Fredric Rice corrects another unfortunate Creationist


Creationist Cults

> Hi Frederic,


> Thanks for taking the time to reply.

No problem. Your local library, however, should be where you should be going to get your questions answered. All of your questions are addressed in popularized text books that should be in probably any local library. Indeed, all of the claims you forward later have been debubunked in popularized text books for the past 40 years.

> To exclude spontaneous generation, abiogenesis or biopoesis
> (or any other term you want to assign to the concept) from
> the oncept of evolution is just not possible.

Evolution doesn't address the origins of life. Evolution only addresses the advent of species. One may understand and describe the behavior and attributes of complex storms and tornadoes -- meterology -- without understanding the hadrons and leptons -- particle physics -- which comprise the atoms. Avenues of scientific inquiry may overlap but they're still different arenas.

> Without a beginning of life, volution would have
> nothing to modify.

True yet the origins of life have nothing to do with the advent of species.

> If it can be shown that this concept of life originating
> from no life can be proven, then prove it. In all my
> research it I have found it has not been proven and is
> considered only a hypothesis.

You've left the arena of evolution and have entered a whole new arena. The theories which attempt to describe the origins of life have nothing to do with the theories which attempt to describe the advent of species.

> You can't consider it proven because of the necessity
> of the concept to validate evolution.

Evolution is a directly observed phenomena which requires no validation -- unless you wish to get Zen and suggest that reality isn't real or that the universe disappears when one turns its back on reality.

> The simple formation of very basic chemicals necessary
> for life in very controlled labratory conditions does
> not in any way prove that life can originate by this
> method.

Theories don't attempt to prove anything unless they're mathematical models. What theories do is provide a set of hypothesis and predictions which -- when applied -- test against observed phenomena. If the hypothesis match the observations and if the predictions match observations, the theories _remain_ unproven however the body of _evidence_ which suggests that the theories are correct grows.

Most theories become so well evidenced true that it becomes an absurdity to ignore them however no theory is ever proven. Science seeks to acquire the closest approximation of truth possible; it never seeks to prove things, only to disprove.

> The whole concept of volution falls by this single point.
> Please state your sources.

Evolution is a directly observed phenomena. There are a spectrum of closely-related theories which attempt to explain the observed phenomemna. While any or all of the theories may be inaccurate or even in error, the observed fact of evolution remains an observed fact.

> Also, if the concept of evolution only was concerning
> the variation of traits within a species,

It is. Evolution is the label for the observed phenomena of speciation. There are a number of closely-related theories of evolution which seek to explain that observed phenomena.

Your local library has text books which discuss what evolution is and what evolution is not. Surely you have a library soewhere near you, I'm sure.

> I would have no problem with that. That's called
> micro-evolution and has ben observed.

There's no such thing as "micro evolution" or "macro evolution." There is only evolution. Fundamentalist Christian cults were eventually forced to accept evolution -- after centuries of denial -- but they amusingly persist in trying to deny it by coming up with a bifurcation that has no meaning in biology. Unfortunately there are some scientists out in the real world which fell for the ploy and figure it's only a matter of time before cultists finally accept _all_ the truth.

> However, it is the leap to the conclusion that this
> explains macro-evolution or the variation across
> species that I find fault with.

Evolution is evolution. There is no notion that it only happens to some species of plants and animals and not on other plants and animals. Indeed, were evolution to not be observed for some plants and animals but is observed for others, the theories developed to explain how evolution happens would encompass explanations to describe why it's observed in some but not all plants and animals.

> This has not been observed and the fossil record
> clearly does not support it.

Evolution is a directly observed phenomena. The fossil record is filled with examples of well documented speciation events. You local library will have references for you however I can provide references for observed speciation events if you wish; as many as you would like.

> If macro-evolution were true the fossil records would
> be littered with transitional species.

There's no such thing as "macro evolution." There is only evolution. And yes, the fossil record is filled with "transitional species." Indeed, all fossils are "transitional species." Indeed, you yourself is a "transitional species."

Science doesn't have the concept that species evolve to some point and then stop. Humans aren't the last word in bipedal primates on this planet; it would be conceited to think so.

> Millions and millions of fossils have been found and
> it appears that species appeared out of nowhere and
> in a fully developed form.

Which isn't surprising given the fact that fossilization is a rare phenomena. The fossil record shows exactly what the theories of evolution say the fossil record should show. Gaps in the record are no different than the gaps in a family photograph album however one can point at a man and -- after noting that the photo album doesn't contain pictures of the boy -- claim the man doesn't exist.

> Also, it's not just the creationists that find serious
> faults with the concept of evolution. There are a
> considerable number of scientists (although a minority)
> who are not creationists who seriously question or wish
> to abolish the thought of evolution because they feel
> it just does not follow the laws of science.

There are a lot of hydrolic engineers out there that think they're scientists. And there are a lot of scientists who like to pontificate their religious notions in arenas they are untrained.

In fact the only people who deny observed phenomena are those who don't wish to accept what their own senses tell them. Regardless, the observed phenomena still lives; the real world doesn't disappear just because some people want it to go away. Gravitation doesn't stop just because a bunch of people vote to ignore it.

Science doesn't care what people believe or disbelieve. Evolution isn't subject to belief or disbelief. Certainly it's subject to denial or acceptance.

> Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they
> do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though
> their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other
> areas of science probably vindicate it.

Most scientists accept gravity without bothering to see what gravitation theories have to say about how the phenomena of gravitation works.

> They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists
> know their facts, and research does not prove evolution,
> but assume that geology does.

Ignorance runs rampant, huh? Geology isn't evolution and evolution isn't geology. Species can become geologically divided and thus isolate a parent species which then gives advent to a speciation event, but geologists who pontificate upon evolution do so at their own risk.

> The geologists know their field does not prove evolution,
> but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven
> it.

But then nobody needs to prove observed phenomena. No one goes out and tries to prove that gravity exists. To be sure people come up with scientific theories which attempt to explain _why_ and _how_ gravity exists however that doesn't detract in the least the fact that gravity exists.

And when scientists speaking within their field debate the theories of gravitation, that doesn't mean that gravity will some how stop existing.

> Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the
> general public, lest they be fired.

What? What facts are these? Who?

> But they do write articles in their own professional
> journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.

No peer reviewed journal speaking in the biological sciences ever suggests that evolution doesn't happen. If you know of any such references, do be sure to provide them.

> There are scientists all over the world who know that
> evolutionary theory is bankrupt. Such men as *Charles
> Darwin,

Darwin is dead and knew nothing about genes. Additionally Charles Darwin was a staunchly religious man who suffered under the religiously-mandated willful ignorances of his day. He lived in a society where Christians felt that a women's place was in the home and that it was acceptable to treat Negroes and women as property.

In any event, no scientist speaking within his or her venue suggests that "evolutionary theory is bankrupt." In fact what we always find are cultists speaking from ignorance outside of their field of study, offering opinions on things they don't wish to understand because they mistakenly think that accepting science some how adverly impacts their faith in their deity constructs.

Additionally if one doesn't like some aspect of one of the theories which attempts to explain evolution, one needs to explain _which_ theory one's having problems with. And, of course, a failing in a theory about how something works doesn't detract one iota from the fact that the something continues to work.

> *Thomas and *Julian Huxley,

People speaking outside of their arena of education offering their unevidenced opinions.

> and *Steven Jay Gould have admitted it.

References for this claim would be welcome. A reference wherein Mr. Gould suggests that evolution doesn't happen some how would be quite amusing at this point. }:-} It would have all the classical fun that was attained when cultists tried to claim Charles Darwin made a "deathbed confession." }:-}

> But you will not find these statements in the popular
> press. Such admissions are only made to fellow
> professionals.

It would seem there's some kind of Satanic conspiracy. > Here are just a few quotes: (keep in mind these scientists
> are not trying to push the hidden agenda of God and I did
> not write a single one of these quotes)

<laughing> This should prove amusing.

What usually happens is that the cultist cut-and-pastes dozens of claims and comments by others that have been debunked for decades -- if not centuries. The cultist takes 30 seconds to forward his or her notions he or she believes is some how evident in the mistaken notions of others and then fully expects the scientist to expend the hours it takes to explain why the cultist he or she is quoting was mistaken.

Let's see if you do that, too.

> "I have often thought how little I should like to
> have to prove organic evolution in a court of law."
> -*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society,
> London (1966) [an ichthyologist (expert on fish) in
> a 1988 address before a meeting of the Linnean Society
> in London].

Not surprising given the gross ignorance of the populace in all things scientific. One would be hard pressed to explain lightening in a court of law -- even in the United States in the 21'st Century, leave alone in 1966 London.

A populace jury as ignorant as London in 1966 would be just as difficult to teach as a populace jury in the year 2002. I wouldn't want to try to explain things to a jury, either, even if given all the time in the world.

> "I doubt if there is any single individual within the
> scientific community who could cope with the full range
> of [creationist] arguments without the help of an army
> of consultants in special fields."-*David M. Raup,
> "Geology and Creation," Bulletin of the Field Museum
> of Natural His­tory, Vol. 54, March 1983, p. 18.

Of course not given the broad spectrum of bizarre claims that Creationist cultists make. Creationists take ten minutes to speak a hundred unevidenced claims -- it's easy to claim that the speed of light isn't constant or that there's evidence for a "world wide global flood." Indeed, the phenomena of laying down lie after lie quickly in succesasion is known as the "Gish Gallop" after the profoundly insane cultist from the euphemistically named "Institute for Creation Research,"

At the same time science is a body of knowledge built upon evidence and theories which require lengthy periods of time to explain. It's why we have four year colleges. The cultist can take 15 seconds to speak a lie and it takes the scientist an hour to explain the physics underlying the physical impossibility of the lie, another half hour to explain the methodology of experimentation which debunked the lie a century ago, and another half hour to describe the contemporary debunkings given the improvement of technology since then.

Few serious scientists even bother to "debate" cultists due to the ease with which outrageous and unevidenced claims can be made and given the amount of time and effort needed to debunk the cultist.

> "The evolutionary establishment fears creation science
> because evolution itself crumbles when challenged by
> evidence. In the 1970s and 1980s, hundreds of public
> debates were arranged between evolutionary scientists
> and creation scientists. The latter scored resounding
> victories, with the result that, today, few evolutionists
> will debate. Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, and the
> late Carl Sagan, while highly critical of creationism,
> all declined to debate."-James Perloff, Tornado in a
> Junkyard (1999), p. 241.

And for all the reasons described above. Whether one wins or loses an argument or a debate, what remains is the observed phenomena. Debate doesn't determine whether something happens or whether something doesn't happen. Reality isn't a matter of popularity, nor a matter of how much time and effort is expended to explain it.

> "No one has ever found an organism that is known not
> to have parents, or a parent. This is the strongest
> evidence on behalf of evolution."-*Tom Bethell, "Agnostic
> Evolutionists," Harper's, February 1985, p. 61.

My guess is that the author has never heard about mononucleosis. > "As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms
> must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded
> in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in
> confusion instead of being, as we see them, well-defined
> species?"-*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch,
> Evolution or Creation (1866), p. 139.

Science had yet to discover DNA or the genetics which were based upon DNA. And in fact every fossil is a "transitional life form" and every currently living plant and animal one can point to today is also a "transitional life form."

You yourself are a "transitional life form." Your ancestors won't look anything like you. Your own parents don't look exactly like you, in fact.

> "Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost
> all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to
> bend their observations to fit in with it."-*H. Lipson,
> "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31
> (1980), p. 138

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education offering his or her unevidenced opinions.

And in fact science has nothing to do with religion. And of course scientists also accept the observed fact of gravity and for all the same reasons. One wonders whether the author also wishes to suggest that everyone who accepts gravity is also some how religious.

> "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact
> to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the
> result of scientific research, but purely the product
> of imagination."-*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

Speaking outside of his or her area of education -- and also ignoring the evidence to the contrary.

> "It is almost invariably assumed that animals with
> bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive
> animals from which all others derived. They are commonly
> supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their
> appearance. There is not the slightest basis for
> this assumption."-*Austin Clark, The New Evolution
> (1930), pp. 235-236.

Science doesn't have notions of "primitive" or "superior" life forms. No plant or animal species is considered to be "primitive" or "superior" in reference to any other life form.

Likewise the author ignores the extant evidence.

> "The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic
> matter is, at present, still an article of faith."-*J.W.N.
> Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

The origins of life are a different subject from evolution. The fact that life occured on the Earth is hardly a matter of faith inasmuch as one can quite easily observe it.

> "Where are we when presented with the mystery of life?
> We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have
> not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth,
> nothing of life."-*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery
> of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.

There's a good peer-reviewed scientific journal. > " `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain
> the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "-Sir
> John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution
> or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic
> valve].

Evolution has nothing to do with "the inorganic world." The author should look at physics, geology, astronomy, and all the other arenas of science if he or she wishes to learn about "the inorganic world."

> "I think, however, that we must go further than this
> and admit that the only acceptable explanation is
> creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists,
> as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory
> that we do not like if the experimental evidence
> supports it."-*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at
> Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

Yes, we know that the religious hold unevidenced religious notions. The fact that evolution is a directly observed phenomemna discounts any unevidenced notiosn of "creation" -- as it does unevidenced notions involving pixies, fairies, werewolves, and vampires. And for all the same reasons.

> "I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or
> that his influence in scientific and public thinking
> has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was
> accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."
> -*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's,
> Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].

It hardly matters what an author believes or doesn't believe. Science doesn't care what someone believes or doesn't believe about something.

And in fact biological sciences makes no sense without a theory designed to explain evolution. Zoological clasification would be impossbile without in innate understanding of the biological sciences.

> "One of the determining forces of scientism was a
> fantastic accidental imagination which could explain
> every irregularity in the solar system without explanation,
> leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a
> gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the
> discovery of fossils which have never been discovered,
> and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which
> have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might
> truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.'
> "-*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

Interesting religious notions yet unevidenced in science. There's nothing about the Solar System which can not be explains and described by science. There are no "gaps" in "the atomic series" which needs to be explained since there is no evidence that "gaps" exist. The gaps in the fossil record are _predicted_ by contemporary theories of evolution which point out the fact that fossilization is rare and -- more to the point -- point out that one doesn't need to have a series of one-second photographs of a growing child to prove that a man exists.

> "The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical
> system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like
> a principle of medieval astrology than a serious
> twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality
> for evolutionary biologists."-*Michael Denton, Evolution:
> A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular
> biologist].

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education. Science has repeatedly debunked astrology ever since it was first contrived by the superstitious -- just as creationism has been routinely debunked by science ever since people started trying to claim they had gods and goddesses.

In any event, evolution is a directly observed phenomena which is not subject to belief or disbelief.

> "The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable
> evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find
> qualified professional arguments for any group being the
> descendant of almost any other."-J. Bonner, "Book Review,"
> American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education offering his or her unevidenced opinions.

Welcome to the scientific process. The fact that scientists speaking within their arena of education discuss evolutionary theories is because the theories need to be developed. No scientist speaking within his or her venue ever suggested that evolution doesn't happen some how.

What we find more of, however, are cultists who have no training in biological sciences pontificating with pretend authority.

> "It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God
> and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that
> its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual
> revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected
> the way men viewed themselves and their place in the
> universe."-*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in
> Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education offering his or her unevidenced opinions.

None of Darwin's theories addressed theology. Indeed, Darwin was a staunch Creationist cultist who died thinking he had discovered something about his Christanic pantheon.

> "I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning,
> consequently assumed it had none, and was able without
> any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this
> assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in
> the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem
> in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there
> is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he
> wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my
> contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was
> essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation
> we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain
> political and economic system and liberation from a
> certain system of morality. We objected to the morality
> because it interfered with our sexual freedom."-*Aldous
> Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report:
> Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson
> of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend
> and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley.
> Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal
> writers of the 20th century].

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education offering his or her unevidenced opinions.

Here is why we find cultists not wishing to accept what their own senses tell them about reality. Because there are no grand answers, no magical solutions, no reason behind things that happen, cultists created gods to explain them.

When the river flooded and drowned one's children, a reason had to be created to make the death some how reasonable. A river goddess was created. When the volcanoe exploded and choked the life out of an entire village, volcanoe gods were created to explain the "anger" -- and the priesthood was created to exploit the fear.

Thus we find why a small percentage of an otherwise reasonable populace are unwilling to accept the fact of evolution. Huxley summarized why superstitious cultists cling to their superstitions even in light of the advent of science, public libraries, computers, the Internet, and the free access to information which should have erased their ignorance long ago -- were it not willful.

> "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This
> theory has helped nothing in the progress of science.
> It is useless."-*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October
> 1963) [Director of Research at the National center
> of Scientific Research in France].

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education offering his or her unevidenced opinions. In fact the author doesn't even seem to know that there are a number of theories which attempt to explain evolution.

> "Scientists have no proof that life was not the
> result of an act of creation."-*Robert Jastrow, The
> Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

The lack of evidence for any "creation," of course, adds to the fact that science doesn't address religious notions.

In any event, the origins of life have nothing to do with evolution or the theories which attempt to describe and explain the observed phenomena of evolution.

> "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific
> religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and
> many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit
> in with it."-*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution,"
> Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education offering his or her unevidenced opinions.

Scientists accept the fact of evolution for the same reasons they accept the fact of gravitation.

> "With the failure of these many efforts, science was
> left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having
> to postulate theories of living origins which it could
> not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian
> for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found
> itself in the unenviable position of having to create
> a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that
> what, after long effort, could not be proved to take
> place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval
> past."-*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education offering his or her unevidenced opinions.

All of the extant evolutionary theories make predictions which are not only testable yet which pass every test.

> "The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a
> widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was
> all but proved one hundred years ago and that all
> subsequent biological research-paleontological,
> zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and
> molecular biology-has provided ever-increasing evidence
> for Darwinian ideas."-*Michael Denton, Evolution: A
> Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education offering his or her unevidenced opinions.

And in fact evolution was observed long before Charles Darwin codified and classified what was already known,

> "The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism
> was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from
> biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more
> incredible deity-omnipotent chance."-*T. Rosazak,
> Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education offering his or her unevidenced opinions.

And in fact science doesn't address religious notions. And in fact Charles Darwin was a staunch cultist until the day he died.

Still, here we see the author unknowingly expressing what his or her reasons are for trying to deny the observed phenomena of evolution. There remains a small percentage of cultists around the world that cling to the mistaken notion that having to accept science some how detracts from their religious beliefs.

It used to be that faith was enough to continue to cling to a religious notion. Creationists fear science because they mistakenly think that science some how negates their gods. Evolution, gravitation, nuclear physics, or any other science other than human psychology -- the sciences don't address religious notions yet some cultists believe that they some how threaten their gods and goddesses.

The irony is that these cultists see themselves as being some how stronger than their more honest fellow cultists when in fact Creationists exhibit the behavior they do because their faith is weak; they feel that their religious beliefs and their gods are threatened by science so they must refuse to accept science.

> "Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution,
> considered as a simple, understood and explained
> phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us.
> Biologists must be encouraged to think about the
> weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians
> put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit
> is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some
> people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook
> reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and
> falsity of their beliefs."-*Pierre-Paul de Grasse,
> Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education offering his or her unevidenced opinions.

One wonders whether this cultist is also going to start attacking mathematics, geology, astronomy, cosmology, planetology, nuclear physics, and all the other sciences.

There's considerably irony in cultists claiming they wish to re-establish reality, of course. > "The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as
> an innocuous natural philosophy,

Which evolution theory? There are several.

> but that it is a serious obstruction to biological
> research. It obstructs-as has been repeatedly shown-the
> attainment of consistent results, even from uniform
> experimental material. For everything must ultimately
> be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot,
> therefore, be built up."-*H. Neilsson, Synthetische
> Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education offering his or her unevidenced opinions.

The author doesn't even note which theory he's having difficulty understanding.

> "It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists
> and layman that Darwinism is under attack.

And while cultists attempt to deny science, science will continue to progress just fine leaving the cultists behind. No problem.

> The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century
> religion

Here ths author states his or her reason for not accepting the fact of evolution. The belief that science some how has anything to say either for or against religious occultism is silly. But at least the cultist is telling us what his or her problem with science actually is.

> has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn,
> is being threatened by fresh ideas.

Oh? What "fresh ideas?" The occult superstitious occultism that cultists express to try to deny evolution are older than the cults the cult followers belong to. Indeed, the notion that gods and goddesses created life go back 10,000 years -- before the last ice age.

> The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the
> creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny
> Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main
> thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself.

No scientist speaking within his or her venue suggests that evolution doesn't happen.

> The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt
> from within rather than a siege from without."-*B. Leith,
> The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about
> Darwinism (1982), p. 11.

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education offering his or her unevidenced opinions.

> "My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment
> carried on for more than 40 years have completely
> failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having
> started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary
> standpoint."-*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

The author sought to duplicate in 40 years what it took physics one billion years. Golly, wonder why he failed.

And in fact speciation events have occured within the life times of humans and references are available upon request; any number you wish, in fact.

> "Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by
> people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-
> Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose
> faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen
> their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the
> gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But
> it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very
> little impact on the actual progress of the work in
> biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism
> and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the
> progress of science."-Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior
> paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History,
> London].

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education offering his or her unevidenced opinions.

And in fact Darwin was a Christian cultist.

> "Throughout the past century there has always existed
> a significant minority of first-rate biologists who
> have never been able to bring themselves to accept the
> validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of
> biologists who have expressed some degree of
> disillusionment is practically endless."-*Michael Denton,
> Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education offering his or her unevidenced opinions.

There's always going to be religious cultists who won't accept science when they mistakenly feel that accepting science adversely impacts their occult superstitions.

Belief or disbelief, however, doesn't negate observed phenomena.

> "I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet
> lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates
> are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems
> of the evolution theory. These problems will not be
> solved unless we bring them to the attention of students.
> Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing
> link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges
> to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and
> many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate
> our basic assumptions."-*Director of a large graduate
> program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge
> (1982), p. 26.

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education offering his or her unevidenced opinions.

And in fact evolution remains evidenced while the theories which attempt to explain evolution change as new evidence is fitted into place.

> "The creation account in Genesis and the theory of
> evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right
> and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed
> with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did
> not find a series of fossils covering the gradual
> changes from the most primitive creatures to developed
> forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species
> suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a
> complete absence of intermediate fossils."-*D.B.
> Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times,
> England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education offering his or her unevidenced opinions.

The author talks about classical Summerian mythology and about science in the same sentence -- a logical absurdity. Science doesn't address the occult.

Additionally science doesn't have a notion of "primitive" or "more complex" or "superior;" science has only life forms; evolution has only life forms that are better fitted to exist in a certain environment than other given life forms.

> "From the almost total absence of fossil evidence
> relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that
> any explanation of the mechanism in the creative
> evolution of the fundamental structural plans is
> heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear
> as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack
> of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure
> conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not
> even have a basis to determine the extent to which
> these opinions are correct."-*Pierre-Paul de Grasse,
> Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education offering his or her unevidenced opinions.

Not all organisms fossilize. Fossilization is a rare phenomena. Regardless, evolution is a directly observed phenomena which doesn't care whether the fossil record is complete or incomplete. Additionally contemporary theories which attempt to explain and describe the fact of evolution _predict_ the fact that the fossil record will have gaps.

> "We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in
> spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters,
> nor are we likely to make further progress in this by
> the classical methods of paleontology or biology;
> and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping
> up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so,
> am his prophet.' "-*Errol White, Proceedings of the
> Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education offering his or her unevidenced opinions.

In fact the mechanics, method, mode, and frequency of evolution are well documented and described. The author apparently doesn't have access to a library.

What's also telling is that the author accidentally explains why he or she doesn't accept the fact of evolution: he or she mistakenly believes that Darwin is a god the equal to his own pantheon.

> "I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common
> ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring,
> not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been
> positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about
> evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge,
> but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the
> question I have been putting to people, `Is there
> one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of
> answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution
> does not convey any knowledge."-*Colin Patterson,
> Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of
> Natural History (November 5, 1981).

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education offering his or her unevidenced opinions.

Presumably this author doesn't have access to a library.

> "What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing
> whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of
> the unseen-belief in the fossils that cannot be
> produced, belief in the embryological experiments
> that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified
> by works."-*Arthur N. Field.

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education offering his or her unevidenced opinions.

And the fact that embryology shows multiple stages of foetus development whichcan only be described as including fish-like traits further makes this cultist's religious notions something of an irony.

> "Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an
> exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy
> ourselves as the only true students of life's history,
> yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by
> natural selection we view our data as so bad that we
> almost never see the very process we profess to
> study."-*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982),
> pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading
> evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the
> twentieth century].

Welcome to the Scientific Method. Any good theory needs to be held in contempt by scientists otherwise it's not a good theory. Atheory which can't stand up to rigorous testing must be discarded and yet what we find is that the contemporary set of closely-related theories designed to explain the directly observed fact of evolution stand up to tests very well.

> "The problem of the origin of species has not advanced
> in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have
> already passed during which it has been said that the
> evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving
> real proofs of it and without even a principle of
> explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty
> years of research that has been carried out along this
> line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no
> discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in
> different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack
> of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular
> biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery
> of reproduction and heredity .. .

The author apparently doesn't have access to a library. At least the author acknowledges the fact that evolution is a directly observed phenomena. That the author is unaware of the theories which attempt to explain and describe the phenomena is unfortunate but would be understandable if the author is religiouslly willfully ignorant.

> "Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible
> as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that
> intelligence comes before life. Many people will say
> this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing
> I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes
> out of an analysis and observation of the facts."-*G.
> Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant
> la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.

<laughing> What an utterly bizarre notion. About the equal to gods and goddesses, wouldn't you say?

> "The theories of evolution, with which our studious
> youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma
> that all the world continues to teach; but each, in
> his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains
> that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . .
> It results from this summary, that the theory of
> evolution is impossible."-*P. Lemoine, "Introduction:
> De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937),
> p. 6.

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education offering his or her unevidenced opinions.

> "Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed
> to document the all-purpose role of natural selection.
> It is a creed with masses of people who have at best
> a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed
> by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his
> successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a
> scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is
> not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the
> meaninglessness of existence."-*R. Kirk, "The
> Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May
> 27, 1983), p. 641.

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education >offering his or her unevidenced opinions.

> "I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory
> of evolution because of its ability to account for
> any property of living beings (the long neck of the
> giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see
> whether biological discoveries over the last thirty
> years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not
> think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not
> stand up at all."-*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at
> Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education offering his or her unevidenced opinions.

The author doesn't explain _which_ theory of evolution he or she has difficulty understanding. In any event if there's a problem with any of the aspects of any of the theories which attempt to explain and describe the fact of evolution, that lacking doesn't impact the fact of said observed phenomena.

> "Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."-*John
> Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for
> Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary
> Thought.

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education offering his or her unevidenced opinions.

> "Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most
> explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they
> hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are
> suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of
> being called hypotheses."-*Norman Macbeth, Darwin
> Retried (1971), p. 147.

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education offering his or her unevidenced opinions.

> "It is not the duty of science to defend the theory
> of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end-no
> matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it
> offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists
> recognize the patently obvious impossibility of
> Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut
> the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for
> such a long time. It is choking us and holding us
> back."-I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in
> Probabilities (1985).

Someone speaking outside of his or her arena of education offering his or her unevidenced opinions.

The author also doesn't explain _which_ theory of evolution he or she doesn't understand.


> If you want more there are many, many more!

Yes, I already knew that the religious believed in a lot of bizarre unevidenced notions. I also already knew that a lot of said cultists love to speak outside of their venue, expresasing their willful ignorance about things they simply don't want to accept.

> Now, I won't say that there are still not questions
> that we can't explain in creation,

"Creation" is religion so you've changed the subject. You were talking about evolution.

> but the decision on which concept to embrace must be
> based on examination of the evidence of the truth of
> both and the scientific evidence certainly favors
> creationism.

Creationism is religion. You're mixing religious occultism with science for some reason.

> Just like in a court of law where jurors are asked to
> make a decision of someone's guilt or innocence without
> being present at the scene of the crime, we must examine
> the evidences to come up with a verdict which is proven
> beyond a reasonable doubt.

Scientific truth doesn't care whether a jury finds something to exit or not. Observed phenomena don't care whether a majority or a minority of people hold opinions or beliefs about it. Evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to belief or disbelief. Evolution is a directly observed phenomena which doesn't care if a majority or a minority vote to ignore or accept it.

> The truth is, and I will be the first to admit it, is
> that we will never have absolute proof while we are
> here in this life as to the absolute proof of either
> concept.

That's absurd. Gravity exists just fine regardless of the fact that there are a number of closely-related theories which attempt to explain and describe gravitation.

Also science doesn't deal in "absolute proof." Science works with evidence and theories attempt to acquire a description and explanation for an observed phenomena knowing well in advance that one can never acquire a 100% "absolute proof" truth. Science shoots for as close an approximation of truth as is possible.

> However, evolution can't be proven beyond reasonable
> doubt as evidenced above by all the quotes from scientists
> questioning it's shortcommings.

Any scientist who claims that anything both mathematics can be proven is a scientist who is ignorant.

In any event no scientist speaking within his or her venue ever suggests that evolution doesn't happen some how.

> So, what do we beleive.

Science doesn't care what you believe or disbelieve. Fact remains fact without being approved or disapproved.

> If I believe that there is a God and choose to follow Him
> in this life and I am wrong, at the end of my life I will
> simply cease to exist. The worst thing that will happen
> is that I will live a life adhearing to principles that
> promote love for others and a desire to live a rightous life
> free from commiting crime, adultry, murder, sexual immorality
> etc. If I am correct, however, I am assured that if I follow
> Him I will receive a reward in the afterlife.

Pascal's Wager was debunked the same day he contrived it -- as were all of the creation mythologies which came before and after him.

You picked one set of gods and goddesses out of an available pantheon of millions -- billions if you include ancestor worship. Woops! If you want to play Pascal's game, you have to believe in all the gods and goddesses to win. If you pick one set of gods and goddesses -- say from the Christian pantheon -- you have to explain why you picked those and not all of the others. And in fact any other cultist can point at their own gods and goddesses and make the same faulty argument.

Finally if one looks at the history of the world one finds that belief in the gods and goddesses bring inhuman tyranny upon the world. Christianity's history is the worse, in fact, with Islan and Judism coming in behind a close second and third.

On the flip side, atheists are grossly under-represented in the American prison system. The evidence suggests that the lack of deity belief leads to either a more ethical and moral life than a belief in deities, or the lack of deity beliefs makes people smarter than theists since atheists manage to pull off crimes while avoiding getting caught.

> If you are correct then at the end of your life you
> will simply cease to exist also, just like me if there
> is no God. However, if you are incorrect it is clear
> that there will be a punishment awaiting you upon your
> demise.

You express your reason for willfully not understanding what evolution is and what evolution is not. You mistakenly think that science some how negates your gods. You can't have your gods negated because you fear the unavoidable eventuality of your own death. Most theists accept the fact of evolution because they don't mistakenly believe that science will exterminate their gods.

Atheists manage to live with the reality of their own death and as such don't feel the need to deny the reality of what their own senses tell them.

> Keep in mind I am not making this up. It is clearly stated
> in the Bible!

The classical Christanic mythologies make a lot of unevidenced and contradictory claims. That you feel the mythologies are some how meaningful in light of the scientific progress and education contemporary humans have achieved over the ignorant savages who penned the Christanic mythologies over the past 7,000 years is utterly irrelevant. Science doesn't care what you believe or disbelieve.

> I did not make the rules!

Nobody did. That's why you don't wish to know what evolution is and what evolution is not.

> So you had better be very sure of your position.

Science doesn't deal with "sure." Science only deals with evidence, with what's demonstrable, and theories which work to detract from the aspects of said theories.

> Also, I have yet to have any Christian claim belief in
> any goddesses, pixies, fairies, or werewolves. Only in
> one God described in the Bible. This is just not a true
> statement and you know it.

You should probably read the classical Christanic mythologies once, I guess. When you visit your local library to start finding out what evolution actually is, you might also do a little research into the origins of the classical Christanic mythologies. You may be surprised to note that the "Adam and Eve" mythology was originally penned to include the goddess Lilith. Indeed, reseach the origins of the goddess Lilith and Isis and, in so doing, find the origins of the Christan cult.

> I absolutly agree with you in saying that science
> should be about the gathering of knowledge with no
> pre-existing bias.

The scientific method isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement. Whether you agree with the scientific method or not is what's at issue when it comes to evolution, gravitation, pixies, werewolves, vampires, gods, and goddesses.

> However, after the gathering of this knowledge it can
> be applied to explain the nature of our universe and
> the life within it.

The origin or origins of the Universe is a matter of cosmology and nuclear physics, not evolution. The origin or origins of life are a matter of abiogenisys. The advent of species is the venue of evolution.

> Otherwise science is just the gathering of useless
> facts and does us no good.

You're using a computer, I note, and not a charcol stick scraped on birch tree bark.

> The truth is that creationists embrace science!

Some Creationists don't know what scientific method is, and the rest don't care what scientific method is.

> It's the hidden agenda of many evolutionists to
> drive God out of the picture to free themselves
> to do whatever they want without any consequence.

Science doesn't address gods and goddesses either for or against. Additionally science doesn't care about what people do or why they do it -- unless it's human psychology being the science discussed.

In any event it's always atheists that evidence the superior ethic and morality.

In any event most theists accept science -- which includes the fact of evolution -- because they understand that science doesn't detract from their occult beliefs.

> Everything becomes OK since without God we are just
> animals decended from slime and therefore we can
> behave just as we want to without regard to what is
> right and wrong.

Let's hope that your neighbors aren't in any danger on the day that you finally discard your occult superstitions. If you need to believe in deity constructs to avoid murdering your neighbors and rapeing their dogs, you're a danger.

Atheists, on the other hand, understand that they're responsible for their own actions and can't blame their problems and their actions on their gods. Unfortunately the world's bloody history is the result of theists trying to justify their inhumanity as the will of their gods.

> It is the hatred of God by a few men that was the
> catylyst for the formation of the evolutionary theory.

Darwin was a staunch Christian. One has to wonder whether you think the theories which attempt to explain and describe gravitation are also some how hate against your gods.

> The hidden agendas that these men had was certainly
> not based on anything that is scientific!

Fortunately we have uneducated inbred morons who have no idea what science is to come in and save the day by telling us they have invisible gods to offer humanity instead of science.

> Also, calling others "inbread morons" is an
> unjustified attack against someone because you don't
> beleive in what they do.

Science doesn't care what one believes or doesn't believe. Either Creationist cultists are inbred morons else they're _willfully_ ignorant and pathological liars. One would think that they would perfer to be recognized as inbred morons than as pathological liars.

> It is an attempt to discredit others by attacking them
> personally and not on the basis of the facts.

Science "discredits" mistaken notions quite nicely.

> Thanks for your time, and I hope this helps you
> understand the truth of just what is going on out
> there in the world.
> Steve

What we found once again was another insane inbred moron who sent e-mail to a scientist pretending to be asking questions about an artifact of science, pathologically lying about wanting to know the answers to questions he -- meaning you -- could have easily looked in at your local library.

What we further found was that said scientist -- meaning me -- answered the cultist's rhetorical questions easily, noting that the cultist could have simply gone to his local library.

When the cultist -- meaning you -- read the response, you -- like any other Creationist cultist -- ignored it entirely and did the ole' cut-and-paste to unthinkingly forward your freakishly bizarre occult notions without a shred of thought and without any desire to have your occultism debunked. This is typical of cultists: they spend a few minutes offering lie after lie knowing that it takes scientists hours to address each lie and knowing that the cultist -- meaning you -- is not in the least bit interested in the debunking.

Not we get to the point where your notions were -- as is always the case -- soundly debunked. You won't bother reading yor debunking. You won't even _think_ about going to your local library to find out what evolution actually is and what evolution is not, and you won't even _think_ about finding out what scientific method is.

Instead you'll persist in your grand delusion, ignorantly convinced that scientific fact some how threatens your gods and goddesses, your pixies and fairies, your vampires and werewolves.

Those who do not employ reason can't be reasoned with. But in the end, science wins again. Science always wins.

Any text written by the creationist cult which may be quoted within this criticial examination of the creationist cult is provided according to U. S. Code Title 17 "Fair Use" dictates which may be reviewed at

"You can lie about ICR all you want." -- Jason Daniel Henderson

"Thank you for your permission however there's never any need to. Creationist propaganda is already self-debunking." -- Fredric L. Rice


The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Organized Crime Civilian Response®.

This web site is not affiliated or associated with any creationist cult in any way and neither the web site host, the web site owner, or any of the authors which assisted in debunking creationist nonsense are in any way connected with any creationist cult.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank