Archives Evolution/Creation: The Truth 5/17/2004

>>> David Buckna <dabuckna@direct.ca> 05/09/04 04:02PM >>> To: The Sunday Edition c.c. Michael Enright "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." -- Theodosius Dobzhansky "A true scientist would say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evidence." -- Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution" New York Times science writer Natalie Angier commented:"Well, of course we have to teach evolution in our schools! How can we expect to breed a new generation of scientists if we ignore one of the fundamental tenets of it [science]?" Can Ms. Angier cite even one intelligent design theorist who _doesn't want_ evolution taught in the schools? One of the problems in the educational system today is that for the most part, evolution -- by that I mean _macro_evolution-- is not being critically examined and evaluated in the schools. [Note: Even creationists accept _micro_evolution, although prefer to call it _micro_variation -- variation within a created kind eg. species of finches on the Galapogos Islands have shown to have a variation in the size of their beaks, depending on the food supply affected by climatic conditions. The finches are still finches, although evolutionists will proclaim: "Here is evolution in action!" This is just microevolution/speciation (variation within a created kind). I wish Michael would have asked Ms. Angier this question: ***"Can you state any one thing about _macro_evolution you know to be true? How do you know it's true?"*** One popular biology textbook used in public schools is "Inquiry Into Life" by Sylvia Mader, published by McGraw-Hill Ryerson. On page 529 (eighth edition) are diagrams of giraffes which compare Lamarck's theory and Darwin's theory. According to Darwin, "Early giraffes probably had necks of various lengths. Natural selection due to competition led to survival of the longer-necked giraffes and their offspring. Eventually, only long-necked giraffes survived the competition." Regarding giraffes, shouldn't students be taught to distinguish between fact and speculation? No fossil evidence has ever been unearthed showing giraffes with shorter necks. Even ardent evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould had commented on the "indefensible" and "entirely speculative" use of the giraffe to show students how Darwin's theory is better than Lamarck's earlier view. "No data from giraffes then existed to support one theory of causes over another, and none exist now, " said Gould. "...the spotty evidence gives no insight into how the long-necked modern species arose. ... The standard story, in fact, is both fatuous and unsupported" (Stephen Jay Gould, May 1996, "The Tallest Tale," Natural History, Vol. 105 No. 5, pp. 18-23, 54-57). Critical thinkers should be asking, "Why are these diagrams included in Mader's book, if the empirical evidence doesn't support a Lamarkian or Darwinian view of giraffes? Is this good science? The claim of evolutionists that there are fossil *ancestors* for giraffes is story telling. There's not a single transitional form between the so-called short-necked "giraffe" and the modern long-necked giraffe. For example, calling the fossil Palaeotragus a "giraffe" certainly doesn't make it a "giraffe" or the ancestor of giraffes, any more than calling Hyracotherium a "horse" makes it a "horse" or the ancestor of horses. Of course, evolutionists maintain the okapi is a "living example" of one of these short-necked "giraffes". I've not read all the literature on giraffes, but what I've found in my brief search is that Colbert and Morales (5th edition) devote two paragraphs of their book to giraffes, Robert Carroll devotes one paragraph, Romer devotes two paragraphs, and Barbara Stahl devotes one paragraph to the origin of giraffes. Concerning the okapi, Stahl says "The only other extant giraffe is the rare okapi?this lone form, in which the lengthening of the neck and forelegs is far less pronounced than in Giraffa, seems to be a relic derived with little change from Paleotragus or a close ally". She repeats an often-told errorÐ-that the forelimbs of the giraffe are longer than the hind limbs. As Gould points out in his article on giraffes (Natural History May 1990, p. 22) both pairs of legs of the giraffe are equally tall. It would seem that if some ancient "giraffes" evolved into the modern giraffes, evolutionists would have more than a paragraph or two to tell about this incredible transition, and could give examples of fossils showing the transition of the short necks into the long necks of modern giraffes. It's certainly _easy enough_ for evolutionists to pick out something and call it a "giraffe" and thus generate an ancestor for giraffes. Carroll illustrates a marvelous example of how other ancestors are generated: He suggested that the wolf-like Mesonychus (which he believes was the terrestrial ancestor of whales) should be placed in the Order Cetacea. Since the Order Cetacea is reserved for whales, presto! Mesonychids are whales! But with regard to the evolution of giraffes, what is required is a compelling gradual series of intermediate-length neck giraffes in the sedimentary rocks --- 10 to 20 would do nicely. But where are they? * The article, "The Rise of Life on Earth", in the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, is an example of an evolutionary article. It's typical of readings given to students studying evolution. Teachers should be encouraged to distribute such articles and three different coloured markers to each student, then ask them to mark the verified facts with one colour, the opinions with another and the suppositions with another. Students should be taught to weigh the factual evidence, evaluate statements and recognize the writer's purpose and point of view. It would be interesting to take nationwide polls in Canada and the U.S. of middle school, high-school and college students studying evolution, asking two questions: In this class, is evolution taught as fact or theory? Do you have the academic freedom to critique evolution? For further reference: "Teaching Evolution -- Is There a Better Way?" by Ian Taylor (www.creationmoments.com/resources/article.asp?art_id=26) [Taylor lives in Kingston, Ontario] and Teaching Origins in Public Schools A PROPOSED APPROACH TO TEACHING ORIGINS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AN EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE CREATION-EVOLUTION CONTROVERSY By David N. Menton http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/teach.htm For a counterpoint to Natalie Angier's views, I would encourage The Sunday Edition to interview people such as Ian Taylor, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, David Menton, and Jonathan Sarfati (author of Refuting Evolution) If science is a search for truth, no scientific theory should be allowed to freeze into dogma, immune from critical examination and evaluation. David Buckna Kelowna, B.C. co-author of: SHOULD EVOLUTION BE IMMUNE FROM CRITICAL ANALYSIS IN THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM? http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-282.htm === More info: Dr. David N. Menton is a former Associate Professor of Anatomy, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, now retired. In his Sept. 23, 1995 address ("Evolution: Is a scientific critique possible?") at the Abbey Arts Centre in Abbotsford, British Columbia, Menton commented: *** "What I'm suggesting in the classroom is: not teaching creation. What I'm suggesting you consider in the classroom is: teach evolution the way your Minister of Education says you ought to--teach the curriculum the way they say you ought to. I believe in obeying the laws. I didn't come here to tell you to get yourself thrown out of a job or anything like that...Do what you're asked to do. But there isn't anyone that's going to stop you from presenting critical evidence against evolution. No one. I eagerly look forward to the first test case in court, where they drag a teacher kicking and screaming into the courts who has done the job they're supposed to do. They've taught evolution--they've covered the curriculum--they've covered the points in the book--but they also presented scientific evidence that is critical of these evolutionary views--evidence generated by other evolutionists themselves. I'm waiting for the court case when they take that person in the school and say:'You have no right presenting scientific evidence from evolutionists critical of evolution.' I'll tell you--the approach that is being taken here guarantees one thing...you're guaranteeing this course is going to be boring -- you're going to teach evolution as a 'Just So Story'. Anyone with dissenting points of view is going to get crushed. They're either going to go along with the evolutionary paradigm, or be told that they can't speak out; they're not going to win that round, and neither will you. You're going to bore your kids silly." *** Articles by David Menton: <http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/papers.htm> === In May 2001 Dr. Jonathan Wells (Discovery Institute, Seattle) -- author of "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?" (Regnery, 2000) (www.iconsofevolution.com) -- presented the lecture, "Promoting Accuracy in Biology Textbooks", at the British Columbia Science Teachers Association conference, to a packed audience: *** PROMOTING ACCURACY IN BIOLOGY TEXTBOOKS Introductory biology textbooks cannot be expected to cover everything, but what they do cover should be presented as accurately as possible. Yet many textbook presentations of the evidence for evolution are seriously deficient. Some common "evidences" were discredited decades ago, while others continue to be presented in distorted or misleading ways. In the interest of educating good scientists and promoting public respect for the scientific enterprise, we need to correct such misrepresentations and bring our biology textbooks more into line with recent discoveries. *** ----------------------------------- Note: Luther D. Sunderland assisted the New York State Board of Regents in a study of how theories on origins could legally be taught in public schools. --- http://evolution-facts.org/c22.htm Sunderland compares the tall tale with scientific information: "It is speculated by neo-Darwinists that some ancestor of the giraffe gradually got longer and longer bones in the neck and legs over millions of years. If this were true, one might predict that there would either be fossils showing some of the intermediate forms or perhaps some living forms today with medium-sized necks. Absolutely no such intermediates have been found either among the fossils or living even-toed ungulates that would connect the giraffe with any other creature. "Evolutionists cannot explain why the giraffe is the only four-legged creature with a really long neck and yet everything else in the world [without that long neck] survived. Many short-necked animals of course existed side-by-side in the same locale as the giraffe. Darwin even mentioned this possible criticism in The Origin, but tried to explain it away and ignore it. "Furthermore it is not possible for evolutionists to make up a plausible scenario for the origination of either the giraffes long neck or its complicated blood pressure regulating system. This amazing feature generates extremely high pressure to pump the blood up to the 20-foot-high brain and then quickly reduces the pressure to prevent brain damage when the animal bends down to take a drink. After over a century of the most intensive exploration for fossils, the worlds museums cannot display a single intermediate form that would connect the giraffe with any other creature."ÐLuther D. Sunderland, Darwins Enigma (1988), pp. 83-84. --- > This book presents the substance of these interviews through the use of short > excerpts and summaries of the replies to the questions. Anyone, however, can > gain access to the original typed verbatim interview transcripts which were > prepared for the New York State Education Department by going to any public > library in the United States and asking for the ERIC Document Reproduction > Service microfiche ED 228 056, Darwin's Enigma: The Fossil Record. ==== > LUTHER D. SUNDERLAND, B.S. (Penn State University), an aerospace engineer with > the General Electric Company, was involved for 30 years with the research and > development of automatic flight control systems (autopilots) for a number of > aircraft such as the F-111, Boeing 757 and 767. He was elected to the > engineering honor society Tau Beta Pi, is an Associate Fellow in the American > Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics, authored many published articles > and papers on aviation, and holds a number of patents in his field. As an > avocation he spent over 20 years intensively studying the scientific evidences > relating to theories on origins. He appeared frequently on radio and > television and lectured over 500 times on three continents to civic > organizations, state and congressional legislative committees, science > teachers' organizations and many universities about this topic. He assisted > the New York State Board of Regents in a study of how theories on origins > could legally be taught in public schools. He is also author of the > audio-visual presentation, Scientific Evidences on Origins: What Do The > Fossils Say? (Also available on video from: CLP Video, P. O. Box 983, El > Cajon, CA 92022). ==== > > Darwin's Enigma > by Luther Sunderland * ©1988 * PREV NEXT > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Chapter 1 > > The Problem Won't Go Away > 100 Years After Darwin > > > > There is a widespread and ever-escalating interest in the subject of origins, > not only regarding the origin of the human race but how all life, the earth, > and the universe came into existence. Mankind has always been curious about > where things came from, but there has never been more concern about it than > there is today. > > With the mind-boggling advancement explosion in science and technology, > solutions have been found for numerous problems and puzzles which for ages > troubled the human race. Even in areas where complete solutions have not been > realized, much encouraging progress has been made. Secrets of the atom have > been unlocked and harnessed, worldwide transportation and communication have > been made readily available to the public, the solar system has been explored, > serious war has been avoided, many complex mysteries of the living cell > unraveled, and cures for diseases developed. But with each step of progress, > the search for a scientific, naturalistic explanation for the origin of things > has consistently and paradoxically been producing more questions than answers. > > Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the > bottom line on origins had finally been figured out and settled are today > confessing that they were completely wrong. They have discovered that their > previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile > evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries. > This has necessitated a change in their basic philosophical position on > origins. Others are admitting great weaknesses in evolution theory. One of the > world's most highly respected philosophers of science, Dr. Karl Popper, has > argued that one theory of origins, almost universally accepted as a scientific > fact, does not even qualify as a scientific theory. A 1980 display at the > prestigious British Museum of Natural History made the same admission. > > Outer space was once believed to hold the key to unlocking the mystery of > origins, but explorations of the moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn > emphatically brought down those hopes with a resounding crash. Just a few > years ago, prominent scientists were making bold assertions that the evolution > of life was not only probable but inevitable on other solar system planetary > bodies, and that the study of that life would help solve the mystery of the > origin of terrestrial life. Now, however, they are giving up, convinced there > is no hope of ever finding extraterrestrial life in the solar system and only > the remotest hope of finding life anywhere except here on earth. The millions > of dollars spent on radio-telescopes in search of intelligent radio messages > from outer space have produced only negative results. > > When Watson and Crick discovered the helical structure of the DNA molecule and > the general way that it coded the formation and replication of proteins in > cells, there were great expectations that a plausible scientific explanation > for the origin of life was just over the horizon. The laboratory synthesis of > amino acids from basic chemicals further heightened the expectations that man, > with all his intelligence and resources, could synthesize a living cell. These > hopes have also been dashed with the failure to generate life in the > laboratory, and researchers are stating that new natural laws will need to be > discovered to explain how the high degree of order and specificity of even a > single cell could be generated by random, natural process. > > Geology and paleontology held great expectations for Charles Darwin, although > in 1859 he admitted that they presented the strongest single evidence against > his theory. Fossils were a perplexing puzzlement to him because they did not > reveal any evidence of a gradual and continuous evolution of life from a > common ancestor, proof which he needed to support his theory. Although fossils > were an enigma to Darwin, he ignored the problem and found comfort in the > faith that future explorations would reverse the situation and ultimately > prove his theory correct. He stated in his book, The Origin of Species, "The > geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent > explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the > extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who > rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly > reject my whole theory."1 > > Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological > exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely > more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered > containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with > over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of > this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators > to determine if Darwin was on the right track. > > What is the picture that the fossils have given us? Do they reveal a > continuous progression connecting all organisms to a common ancestor? With > every geological formation explored and every fossil classified it has become > apparent that these, the only direct scientific evidences relating to the > history of life, still do not provide any evidence for which Darwin so > fervently longed. The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing > even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized > away with appeals to the imperfection of the fossil record. But those > unwilling to accept defeat have altered the scenario a bit. > > By the 1970s prominent scientists in the world's greatest fossil museums were > coming to grips with the so-called "gaps" in the fossil record and were > cautiously beginning to present new theories of evolution that might explain > the severe conflicts between neo-Darwinian theory and the hard facts of > paleontology. Back in 1940, Dr. Richard B. Goldschmidt had faced the horns of > this dilemma-of-the-gaps with his hopeful monster theory, the idea that every > once in a while an offspring was produced that was a monster grossly different > from its parents.2Goldschmidt's revolutionary ideas were ridiculed for many > years, but by 1977 respected scientific periodicals like the American Museum's > Natural History magazine were publishing articles predicting the vindication > of Goldschmidt's theory within a decade.3Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of > Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum, was collaborating with Dr. > Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, and calling their new theory, aimed at > explaining the gaps, "punctuated equilibria." They thought that it was an > improvement over Goldschmidt's hopeful monster theory, although it differed > insignificantly. > > Dr. David Pilbeam, curator of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale > and later professor of anthropology at Harvard, wrote an article in 1978 > entitled "Rearranging Our Family Tree" in which he stated that we had been > wrong in the past and that he was convinced we would not hit upon the true or > correct story of human evolution.4 > > Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in > Chicago, published an article in the January 1979 issue of the museum's > journal entitled "Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology" in which he > stated that the 250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited > in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped > for by Darwin.5 The following April, Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior > paleontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of > Natural History, wrote in a letter to the author that he didn't know of any > real evidence of evolutionary transitions either among living or fossilized > organisms.6 > > By the late 1970s, debates on university campuses throughout the free world > were being held on the subject of origins with increasing frequency. Hundreds > of scientists who once accepted the theory of evolution as fact were > abandoning ship and claiming that the scientific evidence was in total support > of the theory of creation. Well-known evolutionists such as Isaac Asimov and > Stephen Jay Gould were stating that since the Creationist scientists had won > all of the more than 100 debates, the evolutionists should not debate them. > > In December of 1978 the New York State Board of Regents directed the New York > State Education Department to do a detailed study of how theories on origins > should be treated in a revised version of the state's Regents Biology > Syllabus. As part of their study they invited the author to supply pertinent > scientific information to the Bureau of Science Education which was conducting > the study. > > During the next year the author conducted taped interviews with officials in > five natural history museums containing some of the largest fossil collections > in the world. The interviews were with Dr. Colin Patterson in London; Dr. > Niles Eldredge in New York City; Dr. David M. Raup in Chicago; Dr. David > Pilbeam in Boston; and Dr. Donald Fisher, state paleontologist at the New York > State Natural History Museum. Written transcripts of the interviews were given > to the New York State Education Department for use in their study on origins. > > In these interviews, the paleontologists were questioned in detail about the > nature of the fossil record from the deepest deposits containing fossils to > the most recent. Typed transcripts of the five interviews were then sent to > the interviewees for editing. All but Dr. Patterson made editorial corrections > before they were published for use by educators in various states. > > This book presents the substance of these interviews through the use of short > excerpts and summaries of the replies to the questions. Anyone, however, can > gain access to the original typed verbatim interview transcripts which were > prepared for the New York State Education Department by going to any public > library in the United States and asking for the ERIC Document Reproduction > Service microfiche ED 228 056, Darwin's Enigma: The Fossil Record. > > If information about the true nature of the fossil record, so vividly > described in these interviews, were to be presented without bias in public > school textbooks, there would be no need for over half of the state > legislatures to be considering legislation requiring open academic inquiry > into the teaching of theories on origins. It is not so much a problem of > failing to include in textbooks the simple factual statement that there is an > alternative to evolution theory -- which is accepted by the majority of the > public -- that a supernatural power created the universe and first life. > Rather, the main issue is that textbooks and other school materials are > completely devoid of certain very significant scientific information which is > talked about behind closed doors but not made available to the public. Should > the information presented in this book be openly discussed in public > education, the controversy would be defused and cease to be the hottest issue > in public education. === > http://www.cbc.ca/insite/THE_SUNDAY_EDITION/2004/5/9.html > > RELIGION AND SCIENCE > Duration: 00:21:30 > > > Michael speaks with New York Times science writer Natalie Angier about why > she's feels scientists are treading lightly when empirical answers are asked > for to explain religious questions. She wrote about the topic in a recent > article in the publication, the American Scholar.