Some evolutionary-creationist ?'s

[learning]

If these have been answered before, please excuse me. I've asked some of the ?'s that have been up by creationists before, and some have been answered.

But this is one I wonder about. So... if this has been answered elsewhere here, just direct me to the post.

So, here goes

A teacher of science in the homeschool community shows these reasons why this scientist doesn't believe in evolution.

In Apologia Science, the ? or thing that is brought up, is that atoms have to be 'just so' for them to be, and that RNA is made up of so many atoms that have to be in a specific order, or they won't be what they should be.
He says that this is too specific to have happened by chance, both the atoms and the RNA.

Also, he claims that the cambrian explosion has 'every basic body plan' was found in it in Charles Walcotts fossils. That this was hidden for years, this info. Here's a link with a better explanation of this.

It's on this link www.highschoolscience.com/ but under 'Hand Outs' under
'Creation vs Evolution.'

so... I guess my question is/are about the need for specifics in the small level of science and how that relates to life and evolution/creation/design thing.

Also, is it true that these fossils were
1. hid because they did show every basic body plan?
2. Does this or doesn't this hurt/help evolution? and how?

I'ld like to hear from both sides, if you're willing.

[shunyadragon]

If these have been answered before, please excuse me. I've asked some of the ?'s that have been up by creationists before, and some have been answered.

But this is one I wonder about. So... if this has been answered elsewhere here, just direct me to the post.

So, here goes

A teacher of science in the homeschool community shows these reasons why this scientist doesn't believe in evolution.

In Apologia Science, the ? or thing that is brought up, is that atoms have to be 'just so' for them to be, and that RNA is made up of so many atoms that have to be in a specific order, or they won't be what they should be.
He says that this is too specific to have happened by chance, both the atoms and the RNA.

Also, he claims that the cambrian explosion has 'every basic body plan' was found in it in Charles Walcotts fossils. That this was hidden for years, this info. Here's a link with a better explanation of this.

It's on this link www.highschoolscience.com/ but under 'Hand Outs' under
'Creation vs Evolution.'

so... I guess my question is/are about the need for specifics in the small level of science and how that relates to life and evolution/creation/design thing.

Also, is it true that these fossils were
1. hid because they did show every basic body plan?
2. Does this or doesn't this hurt/help evolution? and how?

I'ld like to hear from both sides, if you're willing.

Nothing realy new and nothing that remotely effects science. The most simplistic basic common error is in the statement 'too specific to have happened by chance'.

Evolution does not happen by 'chance'. Evolution happens within the constraints of the laws of science, the materials available and the environmental conditions. Randomness only plays a role in probability of certain events taking place within the process of evolution.

The rest gets worse.

[JonF]

If these have been answered before, please excuse me. I've asked some of the ?'s that have been up by creationists before, and some have been answered.

But this is one I wonder about. So... if this has been answered elsewhere here, just direct me to the post.

So, here goes

A teacher of science in the homeschool community shows these reasons why this scientist doesn't believe in evolution.

In Apologia Science, the ? or thing that is brought up, is that atoms have to be 'just so' for them to be, and that RNA is made up of so many atoms that have to be in a specific order, or they won't be what they should be.
He says that this is too specific to have happened by chance, both the atoms and the RNA.

Well, everybody agrees that RNA did not happen by chance. Creationists think it was created (by divine fiat or divinely guided evolution or something like that), "evolutionists" think that it was developed by a combination of random changes and natural selection (which is not "random chance"). One thing is certain; anyone who thinks that "RNA could not have happened naturally" is an argument against any theory either does not understand current theories or is being deliberately misleading.

I haven't ever heard "atoms could not have happened by chance". I'd like to see the probability calculations on which this claim is based (but I know they don't exist). His claims about atomic structure in that handout are just a variation on the anthropic principle argument, discussed at Claim CI301 and delightfully summarized by Douglas Adams:

Douglas Adams

. . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in'an interesting hole I find myself in'fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

© source where applicable

The fact that we live in a universe in which we can live does not in itself lead to a conclusion of Divine intervention; the theory of evolution also predicts that life will evolve to live in the environment.

Also, he claims that the cambrian explosion has 'every basic body plan' was found in it in Charles Walcotts fossils. That this was hidden for years, this info. Here's a link with a better explanation of this.

It's on this link www.highschoolscience.com/ but under 'Hand Outs' under
'Creation vs Evolution.'

so... I guess my question is/are about the need for specifics in the small level of science and how that relates to life and evolution/creation/design thing.

Also, is it true that these fossils were
1. hid because they did show every basic body plan?
2. Does this or doesn't this hurt/help evolution? and how?

I'ld like to hear from both sides, if you're willing.

I haven't seen this claim before, which is somewhat unusual. Here's the claim:

Dr. Jay L. Wile

Charles Walcott’s discovery of every basic body plan in Cambrian rock has shown that this is a construct of human imagination, not the data!

Walcott’s Fossils, 60,000 in all, demonstrate what evolutionists call the “Cambrian Explosion.” It is a mystery in evolution. Walcott had uncovered data that was REVOLUTIONARY. The fossils demonstrated that invertebrates DID NOT evolve into vertebrates over a period of hundreds of millions of
years. They show that the bottom five layers of the geological column are demonstrably false.

What did he do with the data? He hid it in his lab for almost 80 years until it was rediscovered by a graduate student!

© source where applicable

Well, I don't see any indication that Dr. Wile knows anything about biology, geology, or palenotology. I do see some indication that he doesn't know much about how to construct educational materials; what he's got there is known as "unsupported assertions". He gives no way that anyone can check up on his claims or find out more about them.

I can't even find any other creationists making this claim on the Web, which is very unusual; most creationist arguments are duplikcaated thousands of times. I do find that Charles Walcott discovered the Burgess Shale, arguably the greatest repository of Cambrian fossils found to date. He did excavate thousands of fossils which went to the Smithsoniaan Institution. It may have taken some time to analyze all those fossils; there aren't that many people who can do such analyses. But I can't find any indication that any were hidden, deliberately or by mistake, or that any evidence was suppressed. See The Burgess Shale Fauna and the Cambrian Period and C.D. Walcott. I think it's up to Dr. Wile or his supporters to present evidence supporting their claims of suppression of inconvenient evidence, both the suppression and the inconvenience, and more discussion of how this supposedly invalidates the "bottom five layers of the geological column". Dollars to donuts it's all based on misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation, just like the first claim I discusssed.

As to the claim about "every basic body plan", that depends on how you define the number of basic body plans. Certainly there are major differences between the fauna of the Cambrian layers and the fauna of later layers and today. No "evolutionist" much cares whether "every basic body plan" developed in the Cambrian or later; the theory of evolution can accomodate either result as long as we don't have to postulate rates of change that are too fast for evolutionary processes or changes that are impossible for evolutionary processes (e.g. evolutionary processes can only produce modifications to existing structures; they can't come up with something that has no precursors). Calculations and investigations to date indicate that there are no such problems. So, to date all the fossil evidence fits with the theory of evoluton and doesn't hurt it. Something else may turn up tomorrow; don't bet the farm on it happening.

[Tiggy]

Hi learning

First off, I’d like to acknowledge your wonderful attitude of being willing to listen and learn. It’s quite refreshing, especially given the caliber of know-it-all boneheads like Jorge we usually get. Keep asking questions!

That said, the “home school” lessons you cite are pure unadulterated creationist horse hockey.

The “life (or RNA) is too improbable” argument has been beaten to a greasy pulp too many times to count. Basically, no one can show that the structure of our specific RNA or DNA sequences is the ONLY possible way for life to exist. The odds of a specific person winning a lottery may be a million to one, but if millions of people play then the odds of someone winning are almost certainty.

Probability of Abiogenesis arguments FAQ

The Walcott disinformation is so wrong it borders on slander. Charles D. Walcott was a world renowned paleontologist and researcher who later went on to become Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Walcott collected tons (literally) of rockbound specimens from the Burgess shale fields in Canada in the early 1900s, but did not have the time or resources to analyze all of them thoroughly. The specimens were not "hidden", but were stored in a museum vault and unexamined until several researchers (Harry Whittington, Derek Briggs, Simon Conway Morris) undertook a detailed reevaluation of them in the 1980’s. Stephen J. Gould popularized the finds of this "Cambrian explosion" of body plans in his book Wonderful Life.

C.D.Walcott

Burgess Shale

Since then, many other fossil finds have pushed the record of multi-celled life back another 40-55 million years, to the Ediacaran (Precambrian) period.

Ediacaran life

Hope that helps answer your questions

- Tiggy

[Minnesota]

learning,

Please not that the author of the handout, Jay L. Wile, has No academic qualifications in biology, no academic qualifications in anthropology, no academic qualifications in geology, no academic qualifications in zoology, no academic qualifications in Systematics and taxonomy, no academic qualifications in comparative anatomy, and no academic qualifications in any field that would lend itself to a fair analysis of evolution. He's a chemist, which gives him a slight, but still woefully inadequate, leg up on electrical engineers.

If you want the strait poop, go to those who write on topics they've majored in and know something about. Stick to geology books written by geologists, chemistry books written chemists, and evolutionary theory books written by evolutionists.

It may be fun to read science drivel now and then, but your education is too valuable to mess around with by listening to hack writers expound on their biases and prejudices.

[learning]

What's your connection to evolution, minn, and tiggy? (what I mean, are you scientists? in what field, if you are?)

btw, tiggy, I found your post most helpful. ('cept the 3D links for fossils didn't work)
I've talked to geologists and astronomers on the net, actually Christians ones who were quite helpful in explaining things. I remember now seeing the burgess shale pics before. It isn't difficult to find glossaries on geology, geography and genetics, (on the net) which helps a lot.

but if I come across a question or something I think may have a point, I'll bring it up.
I think we're still free to ask ?'s, right?

funny thing is, the more complicated I see nature, the more I see the creative power of God to set this thing off. WOW!

[Minnesota]

For years evolution has been an ongoing interest. I have no College major in any field directly related to the subject, but I'm educated enough to "critically" read and understand most of what is written about it. And just as important, I'm well versed in the claims and tactics of the major forms of creationism: YEC, OEC, and ID. Realizing that an understanding and appreciation of science requires acknowledging the scope and limits of the endeavor, and at the same time doing the same with religion has enabled me to keep the claims of the two in perspective. Science has very little to contribute to theology, and religion has very little to contribute to science. So when science comes out with a finding or "conclusion," I don't give religious criticism of it more than a passing acknowledgment--unless it's outrageously stupid. And the same goes for theological statements. Science deals in evidences that transcend cultures and religions: CH₄ + 2 Cl --> CH₃Cl + HCl is true no matter what your beliefs. That the Earth is more than 10,000 years old is supported by sooo much evidence that it's simply perverse to reject the evidence (apologies to Stephen J. Gould). Sure it can be done, and is, but it requires a huge amount of personal dishonesty to do so. One MUST say "I choose not to use common sense, but rely solely on my religious faith as the correct interpretation of the evidence." Unfortunately, this leads to a schizophrenic view of the world. Evidence is evidence unless my beliefs says it's not. If my beliefs dictate that there was a world wide flood that covered the Earth several miles deep, then that's what happened, even if there is not a single acceptable shred of evidence to back it up and there is a plethora of evidence indicating just the opposite.

keep in mind that there is nothing in evolutionary theory that precludes the existence of god. There are many, many Christians who believe in evolution. And remember, theories of evolution don't address abiogenesis, the emergence of first life on Earth, contrary to creationists who insist on dragging the lie into their books and sermons--this dishonesty says much more about them than evolution. Want to believe god started it all? Okay. Want to believe life emerged from a chemical soup? Okay. Neither makes any difference to evolutionary theory.

[Tiggy]

Hi Learning

I'm a techie but don't work directly in the evolutionary science fields - I'm a Spacecraft Systems designer with an MSEE (as I remove Minnesota's knife from between my shoulder blades ) I have been fascinated with the biological sciences since I was a little kid. Took many related courses in college, subscribe to many technical journals (Nature, Natural History, Science) to keep up on the latest research, sometimes do volunteer work as a docent at a local natural history museum.

I'm a big proponent of scientific literacy and science education. My primary reason for hanging around these boards is to give correct science information as a counter to all the nonsense and willfully dishonest crap spread by the YECs and IDists.

The sciences encompassed by the Theory of Evolution are wide and deep, and no one person could ever know all the evidence in detail. I know a lot about a few topics, and a fair amount about many others. I also know enough of the higher level theory to know where and how to research deeper if I need to.

Again, please continue to ask questions, and to grow your knowledge. I get tickled pink every time I learn something new, and I bet you do to.

- Tiggy

[oxmixmudd]

funny thing is, the more complicated I see nature, the more I see the creative power of God to set this thing off. WOW!

Amen! Me thinks the YEC mindset misses the forest for the trees.

Jim

[learning]

For years evolution has been an ongoing interest. I have no College major in any field directly related to the subject, but I'm educated enough to "critically" read and understand most of what is written about it. And just as important, I'm well versed in the claims and tactics of the major forms of creationism: YEC, OEC, and ID. Realizing that an understanding and appreciation of science requires acknowledging the scope and limits of the endeavor, and at the same time doing the same with religion has enabled me to keep the claims of the two in perspective. Science has very little to contribute to theology, and religion has very little to contribute to science. So when science comes out with a finding or "conclusion," I don't give religious criticism of it more than a passing acknowledgment--unless it's outrageously stupid. And the same goes for theological statements. Science deals in evidences that transcend cultures and religions: CH₄ + 2 Cl --> CH₃Cl + HCl is true no matter what your beliefs. That the Earth is more than 10,000 years old is supported by sooo much evidence that it's simply perverse to reject the evidence (apologies to Stephen J. Gould). Sure it can be done, and is, but it requires a huge amount of personal dishonesty to do so. One MUST say "I choose not to use common sense, but rely solely on my religious faith as the correct interpretation of the evidence." Unfortunately, this leads to a schizophrenic view of the world. Evidence is evidence unless my beliefs says it's not. If my beliefs dictate that there was a world wide flood that covered the Earth several miles deep, then that's what happened, even if there is not a single acceptable shred of evidence to back it up and there is a plethora of evidence indicating just the opposite.

keep in mind that there is nothing in evolutionary theory that precludes the existence of god. There are many, many Christians who believe in evolution. And remember, theories of evolution don't address abiogenesis, the emergence of first life on Earth, contrary to creationists who insist on dragging the lie into their books and sermons--this dishonesty says much more about them than evolution. Want to believe god started it all? Okay. Want to believe life emerged from a chemical soup? Okay. Neither makes any difference to evolutionary theory.

Well, to be truthful, it's been those Christians (geologist and astronomer that believe God uses evolution to create) (and a former Christian who is quite honest in his search for truth,) and some things that I've read, and a little bit of experience, that has wetted my interest. Sometimes, I think I see how one theory makes sense, and the problem is, as soon as I read the other side, I go 'wait a minute.' I guess, when I read about a little kid, on hearing about the theory of evolution, (or man coming from a shared ancestor with apes), laughing, I kinda wonder, how much is really known for sure. I will admit, that it appears, that most of the science we know, does seem to fit the world that we know. But it also seemed to fit --the other view of astronomy (which was a Greek thing before the church grabbed hold of it, the earth being the center idea) but we know they were wrong, and so... I wonder if some evidence does show that something 'could have' happened in the past, but that doesn't necessary mean that it really did (only that it was possible). I wonder if we may be like that fairy tale, where everyone was convinced that the King was wearing fine clothing, because they wanted to appear intelligent and in the know, and it took a child laughing at it, to show the truth (the fable of the King who wore no clothes).

Now, please don't take this as a personal attack against science or evolution. I just know, one day I thought about if I stood before God and He had NOT created with evolution (which I think He could have, by the evidence) and He asked me why I had believed it, wouldn't it sound lame if I said 'well... these scientists said ....' You see, if I was like G. Morton, or that acquaintance of mine who is an astronomer, I might have more reason to be sure. I guess I'm kinda like Thomas in the Bible, not for faith, but for science. I can believe the things about science when it comes to chemicals and things I see in medicine, cause it's right there before my eyes. But to try and fit some other things together, it is difficult at times. And believe me, I've tried.

I've read lots on the net, been on a discussion about it for about two or three years, read Gould's 'Rock of Ages' read Kenneth Miller's 'Finding Darwin's God' , read AIG books, and some web things there, read 'In the Minds of Men' by Ian Taylor (about Darwin and the men before, and after, concerning evolution, from creationist view) and at the same time, 'The Logic of Life' by Francois Jacobs, an evolutionary view of 'the Heredity of Life' and it too, had the history of evolution and the study of biology (even how they used to think that life just sort of 'appeared' out of nothing, until they learned about reproduction of cells etc.) and I found it quite helpful to read two different views at the same time. And even the controversy in evolution or biology between the 'tomist' or 'reductionist' and the 'intergrationist'.

Although he is for evolution, I find his definition here almost tends to get into a religious sort of view, when it comes to this 'causal' idea.

Here's Jacob's definition or explanation of evolution
(page 13 of book mentioned above)
'There are many generalizations in biology, but precious few theories. Among these, the theory of evolution is by far the most important, because it draws together from the most varied sources a mass of observations which would otherwise have remained isolated; it unites all the disciplines concerned with living beings; it establishes order among the extraordinary variety of organisms and closely binds them to the rest of the earth; in short, it provides a causal explanation of the living world and its heterogeneity.'
(there's more to add, I'll get back when I can)

I've got to take a break for a while, as I've had some bad headaches, (not sure if its too much computer or what) but wanted to come back and see if you guys answered.

Thanks for your answers.

[Minnesota]

I kinda wonder, how much is really known for sure.

very little actually. VERY little. Not to get into the philosophy of knowledge (but if you do, read Plato's Theaetetus) but other than our personal experiential knowledge, which we can claim as sure knowledge, the only other objects of knowing that can be known "for sure" are in logic and mathematics. So, all we can do is assign, consciously or not, the likelihood of truth--which comes down to assigning a degree of surety. It is far more likely that you will be hit by a car than float off into space. It is far more likely that the earth is 4.5 billions of years old than 10,000 years old. Why? because that's what the evidence points to. Can we be sure? Certainly. I sure can. Is it a claim that can be proven true? Nope. So the evidence we use and the conclusions we make from it all come with the proviso of: to the best of our knowledge, which necessarily leaves room for amendation or even rejection. Don't worry about knowing anything "for sure." As Stephen J. Gould said, "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." And that's what we do in life, operate on the basis of reasonable probability. Every scientists works with the knowledge that the future may very well show them wrong, but we can't let this possibility keep us from moving ahead with what we believe to be right.

I just know, one day I thought about if I stood before God and He had NOT created with evolution (which I think He could have, by the evidence) and He asked me why I had believed it, wouldn't it sound lame if I said 'well... these scientists said ....' You see, if I was like G. Morton, or that acquaintance of mine who is an astronomer, I might have more reason to be sure.

NOT lame at all. We can't be blamed or shamed for what we honestly believe. We are a product of all the forces that have come to bear upon us, and if those forces shape our beliefs into a certain way, we can't deny their relevance. That you may not have as strong of reasons to believe X as do Morton or your acquaintance, is immaterial to your honesty of belief. And it's the honesty, and honesty alone, that should be at question. Not the belief or the strength of that belief. As you learn more your surety of belief will probably increase, or maybe your doubt will grow, but whatever happens, no matter where you wind up on the scale of sureness, it will because this is where your honest appraisal of all the evidence has led you.

I can believe the things about science when it comes to chemicals and things I see in medicine, cause it's right there before my eyes. But to try and fit some other things together, it is difficult at times. And believe me, I've tried.

By now you should probably know what I would say about this. Even leading scientists harbor doubts about certain aspects of their field, doubting evidence, doubting conclusions, doubting approaches, doubting this and doubting that. Some sciences, such as chemistry are pretty cut and dry. Mixing X with Y will invariably give you Z. Others, like the social science, biology, and cosmology are far less reliable. But this comes with the territory. That evolution happens is as strong a fact as any in the biological sciences: it has been observed. End of discussion. What is not so certain is the "How." And, as you know, this is where theory comes in. So, while the "how" leaves a lot of room for argument, it is not a deal breaker. Evolutionary theory remains robust because the preponderance of evidence piling up keeps pointing directly toward it not away from it.

I find his [Francois Jacobs] definition here almost tends to get into a religious sort of view

I would say a holistic view.

[grmorton]

Also, he claims that the cambrian explosion has 'every basic body plan' was found in it in Charles Walcotts fossils. That this was hidden for years, this info. Here's a link with a better explanation of this.

It is factually incorrect that every phylum is found in the Cambrian. I have a web page which documents that more phyla appear in our modern age than at the time of the Cambrian One can say that there was no fossil record for those critters but that is the point. The didn't appear in the Cambrian, they appeared in the Recent

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm

[JonF]

It is factually incorrect that every phylum is found in the Cambrian.

Yup. But the claim was not "phylum" but rather "basic body plan". The latter is, of course, undefined. As I'm sure you know, using undefined terms is a common YEC and ID tactic; if challenged, he could say "That isn't a basic body plan!".

[Minnesota]

learning,

I revisited your link and spotted this little gem at the bottom of the page extolling "Free Speech Campaign."

[attachment]

Free Speech Blue Ribbon Online Campaign? Not the kind of Free Speech they are supporting (which includes child pornography), BUT, as Patriots we support the original intent of our Founding Fathers, Free Speech With Responsibility. Join this alternative Free Speech Campaign by displaying this banner.

http://www.highschoolscience.com/

Zondervan's Green Ribbon Campaign web site doesn't mention a thing about the Free Speech Blue Ribbon Online Campaign or child pornography. Nor did I find a thing on Blue Ribbon Campaign web site indicating the Free Speech Blue Ribbon Online Campaign favors the depiction of child pornography, a federal crime. If you have some kind of connection to Apologia Educational Ministries, I suggest asking them where they got their information about the Free Speech Blue Ribbon Online Campaign.

My very strong suspicion is that AEM has fabricated the charge in order to disparage Blue Ribbon, in which case they may be guilty of libel.

[Mark Little]

Also, is it true that these fossils were
1. hid because they did show every basic body plan?

At first, I thought this was a joke because the notion is so absurd, but on reflection, perhaps people are serious.

Ok, let's see how probable this would be. There are Christian, other-religion and atheist scientists involved in this research. Everyone of them must have been part of a conspiracy to hide this information. This means they would have had to made a world-wide, multi-belief pact to hid the truth. Unlikely, don't you agree?

Every country wher this science is carried out would have to be involved ( and that includes the vatican). Given that some of the countries take every opportunity to stick it up each other, what is the probablility that they would be able to make a secret pact to hide these fossils from the world?

If the public position was that there fossils did not exist (but secretly did), the professional fossil sellers would have to be convinced that it was more worthwhile not to sell these "impossible" fossils for huge amounts of money when they found them. What is the probability that this would happen?

There are scientists who are very ambitious and exposing such a conspiracy would gain *huge* public exposure and kudos. What is the probability that not a single person in the field would expose this conspiracy?

Not only is each of those events is hugely improbable but combined to together, the proposition that there is a successful conspiracy to hid this is absolute nonsense.

What is more plausible, a worldwide, multi-belief system, multi-country, conspiracy where ambitious scientists won't tell to gain recognition and even the criminals are convinced that they should not sell these fossils for huge sums of money; .... or that the fossils don't exist?

2. Does this or doesn't this hurt/help evolution? and how?

It has no effect because anyone who took more than a few minutes to think about this inane assertion would see that it is complete twaddle by people who cannot come up with any kind of sensible support for their position.

It does not suprise me that fruit cakes come up with this sort of invention when their belief systems are questioned, but I am disheartened that these questions even rate more than a sad shake of the head by the wider community.