of a central shaft and barbules, which probably served as an insulating cover. The body was covered with the same fibery type feathers found in Sinosauropteryx. == "So, you think that hundreds of thousands of scientists from every field of science, people representing every major religion on earth, are in a conspiracy to misrepresent the evidence just so that they can make it look like you are wrong?" Most of these guys really are so ignorant that they do not understand the magnitude of the weight of evidence against their views. == They don't think. Thats their problem. Most of them are afraid of science. Its too difficult for them to understand. Too much work to try and understand. They'd prefer someone tell them what to think, and save them the time and effort of having to learn for themselves. == As far as I can see, religion asks *no* questions. For instance, the Bible doesn't start with "Where did we come from?" it *states* were we come from. Further, questioning that is out of the question. I don't think any religion actually asks anything. The only times "questions" are employed are merely as a set-up to provide the already "known" answer. == I've seen several modes of rationalization by creationists. 1. Atheism Ray Martinez is the clearest about this. Anyone who accepts evolution is an atheist, whatever they may claim about their religious beliefs. Sometimes he will allow that some are dupes of atheists. 2. God's punishment God punishes those who don't believe in him by blinding them to the truth.This may be Ray too, but I'm not sure. In any case it's too perverse a view of God for me to conjure up on my own, so I must have read it here. 3. Ignorance This takes many forms. Many are simply unaware of the depth and detail that is characteristic of scientific research in general. They think that the snippets they read in the popular press and in creationist screeds represent the whole of the actual process, "chimps kind of look like humans, we must be related". 4. Controversy Many of the T.O. denizens recognize the same tired arguments in the articles that Jason Spaceman links to, but he finds one, or more than one, nearly every day. I think that this repetition has succesfully promoted the idea that there is a genuine scientific controversy about evolution. 5. Certainty God has given us the truth. It doesn't matter what anyone else says, or why they say it. 6. Satan. 'nuff said. == Pushing creationism/ ID demonstrates a fundamental contempt for science, which extends far more broadly than natural history. It's not a coincidence that the same people pushing ID also deny the existence of the old earth. When science is merely perceived as a point of view, rather than as a method for developing an empirical understanding of reality, you get a well-documented war on science. It's the fundamental divide between the reality-based and faith-based communities. == Focus on the Fundies interviewed Bill Dembski last year, Dembski admitted the designer is the god of the Bible == "I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme." Phillip Johnson, father of the modern ID movement "There is no intelligent design theory that's comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it's doable, but that's for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world." Phillip Johnson == Here are some of Morris' words (the entire context is shown at the reference I provided): "The descendants of Ham were marked especially for secular service to mankind...." The descendents of Ham, according to Morris, include people with a black skin. Later Morris says this: "Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters..." So Morris believes that black people have a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters. == The Republican Party of Alaska platform says, in its section on education: "We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory. The issue of teaching an alternative to evolution has turned into an issue in the current race for governor in Michigan, where Republican Dick DeVos said he wanted to see students exposed to the idea of intelligent design. In 1993 in Alaska, several Board of Education appointees of Gov. Wally Hickel considered adding creation science to the board's list of recommended scientific concepts. The idea was proposed by a member of the school board who taught at a private Christian school in Fairbanks. It failed on a 3-3 tie, with one school board member absent. In 2003 a curriculum reform panel recommended leaving evolution out of the state requirements to avoid controversy. Their recommendation was accepted by the state Department of Education, but the state board -- which had the final say -- reinserted the term. Current state regulations allow local districts to add their own curriculum beyond the minimum state requirements, said Department of Education spokesman Eric Fry. That would arguably include some form of creation science, he said. "They couldn't promote religion, but it's OK to teach about religion," Fry said. But efforts to bring such lessons to the science classroom would likely be subject to the same kind of constitutional challenge that blew up into a national controversy in Dover, Pa., last year. After a six-week trial, a Republican judge appointed by President George W. Bush concluded that intelligent design "advanced a particular version of Christianity" and did not belong in class. Judge John E. Jones III said Darwin's theory of evolution was imperfect. "However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom." Palin said she thought there was value in discussing alternatives. "It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there," she said in the interview. "They gain information just by being in a discussion." That was how she was brought up, she said. Her father was a public school science teacher. "My dad did talk a lot about his theories of evolution," she said. "He would show us fossils and say, 'How old do you think these are?' " Asked for her personal views on evolution, Palin said, "I believe we have a creator." She would not say whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact. "I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she said. Knowles was asked Thursday if he believed in a creator and, if so, how he reconciled that with evolution. Campaign spokeswoman Patty Ginsburg responded by e-mail: "Tony wants to stick by what he said last night -- creationism has no place in public school classrooms as an 'alternative' to evolution." Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Billy Toien, the last candidate to answer the question about evolution at Wednesday's televised debate, posed a question of his own to moderator Michael Carey. "My question is, who intelligently designed the intelligent designer?" Alaska's Republican Party Platform,http://www.alaskarepublicans.com/PartyPlatform.aspx III. EDUCATION [...] E. We support teaching various models and theories for the origins of life and our universe, including Creation Science or Intelligent Design. If evolution outside a species (macro-evolution) is taught, evidence disputing the theory should also be presented. == I've been told by Creationists time and again that their problem with Darwin and the theory of evolution boils down to their interpretation of a few out of context Bible verses. On the basis of this (e.g., Romans 5:12, I Corinthians 15:21), they understand that there could not have been sin or any death before Adam. These verses basically state that there was no death before the fall, or sin, of Adam and Eve. (When they ate of the forbidden fruit and caused the Earth and mankind to be cursed with death and several other petty malevolences. ) Without the sin and the curse the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross is insignificant, without any necessity or meaning, according to Fundamentalist thinking. Natural selection and Darwinian evolution require a LOT of death before the time of the first man and is in direct conflict with the Bible. The reason why I think YEC¹s and OEC¹s are against evolution is because the Bible says there was a man named Adam who was made directly by God, not by evolution (in the strict literal interpretation, which is what YEC¹s and OEC¹s do).  It is all about Adam.  They think if evolution is true, Adam is out, and the whole Bible no longer makes sense.  However, there is a way, they don¹t know about, to make sense of ³Adam² along with evolution. == Over the years, I have had three different creationists tell me, in all >apparent seriousness, that flying saucers are actually time machines >that atheist scientists use to travel back in time to plant faked evidence for evolution. == http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html == "If the Bible is the Word of God--and it is--and if Jesus Christ is the infallible and omniscient Creator--and He is--then it must be firmly believed that the world and all things in it were created in six natural days and that the long geological ages of evolutionary history never really took place at all." -- Henry Morris (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, 251) "It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture." -- Henry Morris (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 15) "It is more productive to take the Bible literally and then to interpret the actual facts of science within its revelatory framework."--Henry Morris (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974, p. 184) == What I mean by "point and laugh" is to refute their claims, but at the same time not in a dry manner: To show how ridiculous what creationists say is. For instance, when creationists claim that T. Rex ate coconuts in the garden of Eden, you can show how their teeth were "designed" (by Natural Selection) for ripping through flesh, and then make a sarcastic comment like, "All this time scientists thought these were deadly razor sharp teeth used for slicing through meat, when actually they were just eating coconuts!" == A good reply to that would be to highlight how if a secular Scientist is wrong, they have only their pride, reputation and career to worry about. For a Creation Scientist, if they're wrong about the Earth being 6000 years old, then they have their very soul to worry about! It's from their own teaching that if Genesis isn't literally true, that the rest of the Bible can't be trusted either. Therefore they have no psychological incentive to be honest with themselves (and by extension, everybody else) because to do so would subject them to emotional pain comparable to that of confronting evidence that their beloved spouse of X years is cheating on them. == http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/ astronomy == 10 Questions, and Answers, About Evolution Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution, a document by Jonathan Wells, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based group that advocates intelligent design, aims to highlight the weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Here are his questions, along with responses compiled by the National Center for Science Education. More questions can be found on Dr. Wellss site, http://www.iconsofevolution.com/ More information about biological evolution can be found at http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/. 1. Origin of life. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how lifes building blocks may have formed on the early Earth when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery? N.C.S.E. answer: Because evolutionary theory works with any model of the origin of life on Earth, how life originated is not a question about evolution. Textbooks discuss the 1953 studies because they were the first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early earth. When modern scientists changed the experimental conditions to reflect better knowledge of the earths early atmosphere, they were able to produce most of the same building blocks. Origin-of-life remains a vigorous area of research. 2. Darwins tree of life. Why dont textbooks discuss the Cambrian explosion, in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed, instead of branching from a common ancestor thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life? A. Fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals all are post-Cambrian. We would recognize very few of the Cambrian organisms as modern; theyre in fact at the roots of the tree of life, showing the earliest appearances of some key features of groups of animals - but not all features and not all groups. Researchers are linking these Cambrian groups using not only fossils but also data from developmental biology. 3. Homology. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence or common ancestry a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence? A: The same anatomical structure (such as a leg or an antenna) in two species may be similar because it was inherited from a common ancestor (homology) or because of similar adaptive pressure (convergence) . Homology of structures across species is not assumed, but tested by the repeated comparison of numerous features that do or do not sort into successive clusters. Homology is used to test hypotheses of degrees of relatedness. Homology is not evidence for common ancestry: common ancestry is inferred based on many sources of information, and reinforced by the patterns of similarity and dissimilarity of anatomical structures. 4. Vertebrate embryos. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked? A: Twentieth-century and current embryological research confirms that early stages (if not the earliest) of vertebrate embryos are more similar than later ones; the more recently species shared a common ancestor, the more similar their embryological development. Thus cows and rabbits - mammals - are more similar in their embryological development than either is to alligators. Cows and antelopes are more similar in their embryology than either is to rabbits, and so on. The union of evolution and developmental biology evo-devo is one of the most rapidly growing biological fields. Faked drawings are not relied upon: there has been plenty of research in developmental biology since Haeckel (long-discredited drawings that were used in textbooks 20 years ago) and in fact, hardly any textbooks feature Haeckels drawings, as claimed. 5. Archaeopteryx. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it? A: The notion of a missing link is an out-of-date misconception about how evolution works. Archaeopteryx (and other feathered fossils) shows how a branch of reptiles gradually acquired both the unique anatomy and flying adaptations found in all modern birds. It is a transitional fossil. These fossils are not direct ancestors of modern birds but relatives, and, as everyone knows, your uncle can be younger than you! 6. Peppered moths. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths dont normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged? Skip to next paragraph A: These pictures are illustrations used to demonstrate a point - the advantage of protective coloration to reduce the danger of predation. The pictures are not the scientific evidence used to prove the point in the first place. Compare this illustration to the well-known re-enactments of the Battle of Gettysburg. Does the fact that these re-enactments are staged prove that the battle never happened? The peppered moth photos are the same sort of illustration, not scientific evidence for natural selection. 7. Darwins finches. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred? A: Textbooks present the finch data to illustrate natural selection: that populations change their physical features in response to changes in the environment. The finch studies exquisitely documented how the physical features of an organism can affect its success in reproduction and survival, and that such changes can take place more quickly than was realized. That new species did not arise within the duration of the study hardly challenges evolution! 8. Mutant fruit flies. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory? A: In the very few textbooks that discuss four-winged fruit flies, they are used as an illustration of how genes can reprogram parts of the body to produce novel structures, thus indeed providing raw material for evolution. This type of mutation produces new structures that become available for further experimentation and potential new uses. Even if not every mutation leads to a new evolutionary pathway, the flies are a vivid example of one way mutation can provide variation for natural selection to work on. 9. Human origins. Why are artists drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like? A: Drawings of humans and our ancestors illustrate the general outline of human ancestry, about which there is considerable agreement, even if new discoveries continually add to the complexity of the account. The notion that such drawings are used to justify materialistic claims is not borne out by an examination of textbook treatments of human evolution. 10. Evolution a fact? Why are we told that Darwins theory of evolution is a scientific fact even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts? A: In the last century, some of what Darwin originally proposed has been augmented by more modern scientific understanding of inheritance (genetics), development, and other processes that affect evolution. What remains unchanged is that similarities and differences among living things on Earth over time and space display a pattern that is best explained by evolutionary theory. == Hawking does not deny the existence of God, but he does think his model eliminates the need for a Creator. == It seems to me, people of faith believe there is no more truth to discover, that understanding the cosmos is their god's/gods' business, and that knowledge is and should be static - in fact, changes in knowledge are, in a religious perspective, signs of weakness. == "If the Bible is the Word of God ‹and it is‹ and if Jesus Christ is the infallible and omniscient Creator ‹and He is‹ then it must be firmly believed that the world and all things in it were created in six natural days and that the long geological ages of evolutionary history never really took place at all." [Henry Morris, "Scientific Creationism" , Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego 1974] == When they raise their hand in court and testify under oath that creationism is science, or that creationism doesn't have anything to do with religion or the Bible, they are lying, they KNOW they are lying, and they think it's OK to lie that way. They quite literaly and honestly think they are doing the work of god. If the end justifies the means, then it's silly to worry about whether the means is "honest" or not. They have inoculated themselves against rational argument to a point of complete immunity.  == This is a critique of the young earth creationist argument that detectable radiocarbon in coal and diamonds implies that the earth has only been around for several thousand years.] RATE's Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination? by Kirk Bertsche (San Jose, CA) (March 19, 2008) The ICR (Institute for Creation Research) recently spent eight years on a project known as RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). The RATE team claims the results have yielded convincing and irrefutable scientific evidence of a young earth. John Baumgardner, a geophysicist with expertise in tectonic modeling, presents experimental data claiming to show that all biological material contains intrinsic radiocarbon, no matter how old that material may be thought to be [1, 2]. He makes additional claims that even non-biological carbonaceous material contains intrinsic radiocarbon. He suggests that this radiocarbon is residual from the material's creation. If true, his claims would have far-reaching implications for the ages of these materials. Baumgardner presents two classes of data. The first is a set of 90 previously published radiocarbon AMS dates of old samples (most >100k years) that he has re-analyzed. The second is a set of new samples that the RATE team collected and sent to a leading radiocarbon AMS laboratory to be dated. In both cases, I am convinced that the "intrinsic radiocarbon" is nothing more than contamination and instrument background. Modern Radiocarbon Dating New Methods Allow Smaller Samples Willard Libby discovered radiocarbon dating in the late 1940s. He received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for this discovery in 1960. The technique arises from radiocarbon being continually produced in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays while it is continually decaying, so the atmospheric concentration has reached a fairly steady equilibrium. Plants are in equilibrium with atmospheric radiocarbon through respiration. This equilibrium continues through plants to herbivores and through them to carnivores. Once an organism dies, its carbon ceases exchanging with atmospheric carbon but continues decaying with a half-life of about 5730 years. Thus, measurement of the radiocarbon concentration can give the time that the organism died. Early measurements were done by counting the beta particles (high energy electrons) liberated in radiocarbon decay. The age limit was roughly 30k years, due both to poor statistics from low decay count rates and to cosmic ray backgrounds. Richard Muller proposed a new measurement technique, called "accelerator mass spectrometry" (AMS), in 1976 [3]. Muller suggested that particle accelerators be used to separate the atoms, allowing the radiocarbon atoms to be counted directly instead of waiting for them to decay. It was hoped that this would enable dating of much smaller and perhaps much older samples. This technique has indeed allowed use of much smaller samples and has become the dominant method of radiocarbon dating. However, the original anticipation of 100,000-year background levels has been "unrealized due to a variety of sample processing and instrument-based experimental constraints" [4]. Most radiocarbon AMS laboratories process samples using similar methods, including combustion or hydrolysis of a sample in a sealed tube, typically optimized for samples containing a total of about 1 mg of carbon [5]. The maximum allowed sample size is typically about 10 mg of carbon. Larger samples produce excessive CO2 pressure in the sealed tube, causing the tube to explode and the sample to be lost. Thus, even if larger samples like RATE's "on the order of 100 mg" are submitted, [6] only about 1 mg of carbon will actually undergo analysis. Though Baumgardner calls a 1 mg sample "tiny" [6], it is generally considered "large" by AMS laboratories [5, 7-8], with enough carbon to provide ion source current for about a day. Most laboratories prefer to receive larger samples to allow some loss in cleaning and to have additional material available if needed. Contamination and background vary significantly Modern radiocarbon dating by AMS is a complex process with numerous potential sources of contamination requiring characterization. A typical sample must first be cleaned mechanically and chemically, then converted to CO2 by combustion or hydrolysis, then chemically reduced to graphite. For some samples, the preparation is even more complex, involving pre-separation of organic fractions from the more easily contaminated inorganic fractions (e.g., dating only cellulose from wood or only collagen from bone). Each step in this process may introduce a small amount of modern carbon contamination. More processing tends to introduce more contamination. Furthermore, the instrument itself always introduces a background, similar to most other high sensitivity analytical instruments [4]. A sample originally containing absolutely no radiocarbon will still give a nonzero measurement from such contributions. Contamination and instrument background are sometimes collectively referred to as "total background." Taylor and Southon have characterized six general types of total background, each of which has multiple specific sources [4]. For our purposes, we will group these contributions into three general classes of contamination and background: 1) contamination of the sample before reaching the testing laboratory (primarily contamination in situ but also during collection or storage) 2) laboratory contamination before placement in the accelerator (handling, sample chemistry, etc.) 3) instrument background, including sample contamination in the AMS accelerator system The first contribution often results in sample-position- dependent variations in radiocarbon content, thus is often detectable by measuring multiple pieces of the same sample. But the amount of contamination is generally impossible to quantify. An old sample with in situ contamination cannot generally provide an accurate date. The second contribution, laboratory contamination, is largely due to sample chemistry (pretreatment, hydrolysis or combustion to CO2, and reduction to graphite), which generally introduces a small amount of modern carbon, typically at least 1 microgram [8-11]. Thus a 1 mg sample of infinitely old carbon would measure at least 0.1 pMC (percent modern carbon) before background subtraction. At least one laboratory reports sample chemistry contamination as low as 0.08 pMC (excluding chemical pretreatment, which can be a significant contribution) , but this value does "not necessarily apply to other laboratories" [12]. Different sample chemistry techniques and processing equipment and variations in chemical batches can result in significantly more sample chemistry contamination. The third contribution, instrument background, has a number of sources. The main sources are generally the following: a) ion source "memory" of previous samples, due to radiocarbon sticking to the walls of the ion source, thermally desorbing, and then sticking to another sample b) mass spectrometer background, non-radiocarbon ions that are misidentified as radiocarbon, sometimes through unexpected mechanisms [13] c) detector background, including cosmic rays and electronics noise Baumgardner claims that instrument background "is routinely and reliably tested by running the system with no sample in the aluminum sample holder," [6] but this technique underestimates the true instrument background contribution and provides only a lower limit. Specifically, this technique underestimates both the ion source memory and mass spectrometer backgrounds. Even with this underestimation, Baumgardner' s claim of "about 0.0005 pMC" [6] using this technique seems unreasonably low, since IsoTrace Laboratory has measured "approximately 0.0025 pMC" [12]. Surface-dependent "sticking coefficients" are a well-known issue in ion source design. Recent tests suggest, not surprisingly, that this effect also applies to the sample surface itself, causing ion source memory to be sample-surface- dependent due to different sticking coefficients for carbon-containing molecules in the ion source. For tests on the UCI AMS system, graphite gave instrument backgrounds of 0.020 to 0.035 pMC, while natural diamond gave 0.005 to 0.02 pMC [4]. Differences in ion sources, beamline components, mass separation techniques, and detectors will cause the instrument background to vary significantly from laboratory to laboratory. Laboratory contamination and instrument background can also vary with time at a single laboratory. Many unexpected sources can introduce additional contamination. Thus frequent characterizations of the measurement background are necessary. The most straightforward approach is to obtain "radiocarbon- free" material similar to the unknown, process it identically to the unknown and treat its radiocarbon content as a measurement background to subtract from the unknown. Most laboratories include such "process blanks" with each set of samples to get an accurate and contemporaneous reflection of the true background. A few laboratories may apply a "standard background" rather than such parallel processing of "radiocarbon- free" samples, but this approach is somewhat risky and thus not common. AMS laboratories have been able to identify and reduce many sources of contamination through years of care and attention. The remaining amounts of laboratory contamination and instrument background vary between laboratories but are well characterized by frequent use of process blanks. Frequent intercomparisons between AMS laboratories demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach. For example, the Fourth International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (FIRI) included identical samples of very old wood with a radiocarbon content of about 0.2 pMC, corresponding to an age of about 50,000 years BP (before present). The mean value measured by over 30 AMS laboratories was 0.27 +/- 0.05 pMC for Kauri wood sample A and 0.24 +/- 0.04 pMC for Kauri wood sample B [14]. These low variations demonstrate very good consistency between laboratories, in spite of the presence of laboratory contamination and instrument background. Interestingly, none of these laboratories found either of the Kauri wood samples to be at or below measurement background levels. This fact is at odds with Baumgardner' s accusation that "most commercial labs" apply a "high astandard background' to the samples," potentially as high as 0.8 pMC, allowing them to report "an ainfinite' radiocarbon age" and so to avoid "the awkward difficulty of explaining" non-zero levels of radiocarbon for presumably radiocarbon- dead samples [6]. Analysis of RATE's claims Previously published data: sample processing affects results Baumgardner' s first class of data is a set of 90 previously published radiocarbon AMS dates. He has selectively divided these into two groups for re-analysis: 34 Precambrian geological samples and 40 Phanerozoic biological samples. The remaining samples, including marbles of uncertain origin and a few reprocessed samples, were not re- analyzed. The Precambrian geological subset Baumgardner analyzed has a mean radiocarbon content of 0.06 pMC. The Phanerozoic biological samples have a mean radiocarbon content of 0.29?pMC, about five times that of the geological samples. Baumgardner concludes from this "unambiguously higher mean" that "organic samples from every level in the Phanerozoic portion of the geological record a display significant and reproducible amounts of 14C" [1]. Baumgardner fails to note that nearly all of these geological samples are actually of geological graphite, so did not undergo the sample chemistry required for the biological samples. (Geological graphite typically requires only a mechanical surface cleaning with no chemical processing.) This omission is crucial, because Baumgardner asserts evidence for increased intrinsic radiocarbon in the biological samples on the basis of these lower results from the geological samples. Baumgardner also omits two important geological graphite samples from his analysis, namely entries 21 and 40 in his Table 1 [1]. These samples were identical to two natural graphite samples, entries 62 and 79 respectively, but were combusted and re-graphitized in the laboratory using identical chemistry to biological samples. This procedure provided controlled characterizations of contamination from sample chemistry, which added 0.25 and 0.14 pMC respectively [15, 16]. Entry #10 in Baumgardner' s Table 1 compares radiocarbon AMS with radiocarbon decay counting, showing roughly a 0.4 pMC contamination level for AMS due to sample chemistry [17]. These tests used identical materials with and without sample chemistry, not relying on assumptions that any of the materials were "radiocarbon- free," showing that sample chemistry produces values in the range seen in the Phanerozoic biological samples. Many of Baumgardner' s references report characterizations of various contamination sources, with sample chemistry adding from about 0.1 to 0.7 pMC (highly dependent on sample size and procedure). This range is essentially the same as that of Baumgardner' s biological samples. The highest value of 0.7 pMC comes from an older sample chemistry procedure and may have been somewhat overestimated [17]. Baumgardner' s biological sample #10 mentioned above is from this reference and is well within this sample chemistry background. Jull et al characterize a total process background of 0.58 pMC, with about 0.5 pMC attributed to sample chemistry, and Baumgardner' s biological sample #8 from the same reference is consistent with this contamination [18]. Thus the main difference Baumgardner sees between geological and biological samples is contamination introduced by sample chemistry. While this conclusion explains the higher values for the biological samples in general, it does not account for all the details. Some biological samples do have radiocarbon levels not explainable by sample chemistry. These samples are mostly coals and biological carbonates, both of which are prone to in situ contamination. Coal is notorious for contamination [19]. Uranium is often found in or near coal, releasing neutrons that generate radiocarbon in the coal from nitrogen. Mobile humic acids are almost always present and can transport more recent carbon to the coal. Microbial growth can incorporate modern carbon from groundwater while in situ and from air after sample collection. Coal can easily adsorb atmospheric CO2 after collection. Carbonates often exhibit anomalous radiocarbon values, potentially becoming contaminated by adsorption of atmospheric CO2 [20]. Nadeau et al detail anomalies with marine carbonates, i.e., shells and foraminifera, suggesting that "the carbonate crystal structure of the shells a may incorporate atoms, at some later stage, from its surrounding [sic] for the curing process" [21]. A similar contamination mechanism occurs in bone, where carbonates can be "transported into the bone matrix from the groundwater and soil environment by chemical exchange and/or through dissolution and reprecipitation processes" and bone collagen has been found to give much more reliable dates than bone carbonates [22]. But these anomalies are specific to carbonates and do not apply to other materials, e.g., wood. Most of the wood samples and some of the coal and carbonate samples in Baumgardner' s Table 1 show radiocarbon values consistent with sample chemistry, thus showing no evidence of intrinsic radiocarbon. Baumgardner observes that "the variation in 14C content for the Phanerozoic samples is large" at +/- 0.16 pMC [1]. He suggests that this is caused by variations of in situ radiocarbon contamination due to "accelerated nuclear decay" of nearby material. I agree that these large variations suggest contamination, but the main contributor seems to be sample chemistry contamination, not in situ contamination. Baumgardner also concludes that the geological samples show evidence of intrinsic radiocarbon with values above instrument background. But their radiocarbon content of 0.06 +/- 0.03 pMC is in good agreement with the instrument backgrounds characterized in many of Baumgardner' s references. One may perhaps charge circular reasoning since instrument backgrounds are often found by measuring geological graphite assumed to be "radiocarbon- free." However, applying a very low value from one laboratory to data from all other laboratories, as Baumgardner does, is improper. Each AMS instrument's background will be different and must be determined individually. More evidence against intrinsic radiocarbon appears in multi- laboratory intercomparisons. In FIRI, mentioned earlier, the mean value of old wood measured by over 30 AMS laboratories was 0.27 +/- 0.05 pMC for Kauri wood sample A and 0.24 +/- 0.04 pMC for Kauri wood sample B [14]. These low variations show very good consistency between laboratories. Each laboratory used separate process blanks to characterize and subtract total background. If the blank values really contained intrinsic radiocarbon, the subtraction would have biased their results to varying degrees and would have produced large variations in their reported results, similar to the +/-0.16 pMC seen in the Phanerozoic biological samples. RATE's new data Baumgardner' s second class of data consists of samples that the RATE team collected and sent to a leading radiocarbon AMS laboratory for analysis, including a set of ten coal samples and a number of diamond samples [1]. Measurements of both materials show large variations, suggesting contamination. Coal Baumgardner claims that his coal results of 0.25 +/- 0.11 pMC "fall nicely within the range for similar analyses reported in the radiocarbon literature." This claim is misleading. Baumgardner' s coal results already include background subtraction, whereas the literature results are generally raw values and are treated as the measurement backgrounds [1]. Unlike the literature values, Baumgardner' s coal samples do show significant radiocarbon above background, inviting explanation. The measurements also show relatively large variations, suggesting contamination. The expert who prepared and measured the RATE samples suspects that the coal samples had been contaminated before reaching his laboratory, probably in situ. As mentioned earlier, coal is easily contaminated both in situ and after collection. Though precautions were taken, the coal samples may have also been contaminated while stored in a DOE geology laboratory refrigerator [1]. Geology laboratories often have elevated levels of radiocarbon due to tracer studies, neutron activation studies, and dust from uranium-bearing rocks. Carbon is highly mobile and contamination can spread through an entire laboratory and persist for decades [23]. With extreme care and isotopic enrichment techniques, anthracite coal has been measured with an apparent age of more than 75,000 years (<0.01 pMC), below the detection limit of the procedure [24]. Thus coal exists that shows no evidence of intrinsic radiocarbon. Diamond Diamond is difficult to combust. The RATE samples apparently required modifications to the normal procedure [1], presumably higher combustion temperatures and longer combustion times, likely increasing the sample chemistry contamination. The samples were reportedly pitted and may have been subjected to previous analyses and to unknown contamination. Nevertheless, RATE's five deep-mine diamond samples had radiocarbon levels only slightly above background (0.01 to 0.07 pMC after background subtraction) , while the seven alluvial samples ranged from 0.03 to 0.31 pMC after background subtraction. Subsequently, the RATE team inserted diamond directly into an ion source, eliminating the sample chemistry, and measured much lower radiocarbon values, "between 0.008 and 0.022 pMC, with a mean value of 0.014 pMC," apparently with no background subtraction [6]. This much lower value for unprocessed diamond provides strong evidence that their processed diamond samples had been contaminated, most likely by modified sample chemistry. Taylor and Southon have also measured unprocessed diamond, finding a similar range of 0.005 to 0.03 pMC without background subtraction. They interpret this result as their instrument background, primarily due to ion source memory. Their ion source current varied, unintentionally, over about a factor of two, perhaps due to crystal face orientation or to conductivity differences between samples. "The oldest 14C age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields" [4]. This important observation provides evidence about the source of the radiocarbon. If the radiocarbon were intrinsic to the sample, there would be no change in the radiocarbon ratio with sample current. The 14C, 13C, and 12C would change in unison. However, if the radiocarbon were coming from ion source memory or elsewhere in the accelerator, it should give a count rate independent of ion source current. Normalizing the radiocarbon count rate to the ion source current, which is predominantly 12C, would result in higher radiocarbon content for lower source currents, as observed. This data provides clear evidence that at least a significant fraction of the radiocarbon detected by Taylor and Southon in diamond measurements did not come from the diamonds themselves and thus could not be "intrinsic radiocarbon. " The lower values for unprocessed diamond and the current-dependent behavior find no explanation in Baumgardner' s "intrinsic radiocarbon" model. But these results fit well with the Taylor and Southon evidence that instrument background (specifically ion source memory) is material-dependent, with diamond exhibiting significantly less ion source memory than graphite. The radiocarbon detected in natural, unprocessed diamond measurements seems to be nothing more than instrument background. Summary Radioisotope evidence presents significant problems for the young earth position. Baumgardner and the RATE team are to be commended for tackling the subject, but their "intrinsic radiocarbon" explanation does not work. The previously published radiocarbon AMS measurements can generally be explained by contamination, mostly due to sample chemistry. The RATE coal samples were probably contaminated in situ. RATE's processed diamond samples were probably contaminated in the sample chemistry. The unprocessed diamond samples probably reflect instrument background. Coal and diamond samples have been measured by others down to instrument background levels, giving no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon. While some materials, e.g., coals and carbonates, often do show radiocarbon contamination that cannot be fully accounted for, resorting to "intrinsic radiocarbon" raises more questions than it answers. Why do only some materials show evidence of this intrinsic radiocarbon? Why does some anthracite and diamond exist with no measurable intrinsic radiocarbon? Why is its presence in carbonates so much more variable than in other materials, e.g., wood and graphite? Why is it often found in bone carbonates but not in collagen from the same bone? Since intrinsic radiocarbon would be mistakenly interpreted as AMS process background, why do multi-laboratory intercomparisons not show a much larger variation than is observed? Why does unprocessed diamond seem to have less intrinsic radiocarbon than processed diamond? These and many other considerations are inconsistent with the RATE hypothesis of "intrinsic radiocarbon" but are consistent with contamination and background. "Intrinsic radiocarbon" is essentially a "radiocarbon- of-the-gaps" theory. As contamination becomes better understood, the opportunities to invoke "intrinsic radiocarbon" will diminish. Most radiocarbon measurements of old materials, including many of shells and coal, can be accounted for by known contamination mechanisms, leaving absolutely no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon. The evidence falsifies the RATE claim that "all carbon in the earth contains a detectable and reproducible a level of 14C" [1]. About the author Dr. Bertsche received a PhD in Physics from the University of California, Berkeley in 1989 under the direction of Prof. Richard A. Muller, the inventor of radiocarbon AMS. Dr. Bertsche's thesis involved the design and testing of a small cyclotron for radiocarbon AMS. He subsequently received a postdoctoral appointment in the AMS laboratory of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where he was involved with accelerator design and operation and also with sample preparation and analysis. In 2005, he received an MA in Exegetical Theology from Western Seminary, Portland, Oregon. He is the author of 25 publications and 11 patents, primarily dealing with particle accelerator and electron microscope design. References [1] J. Baumgardner, "14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth," ch. 8 in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, vol. II, by L. Vardiman et al (Institute for Creation Research, 2005). [2] J. Baumgardner et al, "Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young-Earth Creation-Flood Model," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R.L. Ivey, Jr. (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), 127A-142. (Everything in [1] except the diamond data is contained in this earlier paper.) {full text} [3] R.A. Muller, "Radioisotope Dating with a Cyclotron," Science 196 (1977) 489-494; also published as Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-5399 (1976). {abstract} [4] R.E. Taylor and J. Southon, "Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds, " Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B259 (2007) 282-287. {abstract} [5] J. Vogel et al, "14C Background Levels in an Accelerator Mass Spectrometry System," Radiocarbon 29:3 (1987) 323-333. {full text} [6] J. Baumgardner, "Are the RATE Results Caused by Contamination? " Answers in Genesis. 30 November 2007 . [7] E.M. Scott et al, "FIRI Section 8: Optional Further Studies," Radiocarbon 45 (2003), 277-281. {full text} [8] D.L. Kirner et al, "Reduction of Backgrounds in Microsamples For AMS 14C Dating," Radiocarbon 37 (1995) 697-704. {full text} [9] T. Brown and J. Southon, "Corrections for Contamination Background in AMS 14C Measurements, " Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B123 (1997) 208ff. {abstract} [10] K. Mueller and P. Muzikar, "Correcting for Contamination in AMS 14C Dating," Radiocarbon 44 (2002) 591-595. {full text} [11] J. Southon, "Graphite Reactor Memory -- Where Is It From and How To Minimize It?," Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B259 (2007) 288-292. {abstract} [12] R.P. Beukens, "Radiocarbon Accelerator Mass Spectrometry: Background, Precision, and Accuracy," in Radiocarbon after Four Decades: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, edited by R.E. Taylor, A. Long, and R. Kra (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1992) 230-239. [13] J. Southon et al, "The Keck Carbon Cycle AMS Laboratory, University of California, Irvine: Initial Operation and a Background Surprise," Radiocarbon 46 (2004) 41-49. {full text} [14] E.M. Scott et al, "FIRI Section 6: Kauri Wood, Samples A and B," Radiocarbon 45 (2003) 227-248. {full text} [15] M. Arnold et al, "14C Dating with the Gif-sur-Yvette Tandetron Accelerator: Status Report," Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B29 (1987) 120-123. {abstract} [16] K. van der Borg et al, "Precision and Mass Fractionation in 14C Analysis with AMS," Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B123 (1997) 97-101. {abstract} [17] R. Gillespie and R.E.M. Hedges, "Laboratory Contamination in Radiocarbon Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, " Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B5 (1984) 294-296. {abstract} [18] A.J.T. Jull et al, "Production of Graphite Targets by Deposition from CO/H2 for Precision Accelerator 14C Measurements, " Radiocarbon 28:2A (1986) 191-197. {full text} [19] D. Lowe, "Problems With the Use of Coal as a Source of 14C-Free Background Material," Radiocarbon 31:2 (1989) 117-120. {full text} [20] S. Gulliksen and M.S. Thomsen, "Examination of Background Contamination Levels for Gas Counting and AMS Target Preparation in Trondheim," Radiocarbon 34:3 (1992) 312-317. {full text} [21] M. Nadeau et al, "Carbonate 14C Background: Does it Have Multiple Personalities? ," Radiocarbon 43:2A (2001) 169-176. {full text} [22] R.E. Taylor, "Radiocarbon Dating of Bone: To Collagen and Beyond," in Radiocarbon after Four Decades: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, edited by R.E. Taylor, A. Long, and R. Kra (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1992) 375-402. [23] P. Zermeno et al, "Prevention and Removal of Elevated Radiocarbon Contamination in the LLNL/CAMS Natural Radiocarbon Sample Preparation Laboratory," Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B223-224 (2004) 293-297. {abstract} [24] P. Grootes, "Carbon-14 Time Scale Extended: Comparison of Chronologies, " Science 200 (1978) 11-15. {abstract} == The only evidence ever offered for the existence of God essentially boils down to two things: The universe exists, therefore God exists and I feel God exists, therefore he does. As for those who claim to have seen or spoken to God, it turns out on close examination (when we even have the required access to find out) that they are lying, insane, or only imagining what they saw or heard. Even believers concede that this is most often the case--because they must in order to explain all the non-Christian visions and divine communications pervading human history and contemporary world cultures. These always turn out to be subjective experiences in their minds, and they are rarely consistent with each other. Rather, we find a plethora of contradictory experiences which seem more attenuated to cultural and personal expectations than to anything universally true. So, too, for the feeling that God exists. This is no different than the feeling I once had that the Tao governs the universe, or the feeling others have had that aliens visit them, the spirits of the dead talk to them, or several gods and nature spirits live all around them. People have felt the existence of so many contradictory things that we know feeling something is the poorest possible evidence we can have. Most people feel something completely different than we do, and since there is no way to tell whether your feeling is correct and theirs is wrong, it is just as likely that theirs is correct and yours is wrong. And since there are a million completely different feelings and only one can be true, it follows that the odds are worse than a million to one against your feeling being true. So feeling that God exists fails to meet even a minimal standard of evidence, much less an extraordinary standard. The same goes even for more profound religious experiences involving the actual appearances or voices of supposedly supernatural beings. == Creationist organizations have a lot of the hall marks of religious and political cults. with all the mind controlling tricks you'd expect from a cult. == http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ == http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm ex-YEC == YEC haven't had any trouble explaining the Tower of Babel, have they? Look, here's this bunch of nomadic Hebrews, they just survived the Flood of Noah, and the first thing their sons do is build this giant city and tower called Babel. How they acquired all the archaeological, engineering, and stoneworking knowledge to build a huge city for the very first time, is never explained. == Far underground, below a mile-thick layer of salt, lies the oil that Oman's state-controlled petroleum company is seeking. How was this deposited? Was it the Flood? == (Gallup, 2008 May 8-11) Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings - 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form\ at one time within the last 10,000 years or so? 36% - Man developed, with God guiding 14% - Man developed, but God had no part in process 44% - God created man in present form 5% - Other/No opinion == A UC professor who reviewed Calvary's proposed Christianity's Influence on America class said the course used a textbook that "instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events," "attributes historical events to divine providence rather than analyzing human action," and "contains inadequate treatment of several major ethnic groups, women and non-Christian religious groups." Another university professor agreed that the textbook from Bob Jones University shouldn't be used for a college-preparatory history class because it didn't encourage critical thinking skills and failed to cover "major topics, themes and components" of U.S. history, == Pope Benedict XVI, 24 July 2007 - "Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called 'creationism' and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance." == Marvin Olasky and John Perry's book, "Monkey Business: The True Story of the Scopes Trial" (2005). Edward Larson's "Summer of the Gods" about trial == In 2005, a conservative-controlled Kansas state board pushed through state science standards critical of evolution and refused to limit the definition of science to a field that seeks natural explanations — a move decried by science associations. == http://www.halos.com/reports/ex-nihilo-1998-fingerprints-of-creation.htm halos http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/violences.html science === Muhammed said in the Quaran that the sun sets in a pool of murky water. == Is it possible to live 900 years? . Have you ever wondered about the longevity of human life mentioned in the Bible book of Genesis? So all the days of Adam were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died (Genesis 5:11). Some will say that those were not literal years, just as they will say that the days of creation were not literal days. Sorry, I am one who believes that when the Bible said day, it was a 24-hour day, and when it said year, it was 365 days. The question remains however, how could people live so long? And since people do not live that long anymore, what changed? In 1994, I had the privilege of traveling to Glen Rose, Texas, for the purpose of visiting the work of Dr. Carl Baugh. Baugh is noted for his extensive research in the area of creationism. Along with other environmental scientists and medical scientists, Baugh has presented some very convincing findings to what the pre- flood environment was like. Before the flood of Noahs day, the earths atmospheric environment was quite different. The Bible tells us that even following the life of Adam, all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years (Genesis 5:8). Of course, the Bible genealogy goes on and on in names and times of life. However, when you get to Genesis chapters 6 and 7, the Bible reveals that God flooded the earth. Genesis 6:3 tells us that the years of mans life were drastically reduced to one hundred and twenty. The flood event brought cataclys-mic change to the earths environ-ment. It had never rained until that time. The biblical record states that God had a firmament separating the waters below the earth from the wa-ters above the earth (Genesis 1:6-7). At the time of the flood, God released the water above the firmament al- lowing it to plunge to the ground for 40 days and 40 nights. During the time of the pre-flood environment, the waters above the firmament provided a global shield of protection from the harmful rays of the sun, encapsulating a very differ-ent environment than we experience today. In this environment, it is be-lieved that the earth had 30 percent more oxygen, and double the atmospheric pressure. This was an environment where storms were nonex-istent. Have you noticed your barometer pressure decreasing when hurricanes came near? Moreover, in theory, disease did not exist, and wounds healed rapidly because of the high oxygen levels and elevated atmospheric pressure that also increased electromagnetic fields. Today, our atmospheric pressure above sea level is 14.7 pounds per square inch. Meteorologists use a metric unit for pressure called a mil-libar and the average pressure at sea level is 1,013.25 millibars. Realize that in the pre-flood environment there was approximately 30 pounds per square inch. That is double the pressure of today. All this takes us to a brief review of what we have working for us today. Through much scientific research with hyperbaric chambers used by deep-sea divers, and medical experimentation scientists have now provided a medical practice called hyperbaric medicine. Under certain patient needs, a pa-tient is placed into a hyperbaric medicine chamber for certain amounts of time. While in this chamber, both oxygen levels and atmospheric pressure are increased. The result has worked remarkably in the healing of many patients. Could it be that God has allowed us to recapture a little of that pre-flood environment for the medical field? No doubt, God is graciously giving modern man the ability to even think modern technology into existence. Nevertheless, even with increasing technological advances, mans life span remains very much limited. The only hope for a perfect environment with life longevity for eter-nity is in a place called heaven. Jesus Christ alone died on a cross to pay the penalty for our sins and opened the gates of heaven through his blood. So, if you are tired of the struggles this life brings through its storms and mishaps, ask Jesus to come into your life. Not only will he give you the ability to get through the storms of today, but also will one day take you to his environmentally perfect paradise heaven. The Rev. Randy M. Bourgeois is pastor of First Baptist Church of Raceland. He can == College professor gets $20,000 to settle claim A community college professor who was fired after he offended students with remarks about the Bible will get $20,000 to settle his wrongful termination claim. Steve Bitterman, who taught world civilization at Southwestern Community College in Creston, was fired last September after students complained that he told them the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be taken literally. The school's lawyer, Patrick Smith, said the college settled to avoid an expensive lawsuit, which Bitterman had threatened to file. "There is no admission of liability," Smith said Friday. Bitterman said college officials fired him over the phone and told him it was for teaching religion instead of history. He argued that academic freedom should have outweighed religious concerns. "What was for him a purely objective, academic exercise in studying the religious beliefs of different Western civilizations became a group of fundamentalist students taking exception when it came time for their God to be put under the microscope," Bitterman's attorney, Brad Schroeder, said earlier this week. The case drew national attention. Bitterman, 60, received support from the American Humanist Association, which says people who shun organized religion can lead ethical lives and contribute to the greater good. Group members praised the settlement this week. In Iowa, the case fueled an ongoing debate about academic freedom and religion. An Iowa State University physics professor complained in 2006 that faculty leaders denied him tenure because he supports the study of intelligent design, which disputes part of the theory of evolution. Scientists have attacked intelligent design as a scheme to bring religion into the classroom. ISU President Gregory Geoffroy and the Iowa Board of Regents backed the tenure decision. The professor, Guillermo Gonzalez, left ISU earlier this year to take a job at a private Christian college in Pennsylvania. == Texas Fiction Science There's nothing the evil overlords of the fictional future like more than a nice, healthy round of brainwashing. Whether it's George Orwell's totalitarian government of Oceania thwarting rebellious citizens in 1984, the "conditioning" of children in Brave New World, or the large-scale human reprogramming in The Matrix, mind control is all the rage for governments looking to cultivate a herd of submissive subjects. And it's so simple, too! All that's necessary are a few moldable minds and a strict party line. But here's a bit of nonfiction: The Texas State Board of Education has just those two things. Moldable minds, in the form of Texas schoolchildren, and a party line that favors teaching the "weaknesses" of biological evolutionary theory and, by implication, the strengths of the latest pseudo-scholarly variation on creationism: "intelligent design." Last fall, in the latest episode of that eternal Texas struggle, the Texas Education Agency, which is regulated by the SBOE, fired its science director for distributing information about a pro-evolution seminar. And now, the SBOE is beginning hearings on updated science curricula that teaches the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolutionary theory. It's the latest in an ever-evolving effort by religious conservatives to discredit evolution after efforts to explicitly incorporate intelligent design have repeatedly failed. Lessons in Weak Evolution could be coming to a Texas public school near you by March 2009. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ McLeroy vs. Biology The first of several hearings on the science curricula updates occurred July 17 and 18, with this first meeting dedicated only to the delicate bureaucratic process of planning on how to plan those updates. According to SBOE chair and College Station dentist Dr. Don McLeroy, this year's "battle is to bring in some of the weaknesses of evolution," to ninth- and 10th-grade biology classrooms, retaining language requiring that teachers instruct students in the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories. But according to the Texas Freedom Network, a statewide organization that works to mitigate the influence of fundamentalism on state policy, it's really just one singular theory that gets the critical treatment. "The only theory they attack is evolution," said Dan Quinn, Texas Freedom Network's communications director. Heliocentricity, gravitational theory, and atomic structure all get the SBOE thumbs-up. Indeed, despite clearly worded endorsements of evolution's validity as scientific fact from the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Science Teachers Association of Texas, and countless other scientific groups, McLeroy and six other conservative members of the 15-member SBOE remain unconvinced. "I don't think the evidence supports [evolution]," said McLeroy, a self-described creationist who believes that because "science is always trying to find problems with stuff," evolution should not be presented as absolute fact. In McLeroy's opinion, there are three major weaknesses of evolutionary theory that schoolchildren should be made aware of. He arrived at these conclusions by "reading everything [he] could get [his] hands on" and listening to podcasts. First weakness: the fossil record. "There are gaps," said McLeroy, that do not include enough transitional forms of life to support evolution. Second, McLeroy says there has simply not been enough time on Earth for the minute changes required by evolution to have taken place. Thirdly, McLeroy says the incredible complexity of cells proves divine design. Information contained in the genetic code is just too mind-blowing to have come from anywhere but an intelligent creator. "Where did this information come from?" McLeroy mused. McLeroy would like to see these assertions and more taught in Texas biology classrooms. I asked University of Texas integrative biology professor David Hillis, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, about McLeroy's list of "weaknesses." In an e-mail exchange, Hillis said McLeroy was simply denying facts. "There is indeed a vast record of transitional fossils," wrote Hillis, saying McLeroy's fossil record claims are "completely at odds with the experts in the entire field of paleontology." As for McLeroy's second assertion regarding length of time required for evolution to have taken place, Hillis wrote that the position "demonstrates an extraordinary ignorance of biology," since rates of evolution observed in laboratory tests have been "more than sufficient" to prove natural rates of genetic change that coincide with the fossil record. Finally, McLeroy's cell-complexity argument does not even belong in a scientific discussion, wrote Hillis: "The argument that 'It is too complicated, so God must have done it' is not a scientific argument." And yet it appears that, all evidence to the contrary, evolution may still soon be taught in Texas as a weak theory. Since the SBOE has a near majority of anti-evolution members, the small problem of evolution actually being demonstrable scientific knowledge is only a political challenge to those who want schoolchildren taught otherwise. Forward Into the Past McLeroy says he and his board allies can persuade the swing votes necessary to give the board a good chance of advancing a weak-evolution curricula. Indeed, the persuasion skills of the conservative seven have already been demonstrated earlier this year, when Texas' English standards were revised. In May, the SBOE rejected the recommendations of an $85,000, two-year study conducted by English teachers and curriculum experts in favor of a group of standards favored by McLeroy and his fellow conservatives. It was submitted just prior to adoption, without time for board or public review, yet passed with a contentious 9-6 vote. The board's dominance by anti-evolution sentiment, coupled with conservative Republican rule at the Capitol, has had a direct effect on agency policy. Last November, TEA Director of Science Chris Comer was forced to resign after she forwarded an e-mail to academic groups containing information about an anti-creationism seminar. The e-mail, which contained a one-line "FYI" from Comer and a forwarded event listing, was considered an inappropriate endorsement of evolution by TEA officials. They insist Comer's effective termination was simply a personnel matter involving an employee unwilling to follow agency policy and that evolution has nothing to do with it. Earlier this month, Comer filed a federal lawsuit against the TEA and its official policy of "neutrality" on the subject of creationism. Comer alleges that the agency policy is a violation of the First Amendment. Because creationism is a religious belief, her pleadings state, "The [TEA's] 'neutrality' policy has the purpose or effect of endorsing religion." In the lawsuit, Comer asks to be reinstated to her position as the TEA science director. It's worth noting that part of the TEA and SBOE's duty statement includes a goal to "prepare today's schoolchildren for a successful future." If the weak-evolution curricula passes, Texas schoolchildren will be able to achieve that success in one of two ways: fly out of state for biology class and be back in time for lunch or set their sights on excelling at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. Texas Freedom Network's Dan Quinn believes weak-evolution curricula will set back the education of Texas schoolchildren. He says Texas will have a hard time getting its high school graduates admitted to top universities, or attracting science-oriented businesses, if it develops an anti-science reputation. "Are we going to give our kids a 19th century education in the 21st century?" Quinn asked. If the SBOE has its way, the answer is likely to be yes. == http://www.grmi.org/renewal/Richard_Riss/evidences2/ == The creation of Creationism Today's brand of Protestant extremism should worry theologians as well as scientists Belief in creation is a way of acknowledging that the fact of existence is not self-explanatory. That anything exists at all is an ultimate and unfathomable mystery, and it is this mystery at the point where explanations come to an end that religions have usually identified as God. This can claim to be a rational belief, not vulnerable to scientific refutation, since all assertions about the objectivity and truth of science must themselves depend on belief in some form of reality which is simply given. Creationism is much more specific and much less plausible. Its central claim is that the precise mode of creation has been revealed in the Bible, and follows the pattern set out in the first chapter of Genesis. In thus identifying Gods action with a particular series of events and a particular timetable, rather than as the ultimate mystery underlying all reality, it lays itself open to the possibility of direct conflict with alternative scientific explanations. The main motive for risking this potential conflict has been to uphold belief in the verbal inerrancy of the Bible, and the literal interpretation of its statements about creation, which most mainstream theologians and biblical scholars have long read as myth, or poetry, or doctrine, rather than as history. What later developed as Creationism can thus be seen in part as a reaction against nineteenth-century biblical criticism, and in part as a rejection of those branches of science, notably geology and evolutionary biology, that clearly contradicted literalistic belief in the biblical creation story. Its seedbed was among the fundamentalist Protestant Churches in the Southern States of the USA. Ronald L. Numberss massively well-documented history traces in detail how it grew into a worldwide phenomenon. Its beginnings were unpropitious. When little was known about the Earths origins or the development of life, it seemed reasonable to cling to biblical stories which most Christians had hitherto regarded as reliable history. There was some freedom of interpretation, but little agreement about how it was to be exercised. The days of creation in Genesis, for example, could be treated metaphorically as ages of unknown duration, thus leaving plenty of room for geological and biological development between them. This, however, was not acceptable to Seventh-Day Adventists, whose distinctive beliefs were tied to a literal interpretation of the seventh day. Times Archive, 1887: The life of Darwin It has been said with truth that we must go back to Newton before we meet with Darwin's peer Obituary: Charles Robert Darwin Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup Times Archive, 1925: Darwinism in Tennessee: anti-evolution trial opens The trial to test the validity of the anti-evolution law in the state of Tennessee began today with prayer Archive Topic: The Scopes 'monkey' trial Related Links Dawkins on Darwin An alternative device for extending the time available for the creative process was to identify a gap between the first and second verses of Genesis 1. Aeons of geological development could thus be accommodated, before the final rushed job was completed in a mere six days. The third, and eventually the most popular, theory relied on the story of Noahs flood as evidence for a period of geological stratification and fossilization, which was presumed to have taken place after the creation of human beings. This, it was claimed, could explain away awkward geological discoveries which wrongly implied that the Earth was immensely old. An ingenious, but false, interpretation of some famous fossil-bearing strata in Alberta lent plausibility to what might otherwise seem an unlikely tale. The story of the rivalry between these three attempts to reconcile geology and Genesis is told in great detail. The Creationists is packed with mini-biographies of the main participants, and mini-histories of organizations set up to provide counter-arguments to the scientists, with increasing emphasis on the dangers of Darwinism, as the theory of evolution gained more widespread acceptance. It is a remarkable story of passionate believers with, at the start, few scientific qualifications, barnstorming their way into popular consciousness, on the basis of ideas which were at best perversely ingenious, and frequently based on very dubious evidence. There were fierce battles between protagonists of the three different ways of interpreting Genesis. The surprising popularity, and ultimate dominance, of the theory of a six-day creation followed by a catastrophic and worldwide flood, was an interesting echo of themes dominating much late eighteenth-century geo-history, which likewise made extensive use of Noahs flood. The Deluge Geological Society, founded in 1938, actively promoted the theory, and The Genesis Flood, published in 1961, is now a Creationist classic. It was Darwinism, though, rather than geology, that in the mid-twentieth century became the main focus of attention. Lest all this should seem a ludicrous storm in a teacup among ignorant religious eccentrics, it may be useful to recount a personal experience. In the mid-1950s, as a research student in Cambridge, I lodged for two years with a chemistry lecturer and author, who was highly critical of Darwinism. He was an intelligent and open-minded man, with a wide knowledge of other sciences in addition to chemistry. He was convinced, however, that evolution could not possibly work as Darwin supposed, because to do so would violate the second law of thermodynamics, whereby order decays into disorder rather than vice versa. He was a conservative Evangelical, a commitment that undoubtedly motivated him, but the detailed arguments we frequently had were based on science rather than theology. I was surprised to find several pages about him in Numberss book, where he is identified as having been a leading British Creationist. I cite him as a warning not to underrate the intelligence and persuasive power of those who, maybe for personal religious reasons, find themselves driven to reject current scientific orthodoxy. Persuading such people that they are wrong is not helped by those, such as Richard Dawkins, who, for essentially anti-religious reasons, assert that the evidence for evolution must necessarily be, and be paraded as, the enemy of religion. In short, there are clever people who try to make a plausible case against some aspects of modern science in the mistaken belief that this is necessary for the defence of their faith. Numberss remarkably comprehensive book provides a detailed history of how it is done, and how a small minority of determined publicists have managed to capture worldwide attention, and in some countries to gain a following which poses a serious threat to scientific orthodoxy, particularly in the field of biology. Outside the ranks of the most extreme biblical literalists, the concept of Intelligent Design has now become the main battleground between Creationists and orthodox scientists. It feeds on a residual suspicion of evolutionary theory by employing the notion of irreducible complexity in some of the more awkward evolutionary transitions, not least in the origin of life itself. Objections to it have come both from scientists and theologians. To introduce a supernatural agency at certain points in what is being studied as a scientifically explicable process, is in effect to abandon science. It also presupposes a God whose creative activity is so inefficient that it requires constant readjustment. If science and theology are to live together in this contentious area, both need to be treated as comprehensive. If God is the ground and basis of all existence, this is the best possible reason for believing that even the most unlikely events can have a rational explanation. Ronald Numbers has given us what must surely be the definitive study of the rise and growth of a cluster of well-meaning, but irrational, theories over a period of some 160 years. The Creationists is an expanded version of an earlier edition published in 1991. During the interval, the proportion of Americans who favour some form of Creationism has risen from 47 per cent to 65.5 per cent and the phenomenon has spread worldwide. It seems churlish to ask for more but, given that the basis of many peoples distrust of orthodox science is a rather simplistic biblical literalism, it would have been helpful to have had some reference to the kind of exchanges taking place between European biblical scholars and scientists in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It was a period when many fruitful adjustments in traditional thinking were occurring, without giving rise to the extremism that later characterized some shades of American Protestantism. The fact that such extremism has now become global should worry theologians as well as scientists. The Christian faith, outside its more sectarian Evangelical manifestations, claims to be rational, and therefore has as much vested interest in scientific integrity as in the historical and philosophical integrity of belief. Fundamentalism tends to discount the significance of historical development in the biblical narratives, preferring to treat each revealed word as a relevant expression of Gods truth. This encourages a concentration on supposedly infallible statements, detached from their historical context and from the intentions of those who wrote them, thus paradoxically imitating those sciences in which statements of fact can be treated as objectively precise. Conflict with science is the inevitable result. The fact of Gods design, for instance, has to be defended in ways that are incompatible with the fact of natural selection. A greater awareness that reality is often more subtle and elusive than this, and that different perspectives may need each other, might encourage fundamentalists to be less literalistic, and some scientists to be more conscious and critical of their own materialistic assumptions. If this were to happen, the issues raised by Intelligent Design might be worth some attention, even though the theory muddies the distinction between science and religion. At present, it merely reinforces the impression of inevitable conflict, which a few protagonists on both sides are only too happy to exacerbate. Ronald L. Numbers THE CREATIONISTS From scientific creationism to Intelligent Design 577pp. Harvard University Press. Paperback, 14.95 (US $21.95). 978 0 674 02339 0 == The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design By Ronald L. Numbers Forty-seven percent of the American people, according to a 1991 Gallup Poll, believe that God made man - as man is now - in a single act of creation, and within the last ten thousand years. Ronald L. Numbers chronicles the astonishing resurgence of this belief since the 1960s, as well as the creationist movement's tangled religious roots in the theologies of late-nineteenth - and early twentieth century Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Adventists, and other religious groups. Even more remarkable than Numbers's story of today's widespread rejection of the theory of evolution is the dramatic shift from acceptance of the earth's antiquity (even for William Jennings Bryan the biblical "days" of Genesis represented long geological ages) to the insistence of present-day scientific creationists that most fossils date back to Noah's flood and its aftermath, and that the earth itself is no more than ten thousand years old. The author focuses especially on the rise of this "flood geology, " popularized in 1961 by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris's book, The Genesis Flood, which defended the theory that creation took place in six literal days, and updated the old arguments purporting to prove that a geologically significant worldwide flood actually took place. Numbers gives particular attention to the development of creation research institutes and societies, and to those creationists - including the half of the founders of the Creation Research Society with doctorates in biology - who possessed, or claimed to possess, scientific credentials. On the basis of dozens of interviews and scores of little-known manuscript collections, Numbers delineates the competing scientific and biblicalinterpretations, and reports on the debates between creationists and evolutionists - in courthouses, legislative halls, and on school boards - over the boundaries between science and religion. He traces the evolution of scientific creationism up to our own time and shows how the creationist == http://www.origins.org/ http://www.trueorigin.org/ http://www.arn.org/ == Act 590, the Arkansas law that introduced balanced treatment for evolution science and creation science, was permeated by origins language, Act 590 of 1981 AN ACT TO REQUIRE BALANCED TREATMENT OF CREATION-SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION- SCIENCE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS; TO PROTECT ACADEMIC FREEDOM BY PROVIDING STUDENT CHOICE; TO ENSURE FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS EXERCISE; TO GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF BELIEF AND SPEECH; TO PREVENT ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION; TO PROHIBIT RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION CONCERNING ORIGINS This Act does not require or permit instruction in any religious doctrine or materials. This Act does not require any instruction in the subject of origins, but simply requires instruction in both scientific models (of evolution-science and creation-science) if public schools choose to teach either. Only evolution-science is presented to students in virtually all of those courses that discuss the subject of origins. Public schools generally censor creation-science and evidence contrary to evolution. Public school presentation of only evolution-science without any alternative model of origins abridges the United States Constitution' s protections of freedom of religious exercise and of freedom of belief and speech for students and parents, because it undermines their religious convictions and moral or philosophical values, compels their unconscionable professions of belief, and hinders religious training and moral training by parents. Presentation of only one model rather than alternative scientific models of origins is not required by any compelling interest of the State Creation-science is an alternative scientific model of origins and can be presented from a strictly scientific standpoint without any religious doctrine just as evolution-science can, because there are scientists who conclude that scientific data best support creation-science and because scientific evidences and inferences have been presented for creation-science. Most citizens, whatever their religious beliefs about origins, favor balanced treatment in public schools of alternative scientific models of origins for better guiding students in their search for knowledge, and they favor a neutral approach toward subjects affecting the religious and moral and philosophical convictions of students. === Fundie Mottos -- Teach the Controversy. Many current scientists reject evolution. Many scientists find problems with evolution. Intelligent Design theory is scientific. Teach the controversy? Interpreting evidence is not the same as observation. Evolutionists interpret evidence on the basis of their preconceptions. Federal law (Santorum Amendment) supports teaching alternatives? Creationism and evolution are the only 2 models. Problems with evolution are evidence for creation. Scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma. == Rejecting the evidence for these age estimates would mean rejecting not just biological evolution but also fundamental discoveries of modern physics, chemistry, astrophysics, and geology. Some creationists believe that Earths present form and the distribution of fossils can be explained by a worldwide flood. But this claim also is at odds with observations and evidence understood scientifically. The belief that Earths sediments, with their fossils, were deposited in a short period does not accord either with the known processes of sedimentation or with the estimated volume of water needed to deposit sediments on the top of some of Earths highest mountains. Creationists sometimes cite what they claim to be an incomplete fossil record as evidence that living things were created in their modern forms. But this argument ignores the rich and extremely detailed record of evolutionary history that paleontologists and other biologists have constructed over the past two centuries and are continuing to construct. Paleontological research has filled in many of the parts of the fossil record that were incomplete in Charles Darwins time. The claim that the fossil record is full of gaps that undermine evolution is simply false. Indeed, paleontologists now know enough about the ages of sediments to predict where they will be able to find particularly significant transitional fossils, as happened with Tiktaalik and the ancestors of modern humans. Researchers also are using new techniques, such as computed axial tomography (CT), to learn even more about the internal structures and composition of delicate bones of fossils. Exciting new discoveries of fossils continue to be reported in both the scientific literature and popular media. [CT: A medical imaging technique that generates a three-dimensional view of some object by combining a series of two-dimensional X-ray images of slices of that object.] Another compelling feature of the fossil record is its consistency. Nowhere on Earth are fossils from dinosaurs, which went extinct 65 million years ago, found together with fossils from humans, who evolved in just the last few million years. Nowhere are the fossils of mammals found in sediments that are more than about 220 million years old. Whenever creationists point to sediments where these relationships appear to be altered or even reversed, scientists have clearly demonstrated that this reversal has resulted from the folding of geological strata over or under others. Sediments containing the fossils of only unicellular organisms appear earlier in the fossil record than do sediments containing the remains of both unicellular and multicellular organisms. The sequence of fossils across Earths sediments points unambiguously toward the occurrence of evolution. Science Evolution and Creationism Creationists sometimes argue that the idea of evolution must remain hypothetical because no one has ever seen evolution occur. This kind of statement also reveals that some creationists misunderstand an important characteristic of scientific reasoning. Scientific conclusions are not limited to direct observation but often depend on inferences that are made by applying reason to observations. Even with the launch of Earth-orbiting spacecraft, scientists could not directly see the Earth going around the Sun. But they inferred from a wealth of independent measurements that the Sun is at the center of the solar system. Until the recent development of extremely powerful microscopes, scientists could not observe atoms, but the behavior of physical objects left no doubt about the atomic nature of matter. Scientists hypothesized the existence of viruses for many years before microscopes became powerful enough to see them. Thus, for many areas of science, scientists have not directly observed the objects (such as genes and atoms) or the phenomena (such as the Earth going around the Sun) that are now well-established facts. Instead, they have confirmed them indirectly by observational and experimental evidence. Evolution is no different. Indeed, for the reasons described in this booklet, evolutionary science provides one of the best examples of a deep understanding based on scientific reasoning. This contention that nobody has seen evolution occurring further ignores the overwhelming evidence that evolution has taken place and is continuing to occur. The annual changes in influenza viruses and the emergence of bacteria resistant to antibiotics are both products of evolutionary forces. Another example of ongoing evolution is the appearance of mosquitoes resistant to various insecticides, which has contributed to a resurgence of malaria in Africa and elsewhere. The transitional fossils that have been found in abundance since Darwins time reveal how species continually give rise to successor species that, over time, produce radically changed body forms and functions. It also is possible to directly observe many of the specific processes by which evolution occurs. Scientists regularly do experiments using microbes and other model systems that directly test evolutionary hypotheses. Creationists reject such scientific facts in part because they do not accept evidence drawn from natural processes that they consider to be at odds with the Bible. But science cannot test supernatural possibilities. To young Earth creationists, no amount of empirical evidence that the Earth is billions of years old is likely to refute their claim that the world is actually young but that God simply made it appear to be old. Because such appeals to the supernatural are not testable using the rules and processes of scientific inquiry, they cannot be a part of science. Science Evolution and Creationism Intelligent design creationism is not supported by scientific evidence. Some members of a newer school of creationists have temporarily set aside the question of whether the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe are billions or just thousands of years old. But these creationists unite in contending that the physical universe and living things show evidence of intelligent design. They argue that certain biological structures are so complex that they could not have evolved through processes of undirected mutation and natural selection, a condition they call irreducible complexity. Echoing theological arguments that predate the theory of evolution, they contend that biological organisms must be designed in the same way that a mousetrap or a clock is designed that in order for the device to work properly, all of its components must be available simultaneously. If one component is missing or changed, the device will fail to operate properly. Because even such simple biological structures as the flagellum of a bacterium are so complex, proponents of intelligent design creationism argue that the probability of all of their components being produced and simultaneously available through random processes of mutation are infinitesimally small. The appearance of more complex biological structures (such as the vertebrate eye) or functions (such as the immune system) is impossible through natural processes, according to this view, and so must be attributed to a transcendent intelligent designer. Electron micrograph of a bacterium with hair-like flagella. However, the claims of intelligent design creationists are disproven by the findings of modern biology. Biologists have examined each of the molecular systems claimed to be the products of design and have shown how they could have arisen through natural processes. For example, in the case of the bacterial flagellum, there is no single, uniform structure that is found in all flagellar bacteria. There are many types of flagella, some simpler than others, and many species of bacteria do not have flagella to aid in their movement. Thus, other components of bacterial cell membranes are likely the precursors of the proteins found in various flagella. In addition, some bacteria inject toxins into other cells through proteins that are secreted from the bacterium and that are very similar in their molecular structure to the proteins in parts of flagella. This similarity indicates a common evolutionary origin, where small changes in the structure and organization of secretory proteins could serve as the basis of other functions. Science Evolution and Creationism for flagellar proteins. Thus, flagellar proteins are not irreducibly complex. Eyes in living mollusks. The octopus eye (bottom) is quite complex, with components similar to those of the human eye, such as a cornea, iris, refractive lens, and retina. Other mollusks have simpler eyes. The simplest eye is found in limpets, consisting of only a few pigmented cells, slightly modified from typical epithelial (skin) cells. Slit-shell mollusks have a slightly more advanced organ, consisting of some pigmented cells shaped as a cup. Further elaborations and increasing complexity are found in the eyes of Nautilus and Murex, which are not as complex as the eyes of the squid and octopus. Evolutionary biologists also have demonstrated how complex biochemical mechanisms, such as the clotting of blood or the mammalian immune system, could have evolved from simpler precursor systems. With the clotting of blood, some of the components of the mammalian system were present in earlier organisms, as demonstrated by the organisms living today (such as fish, reptiles, and birds) that are descended from these mammalian precursors. Mammalian clotting systems have built on these earlier components. Existing systems also can acquire new functions. For example, a particular system might have one task in a cell and then become adapted through evolutionary processes for different use. The Hox genes are a prime example of evolution finding new uses for existing systems. Molecular biologists have discovered that a particularly important mechanism through which biological systems acquire additional functions is gene duplication. Segments of DNA are frequently duplicated when cells divide, so that a cell has multiple copies of one or more genes. If these multiple copies are passed on to offspring, one copy of a gene can serve the original function in a cell while the other copy is able to accumulate changes that ultimately result in a new function. The biochemical mechanisms responsible for many cellular processes show clear evidence for historical duplications of DNA regions. In addition to its scientific failings, this and other standard creationist arguments are fallacious in that they are based on a false dichotomy. Even if their negative arguments against evolution were correct, that would not establish the creationists claims. There may be alternative explanations. For example, it would be incorrect to conclude that because there is no evidence that it is raining outside, it must be sunny. Other explanations also might be possible. Science requires testable evidence for a hypothesis, not just challenges against it. Science Evolution and Creationism Over millions of years, the Colorado River has cut through the rocks of the Colorado plateau, revealing sedimentary rocks deposited more than a billion years ago. ones opponent. Intelligent design is not a scientific concept because it cannot be empirically tested. Creationists sometimes claim that scientists have a vested interest in the concept of biological evolution and are unwilling to consider other possibilities. But this claim, too, misrepresents science. Scientists continually test their ideas against observations and submit their work to their colleagues for critical peer review of ideas, evidence, and conclusions before a scientific paper is published in any respected scientific journal. Unexplained observations are eagerly pursued because they can be signs of important new science or problems with an existing hypothesis or theory. History is replete with scientists challenging accepted theory by offering new evidence and more comprehensive explanations to account for natural phenomena. Also, science has a competitive element as well as a cooperative one. If one scientist clings to particular ideas despite evidence to the contrary, another scientist will attempt to replicate relevant experiments and will not hesitate to publish conflicting evidence. If there were serious problems in evolutionary science, many scientists would be eager to win fame by being the first to provide a better testable alternative. That there are no viable alternatives to evolution in the scientific literature is not because of vested interests or censorship but because evolution has been and continues to be solidly supported by evidence. The potential utility of science also demands openness to new ideas. If petroleum geologists could find more oil and gas by interpreting the record of formations by the Flood model. they would do so. Science Evolution and Creationism sedimentary rocks (where deposits of oil and natural gas are found) as having resulted from a single flood, they would certainly favor the idea of such a flood, but they do not. Instead, petroleum geologists agree with other geologists that sedimentary rocks are the products of billions of years of Earths history. Indeed, petroleum geologists have been pioneers in the recognition of fossil deposits that were formed over millions of years in such environments as meandering rivers, deltas, sandy barrier beaches, and coral reefs. The arguments of creationists reverse the scientific process. They begin with an explanation that they are unwilling to alter that supernatural forces have shaped biological or Earth systems rejecting the basic requirements of science that hypotheses must be restricted to testable natural explanations. Their beliefs cannot be tested, modified, or rejected by scientific means and thus cannot be a part of the processes of science. The pressure to downplay evolution or emphasize nonscientific alternatives in public schools compromises science education. Despite the lack of scientific evidence for creationist positions, some advocates continue to demand that various forms of creationism be taught together with or in place of evolution in science classes. Many teachers are under considerable pressure from policy makers, school administrators, parents, and students to downplay or eliminate the teaching of evolution. As a result, many U.S. students lack access to information and ideas that are both integral to modern science and essential for making informed, evidence-based decisions about their own lives and our collective future. Regardless of the careers that they ultimately select, to succeed in todays scientifically and technologically sophisticated world, all students need a sound education in science. Many of todays fast-growing and high-paying jobs require a familiarity with the core concepts, applications, and implications of science. To make informed decisions about public policies, people need to know how scientific evidence supports those policies and whether that evidence was gathered using well-established scientific practice and principles. Learning about evolution is an excellent way to help students understand the nature, processes, and limits of science in addition to concepts about this fundamentally important contribution to scientific knowledge. Given the importance of science in all aspects of modern life, the science curriculum should not be undermined with nonscientific material. Teaching creationist ideas in science classes confuses what constitutes science and what does not. It compromises the objectives of public education and the goal of a high-quality science education. Science Evolution and Creationism Excerpts from Court Cases Since the 1925 trial of John Scopes, which investigated the legality of a Tennessee law that forbade the teaching in public schools of any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, a number of court cases have looked at laws involving the teaching of creationist ideas. Several court decisions, including the 1987 Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard and, more recently, the 2005 federal district court case (in central Pennsylvania) of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, have ruled that the various forms of creationism, including intelligent design creationism, are religion, not science, and that it is therefore unconstitutional to include them in public school science classes. Below are excerpts from three of the most prominent cases. Supreme Court of the United States, Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968 Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of non-religion, and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. Supreme Court of the United States, Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987 [The] primary purpose [of the Louisiana Creation Act, which required the teaching of creation science together with evolution in public schools] was to change the public school science curriculum to provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety. Thus, the Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science that embodies a particular religious tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects. In either case, the Act violates the First Amendment. Science Evolution and Creationism District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005 [W]e find that ID [intelligent design] is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory, as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Moreover, IDs backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. U.S. law does not forbid the mention or study of religion as an academic subject in public schools, and creationism might be discussed in, for example, a comparative religion class. But, as civil servants, public school teachers must be neutral with respect to religion, which means that they can neither promote nor inhibit its practice. If intelligent design creationism were to be discussed in public school, then Hindu, Islamic, Native American, and other non-Christian creationist views, as well as mainstream religious views that are compatible with science, also should be discussed. Because the Constitution of the United States forbids a governmental establishment of religion, it would be inappropriate to use public funds to teach the views of just one religion or one religious subgroup to all students. Moreover, even in such a class it would be improper to teach these viewpoints as though they were scientific. == ."What separates creationism from science is that science is not predetermined. Science is merely making conclusions based on observations. This is unlike creationism which selectively chooses assorted observations to fit a predetermined conclusion. "To prove creationism/or intelligent design, all that need be done is to prove that the Supreme Being could create an infinite universe with micro- and macro-complexity (solar birth/deat, crystalization, electromotive inductance, Planck¹s constant, et alia), yet was unable to extend this complexity beyond sponges -- in other words, a limited supreme being...Either it all works, or none of it works; anything else is a false dichotomy." == Jailed owner fights to keep park open Chandler Ormsby, 8, recently took the "leap of faith" at Dinosaur Adventure Land, a Christian theme park in Pensacola dedicated to debunking evolution. An attraction at the park, the leap of faith consists of two swings that propel children from an elevated deck in "Pterodactyl Territory" to the ground below. Chandler likely wasn't aware the park's creator, Kent Hovind, is serving a 10-year sentence for tax fraud and that he and his son, Eric Hovind, are trying to stop efforts by the Internal Revenue Service to seize the property for unpaid taxes. "The truth is I didn't know it was here until it got negative press, which I think is sad," said Chandler's mother, Ashley Ormsby, of Gulf Breeze. The U.S. District Court of Appeals 11th Circuit in Atlanta has given the U.S. Attorney's Office in Pensacola until Aug. 14 to respond to an appeal to overturn the conviction of Kent Hovind and his wife, Jo Hovind. Kent Hovind is incarcerated at Edgefield Federal Correction Institution in South Carolina. Jo Hovind is free on bond pending the appeal. She was sentenced to a year and a day in prison on 45 counts of evading bank-reporting requirements. Kent Hovind was found guilty in November 2006 on 58 federal counts, including failure to pay $473,818 in employee-related taxes and making threats against investigators. 'Lawsuits and complaints' Kent Hovind sparred with IRS officials for at least 17 years before his conviction, claiming he had no income or property since he was employed by God and said park workers were ministers not subject to earthly payroll taxes. He also was convicted of impeding an IRS action by, among other things, filing "frivolous lawsuits and complaints" against the agency. At Kent Hovind's October 2006 trial, a Florida attorney with the Christian Law Association said Hovind disputed the government's right to tax him and likened his ministry's power to that of a foreign industry. "He tried to stress to me that he was like the pope and this was like the Vatican," Seminole attorney David Gibbs testified. The Hovinds also are appealing IRS attempts to seize their assets, including Dinosaur Adventure Land, which remains open more than a year and a half after the couple's conviction. Eric Hovind has taken over management of the theme park, an employee said. Eric Hovind was out of town last week and was unavailable for comment. About a dozen cars and a church school bus were parked outside the park, which features dinosaur-themed rides, games and exhibits dedicated to the belief that man and dinosaurs roamed the Earth together. Children played throughout the park and perused exhibits like the One Room School House, filled with articles promoting creationism to counter, as one sign reads, "the lies found in textbooks." "I was kind of skeptical about the place because I've heard some things about brainwashing," said Pensacola resident Suzann Sizemore, 21, a philosophy major and Christian. She said she was pleasantly surprised, however, after visiting the park with her sister. "I'm a believer," she said. "I have confidence the Earth was created by God." 'Raw deal' During an IRS raid of the Hovinds' home, investigators found about $42,000 in cash stashed "all over the place," along with a half-dozen guns, including a Russian-made SKS carbine. Neighbors said the IRS depicting Kent Hovind during his trial as a combative tax evader did not jibe with their experiences with the man. == New legal threat to teaching evolution in the US BARBARA FORREST knew the odds were stacked against her. "They had 50 or 60 people in the room," she says. Her opponents included lobbyists, church leaders and a crowd of home-schooled children. "They were wearing stickers, clapping, cheering and standing in the aisles." Those on Forrest's side numbered less than a dozen, including two professors from Louisiana State University, representatives from the Louisiana Association of Educators and campaigners for the continued separation of church and state. That was on 21 May, when Forrest testified in the Louisiana state legislature on the dangers hidden in the state's proposed Science Education Act. She had spent weeks trying to muster opposition to the bill on the grounds that it would allow teachers and school boards across the state to present non-scientific alternatives to evolution, including ideas related to intelligent design (ID) - the proposition that life is too complicated to have arisen without the help of a supernatural agent. The act is designed to slip ID in "through the back door", says Forrest, who is a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University and an expert in the history of creationism. She adds that the bill's language, which names evolution along with global warming, the origins of life and human cloning as worthy of "open and objective discussion", is an attempt to misrepresent evolution as scientifically controversial. Forrest's testimony notwithstanding, the bill was passed by the state's legislature - by a majority of 94 to 3 in the House and by unanimous vote in the Senate. On 28 June, Louisiana's Republican governor, Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, signed the bill into law. The development has national implications, not least because Jindal is rumoured to be on Senator John McCain's shortlist as a potential running mate in his bid for the presidency. Born in 1971 to parents recently arrived from India, Jindal is a convert to Roman Catholicism and a Rhodes scholar - hardly the profile of a typical Bible-belt politician. Yet in a recent national television appearance he voiced approval for the teaching of ID alongside evolution. He also enjoys a close relationship with the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), a lobbying group for the religious right whose mission statement includes "presenting biblical principles" in "centers of influence". It was the LFF which set the bill in motion earlier this year. "We believe that to teach young people critical thinking skills you have to give them both sides of an issue," says Gene Mills, executive director of the LFF. When asked whether the new law fits with the organisation's religious agenda, Mills told New Scientist: "Certainly it's an extension of it." The new legislation is the latest manoeuvre in a long-running war to challenge the validity of Darwinian evolution as an accepted scientific fact in American classrooms. Forrest played a pivotal role in the previous battle. It came to a head at a trial in 2005 when US district judge John E. Jones ruled against the Dover area school board in Pennsylvania, whose members had voted that students in high-school biology classes should be encouraged to explore alternatives to evolution and directed to textbooks on ID. The Dover trial, during which Forrest presented evidence that ID was old-fashioned creationism by another name (New Scientist, 29 October 2005, p 6), revolved around the question of whether ID was science or religion. Jones determined it was the latter, and ruled in favour of the parents who challenged the Dover board on the basis of the provision for separation of church and state in the US constitution. The strategy being employed in Louisiana by proponents of ID - including the Seattle-based Discovery Institute - is more subtle and potentially more difficult to challenge. Instead of trying to prove that ID is science, they have sought to bestow on teachers the right to introduce non-scientific alternatives to evolution under the banner of "academic freedom". "Academic freedom is a great thing," says Josh Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California. "But if you look at the American Association of University Professors' definition of academic freedom, it refers to the ability to do research and publish." This, he points out, is different to the job high-school teachers are supposed to do. "In high school, you're teaching mainstream science so students can go on to college or medical school, where you need that freedom to explore cutting-edge ideas. To apply 'academic freedom' to high school is a misuse of the term." "It's very slick," says Forrest. "The religious right has co-opted the terminology of the progressive left... They know that phrase appeals to people." The new usage began to permeate public consciousness earlier this year with the release of the documentary film Expelled: No intelligence allowed. Starring actor, game-show host and former Nixon speech-writer Ben Stein, the film argues that academic freedom is under attack in the US from atheist "Darwinists". The film's promoters teamed up with the Discovery Institute to set up the Academic Freedom Petition. Their website provides a "model academic freedom statute on evolution" to serve as a template for sympathetic legislators. So far, representatives from six states have taken up the idea. In Florida, Missouri, South Carolina and Alabama, bills were introduced but failed. An academic freedom bill now in committee in Michigan is expected to stall there. Louisiana is another story. A hub of creationist activism since the early 1980s, it was Louisiana that enacted the Balanced Treatment Act, which required that creationism be taught alongside evolution in schools. In a landmark 1987 case known as Edwards vs Aguillard, the US Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional, effectively closing the door on teaching "creation science" in public schools. ID was invented soon afterwards as a way of proffering creationist concepts without specific reference to God. In 2006, the year following the Dover ruling, the Ouachita parish school board in northern Louisiana quietly initiated a new tactic, unanimously approving a science curriculum policy that stated: "Teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught." The idea that evolution has weaknesses, and is therefore not a solid scientific theory, is a recurring theme in ID-related literature. Not long afterwards, the assistant superintendent of the Ouachita parish school system, Frank Hoffman, was elected to the state House of Representatives and joined the House education committee. "I knew then that something was going to happen," says Forrest. When Jindal was elected governor last year, the stage was set. The LFF approached Ben Nevers, a state senator, who agreed to introduce the Louisiana Academic Freedom Act on their behalf. "They believe that scientific data related to creationism should be discussed when dealing with Darwin's theory," Nevers told the Hammond Daily Star in April. The bill was later amended and renamed the Louisiana Science Education Act. Its final version includes a statement that the law should not be taken as promoting religion. That way, those who wish to challenge Darwinian evolution have "plausible deniability" that this is intended to teach something unconstitutional, says Eric Rothschild of the Philadelphia-based law firm Pepper Hamilton, which represented the parents at the Dover trial. "They are better camouflaged now." Supporters of the new law clearly hope that teachers and administrators who wish to raise alternatives to evolution in science classes will feel protected if they do so. The law expressly permits the use of "supplemental" classroom materials in addition to state-approved textbooks. The LFF is now promoting the use of online "add-ons" that put a creationist spin on the contents of various science texts in use across the state, and the Discovery Institute has recently produced Explore Evolution, a glossy text that offers the standard ID critiques of evolution (see "The evolution of creationist literature"). Unlike its predecessor Of Pandas and People, which fared badly during the Dover trial, it does not use the term "intelligent design". Because the law allows individual boards and teachers to make additions to the science curriculum without clearance from a state authority, the responsibility will lie with parents to mount a legal challenge to anything that appears to be an infringement of the separation of church and state. "In Dover, there were parents and teachers willing to step forward and say, this is not OK," says Rosenau. "But here we're seeing that people are either fine with it or they don't want to say anything because they don't want to be ostracised in their community." Even if a trial ensues, a victory by the plaintiffs will only mean that some specific supplementary material is ruled unconstitutional - not the law itself. Separate lawsuits will be needed to address each piece of suspicious supplementary material. "This encourages a lot of local brush fires that you have to deal with individually and that makes it very difficult," says Forrest. "This is done intentionally, to get this down to the local level. It's going to be very difficult to even know what's going on." Ultimately, if a number of suits are successfully tried, a group like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) could take the law itself to court, citing various cases in which it was used to bring religious material into the classroom. Representatives from the ACLU and from Americans United for Separation of Church and State have already told Louisiana state officials that lawsuits will follow if the law is used for religious ends. In the meantime, Forrest is working to inform teachers about the supplementary materials being made available. "The pressing need for the coming school year is to get the word out for what teachers need to be on alert for," she says. As to a future Dover-style trial, this time on Forrest's home turf, "I'll be right there," she says, though it's not a prospect she relishes. "I'd like to think I won't have to do this for the rest of my life. Because believe me, I don't do it for fun. It's a duty." == You can't prove/disprove a belief. Creationists don't research because their conclusions are already fixed. That is not research == Knowing little about the world is a pre-requisite for creationism. Facts get in the way of creationism badly. == The lawsuit filed by Texas science educator Chris Comer (see Chris Comer Sues Texas Agency: Neutrality is Endorsement of Religion) has been posted by the National Center for Science Education. A juicy tidbit from the lawsuit: The Agencys firing of its Director of Science for not remaining neutral on the subject violates the Establishment Clause, because it employs the symbolic and financial support of the State of Texas to achieve a religious purpose, and so has the purpose or effect of endorsing religion. By professing neutrality, the Agency credits creationism as a valid scientific theory. Finally, the Agency fired Director Comer without according her due process as required by the 14th Amendment a protection especially important here because Director Comer was fired for contravening and unconstitutional policy. == The Fourth Day by Howard Van Till 'Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution' by Karl Giberson Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute) (Paperback) by Michael J. Behe (Editor), William A. Dembski (Editor), Stephen C. Meyer (Editor), Michael Behe (Author) === http://www.csama.org/ creation == The new strategy is to cry out for academic freedom, which is then interpreted as the freedom to teach nonsense about the history of life on earth. Imagine if astrologers were to invoke academic freedom so that astronomy classes would include the preparation of horoscopes and the critical assessment of the Copernican theory. == As Richard Feynman once aptly put it: I do believe that there is a conflict between science and religion ... the spirit or attitude toward the facts is different in religion from what it is in science. The uncertainty that is necessary in order to appreciate nature is not easily correlated with the feeling of certainty in faith. === When creationists question the validity of atomic dating to determine the age of fossils, for instance, they are questioning the very same principles that make possible the existence of aircrafts, medicines, computers, power plants, satellites, among innumerable other technological marvels we use everyday. === ID is once again back up and on the march. So far in 2008, legislators in Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, Michigan, and Missouri have tried to require that classrooms teach both "the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory," code for unteaching evolution. Similar legislation passed both houses of the Louisiana legislature and was signed into law. == Average depth of the ocean: 3790 meters. It covers 71% of the earth's surface. So you would need 8,848 metters/(3790 meters * 71%) = 3.2 oceans to reach the tip of Everest. == Here are some identifying characteristics of Anti-evolutionistii stealth methods: 1.Distinctive vocalizations, including calls for: a. Local control b. Teaching more about evolution, not less, or push to augment/modify the state curriculum; critical analysis/developing critical thinking skills c. Academic Freedom/Academic Bill of Rights for K12 students/teachers d. Treating "origins science" differently than other science topics 2. Social behavior: are Young-Earth Creationists, or will not give an opinion as to the age of the earth 3. Camouflage: They try to hide or downplay their association with anti-evolution groups 4. Avoidance behavior: Some will avoid public forums or press interviews. == Michael Weinstein With God on Our Side: One Mans War Against an Evangelical Coup in the US Military == School Boards are the weak link in the entire infrastructure of government. The extreme right has adherents from School Boards to State Legislators to Congress. On the one hand, this leads to a complex range of decisions in which our Constitutional separation of church and state is undermined every single day; and on the other, it leads to the unholy alliance of these extremists, who help elect neo-conservative extremists. The danger of creationism is...that it allows all facts to be accepted or discarded according to the dictates of a preordained ideology. Of the gospel of consumerism relentlessly peddled by televangelists on massive Christian broadcasting networks, which promises its 141 million viewers that all they need to fix their lives is belief in Jesus and a regular love offering in American dollars to the network. The collective portrait is that of a non-reality-based movement, based on magic and miracles, which no rational argument can penetrate. The leaders of the Christian Right claim they speak for God, and as such, can brook no dissent. Unquestioned obedience to these ambassadors of God becomes the only test of faith. In totalitarian movements, the responsibility of making decisions about right and wrong is lifted from the people, along with the anxiety that attends that responsibility. But the surrender of conscience only comes with the abdication of democratic power and civil rights. Its members do not commit evil for evils sake. They commit evil to make a better world. To attain this better world, they believe, some must suffer and be silenced, and at the end of time all those who oppose them must be destroyed. The worst suffering in human history has been carried out by those who preach such grand, utopian visions, those who seek to implant by force their narrow, particular version of goodness. This is true for all doctrines of personal salvation, from Christianity to ethnic nationalism to communism to fascism. Dreams of a universal good create hells of persecution, suffering and slaughter. No human being could ever be virtuous enough to attain such dreams, and the Earth has swallowed millions of hapless victims in the vain pursuit of a new heaven and a new Earth. Ironically, it is idealism that leads radical fundamentalists to strip human beings of their dignity and their sanctity and turn them into abstractions. Yet it is only by holding on to the sanctity of each individual, each human life, only by placing our faith in tiny, unheroic acts of compassion and kindness, that we survive as a community and as individual human beings. Over the past three decades the haters have moved from the fringe into the executive govt branch. They hold a majority of the seats in 36% of all republican party state committees, and hold large minorities in 81% of the rest. Forty-five senators and eighty-six members of the house of representatives earn between an 80 - 100% approval rating from three of the most influential right wing Christian advocacy groups: The Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, and Family Resource Council. In THE INSTITUTES OF BIBLILCAL LAW, written in 1973, which according to Mr. Hedges is the most important book for this radical Christian movement known as dominionism, its author R. J. Rushdoony advocates the death penalty for rape, kidnapping and murder, but also for adultery, blasphemy, homosexuality, astrology, incest, striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency and, in the case of women, unchastity before marriage. == "Explore Evolution", written by a bunch of IDers including YEC Paul Nelson == The scientists who work in population genetics say if there were some serious mathematical problems with evolution, they would have explored it by now. The glory in science comes from proposing a novel idea, not in saying, Yes. Evolution works just the way Darwin said. The people who have proposed the mathematical impossibility of evolution are *always* misapplying probability in ways that do not apply to the problems they pose. [Specifically, they almost always assume that all long functional sequences have to be generated completely randomly all at once (or a mathematical equivalent). This is not what evolution proposes, which is descent with modification, not random assembly.] The Big Bang is a problem for Darwinism? Yet some fundamentalists want the Big Bang to be expunged from textbooks because they see it as support for Darwinism. And I don't see modern cosmology as showing anything close to a 6000 year old universe. == Intelligent Design=creationism Teach both sides=creationism Teach the controversy=creationism Academic Freedom=creationism Strengths and weaknesses=creationism == A team led by Michael Berkman recently polled 2,000 high school science teachers across the nation. Sixteen percent of them ‹ about one in every six teachers ‹ identified themselves as creationists. Moreover: Ša quarter of the teachers also reported spending at least some time teaching about creationism or intelligent design. Of these, 48 percent ‹ about 12.5 percent of the total survey ‹ said they taught it as a ³valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species². == http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/P.html Hovind == Dover trial From Judge Jones' opinion: Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions. The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony. == Ohio The students reported that he told them which things in the science book were not supported by the Bible and that they should therefore doubt and had them say "here" back to him when they got to one of those things (like radiometric dating, for instance). And that's not the half of it. He kept creationist books and videos in his classroom, including at least one video and one book by Kent Hovind. He also kept the book Refuting Evolution there. Parents showed the investigators handouts from religious groups slamming evolution and claiming that dinosaurs and humans lived together, among other things. And here's a new allegation not previously heard, from a substitute teacher in his class talking about what was in his class plans for that day: "The lesson of the day had been on the creation of the universe. John talked about how the textbook could be wrong. He said, 'Let me give you an example of how science can be wrong.' He then went on to say that an article in Time magazine a few years back stated that scientists had found a genetic link to homosexuality. 'In that case science is wrong because the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin' and so anyone who is gay chooses to be gay and therefore is a sinner. My reaction was one of disbelief that he was saying these things to eighth graders. I thought of how those two or three students in that classroom who might be struggling with their sexual identities would be feeling, hearing that they were sinners from a teacher. ... I was surprised at how comfortable John was talking about the Bible stating that homosexuality is a sin, and that anyone who is gay makes a conscious choice to be so. ... He had no problem declaring that not only can science be wrong by the example he gave, but heavily implied that the students' textbook was wrong as well on how the universe was created." They also had reports from all the high school science teachers talking about how every year they had to reteach basic science for the kids who had Freshwater as a teacher, that those kids came to high school steeped in creationist material and very hostile toward evolution and practically all of modern science. In fact, even the high school principal refused to let her daughter be taught by the guy: The High School Principal said that Mr. Freshwater has caused issues for her high school teachers in having to reeducate students from his teachings. The specific issues include a number of areas -- his failure to follow the curriculum regarding teaching creationism/intelligent design rather than evolution and his teaching of the Periodic Table, as examples. The High School Principal specifically asked that her daughter not be assigned to Mr. Freshwater for her 8th grade science due to her concern about his teaching not being consistent with the curriculum. And yes, they confirmed the cross burning on kids' arms, something he apparently did to dozens of kids over the years. == The Devil in Dover: An Insider's Story of Dogma v. Darwin in Small-Town America, Lauri Lebo == From 'New Scientist' http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13930-16-of-us-science-teachers-are-creationists.html Despite a court-ordered ban on the teaching of creationism in US schools, about one in eight high-school biology teachers still teach it as valid science. And though almost all teachers also taught evolution, those with less training in science - and especially evolutionary biology - tend to devote less class time to Darwinian principles. US courts have repeatedly decreed that creationism and intelligent design are religion, not science, and have no place in school science classrooms. But no matter what courts and school boards decree, it is up to teachers to put the curriculum into practice. "Ultimately, they are the ones who carry it out," says Michael Berkman, a political scientist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park. But what teachers actually teach about evolution and creationism in their classrooms is a bit of a grey area, so Berkman and his colleagues decided to conduct the first-ever national survey on the subject. The researchers polled a random sample of nearly 2000 high-school science teachers across the US in 2007. Of the 939 who responded, 2% said they did not cover evolution at all, with the majority spending between 3 and 10 classroom hours on the subject. However, a quarter of the teachers also reported spending at least some time teaching about creationism or intelligent design. Of these, 48% - about 12.5% of the total survey - said they taught it as a "valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species". When Berkman's team asked about the teachers' personal beliefs, about the same number -- 16% of the total -- said they believed human beings had been created by God within the last 10,000 years. Teachers who subscribed to these young-Earth creationist views, perhaps not surprisingly, spent 35% fewer hours teaching evolution than other teachers, the survey revealed. Journal reference: PLoS Biology (DOI: 10.1371/journal. pbio.0060124) == When young earth creationists use this kind of rhetoric they are using this rhetorical strategy to do three things: (1) appeal to anti-atheist prejudices/bigotry with their audience (i.e., to short-circuit rational consideration of the issues by triggering the "That's just atheism, so I'm not even going to think about it" knee-jerk reaction among Christians), (2) pretend evolution is not science (and thus ignore dealing with the actual science that they're pretending doesn't exist) but just atheists making things up and pretending it's science, and (3) pretend that the Christians who accept evolution don't exist (even though in fact, around the world evolution is accepted by most Christian denominations) . === Louisianas Latest Assault on Darwin It comes as no surprise that the Louisiana State Legislature has overwhelmingly approved a bill that seeks to undercut the teaching of evolution in the public schools. The state, after all, has a sorry history as a hotbed of creationists efforts to inject religious views into science courses. All that stands in the way of this retrograde step is Gov. Bobby Jindal. In the 1980s, Louisiana passed an infamous Creationism Act that prohibited the teaching of evolution unless it was accompanied by instruction in creation science. That effort to gain essentially equal time for creationism was slapped down by the United States Supreme Court as an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. State legislators, mimicking scattered efforts elsewhere, responded with a cagier, indirect approach. The new bill doesnt mention either creationism or its close cousin, intelligent design. It explicitly disavows any intent to promote a religious doctrine. It doesnt try to ban Darwin from the classroom or order schools to do anything. It simply requires the state board of education, if asked by local school districts, to help create an environment that promotes critical thinking and objective discussion about not only evolution and the origins of life but also about global warming and human cloning, two other betes noires of the right. Teachers would be required to teach the standard textbook but could use supplementary materials to critique it. That may seem harmless. But it would have the pernicious effect of implying that evolution is only weakly supported and that there are valid competing scientific theories when there are not. In school districts foolish enough to head down this path, the students will likely emerge with a shakier understanding of science. As a biology major at Brown University, Mr. Jindal must know that evolution is the unchallenged central organizing principle for modern biology. As a rising star on the conservative right, mentioned as a possible running mate for John McCain, Mr. Jindal may have more than science on his mind. In a television interview, he seemed to say that local school boards should decide what is taught and that it would be wrong to teach only evolution or only intelligent design. If Mr. Jindal has the interests of students at heart, the sensible thing is to veto this Trojan horse legislation. He later signed the law. -- SB 733, recently passed by both houses of the legislature, purports to enable teachers to help students develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues. This is a seemingly noble-sounding but deceptive goal. SB 733 is a thinly disguised attempt to advance the Wedge Strategy of the Discovery Institute (DI), a creationist think tank that is collaborating with the LA Family Forum to get intelligent design (ID) creationism into LA public school science classes. John West, associate director of DIs Center for Science and Culture, has even presumed to interpret SB 733 on DIs website so as to favor his groups agenda. (See Wests Questions and Answers About the Proposed Louisiana Science Education Act.) Within minutes of the Senates passage of the bill on June 16, West posted the news of Louisianas passage of the landmark LA Science Education Act on DIs website. According to one Louisiana news account, West indicated that DI hopes to see its own creationist textbook, the deceptively titled Explore Evolution, used in our science classes as one of the supplements that SB 733 will permit teachers to use (Opelousas Daily World, 6/16/08). DI apparently has a financial as well as a religious and political interest in this legislation. Creationism, which includes both young-earth creationism and ID, is not science but a sectarian view based on the Bible. Young-earth creationism is based on Genesis, and ID is based on the Gospel of John, as was established in federal court in the case of Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005). The Bible was never intended to be a science textbook. Evolution has long been accepted by the Catholic Church and most other mainstream churches. The late Pope John Paul II said in 1996 that new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. (Truth Cannot Contradict Truth, October 22, 1996) As the pope recognized and other mainstream religions also recognize, there is no conflict between teaching children the scientific fact of evolution in school and providing religious instruction at home and in church. Millions of Americans lead committed religious lives while fully accepting modern science. Since you hold a biology degree from Brown University, one of the nations most prestigious schools, you certainly appreciate Theodosius Dobzhanskys famous insight, Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. You also surely understand that there is no scientific controversy over the fact of evolution. The current controversy is a political one, manufactured nationally by the Discovery Institute and here in Louisiana by the LA Family Forum, which does not represent the majority of Louisianas citizens but would impose its agenda on our entire state, even our children. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is violated when the government endorses a sectarian doctrine, as SB 733 would do, despite denials by the bills supporters. The section of SB 733 stipulating that the bill shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion actually comes from the DIs own model academic freedom act. If SB 733 were truly about teaching science, no such disclaimer would be needed. If SB 733 becomes law, we can anticipate the embarrassment it will bring to the state, not to mention the prospect of spending millions of taxpayer dollars defending the inevitable federal court challenge. Consider also that federal courts have uniformly invalidated every effort to attack the teaching of evolution in public schools, including, among others, (1) Edwards v. Aguillard, a 1987 case that Louisiana lost in the U.S. Supreme Court; and (2) Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (pdf), a 2005 Pennsylvania federal court case in which a conservative Republican judge appointed by Pres. George W. Bush thoroughly examined and rejected a school board policy that presented ID to students as an alternative to evolution. With our state still recovering from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, does Louisiana need the expense and embarrassment of defending and losing another lawsuit in federal court? What image will this legislation convey to high-tech companies and skilled individuals who might consider locating here? On your Workforce Development website, where you tell readers that I am asking you to once again believe in Louisiana, you acknowledge that because of a skills gap, the training and education of our citizens does not meet the requirements of available jobs. You state that the lack of economic mobility discourages many Louisianans, including thousands of young people who have left our state in search of greater opportunities. You also highlight Louisianas low educational ranking as one cause of the workforce crisis in LA: In a 2007 national Chance-for-Success Index, Louisiana ranks #49 in the nation based on 13 indicators that highlight whether young children get off to a good start, succeed in elementary and secondary school, and hit crucial educational and economic benchmarks as adults. SB 733 will degrade the quality of science education just when the state is so working hard to improve public schools. Surely you agree that SB 733 sends the wrong message to the nation if we want to develop additional high tech companies such as the Pennington Biomedical Research Center, LIGO, and other research universities and centers across the state. SB 733 will sacrifice the education of our children to further the political and religious aims of the LA Family Forum and the Discovery Institute, an out-of-state creationist think tank whose only interest in Louisiana is promoting their agenda at the expense of our children. You have repeatedly stressed your commitment to making Louisiana a place where our young people can build families and careers. You can help to make Louisiana that place by proving that you support the hundreds of science teachers and thousands of students in the public schools and universities across the state. You can demonstrate your commitment to improving both Louisianas image and our educational system by vetoing SB 733. The state and the nation are watching. We call upon you to veto SB 733 in the best interests of our children and to protect the reputation of our state. == Lawsuit filed against school, teacher MOUNT VERNON A lawsuit was filed Friday in the southern district court on behalf of a student at the Mount Vernon Middle School. The federal suit alleges civil rights violations by the Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education, superintendent Stephen Short, middle school principal William White and science teacher John Freshwater. RELATED:The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages, including punitive damages, for constitutional violations in the school district with regard to the Establishment Cause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The allegations assert that during the 2007-08 school year Freshwater violated the United States Constitution as well as the policy of the Mount Vernon School district, and has not been disciplined for those violations. According to the complaint, previous to April 2008 Freshwater displayed the Ten Commandments, religious posters and Bible passages within his classroom and kept several Bibles in his classroom which were not for his personal use. He also allegedly taught students in his eighth-grade science class his own religious beliefs, including the meaning of Easter and Good Friday. The suit further states that Freshwater taught intelligent design as early as 2003 and told students that information in the textbooks is wrong or not proven according to the Bible. He also allegedly uses code words in his classroom to inform his students when he disagrees with the classroom teachings based on his own religious beliefs. In December 2007, the complaint continues, Freshwater burned an easily identifiable cross into the arm of at least two eighth-grade students with an electric device manufactured by Electro-Technic Products Inc. The complaint states, Mr. Freshwater knew that the electric device, model BD-10A, could cause harm if placed in contact with human skin. As the eighth-grade science teacher it is Mr. Freshwater s duty to understand and follow the manufacturer s advice regarding the proper use of science equipment. A portion of the lawsuit relates to Freshwater s role as an advisor to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Rather than merely acting as advisor, it states, Freshwater took an active part in the meetings, and failed to collect the necessary permission slips from students in attendance at the meetings. Also at FCA meetings, the suit alleges that Freshwater distributed Bibles for the students present to give to other students at the school who were not present, and that an invited speaker told students they should disobey the law to further their own religion, even if it means going to jail. Short, White and the school board are named as defendants in the case because they allowed Freshwater to continue to teach religion, and violate school policy and the Constitution after being notified of the policy violations and unconstitutional activities. For example, after April 14, the suit claims, Freshwater assigned extra credit to his students for homework related to intelligent design and was not removed from the classroom. White also, according to the court documents, disclosed the identity of the plaintiffs to Freshwater, although Short had promised them anonymity. After the parents raised concerns of retaliation against their son, a field trip was scheduled, with their son assigned to a certain group and chaperone. The suit claims that once the child s identity was revealed, his group assignment was changed to the one led by Freshwater. As a result, the parents were forced to prohibit their son from attending the school field trip. That caused injury by depriving the son of a valuable educational experience and discouraging the plaintiffs from continuing to exercise their right to free speech. Freshwater s action and the administration s inaction, the lawsuit states, have the purpose and effect of endorsing religion over non-religion and Christianity over other religious beliefs, thus violating the neutrality portion of the Establishment Clause. In addition to asking the court to issue an injunction against the teaching of religion in the school, the plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorney fees, prejudgment interest and post judgment costs, and other relief the court deems appropriate. The plaintiffs also demand a jury trial. == Despite a court-ordered ban on the teaching of creationism in US schools, about one in eight high-school biology teachers still teach it as valid science. And though almost all teachers also taught evolution, those with less training in science - and especially evolutionary biology - tend to devote less class time to Darwinian principles. US courts have repeatedly decreed that creationism and intelligent design are religion, not science, and have no place in school science classrooms. But no matter what courts and school boards decree, it is up to teachers to put the curriculum into practice. The researchers polled a random sample of nearly 2000 high-school science teachers across the US in 2007. Of the 939 who responded, 2% said they did not cover evolution at all, with the majority spending between 3 and 10 classroom hours on the subject. == www.icr.org www.discovery.org www.answersingenesis.org www.ideacenter.org www.reasonstobelieve.org == The intelligent-design movement now has a "teach the controversy" campaign against evolutionary biology. Ben Stein's recent movie, "Expelled," portrays scientists casting out anyone who questions biological orthodoxy. This movie is the most extreme application yet of the intelligent-design movement's "wedge" strategy to break the scientific community's influence over how science is taught. Of course, any claim by biologists that there is no scientific controversy to teach merely feeds the notion of an orthodoxy. In light of this, some have suggested that the best response to manufactured controversy is no response at all. I understand the impulse to remain silent in the face of nonsense, but I think it's shortsighted to cede the public stage in the naive hope that no one will pay attention. There have long been those who misuse the power of persuasion. In ancient Greece, the Sophists taught the art of persuasion to those who could pay their fee. These included Gorgias, who apparently boasted that he could persuade the multitude to ignore an expert and listen to him instead, and Protagoras, who claimed there are always two sides to a question and that it was the Sophist's job to make the weaker case appear the stronger. It was to oppose such deception that Aristotle wrote "Rhetoric." Aristotle wanted to teach experts how to confute those who mislead. My own research seeks to reveal what makes today's manufactroversies work. First, I've discovered that modern-day sophists skillfully invoke values that are shared by the scientific community and the public, such as free speech, skeptical inquiry and the revolutionary force of new ideas against a repressive orthodoxy. It is difficult to argue against someone who draws on these values without seeming unscientific or un-American. Second, the modern sophists exploit the gap between the technical and public spheres. Scientific experts who can't spare the time for public communication are then surprised when the public distrusts them. Third, today's sophists exploit a public misconception about what science is, portraying it as a structure of complete consensus built from the steady accumulation of unassailable data. Any dissent is cited as evidence that there's no consensus, and thus that truth must not have been discovered yet. A more accurate portrayal of science recognizes it to be a process of debate among a community of experts in which the side with superior evidence and argument wins. Unanimity of belief never exists, but the process of science moves forward with the weight of a supermajority. It is perverse to continue debating an issue that has already been settled for the vast majority of scientists merely so that policymakers will delay action, or so that the losing side can be taught on an equal footing in the classroom. Aristotle believed that things that are true "have a natural tendency to prevail over their opposites" but that it takes a skilled user of rhetoric to defeat sophisticated sophistry. I concur. The manufactured controversy must be exposed for what it is the assertion of an important scientific debate where none exists. Science will continue to be the victim of anti-science sophistry until the defenders of science learn to use my field rhetoric to achieve what Aristotle envisioned for it: to make strong arguments carry the day before an audience of non-experts. == http://www.reason.com/news/show/126800.html Flunk This Movie! Ben Stein's Expelled is all worldview and no evidence. This is not a religious argument, Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman asserts in the new anti-evolution propaganda movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Yet the film is free of scientific content: It gives no scientific evidence against biological evolution and none for intelligent design. Instead, host Ben Stein spends most of the movie asking various proponents of evolutionary theory for their religious views. The film begins with moody shots of Stein backstage before he addresses an unidentified audience on the alleged suppression of scientific research in the name of Darwinian orthodoxy. Stein stalks onstage and suggests that we are losing our scientific freedom. As evidence, Stein trots out a small parade of martyrs. In 2004, Richard Sternberg, then editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, published an article by Stephen Meyer arguing that the Cambrian explosion 570 to 530 million years ago in which most of the body types of animals developed was evidence for intelligent design. Many of Sternbergs colleagues reacted with dismay, and the journal retracted the article. In the film, Sternberg says he lost his office at the Smithsonians Museum of Natural History, was pressured to resign, and had his religious and political beliefs questioned. Yet he still has office space in the museum and has been reappointed for three more years. True, some of his colleagues might not want to hang out with him anymore. But that is a far cry from the grim black-and-white shots of Soviet armies and concentration camps featured in the film. In 2005, George Mason University did not renew a teaching contract with Caroline Crocker, an adjunct biology lecturer who believes in intelligent design. She tells Stein that she only wanted to teach students to question scientific orthodoxies: I was only trying to teach what the university stands for academic freedom. Since George Mason let her go, she says, she can no longer find work. Interestingly, Crocker delivered the same offending lecture at a local community college later. It didnt turn out to be a balanced presentation of evidence for and against biological evolution. Why not? There really is not a lot of evidence for evolution, she says. An assistant professor of astronomy, Guillermo Gonzalez, was denied tenure at Iowa State University in 2007. In 2004 Gonzalez co-wrote The Privileged Planet, which argues the Earth was precisely positioned to enable researchers like him to make scientific measurements. An Iowa State colleague, Hector Avalos, neatly skewers this conceit: This rationale is analogous to a plumber arguing that if our planet had not been positioned precisely where it is, then he might not be able to do his work as a plumber. Lead pipes might melt if the Sun were much closer. And, if our planet were any farther from the Sun, it might be so frozen that plumbers might not exist at all. Therefore, plumbing must have been the reason that our planet was located where it is. Did Gonzalez fail to get tenure because of his views? The university denies it, but my guess is he did. On the evidence of The Privileged Planet, Guillermos colleagues could reasonably worry that his views werent likely to lead to fruitful research results. The most egregious part of the movie is the attempt to link evolution with Communism and Nazism. The claim that Communism was motivated by Darwin is just silly. Official Soviet biological doctrine was Lysenkoism, and Russian Darwinists were denounced as Trotskyite agents of international fascism and thrown into the Gulag for their scientific sins. And Nazism? In the film, the mathematician David Berlinski says, Darwinism is not a sufficient condition for a phenomenon like Nazism, but I think it was a necessary one. Berlinski is suggesting that scientific materialism undermines the notion that human beings occupy a special place in the universe. If humans arent special, goes this line of thinking, then morals dont apply. But people through the millennia have found all sorts of justifications for murdering each other, including plunder, nationalism, and, yes, religion. Meanwhile, insights from evolutionary psychology are helping us understand how our in-group/out- group dynamics contribute to our disturbing capacity for racism, xenophobia, genocide, and warfare. The field also offers new ideas about how human morality developed, including our capacities for cooperation, love, and tolerance. At one point in the film, the science studies gadfly Steve Fuller archly poses the question: Which comes first, worldview or evidence? Fuller aims his question at the proponents of evolutionary biology. As this dreary film itself makes it painfully clear, the question is far more relevant to the supporters of intelligent design. == Philip Johnson is considered to be the "godfather" of the intelligent design creationist scam and he blamed the "science" side of the scam for the utter failure of the effort for the simple reason that they had never come up with the science to support the scam like they thought that they could. QUOTE: I also dont think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory thats comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that its doable, but thats for them to proveNo product is ready for competition in the educational world. END QUOTE: === A creationist bill in Louisiana passed the House of Representatives. Meanwhile, Ken Miller is to appear on Science Friday and The Colbert Report to discuss his new book; a second antievolution bill appeared in Michigan; and editorials react to the recent story in The New York Times about the impending struggle over Texas's state science standards. CREATIONIST BILL PASSED BY LOUISIANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES On June 11, 2008, with less than two weeks left in the legislative calendar, the Louisiana House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 733, a bill which opens the door to creationism in public school science classes. The bill, sponsored in the House by Rep. Frank Hoffman and in the Senate by Sen. Ben Nevers, purports to promote "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." The Associated Press (June 12, 2008) reports, "The Senate already has agreed to the bill, but it heads back to that chamber for approval of a provision that would allow the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to prohibit supplemental materials it deems inappropriate. Nevers said he will ask the Senate to approve the amendment. He stressed that the amendment does not require BESE to review all the materials. The state board would only step in if someone raised a question about whether the material was appropriate. " Meanwhile, the Alexandria Town Talk (June 8, 2008) observes, "State lawmakers are looking at a hectic two weeks as the 2008 legislative session draws to a close with many major issues yet to be settled." Outstanding legislation includes next year's budget, infrastructure construction bills, a voucher proposal for New Orleans public schools, and other controversial legislation. As The (Lafayette) Advocate (June 12, 2008) explains, "Ignoring threats of a lawsuit, the Louisiana House voted for legislation Wednesday that could change the way evolution is taught in public schools. The measure, Senate Bill 733, failed to generate a single question, passed 94-3 and appears poised for final approval. 'If this new law is used to promote religion in Louisiana public schools, I can guarantee there will be legal action,' said Barry Lynn, executive director of [Americans United for Separation of Church and State]. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that required equal time on creationism when evolution is taught in public schools." In a press release issued on June 11, 2008, Lynn added, "Louisiana students deserve better, and Louisiana taxpayers should not have their money squandered on this losing effort." Louisiana Coalition for Science, a grassroots group recently founded to advocate for accurate science education, decried the vote in its own press release (June 11, 2008). Barbara Forrest, a founding member of the group and a member of NCSE's board of directors, said, "The Louisiana legislature tried to force creationism into public schools in 1981, and they lost in the U. S. Supreme Court. The Discovery Institute, a national creationist organization, and the Louisiana Family Forum are using the same old tricks, but with new labels. In Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District in 2005, I showed that intelligent design was cooked up as a new name for the same old creationist arguments, and the strategy behind this bill is no different. Despite their denials, even the bill's backers know that SB 733 is a creationist bill written in creationist code language." She concluded by saying, "Now that the House has passed the bill, the Senate has one more chance to do the right thing. The entire country is watching. They should reject this bill and let teachers do their jobs. This bill is being pushed by creationist groups and does nothing to help Louisiana, our teachers, or our children." In the Louisiana Coalition for Science press release, Patsye Peebles drew on her years of experience as a biology teacher to oppose the bill. "I was a biology teacher for 22 years, and I never needed the legislature to tell me how to present anything," she said. "This bill doesn't solve any of the problems classroom teachers face, and it will make it harder for us to keep the focus on accurate science in science classrooms. Evolution isn't scientifically controversial, and we don't need the legislature substituting its judgment for the scientists and science teachers who actually know the subject." If the bill passes the Senate, it is uncertain how Governor Jindal will respond. The Washington Times (June 12, 2008) reports, "A spokeswoman for Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal would not say whether he will sign the bill, saying only that he will review it when it gets to his desk." For the text of SB 733 (PDF), visit: http://www.legis. state.la. us/billdata/ streamdocument. asp?did=482728 For the Associated Press story (via the New Orleans Times-Picayune) , visit: http://www.nola. com/newsflash/ index.ssf? /base/news- 39/1213222164265 360.xml&st orylist=louisiana For the Alexandria Town Talk story, visit: http://www.thetownt alk.com/apps/ pbcs.dll/ article?AID= /20080608/ NEWS01/8060803 03/1002 For the Lafayette Advocate story, visit: http://www.2theadvo cate.com/ news/politics/ 19813589. html For the press release from Americans United, visit: http://www.au. org/site/ News2?JServSessi onIdr009= 1ecizlso04. app7b&abbr= pr&page =NewsArticle& id=9881 For the press release from the Louisiana Coalition for Science, visit: http://lasciencecoa lition.org/ 2008/06/12/ reject_sb_ 733/ For the Washington Times story, visit: http://washingtonti mes.com/news/ 2008/jun/ 12/new-front- opens-on- evolution- wars / And for NCSE's previous coverage of events in Louisiana, visit: http://www.ncseweb. org/pressroom. asp?state= LA KEN MILLER ON SCIENCE FRIDAY AND COLBERT REPORT NCSE Supporter Kenneth R. Miller will appear June 13, 2008 -- today! -- on the second hour of the nationally broadcast NPR program Science Friday to discuss his new book, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul (Viking, 2008), of which Michael Ruse writes, "Ken Miller's new book, Only a Theory, is everything we have come to expect from him -- informed, witty, and above all deeply serious about matters of concern to us all. He takes so-called intelligent design theory apart, piece by piece, showing it for the sham that it is. In its stead, Miller makes a very strong argument for the truth and beauty of evolutionary thinking and begs that we not keep this wonderful science from our children." Check local listings for the station in your area. Also, Miller will appear on Comedy Central's The Colbert Report on June 16, 2008. For information about Science Friday, visit: http://www.sciencef riday.com/ For information about The Colbert Report, visit: http://www.comedyce ntral.com/ shows/the_ colbert_report/ index.jhtml To buy Only a Theory from Amazon.com (and benefit NCSE), visit: http://www.amazon. com/exec/ obidos/asin/ 067001883X/ nationalcenter02 A SECOND ANTIEVOLUTION BILL IN MICHIGAN Senate Bill 1361, introduced in the Michigan Senate on June 3, 2008, and referred to the Senate Committee on Education, is yet another "academic freedom" bill aimed at undermining the teaching of evolution. Identical to House Bill 6027, which is still in the House Committee on Education, SB 1361 would, if enacted, require state and local administrators "to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages pupils to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues" and "to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum in instances where that curriculum addresses scientific controversies" by allowing them "to help pupils understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught." In a press release dated May 20, 2008, Michigan Citizens for Science blasted HB 6027, writing that "it does a disservice to teachers, school administrators and local school boards by urging them to incorporate material into science classes that is at odds with well-established science. The bill itself notes that 'some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects,' yet it does nothing to clear up that uncertainty. It does not spell out what ... 'the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories' are that teachers are supposed to discuss and that lack of definition is intentional. This is a recipe for disaster, ushering teachers and school boards into a Dover trap, by inviting them to include material that not only has no scientific basis, but has already been declared in Federal court to be unconstitutional to teach. HB 6027 ushers schools down a path that will inevitably lead to expensive and divisive court battles. This legislation should be rejected." For the text of SB 361, visit: http://legislature. mi.gov/doc. aspx?2008- SB-1361 For Michigan Citizens for Science's press release, visit: http://michiganciti zensforscience. org/main/ nfblog/2008/ 05/20/mcfs- press-relea se-on-hb-6027/ And for NCSE's previous coverage of events in Michigan, visit: http://www.ncseweb. org/pressroom. asp?state= MI EDITORIALS ON THE IMPENDING STRUGGLE IN TEXAS In the wake of the June 4, 2008, report in The New York Times on the impending struggle over the presence of "strengths and weaknesses" language in the Texas state science standards, the Times addressed the issue editorially, writing (June 7, 2008), "The Texas State Board of Education is again considering a science curriculum that teaches the 'strengths and weaknesses' of evolution, setting an example that several other states are likely to follow. This is code for teaching creationism. " Observing that "[e]very student who hopes to understand the scientific reality of life will sooner or later need to accept the elegant truth of evolution as it has itself evolved," the editorial concluded, "If the creationist view prevails in Texas, students interested in learning how science really works and what scientists really understand about life will first have to overcome the handicap of their own education." Closer to the scene, the Houston Chronicle (June 7, 2008) explained that "strengths and weaknesses" language is "a 'teach the controversy' approach, whereby religion is propounded under the guise of scientific inquiry," adding, "Given the recent comments of both the chairman and the vice chairman of the board, there is ample reason for alarm." Rebuking Don McLeroy, who described the debate to the Times as between "two systems of science" -- "You've got a creationist system and a naturalist system" -- the editorial commented, "What students really need is to be able to study science from materials that have not been hijacked by creationists whose personal agenda includes muddying the science curriculum. Creationism is not a 'system of science,'" and ended by asking, "What chance do Texas students have of competing in the 21st century if their learning of science is warped and stunted by such benighted leadership?" For the editorial in The New York Times, visit: http://www.nytimes. com/2008/ 06/07/opinion/ 07sat3.html For the editorial in the Houston Chronicle, visit: http://www.chron. com/disp/ story.mpl/ editorial/ 5823928.html For the June 4, 2008, story in The New York Times, visit: http://www.nytimes. com/2008/ 06/04/us/ 04evolution. html And for NCSE's previous coverage of events in Texas, visit: http://www.ncseweb. org/pressroom. asp?state= TX If you wish to subscribe, please send: subscribe ncse-news your@email.com again in the body of an e-mail to majordomo@ncseweb2. org. Thanks for reading! And as always, be sure to consult NCSE's web site: http://www.ncseweb. org where you can always find the latest news on evolution education and threats to it. Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools http://www.ncseweb. org/nioc Eugenie C. Scott's Evolution vs. Creationism http://www.ncseweb. org/evc NCSE's work is supported by its members. Join today! http://www.ncseweb. org/membership. asp -- Best, Mikey Brass Ph.D. student, Institute of Archaeology, UCL Website: http://www.antiquit yofman.com By a vote of 94-3, Louisiana's House of Representatives passed an academic freedom bill that would protect teachers and school districts who wish to promote critical thinking and objective discussion about evolution and other scientific topics. "There was no vocal opposition, and the floor speech by Rep. Frank Hoffman made clear that the bill was about science, not religion. "This bill promotes good science education by protecting the academic freedom of science teachers," said Dr. John West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute. "Critics who claim the bill promotes religion instead of science either haven't read the bill or are putting up a smokescreen to divert attention from the censorship that has been going on." Known as the Louisiana Science Education Act, the bill now goes to the Louisiana Senate for final concurrence. The Senate previously passed the bill by a vote of 35-0, but a minor amendment adopted by the House means that the Senate must pass the bill again." == http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District == http://whatstheharm.net/ against bad science == debate http://www.scientificblogging.com/challenging_nature/conversation_with_a_modern_creationist?rss == The Cons of Creationism When it comes to science, creationists tend to struggle with reality. They believe, after all, that evolution by means of natural selection is false and that Earth is only a few thousand years old. They also believe that students who are taught a creationist view of biology or who are taught to disregard the Darwinist view are not being disadvantaged. The Texas State Board of Education is again considering a science curriculum that teaches the strengths and weaknesses of evolution, setting an example that several other states are likely to follow. This is code for teaching creationism. It has the advantage of sounding more balanced than teaching intelligent design, which the courts have consistently banned from science classrooms. It has the disadvantage of being nonsense. The chairman of the Texas board, a dentist named Don McLeroy, advocates the strengths and weaknesses approach, as does a near majority of the board. The system accommodates what Dr. McLeroy calls two systems of science, creationist and naturalist. The trouble is, a creationist system of science is not science at all. It is faith. All science is naturalist to the extent that it tries to understand the laws of nature and the character of the universe on their own terms, without reference to a divine creator. Every student who hopes to understand the scientific reality of life will sooner or later need to accept the elegant truth of evolution as it has itself evolved since it was first postulated by Darwin. If the creationist view prevails in Texas, students interested in learning how science really works and what scientists really understand about life will first have to overcome the handicap of their own education. Scientists are always probing the strengths and weakness of their hypotheses. That is the very nature of the enterprise. But evolution is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory rigorously supported by abundant evidence. The weaknesses that creationists hope to teach as a way of refuting evolution are themselves antiquated, long since filed away as solved. The religious faith underlying creationism has a place, in church and social studies courses. Science belongs in science classrooms. == "A Bible-based school and research institute has asked the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to reverse its decision not to allow the school to offer a master's degree in science education. "A spokesman for the Institute for Creation Research said the appeal "paves the way" for it to file a lawsuit against the state agency. "Institute spokesman Lawrence Ford said the voluminous appeal it is 755 pages long, including supporting documents is based upon a claim of "viewpoint discrimination." "The appeal described the board's decision as "academic (and religious) bigotry masquerading as Texas Education Code 'enforcement.' Looks as though this matter could go a long way. I think the various creationist dolts make a PR mistake when they bring up "viewpoint discrimination." Science is not a "viewpoint", like many conservative and liberal positions are, it is matter of ascertainable (and legally pertinent) fact. While it is true that people can entertain viewpoints contrary to science and proper epistemology, giving equal weight to those anti-factual beliefs would create an unworkable society. == DALLAS Opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts. Over the last decade, creationism has given rise to creation science, which became intelligent design, which in 2005 was banned from the public school curriculum in Pennsylvania by a federal judge. Now a battle looms in Texas over science textbooks that teach evolution, and the wrestle for control seizes on three words. None of them are creationism or intelligent design or even creator. The words are strengths and weaknesses. Starting this summer,2008, the state education board will determine the curriculum for the next decade and decide whether the strengths and weaknesses of evolution should be taught. The benign-sounding phrase, some argue, is a reasonable effort at balance. But critics say it is a new strategy taking shape across the nation to undermine the teaching of evolution, a way for students to hear religious objections under the heading of scientific discourse. Already, legislators in a half-dozen states Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri and South Carolina have tried to require that classrooms be open to views about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory, according to a petition from the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based strategic center of the intelligent design movement. Very often over the last 10 years, weve seen antievolution policies in sheeps clothing, said Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education, a group based in Oakland, Calif., that is against teaching creationism. The strengths and weaknesses language was slipped into the curriculum standards in Texas to appease creationists when the State Board of Education first mandated the teaching of evolution in the late 1980s. It has had little effect because evolution skeptics have not had enough power on the education board to win the argument that textbooks do not adequately cover the weaknesses of evolution. Yet even as courts steadily prohibited the outright teaching of creationism and intelligent design, creationists on the Texas board grew to a near majority. Seven of 15 members subscribe to the notion of intelligent design, and they have the blessings of Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican. What happens in Texas does not stay in Texas: the state is one of the countrys biggest buyers of textbooks, and publishers are loath to produce different versions of the same material. The ideas that work their way into education here will surface in classrooms throughout the country. Strengths and weaknesses are regular words that have now been drafted into the rhetorical arsenal of creationists, said Kathy Miller, director of the Texas Freedom Network, a group that promotes religious freedom. The chairman of the state education board, Dr. Don McLeroy, a dentist in Central Texas, denies that the phrase is subterfuge for bringing in creationism. Why in the world would anybody not want to include weaknesses? Dr. McLeroy said. The word itself is open to broad interpretation. If the teaching of weaknesses is mandated, a textbook might be forced to say that evolution has an inability to explain the Cambrian Explosion, according to the group Texans for Better Science Education, which questions evolution. The Cambrian Explosion was a period of rapid diversification that evidence suggests began around 550 million years ago and gave rise to most groups of complex organisms and animal forms. Scientists are studying how it unfolded. Evolution as a principle is not disputed in the scientific mainstream, where the term theory does not mean a hunch, but an explanation backed by abundant observation, and where gaps in knowledge are not seen as grounds for doubt but points for future understanding. Over time, research has strengthened the basic tenets of evolution, especially as advances in molecular genetics have allowed biologists to read the history recorded in the DNA of animals and plants. Yet playing to the American sense of fairness, lawmakers across the country have tried to require that classrooms be open to all views. The Discovery Institute has provided a template for legislators to file academic freedom bills, and they have been popping up with increasing frequency in statehouses across the country. In Florida, the session ended last month before legislators could take action, while in Louisiana, an academic-freedom bill was sent to the House of Representatives after passing the House education committee and the State Senate. In Texas, evolution foes do not have to win over the entire Legislature, only a majority of the education board; they are one vote away. Dr. McLeroy, the board chairman, sees the debate as being between two systems of science. You hve got a creationist system and a naturalist system, he said. Dr. McLeroy believes that Earths appearance is a recent geologic event thousands of years old, not 4.5 billion. I believe a lot of incredible things, he said, The most incredible thing I believe is the Christmas story. That little baby born in the manger was the god that created the universe. But Dr. McLeroy says his rejection of evolution I just dont think its true or its ever happened is not based on religious grounds. Courts have clearly ruled that teachings of faith are not allowed in a science classroom, but when he considers the case for evolution, Dr. McLeroy said, its just not there. My personal religious beliefs are going to make no difference in how well our students are going to learn science, he said. Views like these not only make biology teachers nervous, they also alarm those who have a stake in the states reputation for scientific exploration. Serious students will not come to study in our universities if Texas is labeled scientifically backward, said Dr. Dan Foster, former chairman of the department of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas. 'm an orthodox Christian, Dr. Foster said, and I dont want to say that Christianity is crazy. But science, not scripture, belongs in a classroom, he said. To allow views that undermine evolution, he said, puts belief on the same level as scientific evidence. Dr. Foster is a veteran of the evolution wars. He met with Mr. Perry in 2003 when the strengths and weaknesses argument last appeared, and more recently he worked to oppose an application by the Institute for Creation Research, which supports the teaching of creationism, to award graduate degrees in the state. (It was rejected on April 23, but the institute has said it will appeal.) This time around, however, scientists like Dr. Foster see more reason for worry. Although the process might drag on till next spring, a state-appointed committee of science educators has already begun to review the curriculum requirements. Although the state education board is free to set aside or modify their proposals, committee members will recommend that the strengths and weaknesses phrase be removed, said Kevin Fisher, a committee member who is against the teaching of creationism. When you consider evolution, there are certainly questions that have yet to be answered, said Mr. Fisher, science coordinator for the Lewisville Independent School District in North Texas. But, he added, a question that has yet to be answered is certainly different from an alleged weakness. Mr. Fisher points to the flaws in Darwinian theory that are listed on an anti-evolution Web site, strengthsandweaknesses.org, which is run by Texans for Better Science Education. Many of them are decades old, Mr. Fisher said of the flaws listed. Theyve all been thoroughly refuted. == http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe === http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/imagegallery.php?EntryID=S012 http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/hist409/scopes.html == "We want to teach the controversy in science classes". "What controversy?" "The one between evolution and creationism" "OK, so what is your theory?" "Goddidit" "Is that science?" "No" "Dismissed. Next?" == Creation is ongoing all around us! Have you ever noticed that the artificial lakes and ponds they make fill up with fish? How do you think they got there? Scientists have no explanation and desperately pretend that fish just evolve in the lakes from bugs and worms, but God makes sure each body of water is populated with exactly the kind of fish it needs." == Creationism's Latest Mutation Red-herring arguments about 'academic freedom' can't be allowed to undermine the teaching of evolution. NO ONE would think it acceptable for a teacher to question the existence of gravity or to suggest that two plus two equals anything but four. It's mystifying, then, that a movement to undermine the teaching of evolutionary biology is attracting some support. Equally perverse is that this misguided effort is being advanced under the false guise of academic freedom. Bills that would protect teachers critical of the findings of Charles Darwin appeared in five states this year, and legislators in others are said to be considering similar moves. Florida came perilously close to inviting creationism back into the classroom, but its legislative session ended before different versions of its bill could be reconciled. Supporters say they will be back. It's all part of a national movement emboldened by a new film from writer and actor Ben Stein that purports to speak out for free expression by educators. What's insidious about these measures is that at first blush they appear so harmless. Isn't everyone in favor of academic freedom? What's so wrong about allowing all sides of an issue to be heard? Why should teachers be punished for speaking their minds? Those arguments might have standing if there were any doubt about the reality of evolution, but, as an official with the National Academy of Sciences told the Wall Street Journal, "There's no controversy." Consider, also, that there really is no such thing as academic freedom in elementary and secondary education. A teacher can't deviate from the accepted curriculum to present alternative lesson plans or to offer his or her own notions. The Florida teachers association opposed the bills, though ostensibly they are meant to benefit educators. Clearly, the strategy is to devise an end run around legal decisions -- going all the way to the Supreme Court -- that restrict the teaching of creationism in public classrooms. The researchers polled a random sample of nearly 2000 high-school science teachers across the US in 2007. Of the 939 who responded, 2% said they did not cover evolution at all, with the majority spending between 3 and 10 classroom hours on the subject. However, a quarter of the teachers also reported spending at least some time teaching about creationism or intelligent design. Of these, 48% about 12.5% of the total survey said they taught it as a "valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species". == http://www.geocitie s.com/lflank/fundies.htm http://www.geocitie s.com/lflank/whoare.htm http://www.geocitie s.com/lflank/diagenda. html http://www.geocitie s.com/lflank/wedge.html == In the first nationally representative survey of teachers concerning the teaching of evolution, the authors show that one in eight high school biology teachers present creationism as a scientifically valid alternative to Darwinian evolution. While this number does not reflect public demand38% of Americans would prefer that creationism to be taught instead of evolutionit does represent a disconnect between legal rulings, scientific consensus, and classroom education. The majority of biology teachers spend between 3 and 15 hours on evolution. This is a wide range for a topic considered by the National Academy of Sciences to be the central concept of biology. The amount of time spent teaching human evolution is even less: the majority of teachers spend no more than five hours on the subject. This is the hottest of the hot buttons says Berkman, suggesting that pressure from the community might play a role in how teachers structure their classes. Even the strongest legal ruling still gives boards of education, school districts, and especially teachers considerable leeway he says.Teachers are still in charge of implementing state standards, adhering to court decisions, and integrating textbooks into their classrooms. And about this, the authors write, we are less sanguine. The authors show that the disparity in teaching evolution is not linked to differences in state regulations, but can more likely be attributed to differences of religious belief and education amongst teachers. Less than one-third of high school biology teachers believe that God had no part in evolution, nearly one-half believe God had a hand in evolution, and almost one in six believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years. The teachers who hold creationist or intelligent design beliefs spent substantially less time teaching evolution than their Darwinist counterparts. Likewise, teachers with a stronger background in evolution spent 60% more time teaching it than those who had the least education in the subject. == More ominously, I think of the end-times cults like Heaven's Gate, whose leaders convince the members that their perceptions are false, and that the real world is not what they see, but what they imagine. All of the members of Heaven's Gate castrated themselves and then (I don't know how long thereafter) committed suicide. They did this in small groups, in turns, each succeeding group cleaning up after the previous group. They all planned to join a space ship hidden behind the comet Hale-Bopp. == "The fundamentalists, by knowing the answers before they start [examining evolution], and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science -- or of any honest intellectual inquiry." -- Stephen Jay Gould, Bully for Brontosaurus, 1990 == One in Eight High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism One in eight U.S. high school teachers presents creationism as a valid alternative to evolution, says a poll published in Public Library of Science Biology. Of more than 900 teachers who responded to a poll conducted by Penn State University political scientist Michael Berkman and colleagues, 32% agreed that creationism and intelligent design should be taught as scientifically unsound. Forty percent said that such explanations are religiously valid but inappropriate for science class. However, 12% called creationism a "valid scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species," and the same number said that "many reputable scientists view these as valid alternatives to Darwinian theory." Longtime Wired Science readers know that I'm less bothered than many science writers at the possibility of evolution being under-taught in science and biology courses: so long as a teacher imparts a sense of wonder and curiosity, the details will follow. However, teaching creationism or intelligent design alongside evolution, as if religious explanations had even a fraction of the scientific validity of evolution, is unacceptable: it promotes fatally flawed, uncritical thinking. What to do? The study's authors note that courtroom victories -- classroom creationism has consistently been struck down in U.S. courts -- is apparently insufficient to guarantee an accurate depiction of evolution. Neither will rigorous state science standards, like those recently passed in Florida, do the trick. Instead they recommend teacher certification requiring the completion of an evolutionary biology course. Seems like a good idea to me. A question, Wired Science readers: what was your own biology education like? What did you learn about education, and what were you taught about creationism? For those of you with children, what are your kids' science courses like? == According to a 2005 CBS News poll, most Americans do not belive in evolution. (www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml) Gallup has been running a poll for 15 years, and they get about 45% of Americans agreeing with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Just under 40% think God guided evolution, and close to 15% think God had nothing to do with it. (www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolution.aspx) == Mr. Robert Scott, Commissioner of Education Texas State Board of Education 1701 N. Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78701 Dear Mr. Scott and Members of the SBOE: The Board of Directors and staff of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) would like to go on record as strongly opposing actions in the state of Texas that compromise the integrity of science and the quality of science education. Two recent examples include the forced resignation of Ms. Chris Comer and the consideration by the Board of Higher Education of a graduate degree program for creation science. We are concerned as professional educators and scientists because we know that Texas educators have for many years been dedicated to the improvement of science education through their work on TEKS and TAKS. The results of international testing have clearly demonstrated that the United States has many underqualified science teachers and students who do not perform well on international, national, or state assessments of science. One way to address our nation's needs is to make sure that our teachers are knowledgeable of, and conversant in science. Understanding the theory of evolution is essential for teaching the biological sciences, and there is a rich body of scientific evidence in support of evolutionary theory that every biology teacher must know well. We at BSCS recognize that there are many controversial issues in biology education on which teachers should remain neutral. These issues concern moral and ethical stances where members of society may honestly differ. Teachers should remain neutral on these issues because the different stances are not based on scientific evidence, but rather on personal values and beliefs. But we also contend that educators have a professional obligation to teach science accurately and not remain neutral about scientific theories that are supported by vast amounts of data and have broad explanatory power. For example, one would not expect neutrality when teaching the principles of atomic theory or the germ theory of disease. Similarly, it is pedagogically irresponsible to remain neutral on teaching the principles of evolutionary theory, which form the cornerstone of modern biology. BSCS has worked for 50 years to uphold the integrity of biology education by including the theory of evolution in our curriculum material and professional development services, including those used in Texas. We will continue to work diligently to promote scientific literacy in Texas and elsewhere around the nation. The quality of science education is based on evidence, not personal beliefs or opinions, and we at BSCS will strive to ensure that all science students and their teachers are given the best possible scientific information with which to learn. We urge you to maintain the integrity of science as you fulfill your responsibility for supporting the high quality science education that your students deserve. In so doing, you will reinforce the voice of many other scientists, educators, and professional organizations around the country who have spoken eloquently in defense of evolutionary theory and its role in science instruction. Sincerely, Janet Carlson Powell Executive Director Jerry A. Waldvogel Chair, Board of Directors == Huckabee "If anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it." ... "If you're with Jesus Christ, we know how it turns out in the final moment," he said. "I've read the last chapter in the book, and we do end up winning." ..."When I press him on whether he believes all non-Christians are eternally damned, Huckabee is evasive. "Being president isn't about picking who goes to heaven and who goes to hell," he says. When none other than Bill O'Reilly hammered him on the same point a day later, Huckabee conceded that "I believe Jesus is the way to heaven." ...One of his first acts as governor was to block Medicaid from funding an abortion for a mentally retarded teen-ager who had been raped by her stepfather an act in direct violation of federal law, which requires states to pay for abortions in cases of rape. "The state didn't fund a single such abortion while Huckabee was governor," says Dr. William Harrison of the Fayetteville Women's Clinic. "Zero." ..."Science changes with every generation and with new discoveries, and God doesn't," he says. "So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict." ...At one appearance, Huckabee who's been known to make fart jokes in front of the state legislature said he would oppose gay marriage "until Moses comes down with two stone tablets from Brokeback Mountain saying he's changed the rules." And he recently scored a rare offend trifecta, simultaneously pissing off immigrants, Jews and the pro-choice crowd when he ludicrously claimed that a "holocaust" of abortions had -artificially created a demand for Mexican labor. " === http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CH400-CH599 == As for her claim that chimps and humans are genetically similar because they eat the same types of food and breathe the same air. . . . well, that's one of the more laughable claims I've seen coming from a creationist. It's a badly-phrased variation on their standard "argument from form". Generally, it's better phrased, of course. Humans and chimps have similar genes because of their identical creator reusing parts to create similar creatures of similar biology. Makes sense, until you hit nasty examples of convergent evolution (marsupial vs. placental moles, marsupial vs. placental wolves, lizards vs. tautara, gharials vs. false gharials, sirens vs caecilians, and, of course, the granddaddy, free-for-all battle of the century, snakes vs. glass lizards vs. amphisbaenids vs. legless skinks. == Sullivan sends letter opposing science standards Florida Baptists top executive rejects theory compromise By JAMES A. SMITH SR. Executive Editor Published February 17, 2008 JACKSONVILLE (FBW) The top executive of the Florida Baptist Convention has entered the growing debate regarding proposed science standards, urging the Florida Board of Education to oppose the proposal unless the teaching of evolution includes scientific criticisms of the controversial theory. John Sullivan, executive director-treasurer of the Florida Baptist Convention, sent a letter via e-mail on Feb. 17 to all members of the Board of Education and Eric Smith, the commissioner of education, with a hard copy to follow via postal mail. Sullivan was writing on behalf of the Conventions State Board of Missions, which represents Florida Baptists, the largest evangelical denomination in the state with about one million members in more than 2,000 congregations statewide. Saying he has serious concerns about the way evolution is addressed in the standards, Sullivan told the Board of Education: We are respectfully requesting that you not approve the proposed language of the new Science Standards when considered at the February 19, 2008 Board of Education meeting. Citing as an example the standards assertion, Evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence, Sullivan said there is a severe lapse in the intellectual integrity in the standards. It is not the desire or goal of Florida Baptists to advocate the removal of the theory of evolution from the curriculum. Nor are we suggesting the inclusion of any other theory on the origin of life, Sullivan wrote, adding we firmly believe there is credible evidence supporting a Creator-initiated origin of life. Instead, Sullivan said Florida Baptists support an accurate and thorough presentation of the scientific evidence currently available regarding the theory of evolution. To that end, we respectfully request that you at least require the curriculum to fairly reflect the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution. Additionally, the Science Standards should honor and encourage the academic freedom of teachers and students on an issue of fundamental importance and ongoing scientific controversy. Regarding widely reported compromise language calling evolution a theory, Sullivan said the compromise does not satisfy Florida Baptists concerns. [W]e do not believe that the mere adding of the phrase scientific theory of before the word evolution in the standards will really fix the problem. As we have stated, this will not address the standards silence about teaching scientific criticisms of evolution. Sullivan expressed appreciation to those who drafted the proposed standards, noting that he supports the desire of the education professional in Florida to ensure the children of this state receive an excellent science education. THE FULL TEXT OF SULLIVANS LETTER FOLLOWS [Name and Address of Respective Commissioner:] I am writing on behalf of the 99-members of the State Board of Missions of the Florida Baptist State Convention who represent one million Florida Baptists, the largest evangelical denomination in the state of Florida. I am sharing our collective concerns with each commission member via Email and then providing an official copy of this letter to the Florida Commissioner of Education for the record. We are respectfully requesting that you not approve the proposed language of the new Science Standards when considered at the February 19, 2008 Board of Education meeting. We have serious concerns over the way that the theory of evolution is described in the new Science Standards. We believe there is a severe lapse in the intellectual integrity of the new wording regarding the basis of the study of biology. Specifically, we are concerned about the narrative found in the Life Science body of Knowledge section which starts with the statement: Evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence. It is not the desire or goal of Florida Baptists to advocate the removal of the theory of evolution from the curriculum. Nor are we suggesting the inclusion of any other theory on the origin of life. Although we firmly believe there is credible evidence supporting a Creator-initiated origin of life. What we are advocating at this time is an accurate and thorough presentation of the scientific evidence currently available regarding the theory of evolution. To that end, we respectfully request that you at least require the curriculum to fairly reflect the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution. Additionally, the Science Standards should honor and encourage the academic freedom of teachers and students on an issue of fundamental importance and ongoing scientific controversy. And finally, we do not believe that the mere adding of the phrase scientific theory of before the word evolution in the standards will really fix the problem. As we have stated, this will not address the standards silence about teaching scientific criticisms of evolution. Let me thank you for your leadership and for the efforts of the team of science professionals who rewrote Floridas Science Standards. We join you in the desire of the education professionals in Florida to ensure the children of this state receive an excellent science education. Blessings, T. G. John Sullivan, Executive Director-Treasurer Florida Baptist Convention 1230 Hendricks Avenue Jacksonville, Florida == CAN NOAH'S FLOOD ACCOUNT FOR THE GEOLOGIC AND FOSSIL RECORD? As we have seen, one of the strongest evidences for evolutionary descent comes from the fossil record, which presents several examples of evolutionary transitions from one class of organisms to another. In addition, the fossil record grades clearly and unmistakably from simple early life forms which appear early in the geological column to larger and more anatomically complex forms which appear later. The sequence of the appearence of various fossil groups--first invertebrates, then simple vertebrates, then jawed fishes, then amphibians, then reptiles, and finally birds and mammals--is exactly what we would expect from evolutionary descent with modification, with the organisms appearing higher in the geological column being the modified descendents of those organisms which appear lower in the column. The creationists, of course, must answer this clear evidence for evolution, and demonstrate in some way that this apparent evolutionary sequence is not valid. And, as usual, they turn to their Biblical source for this--specifically, to the Flood of Noah described in Genesis: "The great Flood of Genesis 6-9 is of critical importance to the true understanding of earth history." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 250) "The evidence in the earth's crust of past physical convulsions seems to warrant inclusion of post-creation global catastrophism in the model." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 11) If there was a global flood, as the Bible says there was, then every living thing on earth must have died in it (other than those saved on Noah's Ark). "Consequently, " the creationists conclude, " the vast fossil record, comprising as it does, a worldwide cemetary preserved in stone for men everywhere to see; is not at all a record of the gradual evolution of life, but rather of the sudden destruction of life." (Morris, 1972, p. 77) However, if the "vast fossil record" is actually the drowned remains of the victims of Noah's Flood, that would mean that the sediments they are buried in must have been formed all at once, during the single Flood, rather than building up gradually over billions of years as geologists believe. As Morris puts it, "The creationist suspects that the fossil record and the sedimentary rocks, instead of speaking of a long succession of geological ages, may tell rather of just one former age, destroyed in a great worldwide aqueous cataclysm." (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974, p. 21) "In effect," Morris further concludes, "this means that the organisms represented in the fossil record must all have been living contemporaneously, rather than scattered in separate time frames over hundreds of millions of years. . . The only reason to think that all should not have been living contemporaneously in the past is the assumption of evolution. Apart from this premise, there is no reason to doubt that man lived at the same time as the dinosaurs and trilobites." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 112) Therefore, Morris declares, "The geologic column does not represent the slow evolution of life over many ages, as the evolution model alleges, but rather the rapid destruction and burial of life in one age, in accordance with the creation model." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 112) Of course, a paleontologist would quickly point out that the fossil remains are not all jumbled haphazardly together as they would be if they had all died in one single flood, but instead appear in a precise unvarying order, with simple organisms appearing at the bottom of the column, and more complex organisms appearing, in order, towards the top. The creationists find their answer to this problem in the raging Flood waters: "The fossil-bearing strata were apparently laid down in large measure during the Flood, with apparent sequences attributed not to evolution but rather to hydrodynamic selectivity, ecological habitats, and differential mobility and strength of the various creatures." (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 327) In other words, according to the creationists, all of the organisms whose remains we find in the fossil record--everything from trilobites to the Burgess Shale invertebtrates, the placoderm fishes and the therapsid reptile-mammals, the dinosaurs and the wooly mammoths, to birds and human beings--were all actually living together, simultaneously and side by side, until the Flood of Noah drowned them all and then sorted their dead remains, over a period of less than a year, into an order that just happens to make it LOOK as though all of these organisms developed slowly by a long process of evolutionary descent. All of the sedimentary rocks we see today, which appear as though they were laid down over incredibly long stretches of time, were actually all laid down within one year by the raging flood waters; all of the fossils we see today, which are found within the geological column, actually died in the same year, in the Flood, and were sorted out, buried and fossilized in the flood sediments. This is the creationist' s "scientific" explanation for the fossil record, which they refer to as "Flood geology". There are three basic sorting methods hypothesized by the creationists. The first is hydraulic sorting, in which the drowned bodies of smaller, denser and more streamlined animals would settle faster to the bottom, and thus would tend to be buried first and appear lower in the geological column. This is described by Morris: "In the marine strata, where invertebrates were fossilized, these would tend locally to be sorted hydrodynamically into assemblages of similar size and shape. Furthermore, as the turbulently upwelling waters and sediments settled back down, the simpler animals, more nearly spherical or streamlined in shape, would tend to settle out first because of lower hydraulic drag. Thus each kind of marine invertebrate would tend to appear in its simplest form at the lowest elevation, and so on." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 119) While the "hydraulic sorting" hypothesis certainly sounds scientific and perhaps even logical, there are numerous examples from the fossil record which demonstrate that it is simply not true. The ammonites, for instance, were a large group of marine invertebrates, similar to the modern day nautilus, which existed for several hundred million years until they were wiped out in the same mass extinction that killed the dinosaurs. Although they remained at approximately the same size and shape, the ammonites over time developed a complicated system of sutures which separated the various gas chambers inside their curved shells. The earliest ammonites, found in the Devonian layers, had simple straight sutures. Later ammonites, found in Triassic layers, retained the same body size and shape, but exhibited slightly more complex suture patterns. The very latest ammonites, from the Cretaceous layers, differed from the others only in the increased complexity of their shell sutures. According to the creationist hypothesis, all of these varieties of ammonites actually lived at the same time and were drowned in the same Flood. Then, they settled to the bottom at rates that differed according to their "hydrodynamic properties". But the only difference exhibited by the ammonites was the complexity of their shell sutures--the size and shape of their shells was the same, and therefore, one must assume, their "hydrodynamic properties" would not have differed significantly. Yet these species are precisely sorted in the fossil record--no simple-sutured ammonite has ever been found in Cretaceous layers, and no complex-sutured ammonite has ever been found in the Devonian layers. Since a small complex-sutured ammonite would have much less hydraulic drag than would a large simple-sutured ammonite, one would expect that it would settle to the bottom more quickly and be preserved lower in the sediment column than would the larger ammonites. Yet this is not what we see in the fossil record. Each separate layer of ammonites contains a variety of sizes and ages, but always of only one variety. This is impossible to explain by Morris's "hydraulic sorting" theory. A similar situation exists with the marine invertebrates known as brachiopods, which are bivalved animals that are similar to clams. Fossil brachipods are found throughout the fossil record, from the top of the geological column to the bottom. Yet, despite the fact that they are all similar in shell shape (and also presumably in their "hydraulic properties") , we do not find them all sorted together in one layer; rather, certain species (of all sizes and ages) are found in only one narrow layer and no other, while other species (of all sizes and ages) are found in other layers and no others. This is impossible to explain through hydraulic sorting, but makes perfect sense if we assume the higher brachiopods to be the descendents of those lower in the sediments. The creationist "hydraulic sorting" idea also fails completely when it comes to the observed sequence of plants in the fossil record. Since nearly all plants float in water, it is inconceivable that they might have become "sorted" through differential sinking rates as were animals. Instead, one would expect, according to the creationist hypothesis, that they would have floated on the Flood waters until they dried up, depositing a thick layer of plant flotsam at the very top of the huge column of Flood sediments. Yet this is not what we see in the fossil record--the plants exhibit the very same apparent order as do animals, with simpler forms appearing low in the geological column, and more complex forms appearing higher up in the column. The second sorting method proposed by the creationists is "ecological zoning". The idea here is that deep-sea organisms would tend to get drowned and buried first, then shallow-water animals, then amphibians which live at the edge of water and land, then reptiles, who live on dry land, and finally birds and mammals, who live in higher elevations and thus would be drowned and buried last. Morris says, "Marine invertebrates would normally be found in the bottom rocks of any local geologic column, since they live on the sea bottom. Marine vertebrates (fishes) would be found in higher rocks than the bottom-dwelling invertebrates. They live at higher elevations and also could escape burial longer. Amphibians and reptiles would tend to be found at still higher elevations, in the commingled sediments at the interface between land and water." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 119) This idea too falls apart under examination. Contrary to Morris's assertion, most marine invertebrates do not live in the deep sea floor; they inhabit the shallow areas along the coast where sunlight can penetrate to the marine plankton and other small organisms at the bottom of the marine food chain. The deep sea is inhabited by pelagic fish, which should, according to Morris's theory, have been buried first by sediments, before the invertebrates living in the shallow seashores. But this is not what we find. Also, according to Morris, we should expect to find deep sea reptiles, such as plesiosaurs, ichtyosaurs (remember, according to Morris, all of these reptiles were alive on the very day of the Flood) and sea turtles buried much lower in the Flood sediments than land reptiles and amphibians such as Eryops, Lagosuchus or Herrerasaurus. Instead, we find the marine reptiles consistently higher in the column than these land animals. Evolutionary theory explains that the reptiles evolved from the amphibians and didn't appear until later; creationist "sorting" cannot explain it at all. Creationists are also at a loss to explain the many instances where we can trace a marine deposit containing mososaurs, clams and ammonites which grade horizontally, at the same geologic level, into terrestrial deposits containing the remains of dinosaurs and early mammals. These fossils are not one on top of the other as they would be if the dinosaurs had been sorted by habitat in the churning Flood waters, drowning later than their marine cousins. The "ecological zoning" postulate also fails completely to account for the order of plants in the fossil record. Under Morris's hypothesis, one would expect that sea plants would be lower in the column that would terrestrial plants, while lowland-favoring plants, such as cattails, willow trees and lily pads (which live on or near the surface of water) would have been buried long before those plants which favor higher and cooler areas, such as pine trees and other confiers. This, however, is not what we find in the fossil record. Instead, the evolutionarily primitive conifers appear much lower in the column than do modern angiosperms such as willow trees and oak trees. Not a single willow tree, which would presumably have shared its lakeside habitat in pre-Flood days with such aquatic amphibians as Eryops and Diplocaulus, has ever been found in association with extinct amphibians. Similarly, no tree ferns, large treelike plants which have been found in association with these extinct amphibians, have ever been found with the fossils of any modern animals of similar habitat. The final sorting mechanism postulated by creationists is "differential mobility". The theory here is a simple one--those animals which were larger and faster would be able to move to higher ground, thus escaping the Flood waters for a longer time and being drowned much later than their less mobile contemporaries. As Morris puts it, "These higher animals (land vertebrates) would tend to be found segregated vertically in the column in order of size and complexity, because of the greater ability of the larger, more diversified animals to escape burial for longer periods of time." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 119) Questions abound. The creationists assume that birds are found high in the column because they could have flown above the raging Flood waters until they tired and fell in to drown. Why, then, did the flying reptiles such as Pteranodon and Ramphorynchus not do the same? Since we also find fossil clams at all levels of the sedimentary, even at the very top, are we justified in assuming that these clams must have run to the high ground, while the brachipods didn't? What about the many nesting sites that have been found for terrestrial dinosaurs? Are we to assume that these animals, panicked by the rising flood waters and the torrential rain and fleeing for the high ground, suddenly decided to stop and dig huge numbers of nests in the Flood sediments and lay eggs, which apparently had time to hatch before the Flood engulfed them? Then there are the plants. How did the oak and willow trees manage to get to the top of the sediment layer along with all those mobile mammals? Did the trees run for the high ground too? The creationists have no explanation. The creationist "sorting" hypothesis is absurd. Apparently, the creationists would have us believe that the therapsid reptiles (who they assert were all contemporary and lived side by side) just happened to drown and become sorted by the Flood into a sequence which looks just like evolutionary descent; the forms with well-developed reptilian jaw joints and incipient mammalian joints just happened to be buried first, followed by those like Probainognathus with double jaw joints, while forms like the Morganucodonts, with functional mammalian joints and receding reptilian joints, just happened to climb a little higher or sink a little slower than the others (but not so high or so slow as the true mammals with no reptilian characteristics) . Sea turtles, on the other hand, violate all three of the presumed "sorting mechanisms"; they live in the open deep sea, but are found high in the sediment layer, above such terrestrial animals as amphibians and dinosaurs; they are big and heavy and sink rapidly upon death, but are found in the upper layers, above such lighter organisms as jellyfish and seaweeds; and they are clumsy and slow on land, but apparently managed to run to the higher elevations before the Flood engulfed them (since they are found in the same sediment layers as such speedy animals as saber-toothed tigers and horses). And none of the creationist theories can explain how plants became sorted into an apparent evolutionary sequence. The entire structure of Flood geology is nonscientific and is based directly on the creationists' religious beliefs. As the creationists themselves admit, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support any of their Flood geology: "The study of the Flood, especially its scientific aspects, is often called 'Flood geology' or 'Deluge geology'. However, it has not yet reached that state of development where it can be rightfully called a science, and I doubt that it ever will. It is only a model of the action of the Flood described in Genesis." (Clarke, 1977, p. 8) Other creationists also flatly admit that their Flood theories are based directly upon the book of Genesis and their own religious convictions: "The simple fact of the matter is that one cannot have any kind of a Genesis Flood without acknowledging the presence of supernatural elements." (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 76) "Either the Biblical record of the Flood is false and must be rejected or else the system of historical geology which has seemed to discredit it is wrong and must be changed. The latter alternative would seem to be the only one which a Biblically and scientifically instructed Christian could honestly take." (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 118) "When one holds this high view of Scripture, he necessarily must accept Genesis at face value. This not only means six literal days of Creation, but also no geological ages . . . . The Scriptures clearly and emphatically teach that there was such a global and cataclysmic Flood. This can only mean that the Flood and its after affects must explain most of the stratigraphic and fossil evidences that are commonly found in the earth's crust." (Morris, Back to Genesis, August 1995) "The Biblical record has provided a clear description of the causes, nature and results of true catastrophism, the Noahic Flood . . . We cannot verify it experimentally, of course, any more than any of the various other theories of catastrophism, but we do not need experimental verification: God has recorded it in His Word, and that should be sufficient." (Morris, 1970, p. 30) The "scientific alternative" of Flood geology, we can see, in fact has no science at all in it. In order to preserve their fundamentalist preconceptions, the creationists are forced to invoke the "power of God" throughout their supposedly "scientific" model. While such a religious model may be acceptable in a Bible college, or in a fundamentalist sermon, it has no place whatsoever in a public school biology classroom. == Like all of the other parts of creationism, the creationist view of the fossil record is based directly upon Biblical Scripture, and centers around the "type" or "kind", also sometimes called a "baramin" (from the Hebrew words bara, or "created", and min, or "kind"). This comes from the description of creation given in Genesis, which states, "And God said, let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yeilding seed, and the fruit tree yeilding fruit after his kind . . . And God created great whales and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind . . . And God said, let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind, and it was so." (Genesis 1:12-24) Thus, the creationists assert: "By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation." (Gish, 1978, p. 40) "The creation model, on the other hand, postulates that all basic animal and plant types (the created kinds) were brought into existence by acts of a supernatural Creator using special processes which are not operating today." (Gish, 1978, p. 11) "During creation the Creator created all of these basic animal and plant kinds, and since then no new kinds have come into being." (Gish, 1978, p. 40) The creationists do not even attempt to make a pretense of science here, but refer openly to their religious preconceptions that all organisms are part of these "baramins" which were originally created by God. Nevertheless, the creationists also realize that overwhelming evidence exists in nature for the transformation of organisms, such as the various breeds of dog that have been produced by breeders, the well-known example of the British peppered moth, which has been observed to vary in color according to its environmental conditions, and the many instances where speciation has actually been observed and described in the laboratory (as in the case of the production of new plant species and new species of Drosophila fruit flies). Unlike the creationists of the 19th century, therefore, who refused to believe that speciation of any sort was possible, modern creationists instead assert that some "variation" is possible, but only within the Divine limits imposed upon the original "created kinds": "The variation that has occurred since the end of creation has been limited to changes within kinds." (Gish, 1978, p. 40) "All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has occurred within narrow limits." (ICR Impact, May 1981) "These 'kinds' have never evolved or merged into each other by crossing over the divinely-establishe d lines of demarcation. " (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 66) "According to this view, God created all living creatures 'after his kind', and whatever changes have come about since creation have been within the original types, or the 'Genesis kinds'." (Clarke, 1977, p. 8) And what is the biological mechanism which the creationists propose for producing all of these "variations" within the original "created kinds"? Surprisingly enough, it is evolution. As Morris puts it: "Modern creationists recognize and accept all the observed biological changes which evolutionists offer as proof of evolution. New varieties of plants and animals can be developed rather quickly by selection techniques, but creationists point out that no new basic kind has ever been developed by such processes." (Morris, The Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1977, p. 16) Richard Bliss of the ICR echoes, "We accept change one hundred percent. We accept the same change that the evolutionist is accepting, only he's calling it micro-evolution and we're calling it variation." (Conway and Siegelman, 1984, p. 152) Thus, the basic creationist hypothesis has been, in effect, that "evolution happens, but only a little bit". In an effort to sound scientific, they refer to this process as "micro-evolution" , and assert that, while evolutionary mechanisms may produce micro-evolution, or changes within the basic kinds, evolution cannot produce "macro-evolution" , or changes from one kind to another: "Creationists generally accept the fact that within the limitation of the genera and family, sufficient changes may take place to bring about the vast array of species seen in present plants and animals. It is the changes postulated in major groups--macro- evolution- -that creationists refuse to believe could ever have been possible, because there is no evidence to support it." (Clarke, 1977, p. 204) "The small variations in organisms which are observed to take place today . . . are irrelevant to this question, since there is no way to prove that these changes within present kinds eventually change the kinds into different, higher kinds. Since small variations (including mutations) are as much to be expected in the creation model as in the evolution model, they are of no value in discriminating between the two models." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 5) According to the modern theory of genetics (which the creationists say they accept), evolution takes place through the natural selection of variations brought about by genetic mutations. By postulating that there are certain limits beyond which mutations cannot proceed, the creationists are in essence claiming that there is some mechanism, whether biochemical or biomechanical, which only allows certain mutations to appear (those within the limits of the "created kind"), and rigorously excludes certain other mutations (those which would carry the organism outside these limits). But the creationists have been quite unable to produce (or even propose) any workable mechanism which would so effectively weed out some variations and allow others to exist. There is no known biochemical or genetic mechanism which would prevent any mutations from proceeding beyond the limits of a "created kind". In fact, the creationists have all along been unclear and contradictory about just what a "created kind" is, and have never given a consistent definition of the term. They cannot even give a basic estimate of how many "kinds" of organisms exist. When creationist Wayne Frair of King's College in New York testified at the Arkansas trial, he was questioned on this point: "Q: How many original created kinds were there? FRAIR: Let's say 10,000 plus or minus a few thousand. Q: Some creationists believe kinds to be synonymous with species, some with genera, some with family, and some with order, don't they? FRAIR: The scientists with whom I am working . . . well . . . it tends more towards the family. But it may go to order in some cases. Q: You have been studying turtles for many years, haven't you? FRAIR: Yes. Q: Is a turtle an originally created kind? FRAIR: I'm working on that. Q: Are all turtles within the same created kind? FRAIR: That's what I'm working on." (Trial transcript, McLean v Arkansas, 1981, cited in Montagu, 1984, pp 295-296) It is not surprising that Frair was unable to tell us how many "kinds" of turtles there are, since no creationist has ever produced a workable and consistent definition of what constitutes a "kind". Duane Gish, the creationist' s "expert" on the fossil record, writes: "We must here attempt to define what we mean by a basic kind. A basic animal or plant kind would include all animals or plants which were derived from a common stock. In present day terms, it would be said that they have shared a common gene pool." (Gish, 1978, p. 32) Gish is here using circular reasoning. The concept of "all animals or plants which are derived from a common stock" is a good definition of a biological "clade", which is defined as all organisms sharing common ancestry. Ultimately, of course, evolutionary theory holds that all organisms constitute a single clade, since all are derived from a single common ancestor. The creationists, on the other hand, argue that certain "kinds" of organisms are not related to each other by descent. To use the criterion of "common stock" as a definition of a "kind" is therefore spurious, since it is precisely the question of "descent from common stock" which is at issue here. The creationists thus must come up with some criteria for determining exactly which groups of organisms share a common ancestry (and thus constitute a "kind") and which do not (and thus constitute separate "kinds"). In an attempt to clarify this criterion, Gish then cites an example: "We have defined a basic kind as including all of those variants which have been derived from a single stock . . . This basic kind (which we may call the dog kind) includes not only all coyote species, but also the wolf (Canis lupus), the dog (Canis familiaris) and the jackals, also of the genus Canis, since they are all interfertile and produce fertile offspring." (Gish, 1978, p. 34) This definition-- a created "kind" consists of organisms which interbreed and produce fertile young--seems to be the most commonly cited among creationists: "A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but does not interbreed with other organisms under normal circumstances. " (ICR Impact, "Summary of Evidence for Creation", May/June 1981) "Many varieties of dogs have been developed from one ancestral dog 'kind', yet they are still interfertile and capable of reverting back to the ancestral form." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 180) "The oft-repeated statement, however, that God's creatures brought forth progeny 'after their kind' would strongly indicate that plants and animals which can interbreed and produce offspring would be of the same 'kind'. A corollary conclusion would then be that production of offspring from matings between two different kinds would be impossible." (Hilbert Siegler, CRS Quarterly, Vol. 15, 1978, cited in Godfrey, 1983, p. 168) As stated by creationists, this definition of a "kind"--a group of organisms which interbreeds with each other but does not interbreed with those outside the group under normal circumstances- -is identical with the biological definition of a species. (Dogs and coyotes are classified as separate species even though they are physically capable of breeding and producing viable offspring, since, under natural conditions, they do not normally interbreed. The biological species is therefore based on the principle of "reproductive isolation"-- if organisms do not interbreed under natural conditions, they are considered to be a separate gene pool, a species.) If this definition of a "kind" were to be accepted ("plants and animals which interbreed and produce viable offspring"), the creationists would have to conclude that no species can ever evolve into another species, since a species itself is a group of organisms which interbreed and produce viable offspring. But this assertion presents tremendous problems, since speciation has been directly observed many times both in nature and in the laboratory. The definition we have seen of a created "kind" is, moreover, unworkable in its own terms. A horse and a donkey are universally held by creationists to be one "kind", but a horse and a donkey cannot produce fertile offspring. They can breed and produce young, but this progeny, a mule, is completely sterile and cannot reproduce after its "kind". By the logic of their definition, the creationists would seem to be forced to conclude that horses and donkeys are separate "kinds". But, since horses and donkeys are so obviously related by evolutionary descent, the creationists cannot have this either, since it would establish "evolution between kinds", which is precisely what they are trying to avoid. (Remember that the creationists accept the existence of evolutionary descent as a mechanism for producing "variation within a kind".) Hence, some creationists have now dropped the requirement of "interfertility" , and have asserted that any organisms that can breed with each other and produce offspring, whether fertile or not, constitute a "kind": "Creationists have long felt a need for a classification that would include in one consistent category all organisms that interbreed under any conditions." (David Menton, "Species, Speciation and the Genesis Kind", Missouri Association for Creation, October 1994) This definition, however, also produces problems. In the northeastern United States, for example, are found two species of tree frogs, Hyla versicolor and Hyla chrysoscelis. The two are absolutely identical in appearence, and the only way to distinguish them in the field is by their slightly differing mating calls. One of these species is a "polyploid" of the other, that is, it developed from the other species when a chromosomal abnormality left some individuals with twice the normal number of chromosomes. (Polyploidy is a very common means of plants to produce new species--in fact, most domesticated food plants like wheat and rye are polyploids-- but is comparitively rare among animals.) There is no doubt that the two frogs share an ancestor/descendent relationship, and that one evolved from the other through polyploidy. For the creationists to consider these two virtually identical frogs as being of different "kinds" would be absurd on the face of it, since they are so alike they can be distinguished only in the lab, and they obviously share evolutionary descent. So naturally, the creationists would like to lump these two species together as "variations" within one "created kind". But there is a problem for the creationists- -the two Hyla species do not, and, because of their chromosomal differences, cannot, interbreed. Not only do they not produce any fertile offspring--they are incapable of producing any offspring at all. The same problem arises in connection with plants--the polyploid descendents of particular plants can no longer produce viable seeds with the parent stock, and thus cannot produce any offspring with the parent species. Therefore, the creationist, using the criterion of "interbreeding" , must conclude that the two are different "kinds", even though one is obviously a descendent of the other (polyploid plants have been successfully produced and bred in the laboratory-- in fact many of our food crops are polyploid descendents of corn and wheat plants which can no longer interbreed with the parent stock). Once again, the creationists must either admit the existence of evolution between "kinds", or they must change their definition of what constitutes a "kind". Thus, we are finally led to: "If two organisms breed, even though it is infrequent, they are of the same kind; if they don't breed but are clearly of the same morphological type, they are of the same kind, by the logic of the axiom which states two things equal to the same thing are equal to each other." (Wysong, cited in Kitcher, 1982, p. 152) One may dispute just how "logical" Wysong's definition is (on the one hand, organisms which interbreed are of the same "kind"; on the other hand, organisms that don't interbreed are also of the same "kind" if they look enough alike), but there is no disputing that even this loose definition causes problems for the creationists. Now we need to define what constitutes an organism "of the same morphological type". Gish points out, "The division into kinds is easier the more the divergence observed." (Gish, 1978, p. 35) "It is obvious, for example, that among the invertebrates the protozoa, sponges, jellyfish, worms, snails, trilobites, lobsters and bees are all different kinds. Among the vertebrates, the fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are obviously different basic kinds. Among the reptiles, the turtles, crocodiles, dinosaurs, pterosaurs (flying reptiles), and icthyosaurs (aquatic reptiles) would be placed in different kinds. Each one of these major groups of reptiles could be further subdivided into the basic kinds within each. Within the mammalian class, duckbilled platypuses, opposums, bats, hedgehogs, rats, rabbits, dogs, cats, lemurs, monkeys, apes and men are easily assignable to different basic kinds. Among the apes, the gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees and gorillas would each be included in a different basic kind." (Gish, 1978, p 35.) But now Gish has confused the issue even further. On the one hand, Gish lists "mammals" as constituting one basic kind. Since most mammals cannot interbreed with each other, it must be assumed that this is based on morphological criteria--i. e., all of the mammals are sufficiently alike in their basic body structures that they must all be descended from each other (variation within the "created kind"). But in the very next paragraph, we are told that the chimpanzees and gorillas, both mammals, must also be separate "kinds". How can the mammals be assumed to have body structures that are similar enough to form a "basic kind", yet two of the members of that group, the chimps and the gorillas, are sufficiently different in basic body plans to constitute separate kinds? Even more confusingly, Gish classifies "dinosaurs", a huge group of reptiles which differed profoundly from each other (they ranged from the chicken-sized predator Compsognathus to the fifty-ton plant eater Seismosaurus; some dinosaurs walked on two legs, some on four; some, such as Stegosaurus, had absurdly small brains, while some, like Troodon, had relatively large brains for their body size), as one "kind", but separates chimps and gorillas (who look almost identical and who share over 95% of their genetic codes) as being "different kinds". The reason for Gish's arbitrary classification is obvious. If dinosaurs are all related through evolution, that is not a big deal to the creationists, since it is "only variation within a kind" and not "real evolution". But if the anthropoid apes are related by evolutionary descent, that strikes a bit too close to home for the creationists; after all, if chimps and gorillas are one "kind" and share over 95% of their DNA, what then are we to make of human beings, who share over 98% of their genetic code with chimps? The conclusion that apes and humans would then constitute (on the basis of morphological similarity) a single "created kind", and that therefore apes and humans would be evolutionary variations of each other, is flatly unacceptable to the creationists. After all, the very core of their opposition to evolution is the supposed divine origin of human beings. Rather than admit that humans are just an evolutionary variant of the ape "kind", the creationists instead carefully draw their boundaries to avoid that possibility. In effect, then, creationists define a "kind" as (1) a group of organisms which do interbreed, or (2) a group of organisms which don't interbreed but which are similar in basic body plans--and then they leave the guidelines extremely fuzzy about what constitutes "similarity in basic body plans". This loophole leaves so much room for manipulation that it is essentially useless. Fish as different from each other as hagfish and lungfish and rainbow trout can all be classified as one "kind", while animals as similar to each other as gorillas and chimpanzees are classified as separate "kinds". A created kind, under this definition, is nothing more than whatever the defining creationist wants it to be. == Newton was a lifelong alchemist.  When he published on gravity and orbital mechanics, people screamed that God's angels were put on the unemployment line.  == > Their argument, or, at least, part of it, is that there just > hasn't been enough time. Anytime a creationists suggests that there isn't enough time for evolution, the correct response is to laugh. You see, creationism demands far faster evolution than science does. Let me explain. The ark story requires that a pair of each animal get on the ark. While this might have seemed plausible to a bronze age sheppard who has only seen a few large animals his entire life, it's somewhat less plausible once you're aware of just how many animals live on earth today. It becomes completely preposterous when you include all the extinct animals. Really, there are over twenty species of sauropod dinosaur known. These are the big ones, like brontosaurus, brachiosaurus, diplodocus, titanosaurus, supersaurus, ultrasaurus, etc. etc. Can you really imagine Noah keeping upwards of 40 HUMONGOUS sauropods on the ark? And that's not counting all the smaller ones, you know, the ones that were just the size of a bus or so. That ignores all the large other dinosaurs, and all the giant non- dinosaurs as well... The ark ain't looking so good. The situation is so bad that even creationists have noticed that their story makes no sense and moved to patch it. The patch is the "created kind". Essentially, they argue that the ark didn't have to have all the animals, just some representative kinds, from which life's diversity could have evol... *COUGH* developed by changing slightly. So, to take a common creationist example, only a single type of cat needed to be on the ark. After it got off, lions, tigers, house cats, lynx, etc. all evol... *COUGH* developed by changing slightly later. Even if they admit this is evolution, expect them to demand that it's only MICROevolution, which is different from MACROevolution. There is only one definition of these terms that makes any sense: Microevolution: Evolution we accept because even we aren't dense enough to deny it and/or because we need it to make our fables work. Macroevolution: Whatever's left, including getting humans from MONKEYS, despite the fact that this requires far less evolution than things we readily accept. (Lions and housecats being far more different than humans and chimps, for example.) Kinds are defined vaguelly and the problem they present for creationism is nasty. Larger kinds make the ark fable more plausible (to them, there are problems with the ark that cannot be solved at all, period), but require them to accept increasingly vast amounts of evolution. Small kinds are more comfortable as far as denying large-scale evolution occurs, but produce an overstuffed ark even they can't deal with. There is no balance where the situation actually works, but let's use their own example: Cats.\ According to science, cats evolved 30 million years ago. That is, it takes 30 million years to get one cat to diversify into all modern types. According to creationism, one ancestral cat evolved into all modern types in 500 years. I say 500 years because within 500 years of the flood, by their own timeline, civilization is re-established and archaeological records show that modern species of cat were in abundance. So, the evolution of modern cats took 500 years. According to them. So, is their "there's not enough time" argument starting to look hillarious yet? The same feat that "doesn't have enough time" in 30 million years, they stuff into 500 without batting an eyelash. This, then, is what they want taught in schools. I won't even get into wondering how such hyper-ultra- fast evolution occured within 500 years and then stopped dead. I mean, come on, if evolution were that fast, cats should be unrecognizable now! None of that Egyptian art should look remotely like a modern cat! THERE'S TOO MUCH TIME! == Keep the topic very narrow to avoid the creationists doing the "gish Gallop" and introducing tons of bogus arguments in a few minutes that would take hours to properly refute. First rule of Rhetoric: It always takes more time to refute nonsense than to spew it. == "Many people have treated the evolution/creation controversy (if they think about it at all) as if it were a scientific dispute -- as if the two viewpoints were merely differing ways of interpreting scientific data. (This, in fact, is precisely how the ID/creationists wish to present it.) Scientists in particular have tended to respond to the ID/creationist movement by first ignoring it in the hopes that it would go away, and then with long technical explanations of how the scientific conclusions of the ID/creationist arguments are unsupported, incomplete or just plain wrong. All of the scientific refutations of ID/creationism have not, however, lessened the conflict -- if anything, they have heightened it. The reason for this is simple; ID/creationism is not science and it does not have scientific goals. Because of this, it will not be beaten by science or by scientific arguments --- these are essentially irrelevant to the real goals of the ID/creationist movement. The ID/creationist movement is a political movement with political goals, and it must be beaten the same way that every other political movement is beaten -- by out-organizing it. == Justice William J. Brennan wrote in the Edwards v. Aguillard decision, handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987, that science's secular purpose must be "sincere and not a sham." Eighteen years later, Judge Jones echoed that language from the federal bench. Looking forward in his decision, Judge Jones addressed intelligent design's fallbackthe "teach the controversy" strategyand determined that it was, indeed, also a sham. "ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the ID [movement] is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." As both sides wait to see how this will play out, Christine Comer is adjusting to caring for her disabled father and paying her bills on a pension that provides less than the salary she lost. "But I feel like this is my contribution, " she said. "This is my time to draw my line in the sand for science." She had watched what took place in Dover and remembers being outraged at the time. "But I guess I wasn't outraged enough," she said. Because she never did anything about it. Now, teachers she knows in small towns across Texas have come to her to say they've been forced to teach creationism in science class for years. She asked them why they didn't do anything about it. "Come on," they told her. "What can I do? It's Texas." === Jan. 4 The National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine have released Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a book designed to give the public a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the current scientific understanding of evolution and its importance in the science classroom. NAS and IOM strongly maintain that only scientifically based explanations for life should be included in public school science == http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080104/ap_on_go_ot/teaching_evolution Importance of teaching evolution noted WASHINGTON 1/4/08 Scientific advisers to the government emphasize in a report the importance of teaching evolution in public schools. ADVERTISEMENT The report by the National Academy of Sciences and its Institute of Medicine follows up on similar past publications, the last of which came out in 1999. The new document includes recently discovered evidence supporting evolution, including an important fossil find. The report released Thursday also takes swipes at creationism and other anti-evolution views. "Despite the lack of scientific evidence for creationist positions, some advocates continue to demand that various forms of creationism be taught together with or in place of evolution in science classes," the report says. Evolution is a continuing topic of debate in some states. Florida officials are considering revisions in state science standards that would add the word "evolution" to the standards. The state Board of Education plans to vote on the guidelines next month. In Texas, the state's director of science curriculum, Chris Comer, maintains she was forced to resign recently due to evolution politics. Comer said she came under pressure after forwarding an e-mail that her superiors felt made the agency appear to be biased against the instruction of intelligent design, an alternative to evolution favored by some religious conservatives. Intelligent design holds that the universe's order and complexity are so great that evolution cannot explain it. The Texas State Board of Education is expected to begin a review of the state science curriculum soon. Josh Rosenau, a spokesman for the California-based National Center for Science Education, which supports the teaching of evolution, said the new report is important because the debate over evolution in school is not going away. Casey Luskin, program officer for the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that supports teaching students about the criticism of evolution, was critical of the document. "Students should learn about the evidence for and against evolution," he said. The Institute of Medicine is part of the National Academy of Sciences, a private organization chartered by Congress to advise the government of scientific matters. == Amusingly, William Dembski, a well-known ID advocate, recently published a book. Someone was able to discover that two very positive reviews of the book on amazon.com were written by Dembski himself using different email addresses and fake names. == "The introduction of 'non-science,' such as creationism and intelligent design, into science education will undermine the fundamentals of science education. Some of these fundamentals include using the scientific method, understanding how to reach scientific consensus, and distinguishing between scientific and nonscientific explanations of natural phenomena." == I have a friend who is a Yugoslavian Serb who moved to Texas a few years ago. Her then 13-year-old daughter wrote a paper in her English class in a Public Middle school. The girl wrote a story in what she labeled as Science Fantasy. In it she talked of this mythical Noah's Flood and that Adam & Eve were really extraterrestrials. The girl didn't write this as a spoof or to rile anyone up. She simply was being creative. When it came time to read the story out loud in class, some of the other students objected to the theme. The Teacher criticized the girl's theme openly saying that some people do believe in Noah's Flood and Adam & Eve and we must allow for all opinions to be shared but that it was *wrong* of this Yugoslavian girl for writing as if her story was fact even though she said it was based on Science Fantasy. The girl was punished by the teacher being made to come to school 1/2 hour early for 3 days in a row to do extra reading work. People like this Teacher are ubiquitous out here in Texas. == I've noticed that most of the times this argument comes up, asking the creationist to define "information" stops them stone cold dead in their tracks. Since they don't question much (or any) that they read from their sources, they are not prepared to answer any questions. In fact, it seems they are unable to conceive of anyone else asking questions. If they were capable of formulating meaningful questions, I imagine most wouldn't be creationists, especially not of the young earth variety. === Mike Huckabee on Science http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4237336.html http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mike+Huckabee+on+Science "Oh, I believe in science. I certainly do. In fact, what I believe in is, I believe in God. I don't think there's a conflict between the two. But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict." --Mike Huckabee == As St Augustine pointed out in 404 AD, people who accept a literal interpretation of the bible make themselves look stupid in the eyes of the rest of the world. == If genetic information cannot increase through mutation, then how did humans go from 16 maximum alleles on Noah's Ark to the over 700 that we see today? == http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Fossil_Sorting === Information is added to the genome CONSTANTLY. One of the most common mutations occurs when a section of the genome is duplicated. This could produce two copies of one gene. Obviously, no increase in information there! (Or, rather, a very, very minimal one, but I won't argue.) However, it is then trivial to add information, since any change to EITHER copy of the gene produces new information. The organism now has a new protein that it did not previously have, without any loss of information. There is absolutely no way to characterize this except as a gain. The only exception to this will be a Shannon-weaver type model where "information content" is measured as a percentage of the original message. But that's meaningless for creationism. For instance, if I typed the message "Tzergwap!" into this email, and cosmic rays striking electrons turned my short nonsense message into the entire text of "War and Peace", Shannon-Weaver would call that a loss of information because it doesn't match the original, even though it is much longer and more meaningful! Shannon-Weaver doesn't say it's impossible, just that if it happens, it will arbitrarily be called a loss. By that standard, an elephant could evolve from an amoeba, quadrupling (or more) the size of it's genome, and still be called a loss. No help for creationists there. > In order for amoebas to become astronauts or bacteria to turn > into basketball players, you have to add information. Yep, but since we observe this all the time, no problem. > In case you have never noticed, amoebas and bacteria do not have > arms, legs, lungs, kneecaps, pinky toes, and lots of other things > that exist in humans. Information transfers from the environment. You really don't understand information theory well enough to be making these arguments. > I don't care how much evidence you give of mutation, natural > selection, supposed transitional fossils, etc, without a > mechanism to add information, evolution falls flat on face, no > further argument needed. Thank goodness we don't have a problem, then! > Please elaborate. Medicine has certainly benefited from the > study of genetics and mutation and the like, but those are not > evolution. But understanding genetics is understanding evolution. They can't be separated. > One can be a very good medical doctor without believing in > evolution. Arguable. I mean, you could say, "You could be a very good doctor without believing in spherical earth", but chances are, if you're rejecting something that overwhelmingly evidenced, you're not going to be a very good doctor. It's worse, actually, since sphereical earth is at least not directly relevant to medicine, while much of the human body makes no sense whatsoever without evolution. Why do the testes form in the abdomen, then move to the scrotum, leaving a badly patched trail of destruction behind? Intelligent design? Only if God's an idiot. If we evolved from reptiles, where the testes in the abdomen makes sense, the entire picture becomes clear. And we could go on. Why do the eyes have a blind spot and a stupid vulnerability to detatched retina? Why is the human spine show features that only make sense for a life on four legs? Why do some humans have adductor muscles in their feet, just like arboreal monkeys have to let them grasp branches? Why do humans have non- functional vitamin C genes broken in EXACTLY the same way that those of chimpanzees are? Why are embryonic humans furry? Why do humans develop and then reabsorb tails? == In DebunkCreation@ yahoogroups. com I'm sure you all are familiar with ICR's RATE project. Current list of articles on their webpage: "Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified (#386) by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. " What, Snelling hasn't gotten tired of flogging that dead horse yet? Poor guy. http://www.talkorig ins.org/faqs/ po-halos/ http://www.talkorig ins.org/indexcc/ CF/CF201. html "Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology (#376) by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D." Radiometric techniques only work under proper conditions. This is no more surprising that noting that you're a fool to measure the thickness of a sheet of paper with a yardstick or to measure the height of a person with a calliper. The right tool for the right job. Snelling insists on using incorrect tools for the job and being astounded when they don't work. There's a classic example of this later which is simple and obvious and shows just how pathetic Snelling's work is. "New Rate Data Support a Young World (#366) by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. " http://www.talkorig ins.org/faqs/ helium/zircons. html Same old, same old. Still refuses to address long standing refutations. "Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages (#364) by John Baumgardner, Ph.D. " Um, NO! Here's a good example of what I was talking about. Carbon dating is only valid for materials that still contain significant amounts of original carbon. Because of this, Carbon dating can't be used on samples more than about 50,000 years old. In other words, you can't possibly use it to refute "evolution's long ages" because it doesn't last long enough to do it! This idiot takes extremely small measurements of C14, pretends carbon doesn't come from any other decay chain, and pretends this constitutes a problem. Next, he'll pull out his callipers, try to measure the height of the empire state building, and proclaim this disproves secular construction theory. Snipping two redundant ones: "Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Crystal Rocks and the Problem of Excess Argon (#309) by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D." He begins with a lie: "According to the assumptions foundational to potassium-argon (K- Ar) and argon-argon (Ar-Ar) dating of rocks, there should not be any daughter radiogenic argon (40Ar*) in rocks when they form. When measured, all 40Ar* in a rock is assumed to have been produced by in situ radioactive decay of 40K within the rock since it formed." No, Andrew, it is NOT just assumed. Rather, we don't use that technique on rocks for which it cannot be assumed. We know that if a rock forms in a fully molten state, the gasses can bubble out, leaving, at most, an insignificant trace behind. We also know that if the rock isn't fully molten or is under pressure, this will not happen. Since we can independently check for these things, we don't use that technique on those rocks! Creationists love to apply techniques improperly. Take submarine lava. The pressure of the sea water causes the argon to be retained to non-neglible levels. OH NO! Oh, wait, we can tell because submarine lava forms in distinctive shapes (such as the famous pillow lava). Thus, we can just easily avoid using a technique that won't work on it. No problem at all! Ditto, rock that isn't fully molten on formation will show irregular textures (the parts that remained solid won't match the parts that were melted), and can easily be avoided. This "research" is a joke, and they are still pawning off the same refuted lies that they were five years ago. Of course, they have no other choice. Creationism has nothing but falsehoods, so it's not like they can improve any. "Evidence for a Young World (#384) by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. " Oh, wow! Saved the best for last! Sheesh, Humphreys! This one is a collection of old canards, but he even uses the idiotic "Not enough sodium in the ocean" nonsense that can be refuted by any high-schooler! HEY IDIOT! Sodium also leaves sea water. The very fact that sodium content isn't even across the world's oceans shows that you're missing mechanisms for leaching it out. Man, just when I thought the ICR had some standards... Oh, wait, he topped... I mean undered himself. Just a bit later and he's blithering about the magnetic field decaying too fast. I thought even creationists admitted that sea-floor striping demonstrated that the magnetic field was cyclical, not one big wind- down. My mistake. There is no stupidity that Humphreys will abandon just because it's completely false. I keep forgetting, it's AIG that has standards, ridiculously low as they are. ICR has none. Has anyone here actually read the complete findings rather than just summaries on the web? Only when I need a giggle. If you have, you know they have documented some MAJOR problems with the radiometric dating processes used by geology to "prove" old ages. No, we don't, because unlike you, we research BOTH SIDES, and check out the actual evidence. Thus, we know that RATE is a bad joke, which documents major problems with creationist gullibility, but nothing at all about radiometric dating. Strange, I thought most anti-biotics were created, or at least manipulated in a lab by an intelligent scientist. I've never seen one that evolved on its own. We know you haven't. It's because you haven't looked. You should really try looking. And even if it did, it became such by mutation and natural selection (which I agree with) that modified existing information. Modified, yes. That's all evolution is, modifying existing information. Adding information is modifying, of course. This process is not evolution until it can add new information as mentioned in my earlier post. And, as mentioned in my earlier post, this is a trivial challenge, well documented. Indeed, I've yet to see a creationist explain how adding information could somehow be avoided. Far from impossible, it's inevitable. I've never once made a programming mistake that resulted in the program working better. I HAVE! And I'm just an amateur programmer! Besides, go check out ALife. It's all about letting evolution create functional programs by random mutation and natural selection. It's a fascinating field. Evolution is not an intelligent process, it can't "get an idea for alternative programming" . http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Artificial_ life == Science is a process, not a conclusion. The ICR is a conclusion, not a process. == LAKELAND - Public floggings hurt, even when administered by satirical sacred noodles. Ask the Polk County School Board. The panel made news last month when five of its seven members declared a personal belief in the concept of intelligent design, the religiously based explanation of the development of life believed in by many Christians. Four of those five sympathetic board members said they would like to see intelligent design taught in Polk schools as an alternative to Darwinian evolution, at a time when new state standards mentioning evolution by name for the first time are under consideration. Just like that, it appeared the Darwin wars had found their newest battlefield. Yet a few weeks later, the controversy is dying with a whimper. There's no board support for a challenge to the proposed standards. Some of the five school board members blame the local newspaper for trying to start a fight. "It's not our agenda," said Tim Harris, one of the board members. "My personal opinion and how I vote don't always jibe." What happened? You can start with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The satirical religious Web site asserts that an omnipotent, airborne clump of spaghetti intelligently designed all life with the deft touch of its "noodly appendage." Adherents call themselves Pastafarians. They deluged Polk school board members with e-mail demanding equal time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism's version of intelligent design. "They've made us the laughingstock of the world," said Margaret Lofton, a school board member who supports intelligent design. She dismissed the e-mail as ridiculous and insulting. That's the point. The Pastafarians are part of an informal online network that can rain scrutiny and ridicule on school districts flirting with intelligent design. In Polk County, where leaders are working hard to start a polytechnic university campus and talk about attracting high-tech jobs, that's unwelcome attention. "I imagine the school board was surprised by the speed and volume of the response," said Bobby Henderson, founder and operator of the Spaghetti Monster Web site. "They saw it as a local issue, but it didn't take long for word to spread on the Internet. "I think all of us have a vested interest in not seeing science standards lowered - or in this case having the definition of science changed to allow supernatural theories." Topic Of Interest It started innocently enough. A reporter for The Ledger in Lakeland called school board member Kay Harris Fields to ask her opinion of the pending state standards. There's nothing pernicious about that, said The Ledger's longtime Executive Editor Skip Perez. "We do what newspapers are supposed to do, report on what our public officials are thinking about topics of interest," Perez said. The story quoted Fields as opposing the evolution portion of the new standards and looking for state Superintendent Gail McKinzie to say whether there was anything to be done about them locally. "There needs to be intelligent design as well," Fields said in the story. "You need to show both sides." Fields said later, via e-mail, she didn't realize there would be a story "on the front page of the Ledger indicating that I opposed evolution." The newspaper followed up with a second story polling the entire board. "And the rest is history," Fields said. Enter the Pastafarians. And Wired Magazine. And national science blog Pharyngula. And local bloggers. This network is now armed with more than just biting humor and active readership. It has a 2005 federal court ruling from Dover, Pa., barring the teaching of intelligent design in public schools there. Intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," wrote Judge John E. Jones III in his opinion. Wesley R. Elsberry, a Michigan State scientist who was raised and educated in Lakeland, wrote an open online letter to the school district, making reference to the Dover case. Elsberry, who studies the evolution of intelligence in digital organisms akin to computer viruses, helped prepare a Dover expert witness. In his Polk letter, Elsberry wrote: "You've been conned. 'Intelligent design' is a legal sham, a con game, one whose sole purpose is to insert a narrow sectarian doctrine into public school classrooms." Echoing Fields' original statement about teaching "both sides," Elsberry says intelligent design advocates want to set up a "conflict model" for judging scientific progress. Under that model, science and religion often will come into conflict, and to be religious, one must come down on the side of religion. That's a false conflict, argues Elsberry, who says he believes in God and sees no reason why observed science and religion can't co-exist. Based on the scientific observation, Elsberry believes God employs evolution and natural selection as the mechanism of developing life. Polk County is increasingly at odds with itself as it urbanizes and struggles to decide to which region of Florida it belongs. One of the few generally unifying ideas, though, is the pursuit of a new applied science-focused campus of the University of South Florida, to be located in northeast Lakeland along Interstate 4. It would be the state's first four-year public polytechnic college. Polk County and Lakeland city governments each have recently pledged $5 million to help kick-start the campus, which remains in bureaucratic and fiscal limbo. Backers see it as a potential economic engine and keystone of a high-tech I-4 corridor. They envision creating business incubators and luring technology companies. So what was the reaction to news of intelligent design talk? "I was surprised," said Marshall Goodman, a USF vice president and CEO of the existing and future Lakeland campuses. Goodman, who has worked to promote the new campus among Polk's civic, business and political leaders, stopped short of criticizing local school board members. Intelligent design, however, merited no such tact. "It's not science," Goodman said. "You can't even call it pseudo-science." Josh Hallett is a Winter Haven-based online social networking expert working as director of new media strategies for VOCE communications in Palo Alto, Calif. The intelligent design dustup and possible implications for Polk were hot topics on his local blog, Empirical Polk. In a post headlined "Say Goodbye To The Tech Sector," Hallett asked rhetorically: "What site selection consultant is going to recommend Polk County over, say, Orange or Hillsborough counties when the external impression of the school board is not that great?" It's not just traditionally rural Polk facing such questions. The Pastafarian nation already has turned its attention to urbane Pinellas County, where a similar majority of school board members came out in support of intelligent design this week. What's It Worth? Whether Polk County suffers from all the talk is hard to say. Florida is one of only a small handful of states with science standards that don't prescribe the teaching of evolution by name. The new standards would change that. State-sanctioned textbooks, however, already teach and discuss Darwinian evolution, by name and in some detail. "Many characteristics of a species are inherited when they pass from parent to offspring," reads one seventh-grade Life Sciences text. "Change in these inherited characteristics over time is evolution." The pro-intelligent design board members say they now recognize that the new standards are a state issue and there's nothing they can do about them, even if they'd like to. Lofton, a former geometry teacher with a master's degree in mathematics and one of the pro-intelligent design board members, said she has no interest in engaging with the Pastafarians or anyone else seeking to discredit intelligent design. She describes herself as secure in her beliefs. "I'm a Christian. I personally believe that the Bible is inerrant truth and the word of God." With that in mind, is it worth quitting over the forced teaching of Darwinian evolution as the only scientifically accepted explanation of the development of life? Lofton says no. There's been no talk by any other board member of taking such a stand. In fact, there seems to be great eagerness simply to return to the day-to-day work of running a school district with 90,000 students. "My job is about a whole lot more than a handful of standards in science," Lofton said. "We face issues that make that issue pale in comparison." == This deliberately nuanced language gets horribly misunderstood and often twisted in public discourse. When the average person hears phrases like "scientists believe," they read it as, "Scientists can't really prove this stuff, but they take it on faith." ("That's just what you believe" is another nifty way to dismiss someone out of hand.) Of course, antievolution crusaders have figured out that language is the ammunition of culture wars. That's why they use those stickers. They take the intellectual strengths of scientific language its precision, its carefulness and wield them as weapons against science itself. === George Gilder, one of the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement has said: "Intelligent design itself does not have any content." == Creation, Evolution, and Modern Science: Probing the Headlines (Probing the Headlines That Impact Your Family) (Paperback) by Ray Bohlin (Editor), Kerby Anderson (Series Editor) == Ron Paul http://www.ontheiss ues.org/Ron_ Paul.htm *Don't impeach judges for decisions on legislature prayers. (Sep 2007) *Present scientific facts that support creationism. (Sep 2007) *Equal funds for abstinence as contraceptive- based education. (Sep 2007) *Tax-credited programs for Christian schooling. (Sep 2007) *Guarantee parity for home school diplomas. (Sep 2007) *Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on God in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006) *Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001) (either States have rights or they don't, why the disparity in control?) *Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998) *Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997) *Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000) *Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997) *Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003) *Protect military chaplains' right to pray in preferred faith. (Sep 2007) *Congress should write fewer laws regarding church & state. end clip H.R.777: proposal to prohibit Federal officials from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or family planning H.R.2597: proposes human life shall be deemed to exist from conception. == What Darwin Didn't Know by Geoffrey Simmons Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe by Michael J. Behe Darwinian Fairytales by David Stove The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism (Hardcover) by Michael J. Behe (Author) == The problem is that many Biblical literalists have said that if a single word in the Bible is flawed, then the ENTIRE Bible is flawed and God does not exist. With so much at stake in their beliefs they don't dare question anything that they read in that book. == Consider nonlinearity and chaos theory in evolutionary dynamics. Now that I think of it, such a discussion would probably dissolve much of his argument. A nonlinear system is one where tiny differences in the initial state produce large differences later on. Large differences can produce small differences, and small differences can produce large differences. This leads to a problem in predictability. Chaotic systems are complex systems that are in a state of transformation. Most chaotic systems are permanently so and never become stable. This also leads to a problem of predictability. Physics, astronomy, geology, meteorology, sociology, economics, and political science all have problems that are of a nonlinear, chaotic nature. You cannot use statistics to prove something impossible, only that there is a probabilistic difficulty in achieving certain results by a certain amount. Statistics can show there's a one in hundreds of millions of chance difficulty in determining the aggregate state of a complex gas medium within a gas chamber. It is not impossible, just very, very difficult. The proven impossibility in this problem is the predictability of a specific gas molecule's location and state at any particular moment. That's the nonlinear, chaotic nature of the gas system rearing its nasty head, and the only way to deal with it is in the aggregate. In certain types of very complex fluid dynamics, as well as certain types of problems within the academic fields noted above, the only way to find these aggregate solutions is through the use of "genetic equations". The problem is inputted into a supercomputer, which conducts millions upon millions of trial runs, eventually outputting useful solutions of various kinds to fill this problem niche. Sometimes there are multiple solutions where none are perfect, but each gets closer and closer. The longer you run the problem through the computer the better the solutions become. In multiplayer, nonzero sum political or economic game theory the best solution is unattainable and statistics can even show how horrendously difficult it is to find a good solution, but some type of solution can be generated using genetic equation solving, often producing coalition strategies in the case of politics, for instance. Yes, it's extremely improbable to find these types of solutions, but that's why modern scientists need supercomputers for these problems. The faster computers become, the more mind bogglingly nonlinear, chaotic problems will be solvable in the space of a single researcher's supercomputer usage time allotment. It's ironic that biological evolution as a theory for the origin of life is under attack, since it is here that the theories of evolutionary dynamics originated. Spetner has recently admitted that, theoretically, new additive mutations are possible in biological systems, but are *extremely* unlikely. He theorizes this would require a "duration of millions of generations" then uses an alleged fact that out of a few thousand laboratory-observed beneficial mutations, no additive ones have ever been observed. If that fact is true (and I don't know, though I've never seen a peer reviewed study claiming such a thing), it would indeed be consistent with that claim, but is not larger evidence that an evolutionary origin of life and its genetic code is impossible, rather just very difficult. In the course of 4 billion years, with billions, even trillions of potentially altered units at each time, and reproductive cycles that are shorter in time span the more simple the life form, you end up with horrifyingly large trial sets that no supercomputer or laboratory in existence could possibly attempt to model in its entirety. Nature is the ultimate computing environment, and Mother Nature does not have to relinquish the keyboard to the next researcher on shift. As for attempting to find evidence in the laboratory of beneficial additive mutations, I'll become worried when we allegedly reach the millions of mutation case studies mark and still haven't found any. Until then, I'd recommend looking into the cutting edge of evolutionary biology: prebacterial thermophilic archaea evolution and research into the origin of RNA. ========== Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome by John C. Sanford What Darwin Didn't Know by Geoffrey Simmons Darwinian Fairytales by David Stove Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe by Michael J. Behe The Edge of Evolution by Michael J. Behe == From Darwin to Hitler by Weikart, Godless by Ann Coulter Why Evolution is a Fraud by Tom Sutcliff Darwin's Demise by White and Comninellis The FACE that demonstrates the Farce of evolution by Hank Hanegraaff I.L. Cohen 1984 "DARWIN WAS WRONG, A Study in Probabilities" Sir Fred Hoyle, "Mathematics of Evolution" === Bob Jone Biology book When it comes to the biology courses, their claim that they are teaching the "standard material" with a religious viewpoint added had better be disputed - because they're not. I've got a copy of the Bob Jones University textbook that's used by some of the Christian schools. Biology for Christian Schools does not, in any way, shape, or form teach "standard" biology with religion added. It teaches religion instead of standard biology, and the University of California is absolutely right to refuse to accept courses taught from this book as biology classes. If you teach, as the Bob Jones book does on page 173, that: It has been shown that there are many factors that can cause a population to change over time. Some people would take this fact and use it as evidence to support the notion of evolution. However, they should think again about these population changes. In the example above, the deer are still deer; in the photographs the elephant seals and cheetahs are still seals and cheetahs. Creationists and evolutionists would agree that mutations are the only mechanism that creates new alleles; however, most mutations are harmful, and none have created a new type of organism. Population genetic studies are useful in studying how populations change, but they can offer no support to evolution. you are teaching something quite different from standard biology. If you teach, as the Bob Jones book does on page 197, that: Christians need not wonder about the beginning of life, though, since it is clearly outlined in Genesis 1 and 2. Other passages in the Bible give us additional facts about God's creative act, the history of His physical creation, and even God's description of what will eventually happen to His creation. Collectively, these passages provide a divinely inspired outline of the history of life. Because God is the source of all truth, all accurate scientific knowledge will fit into this outline. Anything that contradicts God's Word is in error or has been misunderstood. you are teaching religion in place of standard biology, and you are teaching that religion is superior to standard biology. If you teach, as the Bob Jones book advises on page 200 of the teacher's edition, that: Evolution, by definition, is change toward the more complex, not merely change. Change can be downward or toward the less complex, which is not evolution but devolution. you are teaching a definition of evolution that no scientist working in the field would accept. If you teach, as the Bob Jones book does on page 206, that: Scientists theorize that the postdiluvian mountains are higher and the oceans deeper than the antediluvian mountains and oceans. They also propose that the rapid movement of water running off the land masses accounts for many of the geologic formations seen today... you are clearly operating under the mistaken assumption that "scientists" and "charlatans" are synonyms. If you teach, as the Bob Jones book does on page 207, that: The average human life span before the Flood (based on Genesis) was 912 years. After Noah, the life span quickly dropped to about 400 years and continued to decline. Some scientists believe this change in life span is also due to postdiluvian changes in the atmosphere. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob lived well over 100 years, but few men after their time have reached even 100 years. A cause for this decrease could be the loss of the antediluvian atmosphere resulting in more direct exposure to solar radiation. Other Bible scholars believe this decrease in life span to be a result of sin and its effect on the human gene pool. you have clearly decided that science is an optional component in your science class. When you tell students, as the Teacher's Edition of the Bob Jones book does on page 233, that the correct answer to the question: Anthropologists have found fossil evidence that clearly links humans and apes through a common ancestor. (True/False) is false, you are lying to your students. You are definitely not teaching biology. I don't know what you're doing when you teach, as the Bob Jones book does on page 618, that, "much of the modern environmental movement seems to be politically motivated by a liberal agenda," but it sure as hell ain't science. At this point, I think at least one thing has become clear. Labeling the Bob Jones book "Biology" is like labeling a five-pound bag of dog droppings a "tulip" - the smell stays the same, and anyone who opens it is in for an unpleasant surprise. They can call a course taught from that book a "biology" class, but that really doesn't make it one. I also have a copy of the two-volume BJU "Biology for Christian Schools", and I posted my review on this thread at Thoughts from Kansas. It is comment #240. The anti-science nature of this book is obvious from the Introduction (p. xi) If your teacher assigns a report on grasshoppers, an encyclopedia would be a logical place to begin. As you find out about the legs and wings of grasshoppers, how far these insects jump, their life cycle, how much damage they cause each year, and what types of insecticides are used to control them, you are gleaning scientific material. The same encyclopedia article may state that the grasshopper evolved 300 million years ago. You may find a description of some insect that the grasshopper supposedly evolved from, and a description of the insects that scientists say evolved from the grasshopper. You may even find a scientific explanation of the biblical locust (grasshopper) plague in Egypt. These statements are conclusions based on supposed science. If the conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them. followed on the same page by The Christian must evaluate the source of a statement. Scientific statements must be based on observation or else they are mere guesses. There is nothing wrong with a guess, as long as it is clearly labeled a guess or a belief. But Christians must disregard those guesses and beliefs that contradict the Bible. The people who prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second...If...at any point God's Word is not put first, the authors apologize. Although the authors should, perhaps, be complimented for their forthrightness, a science textbook that puts a particular interpretation of Christianity before the science does not exactly constitute "standard subject matter" with a dash of Christianity added for flavor. It is, instead, apologetics trying to hide in a lab coat. You will also find this: God created humans and all of the other kinds of organisms with the ability to reproduce after their own kind (Gen. 1:12, 21, 25, 28); therefore, humans reproduce humans, oak trees reproduce oak trees, and cats reproduce cats. The idea of all life forms descending from a common ancestor cell that originated from non-living chemicals is absurd. "Evolution is absurd" is hardly "standard subject matter" for a secondary school biology textbook. Nor, for that matter, are in-line references to bible verses. === The latest tome from Discovery Institute, titled Explore Evolution. It's billed as a Supplemental Text to teach students more about evolution which does NOT teach intelligent design theory. Every typical creationist/ID argument you've heard in the past 40 years, is in here. Cambrian Explosion. Abrupt Appearence (yes, they were indeed stupid enough to use ***that very phrase***, repeatedly). Fossil Gaps. Created Kinds. Microevolution and Macroevolution. Bats have no fossil ancestors. Flowering plants appear suddenly. Common structures are the result of common function. Common structures are just convergence. Haeckel's drawings show that darwinists are liars. Mutation and natural selection can't produce new structures. Peppered moths were faked. DNA can only change within fixed limits. Evolution is just an assumption. Biological information cannot increase. No new genetic information. No beneficial mutations. Goldschmidt's monster. Behe and the flagellum. Irreducible complexity. Evolution is a tautology. The big bad scientific establishment crushes dissent. Indeed, the entire fossil discussion is straight out of Gish's Evolution? The Fossils Say No!. The whole Introduction is one big long AiG were you there? discussion. The A New Challenge section is all about Intelligent Design Theory, without ever mentioning the name the standard creationist/ICR boilerplate enumerated in the Index of Creationist Claims. The theory of evolution remains the focus of intense public controversy. So what's all the controversy about? CA041 Teach the Controversy, CA201 Evolution is only a theory We hope this book will help you understand what contemporary Darwinian theory is, why many scientific find it persuasive, and why other scientists question key aspects of it. CA041 Teach the Controversy, CA111 Many current scientists reject evolution, CA112 Many scientists find problems with evolution, CI001 Intelligent Design theory is scientific It allows you to evaluate answers to scientific questions on your own and form your own conclusions. CA041 teach the controversy, CI001 Intelligent Design theory is scientific Teaching scientific ideas openly and critically not only helps prepare you for possible careers in science, but it helps you learn to make informed decisions about such issues. CA041, teach the controversy, CI001 Intelligent Design theory is scientific This allows you to do what scientists do - think and argue about how best to interpret evidence. CA230 Interpreting evidence is not the same as observation, CA230.1 Evolutionists interpret evidence on the basis of their preconceptions United States federal education policy, for example, calls for teaching students about competing views of controversial scientific issues. As the US Congress has stated, [W]here topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution) the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of views that exist. FOOTNOTE: This statement occurs in the authoritative conference report language of the No Child Left Behind federal education act. CA041.1 Federal law (Santorum Amendment) supports teaching alternatives Throughout this book, you will discover that there are, indeed, important scientific controversies about the key claims of evolutionary theory and about the arguments used to support them. CA111 Many current scientists reject evolution, CA112 Many scientists find problems with evolution, CI001 Intelligent Design theory is scientific We have written this book, in part, so that you could learn about the controversial aspects of evolutionary theory that are discussed openly in scientific books and journals but which are not widely reported in textbooks. CA041 teach the controversy, CA320 Scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma, CI001 Intelligent Design theory is scientific For each argument in Darwin's case, we will begin by explaining the argument, and examining the evidence in support of it. (We call this the Case For.) Then, we will spend some time examining the claims and evidence that lead some scientists to question the argument. (We call this the Reply.) We then look at the current state of the discussion in a section called Further Debate. CA510 Creationism and evolution are the only 2 models, CA510.1 Problems with evolution are evidence for creation The Reply section has not yet been presented in most school textbooks. CA230 scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma. As you will find throughout this book, there are qualified, respected scientists on both sides of each argument. CA041 teach the controversy, CA111 Many current scientists reject evolution, CA112 Many scientists find problems with evolution, CI001 Intelligent Design theory is scientific We don't want you to simply accept this book as the last word on this subject any more than we'd want you to uncritically accept the word of other textbooks that present only the case for Darwinian evolution. CA041 teach the controversy, CA320 Scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma The one phrase in the Preface that leaped right out at me, though, was this one: This makes for exciting viewing, but is not always helpful in finding answers to the real questions in the origins debate. That word origins is significant. It ties, I believe, this book directly to not only creationism and ID, but specifically to their previous legal attempts to introduce creationism and ID into public school science classrooms, since the phrases origins science and origins debate is not used in any scientific sense and does not appear in any scientific papers or textbooks --- but it appears EVERYWHERE in creationist/ID tracts and in their legal arguments, where it has a very specific meaning for the anti-evolutionists (a meaning held by no other political, religious or educational group). OK. On the first page of the preface of Explore Evolution, in the second paragraph, we find the sentence This makes for exciting viewing, but is not always helpful in finding answers to the real questions in the origins debate. That phrase origins debate is significant -- it (along with its companion phrase origins science) ties this book directly not only to the creationist/ID movement, but specifically to previous legal attempts to push religiously-motivated criticisms of evolution into classrooms. The phrase origins science or origins debate or origins model does not occur in scientific papers, or in scientific textbooks. But it appears extensively in creation science and intelligent design theory literature, a history that goes back over 30 years -- in ICR concerning origins to a single theory, that of organic evolution, and to teach it as an established scientific fact, constitutes indoctrination in a humanistic religious philosophy. Such a procedure violates the Constitutional prohibition against the teaching of sectarian religious views just as clearly as if the teaching concerning origins were restricted to the Book of Genesis. The phrase has a very specific meanign to creationists -- a meaning that is used by them alone, and by no other education or sciecne group. That meaning is explained by creationsit Jonathan Sarfati at the Answers In Genesis website: Quote This fails to note the distinction between normal (operational) science, and origins or historical science. Normal (operational) science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present, while origins science helps us to make educated guesses about origins in the past. In contrast, evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past. Thus it comes under origins science. Rather than observation, origins science uses the principles of causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause) and analogy (e.g. we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past). And because there was no material intelligent designer for life, it is legitimate to invoke a non-material designer for life. Creationists invoke the miraculous only for origins science, and as shown, this does not mean they will invoke it for operational science. (Jonathan Sarfati, Who's Really Pushing 'Bad Science'?) As used by creationists, origins science ties directly to the standard creationist were you there? argument, as well as to the evolution and creation are just different interpretations of the same evidence argument. And, as Sarfati notes, the concept ties directly to their religious beliefs (Creationists invoke the miraculous only for origins science). For creationists, origins science and the origins debate mean far more than just explanations of previous earth history -- it ties directly to their religious and moral worldview, and their religious and moral rejection of evolutionary biology: Quote Does what one believes about creation and evolution affect his or her worldview? Do origin assumptions provide a foundation upon which important moral questions are answered? Creationists have advanced the idea that what one believes about creation and evolution affects his or her worldview. For example, Morris [24] stated in the When Two Worldviews Collide videotape, wrong thinking always begets wrong behavior and evolution is wrong thinking. Ham [14, p. 41] said, there is a connection between origins and issues affecting society such as marriage, clothing, abortion, sexual deviancy, parental authority, etc. More directly, Barnes [5, p. 21] claims, not only have many given away institutions of higher learning to the evolutionary establishment, but they are also giving away their own children to be trained in an evolutionary mind set. This is causing our children to abandon the traditional Judeo-Christian values upon which our society is founded. Morris and Morris [22, p. 12] state, a person's philosophy of origins will inevitably determine sooner or later what he believes concerning his destiny, and even what he believes about the meaning and purpose of his life and actions right now in the present world (emphasis added). (COMPARING ORIGINS BELIEF AND MORAL VIEWS , RICHARD L. OVERMAN, M.S., Presented at the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, PA, August 3-8, 1998) ICR still declares today that consideration of origins is vital to its religious message: The creation record is factual, historical and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development which involve evolution in any form are false. (http://www.icr.org/home/ faq/) Given the religious importance of the idea of origins, and the religious implications of the origins debate, it's no surprise that this terminology is found in ICR's earliest attempts to legislate the inclusion of origins science in public school classrooms as creation science: Quote Evolution is science, creation is religion, we cannot have religion in the classroom. All too often this is the rule when it comes to the manner in which teachers perceive their role in the instruction of origins in the classroom. Fortunately, this type of thinking does not prevail in the majority of cases. A Two-Model Approach to Origins should not include sectarian religion for the public schools; the approach should base its emphasis on the interpretation of scientific data presently available. It is conceivable, even, desirable, that sectarian schools will embellish the scientific limits of the model by making open reference to biblical history. A Two-Model Approach, in essence, is significant only when students have had an opportunity to hear, see, or read, all pertinent data on topics relating to origins. A Two-Model Approach to Origins: A Curriculum Imperative, by Richard Bliss, Ph.D., ICR Impact June 1, 1976) Quote Proposal To Anderson School District #5 Board Of Trustees by Paul Ellwanger 03/14/78 Whereas, the Constitution prohibits government from infringing upon free exercise of an individual's religion, and Whereas, an infringement occurs when a state program has content contrary to religious precepts, and Whereas, exclusive instruction by public secondary and elementary schools in the general theory of evolution infringes upon the free exercise of creationist students and parents, and Whereas, many citizens of this community believe in the special creation concept of origins and are convinced that exclusive indoctrination of their children in the evolutionary concept is inimical to their religious faith and to their moral and civic teachings, as well as to scientific objectivity, academic freedom, and civil rights, and Whereas, even most citizens who are not opposed to the evolution concept at least favor a balanced treatment of these two alternative views of origins in their schools, so as to allow students to consider all of the evidences favoring each concept before deciding which to believe, and Whereas, instruction in creation in a scientific context without use of the Bible would not violate the establishment clause of the Constitution, and Whereas, there are now available, though quite limited in options, instructional material which do not expound the Bible in presenting creation science, but instead, employ scientific discussion by authors highly trained in science, I hereby propose that the Board of Trustees of Anderson School District #5 take whatever steps necessary to have objectively presented in the public classrooms of District #5 a balanced treatment of evolution and creation in all courses and library materials dealing in any way with the subject of origins, such treatment to be limited to the scientific, rather than the religious aspects of the two concepts. In the event this Board goes on record in favor of this proposal, I respectfully suggest ... 1. That only those instructional materials be considered which would supplement current State-adopted texts in providing unbiased information about these two explanations for origins. 2. That only instructional materials be considered for selection which give an objective and nondogmatic treatment of the creation model, so as not to violate the establishment clause of our Constitution. The following resource/reference items are immediately available, upon request, and offered as a courtesy/convenience, from Paul Ellwanger, 2820 LeConte Road, Anderson, either as a complimentary copy or loan- item (as indicated): [This section is summarized as follows] Education (available from ICR) - the student's book, teacher's guide, and transparencies entitled Origins: Two Models, Creation/Evolution by Richard Bliss. - Scientific Creationism, Public School Edition, by Henry Morris. (ICR Impact, January 1, 1979, Creation Science and the Local School District) Quote [T]hose of creationist persuasion could maintain church-state separation in the same manner as an evolutionist teacher might, so long as they teach both views of origins and limit their approach to empirical evidence? (ICR Impact, March 1, 1981, Establishing Scientific Guidelines for Origins-Instruction in the Public Education, by Judith Tarr Harding) Given the pervasive presence of origins language in ICR's effort to introduce creation 'science', it is no surprise that Act 590, the Arkansas law that introduced balanced treatment for evolution science and creation science, was permeated by the same origins language: Quote Act 590 of 1981 AN ACT TO REQUIRE BALANCED TREATMENT OF CREATION-SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION- SCIENCE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS; TO PROTECT ACADEMIC FREEDOM BY PROVIDING STUDENT CHOICE; TO ENSURE FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS EXERCISE; TO GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF BELIEF AND SPEECH; TO PREVENT ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION; TO PROHIBIT RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION CONCERNING ORIGINS This Act does not require or permit instruction in any religious doctrine or materials. This Act does not require any instruction in the subject of origins, but simply requires instruction in both scientific models (of evolution-science and creation-science) if public schools choose to teach either. Only evolution-science is presented to students in virtually all of those courses that discuss the subject of origins. Public schools generally censor creation-science and evidence contrary to evolution. Public school presentation of only evolution-science without any alternative model of origins abridges the United States Constitution's protections of freedom of religious exercise and of freedom of belief and speech for students and parents, because it undermines their religious convictions and moral or philosophical values, compels their unconscionable professions of belief, and hinders religious training and moral training by parents. Presentation of only one model rather than alternative scientific models of origins is not required by any compelling interest of the State Creation-science is an alternative scientific model of origins and can be presented from a strictly scientific standpoint without any religious doctrine just as evolution-science can, because there are scientists who conclude that scientific data best support creation- science and because scientific evidences and inferences have been presented for creation-science. Most citizens, whatever their religious beliefs about origins, favor balanced treatment in public schools of alternative scientific models of origins for better guiding students in their search for knowledge, and they favor a neutral approach toward subjects affecting the religious and moral and philosophical convictions of students. And indeed ICR still uses this same origins science language to refer to bills requiring that the controversy over evolution be taught: Quote Earlier this year House Bill 481 was submitted to the Ohio State Assembly. The bill addresses the issue of teaching origins science in the Ohio public schools. The carefully crafted bill scrupulously follows the intent of recent Supreme Court decisions and attempts to implement the 2002 U.S. Education Bill, specifically its Santorum Amendment. Quoting directly from HB 481: It is the intent of the general assembly that to enhance the effectiveness of science education and to promote academic freedom and the neutrality of state government with respect to teachings that touch religious and non-religious beliefs, it is necessary and desirable that origins science, which seeks to explain the origins of life and its diversity, be conducted and taught objectively and without religious, naturalistic, or philosophic bias or assumption. To further this intent, the instructional program provided by any school district or educational service center shall do all of the following: (A) Encourage the presentation of scientific evidence regarding the origins of life and its diversity objectively and without religious, naturalistic, or philosophic bias or assumption; (B) Require that whenever explanations regarding the origins of life are presented, appropriate explanation and disclosure shall be provided regarding the historical nature of origins science and the use of any material assumption which may have provided a basis for the explanation being presented; Encourage the development of curriculum that will help students think critically, understand the full range of scientific views that exist regarding the origins of life, and understand why origins science may generate controversy. (ICR Impact, Oct 1, 2002, Who Could Argue with Teaching Good Science? by John Morris, Ph.D.) This same origins debate language was also quickly adopted by the Intelligent Design movement. It is found on many existing ID websites: Quote Welcome to Origins. This site features scholarly and popular resources concerning intelligent design and philosophical theism. http://www.origins.org/ Quote The TrueOrigin Archive comprises an intellectually honest response to what in fairness can only be described as evolutionism-the doctrine of strict philosophical naturalism as a necessary presupposition in matters of science history (i.e., origins). This doctrine is abundantly evident in much material advocating the Neo- Darwinian macro-evolution origins model, including-but not limited to- the Talk.Origins newsgroup and the Talk.Origins Archive website. The question of origins is plainly a matter of science history-not the domain of applied science. Contrary to the unilateral denials of many evolutionists, one's worldview does indeed play heavily on one's interpretation of scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement-the three immutable elements of the scientific method-may be employed. http://www.trueorigin.org/ Quote This graphic shows the ideal way to practice origins science, where only the scientific method--not religion or naturalistic philosophy-- is guiding the research. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/964 Quote Intelligent Design Network: Seeking Objectivity in Origins Science Intelligent Design Network, Inc. is a nonprofit organization that seeks institutional objectivity in origins science. http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ And finally, the very same origins language is found in legal arguments for the teaching of Intelligent Design 'theory' in schools: Quote Utah Law Review, 2000 39:1 Teaching the Origins Controversy: Science, Or Religion, Or Speech? www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/utah.pdf Quote Teaching Origins Science In Public Schools Published by Intelligent Design network, inc Copyright 2001 by Intelligent Design network, inc.. === Subject: Legal Opinion Regarding the Teaching of Origins Science in Public Schools http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/legalopinion.htm You have requested my opinion as to how public schools may develop science curriculum regarding the teaching of biological origins (the origin of life and the origin of the diversity of life) in a way that is consistent with the Constitution of the United States. I will refer to this area of science as origins science. http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/legalopinion.htm So it's no surprise at all to see the same origins language re- appearing in EE. It's the same meaning as before. And, in the case of Meyer, it's the very same guy making the arguments. OK, moving on to EE's Introduction, we find that it's just one big long discussion of where you there? (creationist claim CA221): All theories of origins confront us with the challenge of explaining the unobservable past. These theories try to explain unseen events, such as the origin of plants and animals -- or the origin of our own species, Homo sapiens. This task can be difficult because, for nearly all of the history of life on earth, there was no one there to observe these events. Experimental scientists can observe phenomena under controlled conditions. However, historical scientists, like archaeologists and paleontologists, must try to figure out what happened in the past without the benefit of observing the past directly. CA220 Evolution cannot be replicated Sometimes, we find that the same evidence can be explained in more than one way. When there are competing theories, reasonable people can (and do) disagree about which theory best explains the evidence. Furthermore, in the historical sciences, neither side can directly verify its claims about past events. CA230 Interpreting evidence is not the same as observation Some people use 'evolution' to refer to something as simple as small changes in bird beaks. Others use the same word to mean something much more far-reaching. Used one way, the term 'evolution' isn't controversial at all; used another way, it's hotly debated. CB901 macroevolution has never been observed, CB902 Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution Evolution as 'change over time' can also refer to minor changes in features of individual species -- changes which take place over a short amount of time. Many biologists think this kind of evolution (sometimes called 'microevolution') results from a change in the proportion of different variants of a gene within a population. CB110 Microevolution selects only existing variations Evolution #1: 'Change over time' Evolution #2: 'Universal Common Descent' Evolution #3: 'The creative power of natural selection' The discussion also gets confusing when someone takes evidence for Evolution #1 and tries to make it look like it supports Evolution #2. CB901 Macroevolution has never been observed, CB 902 Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution, CB902.2 Small changes do not imply large changes Many of these scientists have begun to doubt whether natural selection can produce fundamentally new forms of life, or major innovations in the anatomical structure of animals (their 'body plans'). They see natural selection acting as an editor, weeding out harmful variations in body design, while conserving (keeping) helpful variations. CB 904 No entirely new features have evolved Neo-Darwinists contend that 'a single tree of lfie containing multiple branches' is the most accurate picture of the history of life. Other scientists doubt that all organisms have descended from one -- and only one -- common ancestor. They say the evidence does indeed show some branching taking place within larger groups of organisms, but not between the larger groups. According to these scientists, the history of life should not be represented as a single tree, but as a series of parallel lines representing an orchard of distinct trees. In the orchard view, each of the trees has a separate beginning. CB822 Evolution's tree-like pattern is discredited, CB 901.1 Range of variation is limited within kinds When we use the term common descent (no capitals), we're referring to limited common descent -- the view that separate groups of organisms have common ancestors. CB901.1 Range of variation is limited within kinds Here's one that I missed previously -- it's buried in an Endnote to the Introduction: Scientists define 'species' in many different ways. (There are 25 different definitions at last count.) CB801 Science cannot define 'species' Chapter heading Universal Common Descent -- Arguments for and Against The purpose of this book is to introduce you to both the case for and the case against major aspects of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. CA510 creation and evolution are the only 2 models, CA510.1 Problems with evolution are evidence for creation About 530 million years ago, more than half of the major animal groups (called phyla) appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . Many evolutionary biologists doubt that this is enough time for the slow, gradual Darwinian processes to produce the amount of change that arises in the Cambrian explosion. For this reason, many scientists think this geologically sudden appearance of many new life forms contradicts Darwin's prediction that new forms would emerge gradually over vast spans of geological time. CC301 Cambrian explosion contradicts evolutionary tree pattern Turtles are another fascinating example of a group of animals that appears abruptly in the fossil record. The order Chelonia, to which turtles and tortoises belong, appears suddenly in the late Triassic, around 200 million years ago. The very first time turtles appear, their body plan is already fully developed, and they appear in the fossil record without intermediates. (This argument isn't specifically listed in the Index of Creationist Claims, but it appears in several creationist sources, and apparently has at least 25 years of history behind it: Quote The oldest fossil turtles (along with the earliest dinosaurs) appear abruptly in the Triassic rocks, fully developed and without any obvious precursors. ...Proganocheles retained many features inherited from its pareiasaurian forebears. ...Nevertheless, a forty-million- year gap, spanning almost the entire Triassic still exists between the last pareiasaurs and the earliest-known turtles. When turtles first appear in the fossil record, in the late Triassic, they are represented by at least four distinct lineages, suggesting that the group evolved and radiated slightly earlier. The Creation Explanation, Robert Kofahl, Chapter 3b, March 1995) Quote Evolutionists claim turtles first appeared during the Triassic Period (supposedly 200 million years ago), when they were 'numerous and in possession of basic turtle characteristics.' Turtles allegedly sprang from the 'primitive' reptiles called cotylosaurs, yet intermediates are 'completely lacking.' Paula Weston, Turtles; , Creation Magazine, Answers in Genesis, March 1999 The first fossil bat appears suddenly in the fossil record. When it does, it is unquestionably a bat, capable of true flight. Yet, we find nothing resembling a bat in the earlier rocks. (This one, too, is not specifically in the Index of Creationist claims, but appears to have a long creationist history behind it: Quote Bats, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record with no evidence of pre-bat ancestors. Fossil bats have all the same distinctive features we see in bats today, including extraordinarily long webbed fingers on their fore limbs and backward facing hind limbs. (Bat knees and toes face to the rear!) Even the distinctive shape of the bat skull, which serves to channel sound to their ears for navigation by sonar (echo location), is found in fossil bats just as it is in all modern bats. David Menton, The Hopeful Monsters of Evolution, June 1994) Quote Bats (of the order Chiroptera), the only flying mammal, are especially interesting. Evolutionists assume, of course, that bats must have evolved from a non-flying mammal. There is not one shred of evidence in the fossil record, however, to support such speculations, for, as Romer says, Bats appear full fledged in both hemispheres in the Middle Eocene ... On the cover page of Science of December 9, 1966 (Vol. 154) appears a picture of what the author (Glenn L. Jepsen) of the accompanying that it was found in Early Eocene deposits, which are dated by evolutionists at about 50 million years. While stating that this bat possessed a few primitive characteristics, Jepsen states that it was fully developed, an anatomically precocious contemporary of Eohippus. Thus, bats appear fully-formed, with no trace of ancestors or intermediate forms, as a contemporary of Eohippus, supposedly the ancestor of horses. According to Jepsen this leaves many questions unanswered, including when, from what, where, and how did bats originate? ICR Impact, Sept 1, 1980, The Origin of Mammals, by Duane Gish) For example, flowering plants appear suddenly in the early Cretaceous period, 145-125 million years ago. CC250 THere are no fossil ancestors of plants As a result, critics say the pattern of fossil appearance does not support Darwin's picture of a gradually branching tree. CC201 We should see smooth change through the fossil record, not gaps. The fossil record provides many examples of living organisms that have remained stable in their form and structure over many millions of years -- sometimes over hundreds of millions of years. CB930 Some fossils pecies are still living In a discussion of punctuated equlibrium: The sudden appearance of major new forms of life, and the stability of these forms over time, have led some scientists to doubt that the fossil record supports the case for Common Descent. CC201.1 Punctuated equlibrium was ad hoc to justify gaps. (I'm not really sure this shouldn't be a new entry in the Index, since this whole sudden appearance and stasis supports creation has been a 1972.) Even advocates of the Darwinian account acknowledge that the fossil record displays far fewer transitionals than predicted by the theory of Common Descent. CC201 There should be billions of transitional fossils [B]iologist Malcolm Gordon and paleontologist Everett Olson point out that land-dwelling amphibians, themselves, appear suddenly in the fossil record. They first show up in the late Devonian period, with no apparent connection to earlier life forms. Gordon and Olson point out that the earliest amphibian fossils unmistakably show them as four- footed creatures. CC212 There are gaps between fish and amphibians. (It should also be pointed out that the reference from Gordon and Olson givena bove is from *1995*, and that no mention is amde in EE of more recent fossil finds such as Tiktaalik. I'm quite sure this is just an innocent oversite on the part of the authors, and not an attempt to be dishonest -------- oh, who am I kidding. Nelson, Meyer and their ilk are just being dishonest deceptive liars, deliberately and deceitfully.) Where were the multitudes of transitional forms connecting different groups, as predicted (and expected) by his theory? CC200.1 There should be billions of transitional fossils Several pages of punctuated eqilibrium says there is stasis and sudden appearance and thus disproves Darwinism crapola. Again, that is not specifically listed in the Index of Creationist Claims, but has been standard ICR fare for thirty years or more. Another phrase that appears several times in the Common Descent chapter of EE is abrupt appearance, along with sudden appearance. Both phrases are extremely significant --- as with origins science, these terms are not used in any scientific texts, but they both have long and glorious creationist histories. As I recall, both of them were suggested by the YECs as alternative labels for creation 'science' after the 1987 Supreme Court decision, before ID 'theory' stepped in to fill their shoes. And if I recall correctly, there was some talk during the Dover trial about sudden appearance, which prompted the lawyer to wonder if everyone would be back in a few years for the sudden appearance theory trial, and the judge to retort Not in MY courtroom . . . Prescient. the entire fossil discussion is nothing but regurgitated thirty-year-old ICR boilerplate In the Anatomical Homology section, we have: Many biologists before Darwin thought that these similarities (called homologies) were due to a common plan or archetype. This one doesn't seem to be specifically covered in the Index to Creationist Claims, but the whole common plan or common design argument is a long-lived creationist argument: Quote This idea that a fundamental similarity in structures is due to common descent is called homology. But this still-common idea is not in the slightest a proof of evolution. It is simply an assumption by those who reject creation. Darwin revealed this was his position when he said some believe 'that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan'. He finished that sentence by saying, 'but this is not a scientific explanation.'3 He was therefore ruling out the possibility of creation based on a common plan by implying it was not scientific, so he wouldn't believe it whether it was true or not. Quote So-called homologous structures are no proof of common descent, so are no proof of evolution. Darwin's approach-to reject the creation explanation as unscientific because you don't want to believe it-is not rational. This is particularly so when the facts are readily explained as the product of a Designer who created each unique structure to fulfill a different purpose. Answers in Genesis, Creation Magazine, Similarities Don't Prove Evolution, March 1992 Quote My argument is that the common ancestry explanation for homology has not been empirically demonstrated, so the common design explanation cannot be ruled out. (Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution -- A Response to Critics Pt 7 [URL=http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/12/ icons_of_evolution_a_response_5.html Quote The existence of similarities between organisms--whether in external morphology or internal biochemistry--is easily explained as the Creator's design of similar systems for similar functions, but such similarities are not explicable by common evolutionary descent. Henry Morris, The Vanishing Case for Evolution, ICR Impact, June 1, 1986) Some modern biologists explain homology in another way. Brian Goodwin of the Open university says homology does not reflect a process of historical change, but instead reflects contraints imposed upon the structure of organisms by the laws of nature. Goodwin contends that the laws of nature dictate that a liquid, for example, has only a limited number of shapes it can take -- a spiralling funnel when going down the drain, a droplet when it falls, and so on. In the same way, says Goodwin, the laws of nature ensure that only a certain number of anatomical patterns are possible. Therefore, we should expect to see similarities in the anatomical structure of even different types of organisms. This isn't addressed in the Index of Creationist Claims. I cite it here just to point out that Nelson and his ilk are either too stupid or too dishonest to differentiate between homology and analogy. Contrary to these predictions, biologists are learning that homologous structures can be produced by different genes and may follow different developmental pathways. CB811 Homologous structures are not produced by homologous genes In another surprising twist, biologists have also discovered many cases in which the same genes help to produce different adult structures. Consider, for instance, the eyes of the squid, the fruit fly and the mouse (see figure 2:2). The fruit fly has a compound eye, with dozens of separate lenses. The squid and the mouse both have single-lens camera eyes, but they develop along very different pathways, and are wired differently from each other. Yet the same gene is involved in the development of all three of these eyes. This one isn't addressed in the Creationist Claims Index either, though it is a subspecies of CB811. Nelson and his ilk, of course, are simply being dishonest by not mentioning that the common gene involved is a HOX gene, which doesn't regulate the detailed structure of the eye. Some scientists are skeptical that an undirected process like natural selection and mutation would have stumbled upon the same complex structure many different times. This isn't specifically covered in the Index to Creationist Claims -- it's sort of a conflation of CB100 mutations are rare, and CB 150 Functional genetic sequences are too rare to evolve from one to another. I cite this sentence primarily to contrast it with the earlier sentence: In the same way, says Goodwin, the laws of nature ensure that only a certain number of anatomical patterns are possible. Therefore, we should expect to see similarities in the anatomical structure of even different types of organisms. On page 43, we are told that body structures are tightly restricted by natural law to just a few possible SIMILAR STRUCTURES. Then, just five pages later, we are told that evolution faces a problem because mutations KEEP PRODUCING SIMILAR STRUCTURES. (sigh) This made the concept of homology circular, say many critics. If homology is defined as 'similarity due to common ancestry', then to say that homology provides evidence for common descent is to reason in a circle. CB810 Homology cannot be evidence of ancestry if it is defined thus. Molecular Homology Critics of the argument from molecular homology agree that the molecules in living things exhibit many remarkable similarities in sequence. They interpret this evidence differently, however. Critics argue that similarities may reflect common functional requirements, rather than a common evolutionary past. And they point out that some molecular evidence challenges common descent. The same common design argument as in the previous chapter. Long a creationist staple. A 'family tree' based on anatomy may show one pattern of relationships, while a tree based on DNA or RNA may show quite another. . . . In fact, a family tree based on one protein may differ from a family tree based on a different protein. CB821 Phylogenetic analyses are inconsistent. Based on his study of the different domains of life, Woese says life probably had multiple, independent starting points. This one isn't specifically addressed in the Index of Creationist Claims. It's a variant of the standard creationist created kinds argument, CB901 and CB902. This whole section appears to be the basis of Paul Nelson's always- forthcoming magnum opus disproving common descent. It seems to consist largely of lateral gene transfer disproves common descent. It's not addressed specifically in the Index of Creationist Claims, and the stuff it is based on -- Woese's molecular studies, mostly -- are new enough that they don't have a long creationist history. However, it has appeared in recent creationist and ID tracts: Quote In particular, Woese recommends abandoning the idea that the universal common ancestor is a living organism. The universal ancestor is not Woese conceives it, that process did not involve organisms in any conventional sense, but an interchange of genetic material in a complex primordial soup. He concludes: The universal phylogenetic tree, therefore, is not an organismal tree at its base. (Jonathan Wells, Comments on the Majority's Response to the Changes to the Science Curriculum Standards, August 1, 2005 Quote from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. He concluded that primitive organisms acquired many of their genes and proteins, not by Darwinian descent with modification, but by lateral gene transfer from other organisms. The universal ancestor, molecules-a sort of primordial soup-from which different kinds of cells emerged independently. - from Jonathan Wells' The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design , p. 44 Embryology [Haeckel] formulated and popularized his famous 'Biogenetic Law', which states 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'. CB701.1 Recapitulation theory is not supported It turns out that Haeckel's drawings misrepresented the features of the embryos, exaggerating their apparent similaritites to support the argument for Common Descent. CB701 Haeckel falsified his embryo pictures Biogeography These scientists accept that plants and animals of the Galapagos were transported or migrated to the islands and then adapted in some ways to their new environment. They point out, however, that migration and adaptation does not equal macroevolutionary change. CB902 Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution If Universal Common Descent is true, it must have a mechanism that can produce macroevolutionary change -- that can transform one type of animal into a fundamentally different type of animal. Yet critics note that the examples of mockingbirds in the Galapagos and fruit flies in the Hawaiian Islands show only small-scale variations in existing traits. CB901 Macroevolution has never been observed, CB901.1 Range of variation is limited within kinds, CB901.3 Darwin's finches show only microevolution, CB110 Microevolution selects only existing variation Further, some geneticists think that these changes have occurred because the populations of these birds and fruit flies became isolated, and lost genetic information over time. CB932 Some modern species are apparently degenerate, not higher forms Large-scale macroevolutionary change requires the addition of new genetic information, not the loss of genetic information. CB102 Mutations do not add new genetic information For their part, dissenters will continue to point out that the evidence is completely consistent with other views of the history of life, in which small-scale changes in form and features do occur within separate but disconnected groups of organisms. CB901.1 Range of variation is limited within kinds, CB902.1 There are barriers to large changes. (Note too that the other views, of small changes within separate kinds, consist of creationism and intelligent design -- which the authors are too dishonest to point out.) Natural Selection Most critics of Darwin's argument would agree that nature can 'select' for successful variations or adaptations. Moust would also agree that natural selection can produce small-scale changes (Evolution #1). Nevertheless, critics contend that natural selection's power to change a species is limited; it does not have the almost boundless power the theory requires. CB901.1 Range of variation is limited within kinds, CB902 Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution For the critic, the question is not whether sheep can become woollier sheep; the question is whether sheep can eventually become sheepdogs . . . or horses . . . or camels. In other words, can natural selection transform one form of life into a fundamentally different form of life? CB901.1 Range of variation is limited within kinds No new traits arose. The only thing that changed was the proportion of big beaks to small beaks. CB110 Microevolution selects only existing variation Nowhere in the finch beak story does a new family, genus, or even species emerge. CB901.3 Darwin's finches show only microevolution, CB901.2 No new phyla, classes, or orders have appeared Critics question whether the peppered moth story shows that microevolution can eventually produce large-scale change. They point out that nothing new emerged. CB601 The traditional peppered moth story is no longer supportable, CB110 Microevolution selects only existing variation, CB904 No entirely new features have evolved. So what about all those amazing pictures of camouflaged moths on tree trunks? Most of these moths were placed on the tree trunks by the researchers themselves. Some are actually pictures of dead moths that have been pinned or glued to the trunk! CB601.1 Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks, and pictures of them were faked Just like a computer program, DNA contains the biological equivilent of lines of computer code. CB180 The genetic code is a language So, biological information is stored in DNA. But where does new biological information come from? Critics of neo-Darwinism contend that contemporary evolutionary theory doesn't have an adequate answer for this question. They say that the examples of artificial selection and microevolution in particular do not demonstrate the ability to add new biological ifnormation into a population. CI010 There is a law of conservation of information:, CB102 Mutations do not add information But these traits -- whether darw wings in moths or longer beaks in finches -- are not new. The capacity to produce these traits was present all along in the gene pool of the original (large) population. CB110 Microevolution selects only existing variation, CB904 No entirely new features have evolved, CB102 Mutations do not add information Here's the rub; producing new organs or new body plans requires new lines of genetic code -- more information, not less. Not surprisingly, many scientists argue that small-scale microevolutionary change cannot be extrapolated to explain large-scale macroevolutionary innovation. CB902 Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution, CB 102 Mutations do not add information These critics would say that natural selection works well as an editor, but not an author. It has a demonstrated capacity to weed out the failures from among what already exists, but it has not been shown to generate new biological informaiton or structures. CB110 Microevolution selects only existing variations Natural Selection and Mutation But critics point out that bacterial cells either have a penicillinase gene, or they don't. They do not develop such a gene when penicillin is introduced. Consequently, critics say that the enzyme defense system tells us nothing about whether mutations can produce novel forms of life. CB110 Microevolution selects only existing variation Critics of neo-Darwinism acknowledge that point mutations can give bacterial cells resistance to some antibiotics. They agree that when natural selection acts upon such mutations, it can produce small-scale (microevolutionary) change. However, they do not think that mutations like those that cause antiobiotic resistance can go on to produce major (macroevolutionary) changes in organisms. CB102 Mutations do not add information, CB902.1 There are barriers to large change The cell cannot endure an unlimited number of mutation-induced changes at these critical active sites. At some point, the cell's information processing system will be damaged so badly that it stops functioning altogether. For this reason, multiple mutations at active sites inevitably do more harm than good. CB120 Genetic load from mutations would make populations unviable And because mutations at these critical active sites coem witha fitness cost, critics of neo-Darwinism argue that additional mutations of the same kind are more likely to destroy essential functions than to produce fundamentally new forms of life. This strongly suggests that there are limits to the amount of change that such mutations can produce. CB120 Genetic load from mutations would make populations unviable, CB902.1 There are barriers to large change, CB102 Mutations do not add information They claim that mutations to many separate proteins are necessary to produce major biological change. Yet critics insist that mutation- induced antiobiotic resistance provides no support for this claim either. They note that mutations that cause antibiotic resistance only change a small site on the surface of a relatively large protein molecule and that these mutations do not alter the overall structure of the protein. Since the kind of mutations that produce antibiotic resistance do not change the structure of the protein components of the organism, they will not fundamentally change the organization of the organism or the organism as a whole. CA350 No gradual biochemical models have been published, CB150 Functional genetic sequences are too rare to evolve from one to another Small, limited mutations (like those that produce antibiotic resistance) can eb beneficial in certain environments, but they don't produce enough change to produce fundamentally new forms of life. Major mutations can fundamentally alter an animal's anatomy and structure, but these mutations are always harmful or outright elthal. CB101 Most mutations are harmful, CB101.2 Mutations do not produce new features (There is also a discussion of Goldschmidt's hopeful monster, which no serious evolutionary biologist today either supports or asserts. As with in the extensive list of previous creationist tracts which drag Goldschmidt into the discussion, Nelson and his ilk have only mentioned it to dishonestly and deceptively erect an irrelevant strawman which they can happily set fire to.) A New Challenge As it turns out, some scientific critics of neo-Darwinism have recently gone on the offensive. They are making a new argument based upon some new discoveries about the complexity of life -- structures in the cell that have many intricate and interconencted parts. Some scientists say that these structures cast doubt on the creative power of Natural Selection, because they canot be explained by numerous, small, successive changes. (This one isn't listed in the Index of Creationist Claims. I cite it here only to note that this new argument is nothing more than the same old intelligent design theory that IDers have been crowing about for ten years now -- which the authors of EE are, naturally, too dishonest and evasive to point out.) This entire chapter centers soley on Behe and his flagellum. The entire chapter, then, falls under: CB200.1 Bacterial flagella are irreducibly complex And as a further addition, we have: Research has shown that the motor only functions after all 30 of the motor's protein parts are in place. CB200.1.1 The flagellum has 30 or so unique (non-homologous) proteins Special Studies Natural Selection as Survival of the Fittest All we can say now is that some finches leave more offspring (our definition of 'survival') because they produce and sustain more eggs (our definition of 'fittest'). Cause and effect have flowed into each other, which makes the reasoning circular. CA500 'Survival of the fittest' is a tautology (I have to note here that I was very very happy to see this old chestnut in EE --- I haven't seen this argument in literally 20 years, and am happy to see Paul dig it out and dust it off. I am assuming this nugget came from Nelson because the younger IDers have probbaly forgotten all about it by now. Snicker, giggle.) What Fossils Can't Tell You This entire chapter is a rehash of Gish's Evolution? The Fossils Say NO!. It deals with two topics, both covered in the Index of Creationist claims -- the reptile to mammal transition (CC215 There are gaps between reptiles and mammals), and the reptile to bird transition (CC214 There are gaps between reptiles and birds) EE concludes with a section titled The Nature of Dissent in Science, which is a whine about how nobody ever presents their side, and therefore falls under: CA325 Creationists are prevented from publishing in science journals Thus endeth my look at Explore Evolution. To sum up, it consists of nothing but the same old crap that creationist/IDers have been putting out for forty years now, and it won't survive ten minutes in court. If this book ever goes to trial, I want a front row seat --- I want to see, with my own eyes, Paul Nelson attempt to testify, with a straight face, that this book has nothing at all whatseover to do with either creation science or intelligent design theory. === Letter from a scientist --- The proof of evolution If evolution was true, the proof of its effects would be overwhelming. The fossil record would be, as the name implies , an incontrovertible, uncontestable record of plants and animals in their varying stages of transition from something to something else. There should be few, if any , missing links. They are called "missing links" because after tens of thousands of fossil specimens have been unearthed, the links are still missing. They are missing because they never existed in the first place and no amount of time or worn shovels will change that. Although missing links are usually referenced as regards human evolution, links are missing in all aspects of nature, insects, reptiles, birds, mammals, plants etc. With such a paucity of fossil evidence, there should be recognition that the lack of transitional fossil specimens a clue that they never existed, otherwise the fossil record would be conclusive and with room for debate or controversy. The observation of nature today should be the crowning glory for proving evolution. Even without the fossil record or missing links, ongoing evolution should be evident, observable. recordable and collectible as we see before our very eyes something, plant or animal in some stage of the transitional process changing from something to something else. How fascinating nature would be to observe thousands of species becoming something different, a clover leaf changing into an oak tree, a gecko changing into a bobolink, a fox changing into an elk, a cat in transition to becoming a deer etc. Bizarre and as unbelievable as these changes seem, to the evolutionist they must be believable because their tenet is that thousands of "somethings" had to change into thousands of " something elses" by adding the magical ingredient, time. But none of them can shed any evidence on what became what and when. So far evolutionists have sought, in vain, for the missing parts to their mythical puzzle. A tooth, a few pieces of bone, fraudulent drawings, questionable conclusions, hoaxes, doctored fossils plus a large measure of speculation are evolutionists' concepts of what they maintain as fact and science. This is abysmally bad science and as such, the evolutionists ally of time will also be their downfall as their precious myth erodes even more, and soon into oblivion. But wait - there's more! Ah, it seems that the environmentalists are now emerging from their primordial stupor. To Mr Ingles, why should you expect that creationists should be able to predict where oil, coal and minerals would be found. What is the point. But on the subject, you probably know that oil and coal have been produced in the laboratory and gem quality diamonds are being manufactured in two days (check their website, Gemesis) Billions of years not needed! Why not a fund for anyone that proves evolution? To Hiaode, if you don't believe in truth, this explains why you believe in the lie of evolution. How did you appoint yourself as spokesman for the majority of Christians? I made no such claim. I assume that the examples you give for proof are your best shot. You hardly present an airtight case. The appendix, whale legbones and tailbone have all been declared not to be vestiges (even by evolutionists) . Your idea of proof needs to be brought into the current century. Does the presence of nipples on males give proof that they evolved from females? The other "proof' you offer is pretty lame speculation. I would hate to take this to court! You should have included Archeoraptor, Piltdown man and Nebraska man and even thrown in Lucy to add to your hoaxes! To Mr. Mysyk, as a bio-engineer, I was part of the NASA management team that produced the `backpack ` worn by astronauts on the moon and I also managed the program that produced the first automatic peritoneal dyalysis machine. It is the usual and predictable ploy by evolutionists to call those who disagree as irrational and illiterate and you fit the mold. If you can't offer something substantive then name calling seems to be the preferred alternative. Shall we compare credentials? Mr. Mysysk came back swinging. Here was his response to Ron: To Mr. Cote: Seeing as how you brought it up, let's compare credentials. I have a post-graduate degree in geology and more than 30 years experience in minerals exploration, which includes writing several hundred professional reports, reading relevant literature, considerable field work in geological mapping, geochemistry and geophysics, and much laboratory experience in detailed mineralogy and petrology. I also have more than passing knowledge of other scientific fields (astronomy, chemistry, physics, paleontology and biology), at least to the point of being able to read many scientific papers and general interest items and determine (using scientific reasoning and principles only) whether or not such items are scientifically valid. I am very curious how you think your credentials, education (or whatever) would give you the ability to question what I (and more specifically the general scientific community of geologists) have to say concerning what is scientifically established in geology? You asked that specific information be provided. Here are some; will you take the time to read any of these and properly understand them? For starters, try the One Hundredth Anniversary Volume of Economic Geology, published in 2005 by the Society of Economic Geologists in Littleton, Colorado. It contains 32 articles (1136 pages) by many respected geologists summarizing current models and theories of formation for most types of ore deposits, as established by using standard scientific methods. In case this is not easily accessible, you could check out the journals Economic Geology or Mineralium Deposita, which are used extensively by geologists working in minerals exploration. Please inspect any of these publications and let me know if you can find any article whatsoever that promotes creationist ideas concerning geology. I seriously doubt you will find any; the reason for that of course is that creationist geological ideas are not science-based, have been demonstrated to be seriously flawed (not once, but many, many times), and serve no useful purpose whatsoever to geologists working in minerals exploration. Use of the geological column based on the scientifically established age of the earth (about 4.55 billion years) is an integral part of minerals exploration, as various mineral and petroleum deposits tend to occur in rocks of certain geological ages. This has been proven many times over by discoveries and subsequent detailed scientific documentation of the deposits. Creationists that do not accept the geologically established age of the earth are scientifically illiterate. Just for clarification, science is the systematic endeavor of gathering knowledge about the natural world and universe, and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories. This knowledge gathering is generated by scientific method; that is, data (scientific facts) are collected by experimentation and/or observation, a hypothesis (working assumption) consistent with the data is formulated, predictions are made, further tests are conducted to modify the hypothesis until there are no discrepancies between hypothesis and experiments plus observations. At that point, the hypothesis becomes a theory (a properly researched conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones). Scientific research requires a balanced degree of scepticism. Scientists must obey two inviolate rules to ensure the success and credibility of science: (1) Expose new ideas and results to independent testing and replication by other scientists, and (2) Abandon or modify accepted facts or theories in the light of more complete or reliable experimental evidence. Adherence to these principles provides a mechanism for self-correction that makes science far superior to all other "ways of knowing," to use a fashionable euphemism. These two rules of science are totally disregarded by pseudoscience, which can be defined as any endeavor that superficially and deceptively resembles science, but makes no effort to utilize scientific method (although a few scientific words may be used), then is fraudulently claimed to be scientific. There is no mechanism for self-correction in pseudoscience (like YEC, OEC, IDC), as proponents go directly from a wildly speculative idea or dogma to assumption of "absolute truth"; no trivial scientific research need sully their "brilliant" ideas. Pseudoscience consists of repeating the same fictional dogma. In stark contrast, science is a dynamic, never-ending process of discovery that does not offer certainty required by some people. Let me add that I have reviewed many creationist claims, not only in geology, but many other branches of science. I can assure you that the time spent was totally wasted as far as learning anything scientifically useful. The things that do stand out in creationist literature are their extreme scientific illiteracy and irrational attacks against mainstream science. Whether it be the YECs erroneous idea that the earth is 4,000 to 12,000 years old, or the OECs idea that the earth is 100 million years old, whatever number they choose is many orders of magnitude removed the scientifically determined age of the earth 4.55 ( 0.05) billion years). IDCs try not to say how old they think the earth is, but concentrate on making distorted biological claims against evolution based on totally inappropriate applications of information theory, statistics and engineering to biological systems. The bottom line is that the basic assumptions of all of these creationist ideas are not scientific; every one of their irrational claims against evolution and mainstream science has been thoroughly refuted (not once, but many, many times), and all of their claims are scientifically invalid. No controversy exists in the scientific community concerning the theory of evolution. Every major scientific organization and the overwhelming majority of scientists agree that evolution is the only scientific explanation for the diversity of species over geological time, based on scientific research and no other reasons. Check out TalkOrigins and the National Center for Science Education as excellent internet resources for scientific community views on this subject. And speaking of IDC, in Pennsylvania (Kitzmiller v. Dover, December 2005), a school board's decision to force "intelligent design" (the latest recycled creationism fad) into the science curriculum was struck down. After reviewing extensive evidence, the judge (a church-going Republican) concluded that "ID is nothing less that the progeny of creationism" , called their arguments "breathtakingly inane", and stated that creationists had committed perjury during the trial. Creationists were free to present all their "evolution-destroyi ng" evidence that they had been accumulating in their "top secret" research programs. So what happened in Dover? Several "star" ID witnesses pulled out of the trial rather than testify and show themselves to be incompetent fools. An ID "expert" witness (Michael who?) had absolutely no scientific evidence to present in support of ID. When presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system, he snivelled that this was not sufficient evidence of evolution. He admitted under questioning that IDists have no research programs, and ID creationist "science" was on par with astrology. What scientific genius! But making total fools of themselves in public is standard operating procedure for creationists. They have tried numerous times to circumvent and pervert the education system in the U. S. through the courts. Their attempts have included challenges based on different arguments based on freedom of speech, freedom of religion, use of fraudulent "creation science" etc. They have lost every major court decision. An excellent summary of the problem with creationist ideas was stated by Judge William Overton (McLean v Arkansas 1982) who wrote: "The creationists' methods do not take the data, weigh it against opposing scientific data and thereafter reach the conclusions stated in section 4(a). Instead, they take the Book of Genesis and attempt to find scientific support for it. While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology they use as scientific, if they start with a conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory." The scientific community has told creationists for at least 5 decades that if they think they have scientific ideas, then go through the scientific method, produce scientific results, publish them and continue to follow through. Creationists have not done that. In the put-up or shut-up scenario, creationists have produced zero scientific results (they have not put-up), but neither will they shut up, as they continue to attack science, fraudulently promote marginalized religious ideas as scientific, and refuse to educate themselves in science. The scientific evidence is readily available from many different sources. It is an extreme insult to scientists for creationist to ask for evidence, have it provided, and brush it aside as not relevant. It is up to creationists to justify their claims through scientific method. The scientific community has provided more than enough to justify its' position. The nature of science is not going to be perverted to accommodate irrational, marginalized religious beliefs. If creationists continue with their standard tactics, that will simply generate more contempt for them; just a simple fact. === Those Amazing Animals: The Whales and the Dolphins Frederick Edwords The animal world is full of amazingly complex and baffling life forms. It is the perfect hunting ground for any creationist out to impress an audience during debate or a reader of creationist publications. All the creationist needs to do is pick any one of millions of species, catalogue its unique characteristics and complexities, and then dare scientists to explain in detail how such an amazing specimen could have developed over time "by random and chance processes." Often, the creationist will describe a hypothetical evolutionary scenario. Humor is an important element here; the creationist shows all the problems the animal's ancestors would have had trying to become the animal in question. Such scenarios are a parody of evolution but never fail to amuse audiences at lectures and debates. Favorite Examples Over the years, a particular selection of animals has become the stock-in-trade of those advancing the creationist cause. If one needed an encyclopedia of such "animal wonders," the best place to turn would be the Worldwide Church of God. This organization, directly or through its branches (Ambassador College, Ambassador Publications, Ambassador International), has published numerous colorful booklets and periodicals. Its most famous periodical, The Plain Truth, has frequently featured articles on these animals. Back when Garner Ted Armstrong was with the organization, various booklets were published bearing cute titles such as A Whale of a Tale or the Dilemma of Dolphins and Duckbills!, Some Fishy Stories About Evolution, and A Theory for the Birds. The subject matter of each was self-evident. In these booklets, the reader was treated to beautiful color photographs and lavish descriptions by Armstrong of the duckbilled platypus, the dolphin, the angler fish, the lungfish, and the flicker woodpecker, among others. Humorous evolutionary scenarios were suggested to show how each animal could never have evolved. - page 2 - Other creationists followed up on this lead, often cribbing arguments from Mr. Armstrong, at other times discovering "animal wonders" of their own. For example, Dr. Robert Kofahl of the Creation-Science Research Center seems to be responsible for adding examples such as the bombardier beetle and the gecko lizard to the growing menagerie, and Bolton Davidheiser has added the turtle. What all these animals have in common is either beauty or intriguing complexity of structure and behavior. Conspicuous by their absence are animals that are dangerous or disgusting to humans. To remedy this oversight, a critic of creationism in Australia, John Bowden, wrote a booklet called Creation or Evolution. Among the arguments in this booklet, he included descriptions of animals with traits that humans consider less than desirable. These included the skunk, vampire bat, maggot, sewer rat, tapeworm, Chinese liver fluke, and bedbug. This latter animal, for example, could serve creationists well as evidence of "purposeful design." Bowden writes, "It has been observed that, if the legs of a bed are placed in receptacles containing insecticide, the bedbug will climb up the adjacent wall to the ceiling, crawl an inch or two thereon, and then drop onto the bed" (p. 31). However, it would be obvious whose side God is on! Of course, such arguments don't disprove creation, they simply reveal a creationist preference for the most appealing examples. But the creationist arguments fail to disprove evolution. All they do is show that there are some things yet to be explained, some animal adaptations that are truly fascinating and incompletely understood. The theory of evolution does not require that its supporters come up with a step-by-step evolutionary history for every form of life on the face of the earth. Nonetheless, it is often the case that the examples the creationists choose turn out to be animals about which science knows a lot. There frequently is a known evolutionary history that the creationists have simply ignored. Perhaps the most blatant example of this appeared in the August 1982 issue of Youth 82, published by the Worldwide Church of God. There the reader was treated to still another "animal wonder." However, this time it was the camel, an animal with a fossil record so complete and detailed that you can't find anyone with enough money to publish it in its entirety. Whales and Dolphins Creationists have recently renewed their interest in whales and dolphins and have referred to them often in debates as examples of animals that evolution cannot explain. Let us, therefore, take a look at the arguments creationists use and have used in this regard. - page 3 - Garner Ted Armstrong, in his typical mocking style, declared in his 1970 booklet, A Whale of a Tale, that no matter how amazing the facts are about whales and dolphins, they are "nowhere near the `whoppers' of the supposed story of their 'evolution.' " Armstrong's basic line of argument was to first establish the amazing characteristics of these animals. He noted, for example, that dolphins can dive more than one thousand feet, and whales much deeper, without the need to go through decompression to avoid getting the "bends." He then declared that the sonar of these animals is superior to human made sonar and that whales are capable of swimming in total darkness. There is really nothing to dispute in this data. His conclusion, however, was that all of this is just too complex to have evolved. Armstrong's next step was to quote authorities as proof that there is absolutely no fossil record for whales or dolphins. After five such quotations, he concluded, "Yet-in spite of missing evidence and no proof, evolutionists continue clinging to their faith." Finally, he brought in "Dither, the doleful dolphin," who was the supposed ancestor of the modern dolphin. Dither lacked many of the characteristics modern dolphins require and so was unable to survive in the ocean. This destroyed the dolphin's line and hence the case for evolution. Armstrong's pattern of argument is standard for creationists, whether the animal under discussion is the flicker woodpecker, the bombardier beetle, or any other fascinating example. Dr. Gish of the Institute for Creation Research uses the same basic pattern in his debate and lecture presentations. Here is what he said about whales in a March 20, 1982, debate held in Tampa, Florida (his opponent was Dr. Kenneth Miller): I had a great time yesterday watching the dolphins out in the bay going after a school of fish. Marvelous wonderful creatures, beautifully designed for life in the water! What do evolutionists say about whales and dolphins? Well, here is an article that appeared as a fold-out in the National Geographic, December 1976, entitled "Whales of the World." The author says that "whales' ascendancy to sovereign size apparently began sixty million years ago when hairy four-legged mammals in search of food or sanctuary ventured into the water. As eons passed, changes slowly occurred, hind legs disappeared, front legs changed into flippers, hair gave way to the thick smooth blanket of blubber, nostrils moved to the top of the head, the tail broadened into flukes, and, in the buoyant water world, the body became enormous." So according to this story, then, some hairy four-legged mammals evolved into a whale. Now here is an article that appeared in Scientific American, entitled "Dolphins," and this was in March 1979, by Dr. Burt Worsey. Dr. Worsey said that "dolphins evolved at least fifty million years ago from land mammals that may have resembled even-toed ungulates of today such as cattle, pigs, and buffalo." All right, that is what he said, "cattle, pigs, and buffalo." Something like that went into the water and evolved into a whale or dolphin or something like that. Well, a friend of mine got together with an artist and tried to visualize what these transitional forms looked like. We see those in the next slide. - page 4 - At this point, Dr. Gish presented a slide acquired from Luther Sunderland that depicted a cartoon of a smiling cow, much like pictures and cartoons used by some dairies in their advertising. This cow was shown evolving into a whale by becoming first a cow with whale flukes instead of hind legs, then a cow with front flippers instead of front legs (but still possessing an udder), and then, finally, a full whale. We see that the cow got into the water, that's what they said, something that may have resembled a cow, pig, or buffalo got into the water, and listen, they said she stayed around the water for eons of time as her tail broadened into flukes, the hind legs disappeared, and the front legs changed into flippers. And I suppose if we had a failure in the thing that was just hanging underneath [pointing to udder], we'd call it an udder failure. Fortunately everything succeeded, and we finally ended up with a whale. Now my challenge to Dr. Miller and to all evolutionists is the following: If you don't like these suggestions, what are yours? I would be delighted to see what your suggestions are. How did some hairy four-legged mammal get into the water, stick around for eons of time, and just gradually and slowly evolve into a whale which is wonderfully and marvelously designed for life in the water? You see, when it comes right down to a specific case, the whole idea of evolution is an absurdity. Well, Dr. Miller accepted Dr. Gish's challenge when his turn came. Dr. Miller responded: And finally, evolution has even occurred where Dr. Gish makes his best jokes. Next slide. Now my wife is an artist, and I knew about Dr. Gish's slide. So I wanted to draw up the intermediate between a whale and a cow that Dr. Gish had before, and she made this nice slide for me before I came. If you would like to use this you can. I think it's a really good drawing and it's a lot of fun and it looks very silly. But when you retire from comedy and decide you want to do science, you say, "Okay, what do the real fossils look like?" Next slide. What does the fossil whale look like? On the top is Zeuglodon. He is a fossil whale. You know what? Zeuglodon doesn't have his nose on the top of his head the way modern whales do. He has it in the front. Next slide. There is, in fact, an evolutionary trend from terrestrial vertebrates on the left to Pro-zeuglodon to modern whales on the right which show slowly and gradually how the blowhole evolved in modern whales. And the next slide shows how these forms looked, what the record is. You don't need to make a joke. You can deal with the facts. - page 5 - A Summary of the Evidence The constraints of debate don't allow for a complete summary of the evidence for whale evolution, so it will be useful to cover the material more fully here. There are four basic bodies of evidence that support the proposition that whales evolved from land mammals. Let's take them one at a time. 1. Homology. First and most obvious is the fact that the cetaceans (whales and dolphins) are mammals. Sea life is not ordinarily mammalian, which shows that whales and dolphins are likely "intruders" into that domain. Because cetaceans are mammals, they are more similar to animals such as cattle than they are to fish. This is why cetaceans and land mammals have been grouped in the same class. Evidence from comparative anatomy and biochemistry completely justifies this. 2. Embryology. Creationists freely admit that mysticete whales, when in the embryonic stage, have tooth buds which are resorbed before birth and never erupt through the gums. Creationists are also aware of the coat of hair these embryos have and lose before birth. But they don't explain why the creator would have to put teeth and hair into a fetus in order to make a whale that has neither. Even if the teeth and hair could be shown to have some limited function in the development of the fetus, as creationists are inclined to claim, this would be a new function for old features and hence would not challenge the clear connection these features have with earlier evolutionary stages. Overall, whale and dolphin fetuses are more similar to fetuses of land mammals than they are to those of fish. This would not be the case if there was no relationship between cetaceans and land mammals. 3. Vestigial organs. In sperm whales, there are cases of posterior extremities attached to the pelvis that are structured like leg bones. As Yablokov concludes, these are "characteristic of the distant ancestral forms, which have apparently been discarded because of adaptive evolution" (p. 243). Thus, whales evolved from animals having hind legs. These are true vestigial organs, since they neither help nor hinder the survival of the animal possessing them and since they appear only rarely. If sperm whales needed these limbs, they would all have them. If creationists respond that these are just "freak" features as are things like a fifth leg on a cow, they must remember that a cow has four other legs; whales have none. And if creationists claim that such limbs are signs of "degeneration" in the animal since creation, they will have to explain from what these legs are degenerating (Awbrey and Thwaites). The real source is clearly terrestrial mammalian hind legs. - page 6 - 4. The fossil record. Both the absence and presence of certain fossils demonstrate that whales and dolphins evolved from land mammals. First, the absence of any fossil evidence showing that the cetaceans could have evolved from early sea life in a scheme of evolution paralleling that of the emergence of land mammals rules out that idea from consideration. Second, the presence of clear ancestral fossils of modern-day cetaceans that show greater similarities to land mammals than do modern cetaceans gives support to the position that whales evolved from the land. Although everything is not known about the evolution of the cetaceans, there are a number of fossils that document the progression from land to sea. An illustration of five of these fossils appeared in the April 1979 National Geographic. It will be useful to summarize that data. The first fossil was a Mesonychid, a member of a family of land mammals that lived fifty million years ago and had skulls similar to that of modern wolves or dogs. Its nostrils were at the tip of the snout, as would be expected for this type of mammal. The second fossil was a forty-five million year old Protocetus. This amphibious mammal had an elongated skull in which the snout was extended forward ahead of the nostrils. The third fossil was a Durudon, a forty million year old, fully aquatic mammal with the snout even further out from the nostrils. The fourth example was from the family Squalodontidae, being a porpoise-like animal from twenty-five million years ago with its nostrils on its forehead between the eyes. The last example was a modern bottlenose dolphin. This animal first appeared fifteen million years ago and has nostrils above its eyes. When this data is combined with the fossil examples Dr. Miller used, one can see that there is no lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. A Better Scenario The data from morphology, biochemistry, embryology, vestigial organs, and the fossil record all support cetacean evolution. They show us that whales evolved. However, people still wonder how they did. They picture this poor even-toed ungulate, such as a cow, jumping into the water and holding its breath, desperately trying to evolve before it drowns. They can't imagine how evolution would work. No animal tries to evolve. Rather, due to variations caused by beneficial mutations, some animals do evolve. For example, if a cow was born with some of the abilities of a water buffalo, this cow could spend more time in the water. The mutation would allow this change in environment. Further evolutionary changes would allow later animals of this line to spend progressively more time away from dry land. Modern hippopotamuses are even-toed ungulates that spend most of their lives in the water. Though they graze on vegetation as do cattle, they have large whalelike blubbery bodies and swim comfortably. This makes them an excellent ecological type for demonstrating the workability of whale evolution. - page 7 - Hippos even have nostrils turned up to allow them to breathe while sleeping on the water's surface. Their calves are born and nursed under water and can swim before they can walk (Goodwin). One could imagine evolutionary changes that might create improved swimming abilities, such as seals and walruses have, bringing us even closer to the whale. Of course, whales did not evolve from water buffalo, hippos, or walruses. But the above scenario does show us that intermediate stages make sense, thereby allowing us to dispense with the caricatures of evolution given by Armstrong and Gish. Though the animal world is full of startling creatures that often seem to defy evolutionary explanation, this cannot help creationism if there are plenty of other animals that have well-known fossil histories. No creationist is prepared to say that perhaps some animals evolved and others didn't. Creationism is an all-or-nothing proposition. Therefore creationists should devote their time to explaining away the well-documented examples instead of focusing on those that they imagine are inexplicable. But if they insist on concentrating on the latter, demanding birth certificates for every transitional ancestor, they should first read the latest sources and study all the data. Otherwise they might find that the evolutionary answers to their bold challenges come all too quickly. Bibliography Armstrong, Garner Ted. 1971. A Theory for the Birds. Pasadena: Ambassador College Press. -----. 1971. Some Fishy Stories About Evolution. Pasadena: Ambassador College Press. -----. 1970. A Whale of a Tale or the Dilemma of Dolphins and Duckbills! Pasadena: Ambassador College Press, pp. 1-14. -----. June 1969. "Oceans Full of Evidence that Evolution is in Over Its Head!" The Plain Truth. 34:6:20-28. Awbrey, Frank, and Thwaites, William. 1982. Evolution vs. Creation. San Diego: Aztec Lecture Notes, San Diego State University, p. 69. Bowden, John. 1963. Creation or Evolution Chippendale, New South Wales, Australia: The Rationalist Association of New South Wales, pp. 13-25, 31-33. Davidheiser, Bolton. 1979. Evolution and Christian Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, p. 246. Goodwin, George C. 1979. "Hippopotamus." Collier's Encyclopedia, Vol. 12. New York: Macmillan Educational Corp., pp. 138-139. Kofahl, Robert E., and Segraves, Kelly L. 1975. The Creation Explanation. Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Publishers, pp. 1-13. Linehan, Edward. April 1979. "The Trouble with Dolphins." National Geographic. 155:4:506-541. Stump, Keith W. August 1982. "Ships of the Desert." Youth 82. 2:7:13-15. Yablokov, Alexy. 1966. Variability of Mammals. Moscow: Nauka Publishers, pp. 231246. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred Edwords, editor of Creation/Evolution, has lectured and debated widely on the creation-evolution question. He is on the board of the New York Council for Evolution Education and is administrator of the American Humanist Association. Copyright 1983 by Frederick Edwords ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - page 8 - True Vestigial Structures in Whales and Dolphins Ernest C. Conrad What Is a Vestigial Structure? Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines a vestige as "a small and degenerate or imperfectly developed bodily part or organ that remains from one more fully developed in an earlier stage of the individual, in a past generation, or in closely related forms." It is those vestigial organs that show signs of coming from past generations that support the theory of evolution. From the beginning, creationists have disputed either the existence or importance of vestigial organs. Robert Kofahl declares in his Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter: Advancing knowledge and physiology has shown that most of the supposed vestigial organs are useful and even essential. If there are any true vestigial organs, they show the loss of structure and design, not the production of something new. But to suppo