#################################### Bill: Sorry for the long absense, but it's been very busy and still is. I just pulled some examples out your AOLCREAT.DOC for a web page and realized that you never did get back with me, except for one very minor complaint of a misspelled name. I guess like so many other proselytizers, you quickly lost interest once you realized that you couldn't convert me. Too bad, since there were still a couple things in your file that I had wanted to touch upon. But before I do, first a couple quotes and then a quick question or two: "... -- the idea of killing evolution instead of playing these debating games that we've been playing for nigh over a decade already." (Paul Ellwanger, author of the "Balanced Treatment" model bill on which Arkansas Act 590 was based, from the closing of a letter written to Tom Bethell, which was admitted as evidence and cited by Judge Overton in his Decision of the Court) "Creationism by and large attracts few to the gospel, but it turns many away." (Gregg Wilkerson, co-founder of Students for Origins Research and former young-earth creationist, at the 1990 International Conference on Creationism [ICC, a convention of creationists, so this was a creationist talking to creationists]) I hope you wouldn't mind my asking about your success rate. How many people have you actually converted to Christianity via creation science? How many likely converts do you think you had turned off with creation science (eg, they had exhibited interest, but expressed or exhibited doubts about creation science claims)? Gregg Wilkerson certainly knows the subject, because he was in your business of proselytizing via creationism on a far larger scale than you could ever be (did I ever mention that my boss' son, a third-generation Fundamentalist and then college student, rejected my advice that he get involved with a campus Christian fellowship because he had already tried it and was disgusted with their putting in all their time and effort to trying to convert the rest of the student body?). He also had the organization in place to track and to analyze the effects of their efforts. He spoke from experience when he stated that creationism drives more people away than it attracts. You will recall my telling you that if ever I were to feel inclined to become a Christian, the realization that I would be expected to believe in creation science, something that I know for a solid fact is false and dishonestly wrought, would save me from converting. Yes, Brother, I am saved and I have creation science to thank for it (indeed, you will recall that something akin to creation science (ie, taking a literalist approach to reading the Bible) had first freed me from Christianity, but we'll discuss that a little later). However, the first quote, Ellwanger's, reveals the other, more fundamental purpose of creation science, which is to kill evolution. Indeed, in the wording of the Arkansas "balanced treatment" law, in the grass-roots tactics, and in the very structure and approach of creation science and of the "Two-Model Approach", we see that the primary purpose of creation science is to kill evolution or, at the very least, to prevent or negate its teaching. After that, having the students convert is just icing on the cake (even though some materials, like those ICR materials used in Livermore, CA, in 1980, take a more agressive proselytizing approach). According to my observations, there is rarely a push to inject creationism into the classroom, but rather to introduce creation science into those situations where evolution is being taught (BTW, I do distinguish between creationism, which is belief in a divine creator, and creation science, which is a sham). The Arkansas law mandated the teaching of creation science whenever evolution was taught and explicitly did not require it when evolution was not being taught. Nor does the introduction of creation science normally entail the presentation of a "creation model", but rather consists almost entirely of "evidences" against evolution (in years of discussing the issue on CompServe with many different creationists, I cannot remember a single case where we could get the creationist to present any evidence FOR creation; all he could and would ever do would be to present claims of evidence AGAINST evolution, all of which were shown to be false). Often, creationists display their willingness to compromise by backing down from their first position of having creation science taught in the classroom, back to a second position of asking that at least the evidence against evolution be presented. I have ears to hear, so I can see that that is no compromise; I can see that teaching creation science and presenting evidence against evolution are the same thing. And "intelligent design" is just an attempt to take creation science's game of "Hide the Bible" a step further to the new game of "Hide the Creationism"; inside it's just S.O.S. Now to your personal history: "Was it because I was more intellectual? No. Was it because the Biology teacher explained it so convincingly? Not really. The real reason for my becoming an atheist in 9th grade can be summed up in one word... hormones. ... "But in 9th grade a whole new world opened up to me. The temptation of drinking, drugs and premarital sex presented themselves to me at exactly the same time I was being taught evolution. I knew the Bible said that being drunk and having sex outside of marriage was wrong, but here is my science teacher, telling me the origin of man is completely contradictory to what the Bible taught as the origin of man. I felt excited.....and decided the Theory of Evolution was for me, after all the Bible was scientifically wrong on the very first page!! I considered myself to be an atheist. As an atheist I no longer had to abide by any rules but my own. If I wanted to get drunk, no problem, if I wanted to try to have premarital sex no problem, I now belonged to the evolution "religion" (religion meaning a system of beliefs built on faith) that allowed me to sin without guilt. "It was not the data that made me an atheist, it was the conclusion, a belief that made me the judge of right and wrong. Those cartoon drawings of ape men did look sharp, but I wanted to believe them emotionally, more than I really believed them intellectually." You waited until the 9th grade? I became an atheist in the 7th grade, one year after I had been baptized, because I decided to read the Bible to learn what I was supposed to believe and found it too incredible. Either you were a late bloomer or I was precocious. However, my experience as an atheist has been very different from yours. "As an atheist I no longer had to abide by any rules but my own." Did you really believe that? Seriously? Almost from the start, I realized that 1) not ALL rules are from the Bible (gee, Bill, didn't you know that?) and 2) most rules are there for a reason. As I matured, I also grew to realize and appreciate that all our actions have consequences, so anyone who thinks that they can do as they damned well please and get away with it is sadly mistaken; it doesn't take a Supreme Cop to punish you for your sins because the consequences of your actions will catch up with you first. "The real reason for my becoming an atheist in 9th grade can be summed up in one word...hormones." You want to talk about hormones? Let me tell you a little story about hormones. As a teenager I certainly was not lacking in that department. One friend in high school had an older sister whom I lusted after. She married and she and her husband moved to another state. About a year later, she came to visit for a couple weeks. One evening, she propositioned me. So what did this hormone-soddened, confirmed-atheist kid do when confronted with making his wet dreams come true? I politely refused her offer; she was married and so it would be wrong. Knowing that I was an atheist (she and her husband were recently converted Jesus Freaks, care of Chuck Smith), she expressed bewilderment that I would have reached such a conclusion and asked what I could possibly have to base my moral judgement on if not God? Not yet knowing much evolutionary theory and not having thought about it beforehand, I could not give her an answer, except that it would be wrong for me to harm anyone else in any way. I thought of how I would feel about it if I were her husband and I know that I would not like it so why should I do it to him? Of course, it didn't help matters much that I knew the guy. Later in college, I worked part-time in a little shop. One day my boss introduced me to her sister, who was visiting while the sister's husband was stationed in Japan. I immediately felt attracted to her, but thought no more of it since I frequently felt that for attractive women (remember those hormones bubbling away). The next day, my boss told me that her sister was very attracted to me and asked if she should help arrange something for us. Again, I politely refused for the same reasons I gave in the preceding story, even though this time I did not know the husband at all. When, after a full decade of atheism and raging hormones, I married, we both wore white. After 21 years of marriage, and that many more years as an atheist (though admittedly the hormones have quieted down a little), we have been faithful to each other without exception. This is despite frequent absences on my part due to Navy duty (that's right, I'm a sailor to boot! Boy, I'm exploding myths left and right here!). So, Bill, how do you explain me away? If you believe that your own depravity was a natural consequence of atheism, which you appear to be saying, then how do you explain me, a confirmed atheist for decades, remaining virtueous and moral for so many years? Indeed, my virtue and morality have flourished and grown through and because of my atheism. For that matter, most of my opposition to creation science is due to moral outrage at its blatant dishonesty. Please do not ascribe it to my being a most exceptional individual, because I will not buy it (obviously, one of my greatest virtues is my immense modesty and humility ). If I may suggest an explanation. You had approached the situation with the same mistaken preconception that you are tied to at present, that morality and virtue come from your god and that belief in that god, or at least belief in that god's role of punishing you for your sins, is necessary to remain moral and virtuous. That without a Supreme Paddler we have no responsibilities. You had been taught, as you continue to teach the youth under your tutelage, that loss of belief in your god leads directly to the abandonment of all rules in order to wallow without guilt nor fear of consequences in a morass of self-destructive hedonism. Indeed, you clearly stated that you declared yourself an atheist precisely for that very reason. Congratulations, Bill, you had learned your lessons well and applied them eagerly, I'm sure. On the other hand, I had grown up learning quite different lessons. Morality was never explicitly tied solely to the arbitrary dictates of a Supreme Dictator, but rather I learned to seek to do the right thing because it helps others. I became an atheist because I found Christianity's claims to be too incredible, not because I wanted desparately to throw away all the rules. True, I also toyed intellectually with the same ideas as you had, but I could never take them too seriously because they were obviously wrong and harmful, both to others and to oneself (I also find it difficult to imagine such a thing as a victimless crime, because one always suffers consequences from one's own actions). I had also learned my lessons well and applied them, though not always as eagerly as you had, since doing the right thing does not always benefit oneself, yet it must be done. The two of us serve as examples of the consequences of two very different ways of raising and teaching our children. You were taught that you are bound to morality only if you maintained certain narrowly defined theological attitudes and beliefs and that if you did not hold those beliefs, then you would be free to do as you pleased. As a result of having been taught thus, when you lost those beliefs you did indeed behave as if no rules of conduct applied to you. I was taught that regardless of our specific beliefs or lack thereof, our actions still carry consequences and we are still responsible for our actions. As a result of having been taught thus, when I shed my faith in Christianity it had no effect on my sense of morality, except to lead me to examine moral questions more deeply and directly because I could not fall back on the non-answer of "because God said to do it this way". Remembering the results of my own upbringing, I have sought to raise and teach my sons as I had been raise and taught. As difficult as they can be to deal with at times (so what else is new? ), we keep getting reports from others about how well-behaved they are and how they help others, especially those younger than they are. Whatever religious beliefs they may adopt in their life, I feel sure that they will retain their sense of right and wrong. Despite the results of your own upbringing, I am sure that you have raised and taught your children and grandchildren (I assume you to be retired) as you had been raised and taught yourself. Knowing full well what will happen if they should ever lose their faith, I am amazed that you can sleep at night. Unless you simply do not allow yourself to ever think of it. Nor are we exceptions to the rule, Bill. There are many atheists like me, morally strong and virtuous, who have grown in the knowledge that morality does not in any real way depend on theology. And there are too many "atheists" like you (in quotes, because most are not really atheists, but rather lazy, irresponsible opportunists), morally bankrupt, who were poisoned in childhood with the lie that morality depends utterly and completely on theology. By their fruits you will know them; you've already tasted the bitter fruit of that harvest. For that matter, what about yourself? What would happen to you now if you should again become an "atheist"? Wouldn't you again decide that the rules do not apply to you? Wouldn't you again deny responsibility for your actions? Wouldn't you again fall into the trap laid for you in your childhood? Nor is that a rhetorical question. From your personal history, I gather that you converted back to Christianity because of creation science. What would happen if you were to discover that your conversion was based on a pack of lies? Which it was. That you had been deceived into converting? Which you were. That what you had been taught does not exist and cannot exist if Scripture is to have any meaning does indeed exist? Which does indeed exist, though in reality that shoudl have no effect whatsoever on whether Scripture has any meaning (though this may not be the case in Fundamentalist logic -- your problem, not mine -- I'm afraid I cannot help you there, except to suggest that you inquire). Remember what had happened to the creationist geology students that Morton had hired? Remember their crises of faith when exposed day after day to hard geological facts that they had been taught does not exist and cannot exist if Scripture is to have any meaning? Given what I know about the claims of creation science, this is far from a hypothetical situation. OK, maybe you have matured too much to fall in that same old trap again; certainly the hormones are no longer flowing so freely as to swamp the neo-cortex like they used to*. Maybe this time you can rationalize your way through this crisis. But what about your children and their children, who have not so matured? What is to keep them for falling? And what about those people you had converted through creation science (remember that most of the testimonials I've heard from anti-religion atheists told of discovering that their religious leaders had lied to them)? And if any of those whom you have taught and convinced were children, do you have your millstone ready, or at least on order? * A quote from Robin Williams that I saw on the Web the other day which ties in rather well to your personal history; I hope it does not offend (FWIW, my wife thought it was funny): "God gave men a penis and a brain and only enough blood to run one at a time."** ** On the serious side of that humorous quote, studies have shown that during strong emotional responses, blood flow to the neo-cortex lessens while blood flow to the limbic system increases, thus switching off rational thought and kicking near-instinctive, "fight or flight" emotional responses. Read Carl Sagan's "Dragons of Eden" for a more thorough treatment. "But I made a crucial mistake in 9th grade, a mistake millions are making everywhere....I did not inquire! Whether you are Christian or atheist, or something else let me encourage you to inquire!" Yes! Precisely! My mistake at the time was that I had thought it all through myself, by myself, and did not share my thoughts with anyone else until I had arrived at my inevitable conclusions. If I had inquired, had asked others questions about what I was thinking, then I would have learned that my naive literalist assumptions were not at all required by my church (of course, if that church had been fundamentalist, then they would have confirmed a naive literalist requirement and the results would have been the same ). Even though I had done the right thing, become an atheist, I had done it for the wrong reasons. From your personal history, you had done the same thing. You had reached your conclusions that accepting evolution meant you had to become an atheist (wrong!) and that becoming an atheist meant you could escape responsibility for your actions (way wrong! atheism requires you to take far greater personal responsibility for your actions than Christianity ever did -- remember that in atheism there is no one to grant you absolution) all on your own and without having inquired into those ideas and without having asked your teachers, parents, or religious leaders. Unfortunately, you had reached the wrong conclusions. When I would teach the Scout Oath to our Webelos, I would encourage them to learn more about their family's religion and what their own role and duties in that religion are. And I made sure to stress to them that if they have any questions about that religion's teachings to be sure to ask their religious leaders, which in Scouting includes the parents. So, it looks like I just exploded yet another Fundamentalist myth (meant in the smaller, "mistaken idea" sense, rather than in the grander, mythic sense -- read Joseph Campbell if that lost you completely): atheists are intent on converting everybody else to atheism. We aren't. We don't want to rob others of their faith. You are projecting onto us your own desire and intent to rob others of their faith and to convert everybody to YOUR own religion and your desire to impose your own religion and its practices on the rest of society. Most of what you perceive as attacks on Christianity is just self-defense on our part. You try to convert us and we tell you "no, thanks." You come back even stronger with claims of biblical inerrancy and we respond by telling you that your claims are false and then we show you why they are false (refer to my response to your "Weird Science"; I had included the list of biblical contradictions in direct response to your overbearing arrogance). We don't want to convert others to atheism for good reason: 1) Atheism requires a far greater sense of morality and of personal responsibility, something that not everybody is ready and willing to accept. Atheism is not for everybody. There are those who will never outgrow the need for the image of a Supreme Vice-Principal (harking back to the days when it was the vice-principal who would administer corporal punishment on the student body with his paddle) to get them to behave themselves. 2) The support infra-structure for new atheists is virtually non-existent. Let's face it, churches are organized to recruit new members and so have all kinds of support structures to train their new recruits and to teach them what they are required to know and to think and to believe. Most people become atheists in isolation on an individual basis and most often start out thinking that they are the only ones who think and believe as they do. As such, most of them have little idea what they need to do. Even worse, most of them will be coming out of childhood training like yours in which they had been taught that an atheist abandons all rules and responsibility and sinks in a mire of self-destructive hedonism and so they behave as they had been taught to. Of those who fall into that trap, the lucky ones meet other atheists who can offer them proper guidance, while the unlucky ones either do not survive or flee back to Christianity, more convinced than ever of the veracity of the horror stories of their childhood (more's the pity) and ready to inflict the same damage on the next generation (horror!). One such case in point of a new atheist finding himself isolated was Dan Barker. He was raised a fundamentalist and became a fundamentalist preacher (called to the ministry personally by God Himself) in Southern California. But then he began to read, to think, and to question -- in short, to inquire. Eventually he came to realize that he could no longer believe the things that he was expected to preach, so he stepped down from the pulpit. At first, his church and his wife tried to convert him back, but after you have seen the Light, how can you go back to the Darkness? His church then turned its back on him and convinced his wife to leave him. Not knowing what to do and with no one to turn to, he made his way back East where he found others of like mind. He became either a founder or a major figure in the Freedom From Religion Foundation (http://www.infidels.org/org/ffrf/). It was there that he first heard of the Los Angeles organization, Atheists United, which would have provided exactly the kind of support and help that he had needed while he was there. He tells his story in his book, "Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist" (http://www.infidels.org/org/ffrf/books.html#lfif): "After 19 years of evangelical preaching, missionizing, evangelism and Christian songwriting, Dan Barker "threw out the bathwater and discovered there is no baby there." Barker describes the intellectual and psychological struggle required to move from fundamentalism to freethought. Sections on biblical morality, the historicity of Jesus, bible contradictions, the unbelievable resurrection, and much more. This book is an arsenal for skeptics and a direct challenge to believers. (ISBN 1-877733-07-5)" Excerpts of "Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist" are at http://www.infidels.org/org/ffrf/lfif/. I have not read the book, having not found it locally, but I have heard him speak. I loved his blues song, "You Just Can't Win With Original Sin!" Sorry it got this long. You had expressed a number of strange ideas and attitudes. Normally, we should be able to just shrug it off and move on, but I realize that these strange ideas and attitudes are not yours alone, but rather that many people share them, people who want to impose their ideas on the rest of us. I hope that I had given you something to think about and to motivate you to start to inquire. Experience has taught me not to expect much, though. And as usual, I hope that you will follow your own advice and inquire into the claims of creation science. A very good source of information on the Web about creation science claims are the FAQ files in the Talk.Origins Archive at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html. The sooner you can divorce your faith from these teachings, the safer your faith will be. I have long believed that creation science does more to promote the spread of atheism than any other single greatest contributor. But the bottom line is that we must be careful about what we teach our children. They learn and apply their lessons all too well. P.S. "In sixth grade, I remember seeing a big colorful book produced by Time-Life. It caught my eye, and I opened it up and was pleased to see big colorful drawings. One set of drawings really caught my eye. There was a series of animated drawings that went across two pages. On the far left was a very ape-like character walking on all fours and covered with hair. The character to his right was a little more upright, he had shorter arms, was starting to walk on two legs and had less hair. This progression continued for a few more drawings until at the far right side of the page there was this handsome fellow, a human being! This is called the ascent of man chart that nearly everyone is familiar with." Then I just thought you might appreciate the pattern on this one UCLA shirt I saw. Four sillouetted figures. The one on the left was a bear and the one on the right was a graduate wearing cap and gown and the two in the middle were part-way between the first and the fourth ones. Share and enjoy. ################################### Just a little something extra, Bill. I had written a reply to a letter in the Register, but neither it nor any other reply was ever published. You'll have to look up the original letter yourself, if you don't already have it. My additional comments are in square brackets: letters@link.freedom.com In Re: Randall Bowman "Who says man didn't live among dinosaurs?" 15 Jun 97 Purveyors of "creation science" oppose any ideas that may conflict with their literal interpretation of Genesis, including evidence that the earth is more than 10,000 years old. They do this by claiming to have scientific evidence supporting their position and declaring the opposing findings of science to be erroneous and invalid. In reality, virtually all of their "evidences" are based on misrepresenting scientific sources and methods and on ignoring or wishing away the existence of opposing evidence. Mr. Bowman's letter (Randall Bowman, "Who says man didn't live among dinosaurs?," 15 Jun 1997) is filled with typical examples of "creation science" misrepresentation. For example, he misrepresents evolution as a Lamarckian "ladder of evolutionary 'progress'", which is not a part of current evolutionary thought. He specifically names carbon-14 as being used to date fossils, which C-14 is ill-suited for because it uses organic material and has too short a half-life to date anything older than 50,000 years. Mr. Bowman tries to "prove" a young earth in typical "creation science" fashion by casting doubt on scientific methods and offering contradictory "evidence." He dismisses the great preponderance of evidence that humans did not exist until millions of years after the last traces of dinosaurs by declaring radiometric methods "flawed" and the entire system of geologic eras "conjecture," then he offers a list of 80 tests for determining the age of the earth. I recognize that list from a "creation science" book and it did not include any actual scientific tests. Both of his examples have been known to be false for over a decade now, their falsehood has been demonstrated repeatedly to creationists, and yet creationists continue to make the same false claims, in typical "creation science" fashion. Flimsy as his examples are, they are about as good as it gets in "creation science." The "shrinking sun" claim is based solely on a 1979 report by Eddy and Boornazian in which they deduced a shrinkage rate for the sun from direct observations. But creationists don't tell you that even at that time astronomers knew that the sun's size oscillates and had published several articles about that effect. They also don't tell you that later, in 1984, Eddy reported the exact opposite finding, that from 1967 to 1980 the sun had INCREASED in size at an even higher rate than he had previously found it to have been shrinking. [actually, this claim is not taken from that 1979 report itself, but rather from the ABSTRACT for that report. Had the creationist actually read the article, he would have learned that the sun oscillates. Duh?] A more complete report on the "shrinking sun" claim can be found on the Web at http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v04-n11/sunshrink.html. The human-population-growth claim, better known as the "Bunny Blunder," is one of the more hilarious claims, especially if we take it seriously and use it to predict what the world population was at any given time in the past. Using the published version which yields a date of 4300 BCE for the origin of the human population, we find that in 2500 BCE the total world population was 750 people, giving us only about 200 able-bodied males available in Egypt to build the Great Pyramid of Cheops, all 50 million tons of it. During the preceding 200 years, even fewer men built six neighboring pyramids and many other large structures. Things were even more hectic back between 3800 BCE and 3600 BCE when the total world population of 10 to 20 people, including women and children, rushed madly back and forth between Crete and the Indus River Valley building and abandoning enough fortified cities to have housed millions of people. The "Bunny Blunder" gets its name from applying this model to rabbits, whereupon we find that the world rabbit population had to have come from two bunnies created about 100 years ago, which, by this claim's logic, means that the Earth could be no more than 100 years old. The blunder lies in the fact that this claim completely ignores the effects of several factors in the environment which limit the size and growth of a population. This population model is presented in introductory textbooks on math modeling as the "pure-birth model" and is shown to be an extremely poor model of natural populations precisely because it completely ignores the environment. Constrained by the environment, the human population, like the rabbit population, could indeed be millions of years old and still be no larger than we find it at present. "Creation science" claims involving math are notorious for incorrectly setting up the problem and for misinterpreting the results; they are typical cases of "garbage in, garbage out." [A more complete write-up can be found off of my creation/evolution web-page, http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev.html. The sad part of all this is that Mr. Bowman did not deliberately set out to misinform us or to lie to us, but rather he had been misinformed himself by his own "creation science" sources, just as our children are misinformed whenever this nonsense is taught in the classroom. If Mr. Bowman really wants to oppose certain scientific ideas, then he needs to learn everything he can about those ideas and then oppose THEM, not his misconceptions about them; "know your enemy and know yourself." "Creation science" is perhaps the single worst possible resource for learning about science, unless you are studying why their claims are false. A very good source of information on the Web about "creation science" claims are the FAQ files in the Talk.Origins Archive at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html. ##################################### Subj: Re: A Letter the Register Would Not Print Date: 97-08-10 21:54:42 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 Do you think the earth is 4.6 billion years old? Why? Subj: Re: AOLCREAT.DOC Date: 97-08-10 21:57:10 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 Do you feel you have to be "explained away?" Call me collect ASAP at 714 898-8331. Bill >Subj: Re: A Letter the Register Would Not Print >Date: 97-08-10 21:54:42 EDT >From: BillyJack6 >To: DWise1 > >Do you think the earth is 4.6 billion years old? Why? > I do not recall trying to claim an exact age of the earth. Surely the "exact" age is and will continue to be a subject of active debate and investigation, from determining at which point in its formation the earth could be considered as having actually come into being (eg, assuming an accretion model, do you start the clock when the very first planetessimals start to clump or when most of the current mass had accreted, or somewhere inbetween?) to the accuracy and the concurrence of the dating methods used. So I would not necessarily claim that the earth is exactly 4.6 billion years old (give or take 100 million years), but I see no scientific reason to seriously doubt that order of magnitude (while I can understand some religious reasons). "Why?" Because the preponderance of geological evidence shows that the earth has had a very long history. I understand from your writings that you are a young-earth creationist, which would mean that you believe the earth to be about 6000 years old (I would assume that you are not taken with the ICR's lame attempt at stealth tactics when they try to hide their biblical basis by claiming 10,000 years instead). The geological evidence clearly shows that the earth is much older than 6000 years, many times over. Clearly enough for creationist geologist Glenn R. Morton, who as a creationist would dearly love to find the earth to be young, but as a practicing geologist must accept the evidence that it is instead quite ancient. And clearly enough for the creationist geology students he had hired and who suffered severe crises of faith when confronted with that hard geological evidence (please note that they did not suffer any crises of GEOLOGY). Again, I refer you to my web page on the subject: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/geology.html which is linked to by my creation/evolution web page: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev.html Since you have an AOL account, I know that you have access to the Web. Now, I should reverse your question: Do you think the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Why? Perhaps you would also like to comment on Randall Bowman's "shrinking sun" (see http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v04-n11/sunshrink.html) or "Bunny Blunder" (see http://members.aol.com/dwise1/bunny.html) claims. The first draft of my reply was twice as long, mainly due to more development of the "Bunny Blunder" claim. I might still have a copy of that first draft floating around somewhere; if I find it, would you want to read it? Actually, I had sent you that e-mail thinking that you might know Randall Bowman and would have shared my letter with him. If so, then what were his comments? Did he realize that his claims have such serious problems? As before, I would recommend the FAQ files in the Talk.Origins Archive at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html, so that you can approach creation science claims with an open and inquiring mind. It always helps to read criticisms by your opponents. If you need help in learning how to use the AOL web browser (miserable thing that it is), just ask. >Subj: Re: AOLCREAT.DOC >Date: 97-08-10 21:57:10 EDT >From: BillyJack6 >To: DWise1 > >Do you feel you have to be "explained away?" > No, I do not feel any need to be "explained away". I just thought that you would feel the need to explain me away since I seem to contradict your entire thesis. If you think that you can incorporate me and thousands of other moral and virtuous atheists into your world-view that people quite naturally turn to evolution and to atheism in order to escape obeying any rules and accepting personal responsibility for their actions, just so they can indulge guiltlessly in hedonism, then please present your reasons for that view. If you can not so incorporate us or explain us away, then your world-view needs to be corrected. If you already realize the incongruities of your world-view and continue to present the same claims, then that decision on your part raises some ethical and moral problems that you will need to deal with, similar to professional creationists' forays into situational ethics (eg, Walter Brown's rattlesnake-protein claim). >Call me collect ASAP at 714 898-8331. > I choose not to call you because: 1. I am currently on a very busy schedule which includes many 14- and 15-hour days plus weekends (I write during lunch, which enables me to eat and communicate simultaneously, something which a phone conversation would not allow, or would at least render garbled), 2. when I am at home, I have to compete with my wife and teenagers for use of the phone (guess who usually wins), and 3. I suspect that you might only want to proselytize at me and so precious time and effort would have been horribly wasted for naught (if that is not at all your intent, then I apologize, but past experience with several other creationists indicates this assumption to have a very high probability of being true). However, since your request to talk with me does sound urgent, I will try to increase my frequency of AOL log-ons from once or twice a month to at least once a week. After all, I did give you a lot to think about, which I'm sure has raised a lot of questions in your mind. Though you will have to forgive me my surprise at finally encountering a creationist who would actually try to think about the issues; I have found that such creationists are very rare indeed, even though almost all of them boast of practicing open inquiry and testing of everything. What are you having a problem with? That atheists can be moral and virtuous (remember that I am far from being an exception, nor am I an extraordinary individual)? That professional proselytizers have found that creation science is not only not an ineffective tool for proselytizing, but it also has proven to be counter-productive (ie, driving more people away from Christianity than it attracts)? That teaching creation science creates some very real and grave dangers for those who are taught it, especially children? That teaching morality based on theology can endanger the individuals so taught? Please, e-mail your questions to me and I will try to respond as soon as possible, though you must understand and allow for the time constraints that I am living under. The more direct you can make your questions the better, since that should reduce the number of messages needed, and hence the time delays incurred with each message. ############################################## Subj: Re: AOLCREAT.DOC Date: 97-08-17 18:03:31 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 Question: You say you are too busy to call me, but you can write very nice long responses. I don't get it. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% >Subj: Re: AOLCREAT.DOC >Date: 97-08-17 18:03:31 EDT >From: BillyJack6 >To: DWise1 > >Question: > >You say you are too busy to call me, but you can write very nice long >responses. I don't get it. A kind of parable: I just performed my periodic Physical Readiness Test (PRT), which includes running 1.5 miles within 16.5 minutes (for my age, less time for the young bucks and buckettes). Now, researchers have found that it takes almost exactly the same amount of energy (as measured by the subject's oxygen consumption) to travel 1.5 miles regardless of how much time you take. I ran it in 15:12 (have been too busy with work to work out). If running it in 10 minutes wouldn't take any more energy than running it in 15:12, why didn't I have run it in 10 minutes? Because, like Scotty, Ah dinna got th' powa'. Remember, in elementary physics it is found that it takes the same amount of energy to move a given mass a given distance regardless of how much time it takes. Work = Energy. But where time enters into the picture is when you measure Power = Work / Time. You are confusing Work with Power. How long do you think it took me to write those "very nice long responses"? Do you believe that I did it all in one single sitting? Well, it took me about two weeks and several sittings to bash those responses out in whatever scraps of time I could grab. Now do you get it? Writing does not require a single continguous chunk of time whereas a phone conversation does. Besides, I can do more than one thing while I write, such as eat my lunch, which I could not do in a phone conversation, and I can filter interruptions out a lot more easily. To repeat my reasons for not calling you: 1. I am currently on a very busy schedule which includes many 14- and 15-hour days plus weekends (I write during lunch, which enables me to eat and communicate simultaneously, something which a phone conversation would not allow, or would at least render garbled), 2. when I am at home, I have to compete with my wife and teenagers for use of the phone (guess who usually wins), and 3. I suspect that you might only want to proselytize at me and so precious time and effort would have been horribly wasted for naught (if that is not at all your intent, then I apologize, but past experience with several other creationists indicates this assumption to have a very high probability of being true). Add to that three more reasons: 4. I get interrupted often, which I can edit out of e-mail, but not out of a phone conversation. We would need time to talk uninterrupted, which I cannot guarantee. 5. If I try calling from work, then I would have to answer to my supervisor for making that kind of a personal call. If I try calling from home, then I would have to answer to my boss (la jefa) and the "Spanish Inquisition" (she's Mexican, so I tend to find that line from Monty Python especially funny). It is her firm and oft expressed opinion that all creationists are idiots who would never allow themselves to see reason nor understand the truth, so don't waste your time on them. So I quietly don't follow the issue while she's watching; she said "Don't you ever let me catch you doing that" and she hasn't . 6. It is our firm policy that we never buy anything over the phone nor at the door (this being in reference to reason #3 above -- have I ever told you about the "after-life insurance" variant of Pascal's Wager that somebody tried on me once? -- and only once ). I remember the Paris Peace Talks and how so much time was spent -- weeks or even months -- just trying to agree on the shape of the table. Maybe I'm naive about diplomacy, but I thought that they were just stalling; I believed that if they were really serious about ending that war then they would have cut to the chase a lot sooner. I responded to the tone of urgency in your message by saying in effect, "Yes, let's discuss these matters." But then you start arguing over the exact medium for the discussion, equivalent to arguing over the shape of the table we'll use. Do you want to discuss this or not? Do you have questions or don't you? Do you wish to respond or not? Do you have something to say or don't you? What is holding you back? Why, exactly, do you insist on conducting this over the phone? However, since your request to talk with me does sound urgent, I will try to increase my frequency of AOL log-ons from once or twice a month to at least once a week. After all, I did give you a lot to think about, which I'm sure has raised a lot of questions in your mind. Though you will have to forgive me my surprise at finally encountering a creationist who would actually try to think about the issues; I have found that such creationists are very rare indeed, even though almost all of them boast of practicing open inquiry and testing of everything. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ############################################## Subj: Re: A Letter the Register Would Not Print Date: 97-08-17 18:01:32 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 Wait! Time out! You did not answer why you think teh earth is 4.6 billion +/- 100 million years old. All you said is "geology." Please tell me what evidence from geology convinces you of this. Thank you, Bill %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% >Subj: Re: A Letter the Register Would Not Print >Date: 97-08-17 18:01:32 EDT >From: BillyJack6 >To: DWise1 > >Wait! Time out! You did not answer why you think teh earth is 4.6 billion >+/- 100 million years old. All you said is "geology." Please tell me what >evidence from geology convinces you of this. Now, Bill, you know that is not true. I did answer your question: "Because the preponderance of geological evidence shows that the earth has had a very long history. ... The geological evidence clearly shows that the earth is much older than 6000 years, many times over." That the earth has had a much longer and more complex history than biblical literalism would allow has been evident almost from the very beginning of the science of geology, so much so that 19th century biblical literalists did everything they could to counter this threat, up to and including Philip Henry Gosse's Omphalos Argument, which he advanced in his 1857 book, "Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot" (see my Omphalos page at http://members.aol.com/dwise1/omphalos.html). I then pointed you directly to a more complete explanation of my answer, filled with examples: the Geology page of the Creation/Evolution segment of my web site. Again, the URLs are: Geology page -- http://members.aol.com/dwise1/geology.html Creation/Evolution page -- http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev.html I had pointed you to that web page because I assumed that you would not want an e-mail message over 50,000 bytes long. And I gave you a URL because I knew that you do have at least one ISP, namely AOL. I even offered to help you figure out how to use the AOL browser if you did not already know. Of course, if you have some ideological aversion the Web, then tell me and I can attach that HTML file to an e-mail (since I had just applied an HTML wrapper onto an old CompuServe file of mine, the HTML tags should not detract from its readability -- I have not found a way to start up that browser offline, let alone try to read a local HTML file like you can with NetScape, Mosaic, and Internet Explorer). But you have to let me know. Otherwise, I can only continue to consider the giving of a URL as a helpful gesture. So much for the mote in my eye, but what about the beam in your own eye, Bill? While I had answered your question and pointed you directly to a more complete explanation, you completely ignored my own question to you. Here it is again: Do you think the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Why? Of course, I do not blame you for not addressing the "shrinking sun" claim nor the "Bunny Blunder". Perhaps you would want to cite the claim that a recent NASA document, written "well into the space age," shows that if the moon were really about 4.5 billion years old, then there should have been much more meteoric dust on it than we had actually found (if you have read what I have sent to you, then you will know to avoid this claim as well). %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ############################################## Subj: Re: Yes, Geology Date: 97-08-21 21:46:47 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 you are very eloquent but also very evasive. No where did you answerhte question..you said "geology." And pointed me to a web page. I expect more of you. Do not hide behind some else's web page....give me your answer. BillBillyJack6Re: Yes, Geology response was given on-line to the effect that that web page is indeed mine and written by me, so I have indeed answered the question. Yet again, I offer to get that file to him by other means if he is either unable or unwilling to access the Web. I concluded by asking that he not prove my wife right in her opinion of creationists. ############################################## Subj: Re: Why a Phone? Date: 97-08-21 21:43:17 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 Becuase I like the phone better. I can teach you more quicker on the phone (I say that humbly....I know you can present no evidence that bacteria evolved to blue whales). Which life appeared first? Please answer that. 714 898-8331 Bill response was given on-line to the effect that the reasons against still stand and that his insistence on the phone reveals that his only intent is to try to proselytize; I ask that he please prove me wrong. I started off by criticizing his grammar, though not pointing out precisely what was wrong with it; more specifically, he's so intent on teaching me whereas I should be teaching him, especially about English grammar, though my study of German does give me an unfair advantage there. To his question, I responded that the oldest fossil evidence is of bacteria. Then I ask him what that is supposed to have to do with anything. I conclude (either here or in the other message) by reminding him that we have digressed and that the real issue still needs to be addressed, namely the effects of teaching lies to bolster faith and to proselytize. Either in this message or the other, I inform him that I will be on duty for two weeks, returning home for the intervening weekend. This meant: 1. if he wanted to get something to me before I left, he would have to do it before Sunday evening. 2. after that, the soonest I could check my e-mail would be Friday evening, 29 Aug, after which the latest would be before Monday evening, 1 Sep. 3. I would be back for regular e-mail traffic starting Friday evening, 5 Sep. ###################### As of 07 Sep, I had received no further response from him. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ################# "They say that they are preserving the truth of Genesis. But I say that the Truth NEVER needs to be upheld by a lie!" (Orson Scott Card) ###################### ################# I haven't heard from you for a while. When I told you that I would be gone for two weeks, though back for the intervening week, my intention was to assure you that a delay in my response was due to my absense, not to any desire to avoid this discussion. The least impression I wanted to give you was that you should not respond during that time. Yet as it now stands, it has been three weeks since I last heard from you. Don't tell me you've fled the discussion before it's even had a chance to start. Since the issues have been ignored in the pre-discussion haggling and posturing, I will attempt to bring the discussion back into focus by reiterating them here: 1. Many atheists became atheists because they discovered that their religious leaders had lied to them, had taught them things that they later discovered is not true. Your stated views of what motivates individuals to become atheists are inconsistent with actual cases. I have talked with many atheists and heard and read many accounts of how and why people became atheists. Except for your own personal account, I had never encountered anyone who had become an atheist because they wanted to avoid personal responsibility for their actions; indeed, atheist commentators often criticize THEISTS of not taking personal responsibility for their actions. The vast majority of atheist accounts involve either coming to the realization that they could no longer hold their old beliefs (in one case, this was caused by reading a detailed history of Christianity, in my own case it was caused by reading the Bible) or discovering that their religious leaders had lied to them or had betrayed their trust on some other way. The former cases would usually produce atheists who are either sympathetic towards religion or, at worst, apathetic. But the latter cases, concerning those who had been betrayed by their religious leaders, often produce the most anti-religion atheists. 2. Creation science is "packed full of lies"; ie, is filled with claims and teachings that are not true. I have studied creation science since 1981 and discussed it on-line since about 1986 (conducted fairly intensively until 1991, when higher-priority matters arose, but continued occasionally since then). These studies and discussions have demonstrated to me that creation science is full of untruths, distortions, misrepresentations, deceptions, and fabrications; in short, it's packed full of lies. My studies have included both creationist materials and critiques thereof. Not only have I read the research of others who show how specific creationist claims err and have misrepresented their scientific sources, but I have conducted such research myself. For the on-line discussions on CompuServe, I frequently hunted down sources quoted by the creationist side and almost invariably discovered that the source said something quite different than they claimed it did. My critique of your "Weird Science" should give you some idea of my experience (despite your arrogant claims of nobody having been able to find any error at all in it, I found errors on every single page -- in every single frame, even, as I recall -- to which your only response has been to say that I had misspelled a name) . 3. It is a grave mistake to build one's faith upon creation science. In his classic presentation, "The Secular Humanist Revival Meeting," Orson Scott Card said of creation science: "They say that they are preserving the truth of Genesis, but I say that the Truth NEVER needs to be upheld by a lie!" John Morris of the ICR has stated "If the earth is more than 10,000 years old, then Scripture has no meaning." A few creationists on CompuServe have been very forthright on this matter and have volunteered (id est, they had not been asked, but had brought it up first) that if creation science turns out to be wrong, then Scripture would be meaningless, their faith would have no basis, and they would have no alternative but to become atheists; THEY raised this question themselves. Indeed, from your own writings, I would suspect that if you don't actually subscribe to this belief yourself, then at least you lean heavily in this direction. Would you like to share that with us? (BTW, so far on my side this is strictly between the two of us, nor do I have any plans to share it with anybody else later) Even without this belief, it is a grave mistake to build one's faith upon creation science, given Issue #1 and Issue #2. For it follows that when one discovers that one's religious leaders had been teaching him a pack of lies, the most probable reaction would be rejection of that religion, perhaps even to the point of becoming the worst kind of atheist, an anti-religion atheist. And if that new-born atheist had been taught that fearing God's punishment is the only reason for being good, then that new-born atheist will probably become an unabashed hedonist as well. Congratulations, Bill, you've just hit him with a double whammy! There's yet another life creation science has screwed up! 4. It is a grave mistake to use creation science to convert others. To begin with, you have the effectiveness problem. Remember that former full-time creationist proselytizer Gregg Wilkerson, co-founder of Students for Origins Research, observed, "Creationism by and large attracts few to the gospel, but it turns many away." Speaking for myself, knowing creation science to be packed full of lies, I could not possibly convert to a religion that would require me to believe something that I know full well to be false; my moral and ethical standards are just too high for me to become a Christian (given the implied requirement to embrace false and deceptive teachings). Do you see the barrier that you have erected? How do you think that you could possibly convert me through creation science? Even most of those who are not as knowledgeable about creation science or about science tend to accept the conclusions of science passively and uncritically and so are likely to view creation science as being on the fringe, though with the increased "X-Files" mentality out there and some really slick packaging of creation science might make it easier to sucker them in (except that too many of them might still be too apathetic about religion). But the other side of this issue is the really destructive one. It's one thing to have your religious leaders sneak in a pack of lies after you have converted (and you've seen in Issue #3 what the consequences of that would be), but to learn that you had converted solely on the basis of a pack of lies, that your "recruiter" had lied to you (if you've ever enlisted, especially in the Army, you should recognize this feeling ), ... that's an even worse betrayal. You think that you have your hands full with a #3 atheist? Well you'd better watch out for a #4! Especially if you were his recruiter. 5. Learning morality. OK, this is kind of a side issue, one that we would go back and forth about for years. Re-read my previous message about it. I still believe that if you teach them that morality depends entirely on a specific theology, then when their theology changes they will lose their morality (remember, you are the prime example of this), but if you do not make morality dependent on theology, then they will remain moral even when they lose their theology (of which I am the example). Where this ties in is that the #3 and #4 atheists would have been taught the same as you, that with their theology they do not have to remain moral. So here is how it plays: you rope them in with creation science and they buy into theological morality, then they discover that they had been baited with lies (even though you personally believe it to be true) and they dump it all, religion and morality both. Thank you, Bill Morgan. Of course, that is the extreme case. How loss of their faith would affect their morality should be affected more by their childhood training than by subsequent conversion. Also, dropping this religion that they have found to be false (face it, that is the logical conclusion here) does not necessitate atheism, but could result in switching to a different religion, including a more sensible form of Christianity. Also, most people are not in a position to uncover the lies of creation science and could live their entire lives out without ever having to discover the truth. They are the lucky ones; they can stay ignorant and laugh at evolution for the rest of their lives. But the smart ones are in danger, because they are more likely to learn the truth, to have to learn the truth. A creationist who becomes a geologist would have to work very hard to avoid the hard geological evidence that they had been does not exist and cannot exist if Scripture is to have any meaning. Like the geology students trained by the ICR whom Glenn Morton had hired and all of whom suffered severe crises of faith. Again I point out, crises of faith, NOT of geology. My point is that it does not need to happen. OK, Bill, it's your turn. This entire discussion has been very one-sided so far. Have you read my answer to your geology question yet? If you still haven't because of some kind of problem with using the Web, then just tell me so that I can get it to you another way (I believe that I'm telling you this for the fourth time now). Do you have an answer yet for my question? You know, what evidence you have that shows the earth to be less than 10,000 years old. Positive evidence, that is, not just trying to cast doubt on the findings of science. There's a little caricature to illustrate this request: Evolutionist: What is the evidence for creation? Creationist: Evolution sucks! Evolutionist: No, I mean positive evidence for creation. Creationist: Evolution positively sucks! A caricature, yes, but very telling. In all those years of discussion on CompuServe, with repeated requests from me and others for positive evidence for creation, no creationist ever provided any. Some even tried to insist that evidence against evolution qualified as "positive" evidence for creation. Of course, if the "creation model" were truly a model (ie, formulated from the evidence), then there would have to be such positive evidence for the model. But it's just a fraud and the evidence simply does not exist, does it? If you could come up with some of that evidence, then you would advance your cause immensely. It's not the idea of creation that I object to or oppose, but rather the dishonesty of creation science and the kind of atheists that it produces, the wrong kind of atheists. Do you care about those you try to convert, or are you just working on your body count? Do you advocate "lying for the Lord", which is a form of situational ethics (ie, the ends justifying the means)? Or does Truth still count for something? OK, if you're not up to it, then how about a few simple questions? Do you agree with John Morris that if the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning? What would happen if you found irrefutable proof that the earth is far older than 10,000 years? What effect would that have on you? How would it affect your faith? Should it? Why? ############################################## Subj: What Happened to You? Date: 97-09-30 00:07:38 EDT From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: DWise1 If I may begin this message with a couple quotations which you should be able to identify as yours: "... and I hope that the path you take is one of testing and examining with an open mind." " ... it was the evidence of Creation versus Evolution. I wanted the truth." Fine sounding words, but do you live up to them? Do you endeavor to test and examine with an open mind? Your actions indicate to me that you do not. Do you really want and seek the truth? Pardon me for paraphrasing Jack Nicholson, but it is obvious from your persistent avoidance of discussion that you cannot handle the truth. Why then do you persist in proselytizing with something that you refuse to test, examine, or seek the truth about, especially considering your newly acquired knowledge of its detrimental effects on faith? How can you justify your actions morally and ethically? Or even theologically? I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt; tried to allow that your abrupt disappearance is due to a computer failure or to being out of town. But surely, you would have notified me of an impending absence, just as I had informed you of my Navy duty, but you did not. And if you had suffered computer problems, you could still log on to AOL on another computer, plus the repair turn-around time should not have taken an entire month. Why have you disappeared? Unfortunately, your messages posted before your disappearance all point to the conclusion that you have cut and run. Even though I answered all your questions (some of which you refused to read), you accused me of being evasive. At the same time, you ignored my own questions as well as my direct counter-request for your evidence of a young earth. By your actions, it is you who has been evasive. This discussion, if you will ever let it get started, promises to be rich in content. E-mail is an ideal medium for content, albeit poorer for emotionalism and for obfuscation. Telephony is a richer medium for emotionalism and for obfuscation and a poorer medium for content. A "Gish gallop" would work on the telephone far better than it would work in e-mail, since it could well overwhelm the listener on the phone, but could be picked apart, analyzed, and responded to in e-mail. Besides which, e-mail establishes a record of exactly what was stated, whereas the telephone does not. Hence, your repeated insistence that I call you is made all the more suspicious. Have you disappeared because you are unable to hit me with your own "Gish gallop"? Or is it just that you finally realized that you could not convert me? I have seen this happen many times before, but I had hoped that you were above such petty tactics. So many times before creationists have claimed to just want to discuss the evidence, only to repeatedly try to convert me, then lose all interest and drop the discussion abruptly when they finally realized that they could not convert me. Of course, I guess it did not help matters much that I already knew too much about creation science and that they could not answer my simple and direct questions, like, "What is the valid evidence for your claims?" Is that your problem, Bill? Is it that you know that you have no valid evidence to present? Is it that you only want to target those who do not already know about creation science and so are much easier to trample with your "Gish gallop"? Is it that you know full well that you do not stand a chance against somebody who knows what you are talking about? If so, then what does that say for your ministry of proselytizing through claims that you know to be false? Especially now that you know that such false claims are a leading cause of atheism. Do you really think that God will reward you for spreading lies? If so, then you will have your reward, but it will not be what you expected. If you really believed creation science to be true, then you would have no reason for not presenting and defending its claims and evidence. If you know it to be false, then you have every reason to be evasive and to avoid defending your claims at all costs (eg, your only response to my critique of your "Weird Science" was to say that a name had been misspelled; do you still distribute it with the empty boast that nobody has ever been able to find a single error in it?). That you have been evasive and have avoided discussing or defending you claims indicates that you know your claims to be false. Are Christians indeed so devoid of morality and so enamoured with the lowest form of situational ethics (eg, extolling "lying for the Lord" so long as it results in a higher "body count" of conversions)? Well, that certainly makes a fellow thankful to not be a Christian. Bill, at the very least, please send me an e-mail explaining briefly why you had disappeared and whether you have, or have ever had, any intention of carrying on a discussion. Remember, it was your writings and your urgent appeal to get in touch with me that got this started. Now, just to stave off a kind of argument that you might use at some time, here is an exerpt from a very long document on the Web. Since I had saved it off onto disk rather than printing it, I have lost the URL, though it should be on Yahoo under search words like "Matson" or "Hovind". Here is the title for your reference: How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments? A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims April 21, 1994 Copies of this paper may be made and sold by Edward T. Babinski, the National Center for Science Education, and all other groups who are battling the attempts by "scientific" creationists to adversely affect the quality of science education. All others are welcome to make and distribute copies provided that they are given away free of charge. Bound hardcopy (77 pages) is available for $10.50 from: Dave E. Matson 330 South Hill Avenue Pasadena, CA 91106 Copyright 1994. The exerpt in question ties in directly with claims of the "Bunny Blunder" kind, in which a lower bound on the possible ages of something is taken as an absolute age (ie, in the Bunny Blunder, it is claimed that since the entire human population could have developed from two people 6000 years ago, that that means that it could not have possibly taken longer than 6000 years; in reality, this lower limit just means that it could not have taken less than 6000 years, but says nothing about what the upper limit would be). David Matson took the approach of presenting a claim by Dr. Hovind and then responding to it: Dr. Hovind (F): Let's imagine we are exploring an old gold mine. Suppose we find a Casio Databank watch half buried in the mud and, upon closer inspection, still keeping good time. Perhaps the watch is a 1000 years old. No, this particular entrance to the mine was dug 150 years ago. Maybe, then, it is 150 years old. No, the model was marketed only 12 years ago. Could it have been there 10 years? No, the batteries are only good for 5 years. We might not be able to pin down the precise age of that watch, but each of the above arguments establishes a maximum age. Any estimates giving an older age than 5 years may be ignored as irrelevant. If we found a 30-year-old shoe near the watch that would not override our 5 year maximum estimate. The minimum date takes precedence. The same logic can be applied to finding the age of the Earth. If several factors limit the age of the Earth to within the last few thousand years, the Earth cannot be older than that! Even if a few indicators seem to show a greater age for the Earth, it only takes ONE proof of a young Earth to prove the Earth is young. Below is a list of arguments that limit the age of the universe and Earth to within the last few thousand years. F. If you were trying to date some mountain range, then the uranium-lead age of a certain layer of rock which made up part of that mountain would yield, at most, a maximum age in accordance to the above analogy. Thus, if we found another layer of rock in that mountain which, by the potassium-argon method, yielded half the previous age, then the younger age would stand. The watch analogy is wrong because creationists are trying to date the entire Earth, not some fixture on it! They are trying to date the mine, not the watch! Each of the figures, then, would give a minimum date. The largest reliable figure would take precedence. Therefore, we need only one good argument yielding an old age for the Earth! Bill, if Hovind's logic seemed just fine to you, then perhaps you'd like to go over Harold Slusher's moon-dust calculations with me some time. ############################################## Subj: Protein Comparisons Date: 97-10-02 22:51:59 EDT From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: DWise1 "The same protein typically shows up in thousands of different organisms. For example, all vertebrates have the protein hemoglobin, however, the hemoglobins of different organisms are not identical. They all have the same general structure and function, but their amino acid sequences are not exactly the same." Good, you've learned something. Or at least I hope that you have. This statement of yours, which is correct, directly contradicts this previous statement of yours in AOLCREAT.DOC (or, at least, that is the name under which I maintain it): "Remember, the arrangement of these amino acids is crucial to the function of the protein. If it is the proper arrangement it does its job, if the order is mixed up, it is worthless chemical junk. "Imagine many box cars at a train station, and these box cars are made up of twenty different colors. The owner of the station tells you he wants a train to be 400 box cars long, and you are to pick the combination of colored box cars, but if it is not the order he has in mind (and he didn't tell you it) he will fire you. "What are the odds you will get the box cars in the right order? They are the same odds the amino acids will align themselves by chance to make one protein in you. The odds are 20 to the 400th power! This is the same as 10 to the 520th power, that is a 1 followed by 520 zeros! You have better odds of winning California Super Lotto every week for 11 years than the odds of one protein in your body having the amino acids being properly aligned by chance. The odds are really much worse because the amino acids must be left handed, they must form a chain "in series," no parallel branching, their shape (proteins are wound up like a ball of yarn) is crucial, you need an oxygen free environment, etc etc. And remember, this is for just one protein. Your body has countless trillions of proteins." Your probability model only allowed for one very specific amino acid sequence for the protein to be functional; you allow no substitutions whatsoever, representing any substitution as destroying the protein's functionality. I won't revisit that you are really describing the probability of producing a protein via creation ex nihilo, instead of via evolution. Now your more recent statement readily allows for substitutions in the amino acid sequence. Have you learned and corrected your mistake, or are you just contradicting yourself, making any claim that sounds good without regard of consistency? In light of your more recent statement, do you intend to go back and correct your box-car analogy? How does your essay read now? But what I am writing to you for is to request some data from you. You give some percent-difference figures between certain species for one protein. First, what protein is it? Reading back to the previous page, the only protein you mention, though not quite within the context of the comparisons, was hemoglobin. Looking in my copy of the PIR Protein Sequence Database, I could only find hemoglobin itself listed for Parasponia andersonii. However, I did find a lot of listings for hemoglobin chains, especially the alpha chain, though none for the lamprey. You mention that your source was Entrez. I hope that you used Entrez as a primary source instead of just reading somebody else's conclusions drawn from their readings from that database (or from somebody else's, etc -- exclusive reference of creationist sources seems very common among creationists). That data that you presented did look like it had been cooked down quite a bit; were you the chef and what was the recipe? If you had used Entrez yourself, may I please ask you for an electronic copy of the raw data, of the sequences of the protein in question for the species in question? I believe that you already know how to attach a file to e-mail within AOL, since that is how you sent AOLCREAT.DOC to me as a Word document. You observe that all the other animals in your sample are about equally different from the lamprey and complain that there is no progression. What do you mean by "progression"? Just exactly what were you expecting to see (this is not a rhetorical question) and on exactly what assumptions were you basing that expectation? Since I do not expect you to respond (given your previous evasiveness and your more recent sudden disappearance), would I be correct in assuming that you expect the modern lamprey's proteins to be exactly identical to those of the ancient lampreys who were ancestral to the other species in the comparison (as given in the evolutionary hypothesis that you were "testing")? If so, then could you please explain upon what you base such an assumption? Why should we expect evolution to suddenly stop for a given species, especially in the accumulation of neutral mutations, which is what most base substitutions (which is what causes amino acid substitutions) are? What possible mechanism could account for such an event? Remember that relative morphological stasis as observed in the fossil record does not necessitate biochemical stasis. This is demonstrated by green fossils, which is vegetable matter, such as leaves, that was buried but not petrified and so preserves the proteins. Green fossils of tree leaves which demonstrate no morphological differences from modern tree leaves DO demonstrate biochemical differences. Even when the shape stops changing, the proteins continue to change, unless selection keeps them from changing. But then, since we are dealing largely with neutral mutations, natural selection should not come into play here. To be honest, I had expected you to make the same tired old mistake of claiming that comparison of certain proteins show humans to be more closely related to bullfrogs (so something similar) than to apes (read MY web page, written and posted by ME, DWISE1, http://members.aol.com/dwise1/bullfrog.html, for the story of such a claim that Duane Gish made on national TV and then repeatedly dodged supporting) and I was glad that you did not. However, you did make the same mistake as Michael Denton did in misinterpreting the findings. Since proteins continue to change over generational time, we cannot realistically expect comparison of modern proteins to yield the progression of changes from species to species; modern terrestrial vertebrates did NOT descend from modern lampreys, but rather they and modern lampreys descended from a common ancestor. Rather, what we would expect from evolutionary theory would be that the more time that has passed since the two species shared a common ancestor, the greater the differences would be between their proteins and when comparing a member of one such group of species against the members of the second group, we should expect the latter to all have the same degree of difference from the former (unless natural selection had come into play, of course; "molecular clocks" rely on the accumulation of neutral mutations -- see my bullfrog.html file for more on this). Therefore, we would expect to find that humans and apes would be more similar to each other since they shared a more recent common ancestor. We would also expect all felines to be more similar to each other for the same reason. And we would expect the lamprey to be about equally different from terrestrial vertebrates since the terrestrial vertebrates share the same common ancestor with the lamprey just before it split off from that line. And what does the evidence show? Precisely what we would expect and precisely what would make sense. Your findings are indeed supportive of what evolutionary theory would lead us to expect. Indeed, when Denton went through this exercise himself, he sought to discredit the standard phylogenetic trees of evolutionary descent by using these degrees of difference to construct Venn diagrams and assigning the various species considered into their place in that diagram according to their degrees of difference. However, it turns out that his Venn diagrams quite naturally produce the very same standard phylogenetic trees of evolutionary descent that Denton had tried to discredit. Let me explain (something that would be impossible on the phone, since it involves graphical aids). It seems that Denton made the typical creationist mistake of using "Ladder of Life" thinking (which, BTW, is Lamarckian, not Darwinian) -- i.e. assuming that all modern "primitive" organisms are identical to the earliest copies and that neither they nor their proteins have evolved since that group first appeared in the fossil record. Then he proceeds to compare the proteins of various groups of species looking for a linear progression and complaining when he does not find it. For example, on page 284 of his book, Denton compares hemoglobin sequences of the lamprey and five other species (carp, frog, chicken, kangaroo, and human) and fails to find the linear progression of [cyclostome --> fish --> amphibian --> reptile --> mammal] that HE expects. The same thing happens when he makes the comparison based on cytochrome c. But based on the cytochrome c data, he also constructs a Venn diagram which divides the species into classes and subclasses -- a set of nested areas which are not supposed to be a phylogenetic tree. I have copied that diagram here from page 286 (rendered in text graphics -- if your e-mail viewer uses a proportional font, then it will probably garbles this up; change the font to a monospace font, like Courier New): ________________________________ / \ ___________________ | Jawed Vertebrates | / \ | | | Jawless | | (Bony Fish) | | Vertebrates | | (Cartilaginous Fish) | | | | ____________________________ | | | | / \ | | | | | Terrestrial Vertebrates | | | (Cyclostomes -- | | | | | | e.g. Lampreys) | | | (Amphibia) | | \___________________/ | | ________________________ | | | | / \ | | | | | Amniota | | | | | | | | | | | | (Reptiles) | | | | | | | | | | | | (Mammals) | | | | | | | | | | | \________________________/ | | | \____________________________/ | \________________________________/ Not surprisingly, this does indeed yield a phylogenetic tree as follows: Cyclostomes Bony Fish Cart. Fish Amphibia Reptiles Mammals ----------- --------- ---------- -------- -------- ------- \ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \/ \ \/ \ \ \ / \ \ \ / Amniota \ \ \ / \ \ \ / \ \ \ / \ \ \/ \ \ / Jawless \ \ / Terrestrial Vert. Vertebrates \ \________________/ \ / \ / Jawed Vertebrates \ / \_________/ Vertebrates Furthermore, on page 287 Denton applies the same technique to primates: ________________________________ / \ ___________________ | Gibbon | / \ | | | Monkeys | | ____________________________ | | | | / _________ ___________ \ | | | | | / \ / \ | | \___________________/ | | | | | | | | | | | Apes | | Man | | | | | | | | | | | | | \_________/ \___________/ | | | \____________________________/ | \________________________________/ From which we get the following phylogenetic tree: Monkeys Gibbon Apes Man ------- ------ ---- --- \ \ \ / \ \ \ / \ \ \ / \ \ \/ \ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \/ Very interesting. Both trees fit the evolutionary view to a "T". Of course, the linear view, the "Ladder of Life," is both wrong and unwarranted. Why should we expect ALL change to stop for the "more primitive" forms? The more correct way to view the data, the way in which biologists actually view it, is as I have told you already and as Denton finally describes it on page 294: "The only way to explain this [pattern of protein differences] in evolutionary terms is to propose that since all the different lines of a group diverged each particular protein, such as haemoglobin or cytochrome C, has continued to evolve in each of the lines at its own characteristic uniform rate." Scientists have known that all along. Even Darwin said the same thing, that the longer it has been since two organisms shared a common ancestor, the greater would be the differences between them. Furthermore, this is what we find in "green" fossils, fossil leafs which have not petrified and which still contain their proteins and DNA: while the form (morphology) of the fossil leaves was virtually indistinguishable from modern leaves, their biochemistry was very different and those differences are very orderly and allow scientists to construct phylogenetic trees. Also on page 294, Denton plots a phylogenetic tree based on cytochrome sequence differences and for which the numbers fit very well. But now that Denton has finally stumbled onto a correct explanation, he spends the rest of the chapter trying to explain it away. For example, he discounts the possibility that the proteins could have continued to change because he cannot think of a mechanism that would direct those changes, even though he does mention, and discount out of hand, the "molecular clock" idea of the accumulation of neutral mutations. My problem is the opposite of Denton's; I cannot think of a mechanism outside of natural selection that would freeze a protein's sequence, which would not happen in the case of neutral mutations (ie, by definition a neutral mutation would not change the expression of that gene, thus giving natural selection nothing with which to distinguish the mutated gene from the unmutated gene). It should be very clear in which direction the evidence is pointing us. And isn't part of science, or any form of open inquiry which involves examining and testing with an open mind, to follow where the evidence leads us? Please permit me to share with you again the facts of Walter Brown's rattlesnake protein claim, still in abbreviated form (to save a little time). There are some obvious parallels to be drawn with your comparing the lamprey to other species, none of which were fish: Walter Brown's Rattlesnake Protein Claim Creation/Evolution Newsletter Vol4 No5 Sep/Oct 1984 pp15-17 data came from cytochrome c comparisons by Dr. Margaret Dayhoff Walter Brown's son used the data in a high school science fair project in which he concluded that rattlesnakes were more closely related to humans by cytochrome c than to any other organism. When the author asked Brown to explain his claim, Brown explained that of the 47 organisms in the study, the one closest to the RATTLESNAKE was the human. However, Brown was careful NOT to say that the one closest to the human was the rattlesnake, which would have been totally false. human -- rattlesnake 14 amino acids difference human -- rhesus monkey 1 amino acid different human -- chimp identical, no differences no other snakes were included in the study, so the rattlesnake was about equally different from all the other organisms in the study and just happened to be one amino acid less different from the human. Brown was shortly afterwards observed after a debate telling a group of his followers about rattlesnakes being more closely related to humans. When the author started explaining to the group the facts about the claim, Brown very quickly changed the subject. There is no way that Brown could have not known that he was misrepresenting the facts and that he was lying (ie, telling a deliberate falsehood) with the intent of deceiving his audience. ############################################## Subj: Re: Where'd ya go? Date: 97-10-10 01:07:56 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 Its not! BillyJack6 Re: Where'd ya go? Subj: Re: Where'd ya go? Date: 97-10-14 10:10:50 EDT From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: DWise1 "Its not"? What's "not"? Please, provide some context. What are you talking about? I honestly have no idea what part of my message, or even which message, you are responding to. I trust that you do realize that you can prepare email off-line, so typing speed should not be a problem. At the very least, when you give an answer, especially a curt one, prefix it with a portion of the text to which you are responding. That is not only SOP online and standard nettique, but also common courtesy. If you are still stewing over my not calling you on the phone, may I point out that while I gave you my reasons, you never gave me any reason for calling except for a cryptic "I can teach you more better". Teach me what, pray tell? Offer me a reasoned-out argument for why I should call you. Try to convince me. Your silence seems typical of creationists who realize that they haven't a leg to stand on, but most last a lot longer than you have; you caved in very much sooner than any others I have encountered. And at least most of the others tried to make some kind of excuse for their rapid departure. One thing I did ask for was some of the raw data from Entrez that you had used in your newsletter. What is the word on that request? BTW, if you are getting paranoid about the CC: entry, please look at the address and verify that it is to myself. This way, I have a record of every message I send. As I had told you before, I am not sharing this exchange with anybody else (though I am becoming increasingly tempted to do so with Gene Johnson, with whom I have not been in contact for several years, since he had dealings with you in the past), though I certainly invite you to share my messages with your friends. However, I would insist that you also share YOUR messages with them as well. Wouldn't want them to be misled, would we? ############################################## Bill, just letting you know that I have passed your announcement of Saturday's debate on to some friends and some fellow NCSE members. My message to them is as follows: #BEGIN E-MAIL TEXT## The Orange County Creation Science Association has announced a "Creation vs. Evolution Debate!" this Saturday. In case you are not on their mailing list, the announcement reads: Creation vs. Evolution Debate! When: Saturday, Decmeber 6, 1997 from 2 to 5 PM Where: Cypress College; 9200 Valley View St 3 miles South of the 91 FWY Library Lecture Hall Room 216 (Park in Parking Lot 1, parking is free) Debaters: Arlen Penner and John Peloza (Creation) vs. Brian Myres and Paul Ricci (Evolutionists) Topic: Is Evolution or Intelligent Design the Best Explanation for Speciation? Make sure you come early to ensure a good seat! Questions? Call Bill Morgan at 714-898-8331 #End Announcement# Bill Morgan can also be reached at billyjack6@aol.com I have duty that day and will not be able to attend. I would appreciate hearing how it goes. In particular, I would appreciate an e-mail address for John Peloza; I have a couple questions to ask him. Share and enjoy. #END E-MAIL TEXT## As I said, I have duty that weekend in San Diego and will be unable to attend. If you plan on writing a report of the debate, could you please send a copy my way? Also, if you have a chance to talk with John Peloza, I need to find out from him what his source was on his earlier claim that a UCLA study said that the way that evolution is currently being taught is detrimental to the quality of science education. I still have no idea what you were talking about in your 10 Oct 97 message to me: Subj: Re: Where'd ya go? Date: 97-10-10 01:07:56 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 Its not! BillyJack6 Re: Where'd ya go? What's "not"? Please, explain what you meant. BTW, by YAHOO'ing with your name, I found a couple pages with your AOLCREAT.DOC annotated by the posters. The URLs are: http://aix2.uottawa.ca/~s866370/creation.html and http://www.mcs.net/~liber8r/onfile/crevevo1.html Both posters expressed about the same opinion as mine about your hormone story, that you were atypical and did not display much moral fiber. Though I still think that you were predisposed to your hedonistic decline by your religious training. PS Oops. For some reason I had you figured for being much older, about retirement age. Sorry about that. PPS Yes, I know that I misspelled "December"; I just spotted it. But still, that's not too bad for having hurriedly touch-typed it in this morning. ########################## Subj: Re: This Saturday's Debate Date: 97-12-07 22:49:44 EST From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 I do not have Mr Peloza's e mail address. The debate was in my opinion disappointing. All four seemed unorganized and skittish. Have you ever heard my lesson? BillyJack6 Re: This Saturday's Debate ############################# Re: Subj: Re: This Saturday's Debate Date: 97-12-14 12:15:28 EST From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: DWise1 > The debate was in my opinion disappointing. All four seemed unorganized and > skittish. The weather that day in San Diego was relatively benign. How do you think the weather had affected attendence? But first, a quick question so that it won't get lost: did John Peloza present a young-earth position? I remember that earlier, while his litigation was on-going, he was very careful to steer clear of any age-of-the-earth discussion. I'm just wondering whether he is still sticking with the stealthy "intelligent design / abrupt appearance" buzz-word or whether he has rejoined the young-earth creation science mainstream. As for the debate, not having been able to be there myself (again, I had Navy duty in San Diego that weekend), I cannot compare it with other debates I have seen or been in. I had attended my first debate with Charles Lang (refer to my "WARUM" file explaining how I got started and arrived at my opinion of creation science), the first live creationist I had ever had a chance to discuss these matters with. It was Henry Morris and Duane Gish vs Frank Awbrey and William Thwaites on 28 September 1985 in Long Beach. This is described in my "How I got started and why I oppose 'creation science'" page at http://members.aol.com/dwise1/warum.html (soon to be moved to http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/warum.html). This was also Charles' first debate and he was very disappointed with it. He was especially disappointed by Morris and Gish's performances (before that debate, Charles called Gish his "hero", now he wants nothing at all to do with the ICR) and, believing the party line that there is overwhelming evidence supporting creation science, he was bewildered that neither Morris nor Gish had tried to present any of that evidence. What Charles did not know at the time is that Morris and Gish are far better at claiming to have overwhelming evidence than at presenting any of it. They will freely make their claims to the converted and to the unknowing, but will clam up and be much more guarded when in the presence of those who are familiar with their claims and with what the facts really are. Awbrey and Thwaites are two such people. They had been following the issue for many years and had created and taught a two-models class at San Diego State University in which they gave half of the lectures while guest creationists, including Duane Gish, gave the other half. In one of those classes, after Gish had given his standard presentation about how the bombadier beetle could not have evolved because the chemicals it uses for defense explode spontaneously when mixed unless an inhibitor enzyme is present. Awbrey and Thwaites then took the chemicals in question and mixed them together. Sure enough, the mixture spontaneously ... turned brown. No explosion. Gish's response was to admit that his claim was wrong and that he had been misled by his source, Kofahl, who had mistranslated the original German. However, Gish and the ICR continued making their bombadier beetle claims. The second thing at the debate that greatly troubled Charles was the large number of books on sale presenting the bombadier beetle claim, SIX YEARS after Duane Gish had publicly admitted that this claim was false. FWIW, there was a prominently displayed bombadier beetle exhibit in the ICR's museum when I visited there around 1989. When I saw Charles again six years later, he was still a fundamentalist Christian, but he had long since dropped all his support for the ICR and for creation science. He had seen the light and had realized that he could not rest his faith on such quicksand. That debate in 1985, the first one I had ever attended myself, although I had read some accounts and transcripts of other debates, also served to launch a little of my own research. That is where I heard Morris tell of a recent NASA document, written "well into the space age," which shows that if the moon were really as old as we think (about 4.5 billion years), then there should have been much more meteoric dust on it than we had actually found. I wrote to the ICR asking about this claim and Gish answered my letter with a copy of a letter written by the originator of the NASA-document claim, Harold Slusher, in which he cited and quoted from his source, the "1976" NASA document "Meteor Orbits and Dust" (NASA SP-135, Smithsonian Contributions to Astrophysics Vol. 2), and used it to support his calculations of the annual influx of meteoric dust onto the earth (214 million tons). After rescaling his figures for the moon, he concluded that a 4.5-billion-year-old moon would have to be covered by a layer of dust 284 feet thick. While browsing through the NASA documents at the Cal-State Fullerton University library (praise be to libraries with open stacks!), I spotted "Meteor Orbits and Dust", pulled it off the shelf, and immediately saw that it was dated 1965! Slusher had misrepresented the date by 11 years! Upon examination of the referenced text within the document, I found that his single direct quote was a gross misquotation (on the basis of which he had included one factor), that he had badly misused the basic mathematical procedures for handling that included factor, and that he had included another factor which his referenced text clearly stated did not apply. In all, he had inflated his figures for the earth by a factor of one million (which when corrected for yields an infall of a measly 214 tons -- far too little) and for the moon by a factor of 10,000 (which when corrected yields a layer of dust 1/3 inch thick -- far thinner than we found). Even more important was that when I informed Gish of my findings, first he tried to bluff his way through and then he completely ignored it. Slusher skipped the first step and completely ignored my letters; I later learned that Slusher never answers his mail, at least mail that questions his findings or methods. Another researcher, Thomas Wheeler, reported having made the same discovery and others. I have not yet had time to do a proper write-up of my findings, but will do so soon for inclusion on my web page. In the meantime, you can read about Wheeler's findings embedded in a rather lengthy exposition at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/matson-vs-hovind.html, "How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments? A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims" by Dave E. Matson. There is another web page which covers the moon-dust claims rather thoroughly, but I forget where it is; I'll have to Yahoo for it when I have the time. The only other debates I had been to were "amateur night" affairs run by Scott Alexander (or Alexander Scott ?) who had a creationist fossil shop, In the Beginning, in The City Mall back around 1990. He also owned the kiosk shop there, Oingo Boingo (or something like that). Of course, both businesses closed long ago, even before that City became a ghost town. I heard a rumor that he had re-opened "In the Beginning" in Lake Elsinore or Temecula. It was at that shop that a customer had tried to use an "after-life insurance" re-dressing of Pascal's Wager on me, whose fallacies I was easily able to expose since I was already familiar with the Wager's problems. I think I already told you that story. I think he ended up having three or four of these "debates", in which anybody could get up and make a presentation, at about one or two month intervals. I spoke at most of them, mainly addressing false claims of creation science. I remember one young (about 19 or 20) creationist who got up filled with confidence that what he was about to say would completely blow the "evolutionists" away and started off by announcing that that was exactly what he was about to do. But when he announced that it had been discovered that the speed of light was slowing down, the target half of the audience burst into laughter. We had heard it long before that and already knew why it was wrong, which members of the audience immediately started to explain to the speaker, much to the dismay and bewilderment of the poor guy (I do not condone the audience's behavior, but it did have a quite an effect). Claims like that sound impressive to the novice, but not to veterans. Unfortunately, I had not completed my analysis of MONKEY until shortly after he discontinued these events, or else I would have presented it there. Somehow, I got the impression that the debates were not going as Alexander had hoped, but that impression is very subjective. There is even a big debate going on as to whether we should engage in these debates at all. Remember that they started off in the 1970's as a purely creationist show. The ICR's travelling show would rope some unsuspecting local teacher or scientist into debating them. The victim would go in expecting to engage in a debate, but would instead get cut to pieces by being hit with outlandish claims that the poor guy had never heard before and was unprepared to respond to on the spur of the moment. As I heard Fred Edwords describe it, you know those claims to be wrong, but how do you explain to the audience why they are wrong within the format and time constraints of a debate? Duane Gish became reknowned for a technique called the "Gish Gallop", in which he would start hitting his opponent with one "insoluable problem" after another in rapid succession. It isn't that his "challenges" are unanswerable, it's that many of the answers are non-trivial and would take considerable time and preparation to answer, far more so than is available in a debate or, for that matter, in any real-time spoken medium (like a phone conversation). Through such chicanery, the ICR built up a reputation of never losing a debate. Sure, some of their opponents may have come out ahead, but that news remained local and nobody else would ever hear about it, especially not the next town the ICR's show would stop in. The ICR's newsletter, Acts & Facts, would always proclaim creationist victories even when they were defeated, as in the 19 Sep 1981 Morris/Miller debate in Tampa Bay. Although Acts & Facts reported that Morris "seemed to materially strengthen the creationist position in the Tampa area", reality was otherwise. Even the choir (eg, a clerk in a religious store) said that the creationist got beat. Even though before the debate the local school board had mandated teaching creationism, after the debate they put the planned creationist curriculum on permanent hold. "Materially strengthen[ed]"? ("Creation-Evolution Debates: Who's Winning Them Now?" by Fred Edwords, Creation/Evolution, Issue VIII, Spring 1982, pp 30-42) But, as Leo Buscaglia had once described, out of a dung heap there grows a beautiful flower (from a story of how he as a boy always hated having to clean up the dog poop, until he discovered a beautiful rose growing where he would deposit the droppings). Those victims, still smarting from their experiences, started studying creation science. They learned what the claims were along with their purported sources. They then verified those sources and very quickly learned how they had been misrepresented. Through their regular professional contacts, they started sharing their experiences and research findings with each other. Those contacts developed into informal groups. Then the groups started communicating with each other. Soon, there were groups in almost every state in the nation and in many Canadian provinces. After the revolutionary groups in the Revolutionary War, they started calling themselves Committees of Correspondence (CCs). When they found that they needed a more centralized coordinating body and a clearinghouse for information, they formed the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). And along the way, the sharing of their experiences, information, and research caused a turn-around in the debates. The creationists started losing debates, even though their own publications still claimed victories (at one, the audience started at about 90% creationist, but dropped to 66% at the end of the debate, which prompted the creationists to declare a victory -- so go figure). In addition, teachers and school boards beleaguered by creation science activists found the NCSE to be a source of information, advice, and support. It has made a big difference. Earlier this year on CompuServe, I had provided someone with an informal synopsis of the history of creation science. I'll pull it out and pass it on to you. Anyway, in the debate on whether to debate, some of the pros and cons are, as I recall them off-hand: Cons: 1. debates are inherently win-lose affairs, which is inappropriate for science 2. engaging in debate with creationists implies validity to their claims and raises the status of creationism in the public eye. 3. a well-intentioned yet ill-prepared debater losing to a creationist can strengthen the creationist position and weaken science education. This can also happen if the debater is well-prepared, but lacks the skills for communicating effectively to a non-scientific audience (ie, if he speaks over the audience's heads, then if doesn't matter that he had just totally demolished a creationist claim if the audience is unable to realize that fact). Or if he exhibits an attitude that alienates or antagonizes the audience (eg, a clip on PBS showing a well-known biochemist with an Italian name which I cannot remember right now, in a debate telling the audience, which looked Amish, that they had already lost the war between science and religion). 4. These debates are part of the creationist game and a debater gets sucked into having to play by their rules, ie, a very general debate subject (eg, "Resolved: Creation is a better explanation that Evolution") which allows the creationist a lot of room to maneuver out of the way of specific questions, an audience stacked with creationist sympathizers, having scientific questions decided by rhetoric rather than by analysis of the evidence. Many debaters have repeatedly tried to get the leading creationists to debate on specific scientific questions (eg, the age of the earth) without success. In one case, Gish was scheduled for a debate but he immediately cancelled out when he learned that the subject had been changed to a specific scientific question. In another case, a debater agreed to debate a local creationist on a specific question, only to find the sponsoring group substituting Gish and a general subject shortly before the debate; the debater went on anyway rather than allow Gish to preach unopposed. 5. The audience is already creationist and nothing you say will change their minds. Pros: 1. The creationist is going to give his presentation anyway, so why allow his false claims to be promulgated with no one to inform the audience of the gross errors contained within. 2. By debating, you let the public know that science does have answers to the questions raised by creation science, whereas refusing to enter into debate gives the impression that the creationists are right in claiming that you have no answers (as you have been witnessing to me through your own silence). 3. Not all the audience has bought into creation science completely, so you do have a chance to inform the undecided and perhaps even some of the "faithful" (eg, that Redlands debate where a a 90% creationist audience became 66% creationist). 4. A debate is also an opportunity to educate the audience; for many in the audience, this is their only chance to learn something about the science involved. Indeed, one professor said that he looked forward to these affairs since, compared with his usual students who just sit there looking bored, the debate audiences show great interest and attentiveness when he speaks. As I tried to convey, this list is incomplete, but it should at least give you some idea of the debate on debates. An account of the organization and running of one particular debate which demonstrates Con#4 is to be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-rob-day.html: An Account of a Debate with a Creationist Rob P. J. Day n Friday, October 19, I debated the merits of creation science with Ian Taylor of the Creation Science Assoc. of Ontario (CSAO) at the University of Winnipeg, an event sponsored by Christian Education Consultants (CEC) of Manitoba. This event was notable not only for what transpired at the debate itself, but for the underhanded tactics used by the organizers before, during and after the debate in order to discredit me in any way possible. In a sense, this article could be subtitled, "I Was Set Up For a Creationism Debate -- and Survived," and what follows is a personal account that I hope will alert others who, like me, are naive enough to expect fair treatment from the creationist lobby and their supporters. ## END FIRST PARAGRAPH ### Personally, what I would like to see done is for the Two-Model Approach (TMA) to be taken at face value (just for sake of an exercise, since the entire TMA is utterly bogus) and applied in a debate-like presentation. By this, I mean that we look at a particular question, such as the age of the earth or a specific group of fossils, and what the creationist and scientific claims are regarding that question, then look at what the actual evidence is and which position the evidence does support. Years ago, I had performed such an exercise on CompuServe and should dig it up and prepare it as a web page. I had written to Nova years ago with this suggestion, but it never happened. The closest I have seen to this approach being taken is Arthur Strahler's book, "Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy", much of which consists of paired chapters giving first the creationist claims and then the scientific findings. At the very least, such exercises are best to be done in a written medium, given the amount of information and detail required and the rigor with which these exercises should be performed. A publicly staged debate in which all the questions were given out in advance and in which both sides could prepare presentations to answer those questions could work. However, I believe that a telephone conversation would not be appropriate. All that said about debates, I wish to inform you of an upcoming debate on PBS' Firing Line. Here is the announcement from the NCSE's web site (http://www.natcenscied.org/firlin.htm): National Center for Science Education Special Announcement NCSE's Eugenie Scott To Appear On Firing Line On December 19, 1997, the well-known PBS program "Firing Line" will air a two-hour special on the evolution-creation controversy. The program will be a debate, taking place on a college campus before a student audience. Host William Buckley has once again invited Michael Kinsley, editor of the on-line magazine Slate, to moderate. Buckley will join other debaters arguing in favor of the resolution, "Resolved: The evolutionists should acknowledge creation." Guests have been chosen from the best-known anti-evolutionists, and the leading defenders of evolution. Dr. Eugenie C. Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education; Rev. Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State; philosopher Michael Ruse, author of But Is It Science? and Monad to Man; and Kenneth R. Miller, Div. of Biology and Medicine, Brown University. Buckley will be joined by law professor Phillip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial; biochemist Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box ; and mathematician David Berlinski, whose anti-evolution article in Commentary drew considerable attention last year. (Miller and Johnson have already participated in an online debate sponsored by the television science series "Nova".) The live broadcast of Firing Line will be at 8:00 PM Eastern time on December 19; be sure to check your local listings for broadcast times in your area. ## END ANNOUNCEMENT ### Bill, as far as I can tell, KCET will be airing that debate at 2:00 PM (1400 in real time) on Saturday, 20 Dec. BTW, that Miller/Johnson on-line debate is at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/debate/index.html and reads: How Did We Get Here? (A Cyber Debate) NOVA Online asked two leading spokesmen in the evolution/creation debate to discuss the question, "How did we get here?" The participants have agreed to keep their letters to less than 500 words and have been given equal time to write them. The debate will continue into December with a new letter every 3-4 days. It should be noted that neither Miller nor Johnson were involved in the production of NOVA's Odyssey of Life. In chronological order: 1.November 11, 1996: Kenneth R. Miller 2.November 19, 1996: Phillip E. Johnson 3.November 23, 1996: Kenneth R. Miller 4.November 26, 1996: Phillip E. Johnson 5.November 30, 1996: Kenneth R. Miller 6.December 3, 1996: Phillip E. Johnson 7.December 6, 1996: Kenneth R. Miller 8.December 9, 1996: Phillip E. Johnson ## END ### > Have you ever heard my lesson? I don't know, have I? You certainly have had plenty of opportunity to present it to me. What I have found most striking about you is that you seem to do everything you can to NOT say anything. Eg, you asked me "Do you think the earth is 4.6 billion years old? Why?" (97-08-10 21:54:42 EDT) I answered your question and then reversed your question: "Do you think the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Why?" You never responded. Why not? You have certainly made your young-earth beliefs well known. Eg, you claimed that "not one evolutionist has yet [found a single error in Weird Science]", yet when I found it to be full of errors in practically every single frame on every single page and responded to each of those errors, your only response was to say that I had misspelled a name. If your claims were true and defensible, then why would you make absolutely no attempt to defend them? Eg, every month you present claims, such as the recent protein comparison claims à la Denton. Yet when I informed you of the error in that claim and explained it to you, you did nothing more than to pay me a vague compliment, as if you were trying to "smile me out the door". Does that mean that you yourself realize that your claims have no basis? Then why do you continue to make them? For that matter, you have avoided answering every question put to you. Why? If you really believe that the truth, the facts, and the evidence is on your side, then why do you avoid any and all discussion of it? You might want to take a look at that report by Rob Day, "An Account of a Debate with a Creationist", at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-rob-day.html. Towards the end, he describes how the group organizing the debate had paniced when they discovered that he was already familiar with his creationist opponent's claims and arguments and how his opponent had avoided saying anything about creation science. He also tells of two creationists speaking at another event who quickly changed their presentation and avoided saying anything about creation science claims when they learned that two individuals familiar with the subject were in the audience. Sounds rather familiar to me, you know? Do you have a lesson to present? Then please, go right ahead and present it. Nothing is stopping you, nor has anything ever been stopping you. PS I still have no idea what you were talking about in your 10 Oct 97 message to me: Subj: Re: Where'd ya go? Date: 97-10-10 01:07:56 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 Its not! BillyJack6 Re: Where'd ya go? What's "not"? Please, explain what you meant. #################################### Subj: Re: This Saturday's Debate Date: 97-12-15 00:59:15 EST From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 Please give me the strongest piece of scientific evidence that teh blue whale is realted to bacteria. BillyJack6Re: This Saturday's Debate ##################### Subj: Re: This Saturday's Debate Date: 97-12-23 01:19:51 EST From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: DWise1 >Please give me the strongest piece of scientific evidence that teh blue whale is realted to bacteria. DNA and biochemistry for starters. So you're still playing games. The "Gish Gallop" doesn't work so well on-line, does it? But then the "Gish Gallop" is only a cheap rhetorical trick, not a technique employed by someone who seriously seeks discussion and information. I've always tried to be up-front and straight-forward with you. In return, you have been extremely evasive and have avoided all serious discussion and answering any of the questions that I have put to you: Eg, you asked me "Do you think the earth is 4.6 billion years old? Why?" (97-08-10 21:54:42 EDT) I answered your question and then reversed your question: "Do you think the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Why?" You never responded. Why not? You have certainly made your young-earth beliefs well known. Eg, you claimed that "not one evolutionist has yet [found a single error in Weird Science]", yet when I found it to be full of errors in practically every single frame on every single page and responded to each of those errors, your only response was to say that I had misspelled a name. If your claims were true and defensible, then why would you make absolutely no attempt to defend them? Eg, every month you present claims, such as the recent protein comparison claims à la Denton. Yet when I informed you of the error in that claim and explained it to you, you did nothing more than to pay me a vague compliment, as if you were trying to "smile me out the door". Does that mean that you yourself realize that your claims have no basis? Then why do you continue to make them? I still have no idea what you were talking about in your 10 Oct 97 message to me: Subj: Re: Where'd ya go? Date: 97-10-10 01:07:56 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 Its not! BillyJack6 Re: Where'd ya go? What's "not"? Please, explain what you meant. Do I need to start posting a count of how many times I have asked you this question? You asked me: > Have you ever heard my lesson? Well, do you have a lesson to present? Then please, go right ahead and present it. Nothing is stopping you, nor has anything ever been stopping you. #####################