Creation Matters Vol. 5 No. 1 January/February 2000

10 Pages·0.5 MB·English

by  Creation Research Society

Volume 5, Number 1 January / February 2000
Distinctions Exist between Evolution Fact and Theory
by George Aldhizer, Ph.D., Gary Johnston, Ph.D., and Douglas Krull, Ph.D.
Reprinted with permission. proven scientific theory (see Johnson, French zoologists, the editor of
First published in The Kentucky Post, Jan.4, 2000 1993 for a review). the 28 volumes of Traité de Zoo-
[Editor’s note: The references have been added
logie, author of numerous origi-
from the authors’ original manuscript.]
W Scientific debate nal investigations, and ex-
e, the undersigned, oppose the
president of the Academie des
Statement on Evolution passed Debate exists within the scientific com-
Sciences. His knowledge of the
by the Professional Concerns munity about evolution. Some evolution-
living world is encyclopedic.”
Committee of the Faculty Senate at North- ists suggest that this latter type of evolu-
(1975, p. 376)
ern Kentucky University. Use of the term tion is not a matter of dispute among se-
“evolution,” without clarifying that it re- rious scientists, and is questioned only by In truth, it does not matter if most
fers to different processes, one fact and one those who are ignorant. But consider the scientists accept or dispute the theory of
theory, hinders both science and education example of Pierre Paul Grassé, author of evolution. In science, facts are not decided
and promotes confusion and misunder- Evolution of Living Organisms (1977). by vote, but by evidence. Consider two
standing. Theodosius Grigorievich Dobzhansky, a areas of evidence that pertain to the theory
giant of the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, of evolution.
The term “evolution” is used to refer
wrote of Grassé’s book:
to two different things. “Evolution” is used
to refer to relatively minor variations or “[Its] purpose is to ‘destroy the The fossil record
adaptations (e.g., changes in the size of myth of evolution, as a simple, Even Charles Darwin recognized that the
finch beaks or the coloration of peppered understood, and explained phe- fossil record was a problem, but he
moths). This is a proven scientific fact. nomenon,’ and to show that evo- thought gaps would be filled in to display
“Evolution” also is used to refer to the lution is a mystery about which the gradual sequence that his theory pre-
conjecture that, given sufficient time, these little is, and perhaps can be, dicts. This has not occurred.
adaptive changes could be extended such known. Now one can disagree
The prominent evolutionist Stephen
that all creatures could have developed with Grassé but not ignore him.
from a common ancestor. This is an un- He is the most distinguished of
...continued on p. 7
Editor’s note: In the previous issue Karl reported the
Contents
activities surrounding a grassroots effort in
Kanawha County, West Virginia. Before the School
Kanawha Board was a resolution supporting teachers who Distinctions Exist between Evolution Fact and
wish to teach controversial subjects and theories so Theory ..................................................................... 1
long as they are “relevant” and “are presented in
County WV
Kanawha Co. WV Grassroots Update ................ 1
an appropriate, factual, and unbiased manner ...
which promotes the understanding of all points of
Homology Continued: Morphogenetic and Hox
Grassroots view...” We left the story in the midst of the battle.
T Genes ...................................................................... 3
he School Board had attempted to gar-
Update ner support for rejecting the Resolution Probabilities, Monkeys & Natural Selection ........ 5
(see Table 1 in previous issue) by
sending a comment request to Faculty Senates A Probably Fraudulent Dinobird: What Shall We
and Local School Improvement Counsels. The Make of It? .............................................................. 8
by
memo was an obvious ploy to generate a
Karl Priest, M.A. What Are Creationists Thinking About ...? ......... 9
backlash against creation science, which was
Creation Calendar ................................................ 10
...continued on page 2
Fezer debated for over two hours, and Dr.
Grassroots Update Kanawha
Fezer was so overwhelmed that the atheist
...continued from page 1
newspaper editor later said that evolution
County’s
not even the issue at hand. On December 6 seemed silly, but he could not accept any-
the media revealed, without fanfare, that thing else due to the suffering which exists
Anti-Creation
the comments received were highly in fa- in the world.
vor of teaching creation science. This
During the week that Dr. Mastropaolo Science Policy
caused the board member who had insisted
was here, and even after he left, the Uni-
on the comment period to spin the results
tarian minister and the Gazette tried to
by saying, “I don’t think any of them really D oes this policy comply with the
slander him by claiming he was only a
understood the intent of the resolution.” 1987 Supreme Court decision in
physical education teacher. (His Ph. D. is
Edwards vs Aguillard? The Court’s de-
In the meantime, Dr. Joseph Mastro- in Biomechanics/Physiology, and he is
cision is commonly understood to have
paolo, of Huntington Beach, CA, had Prof. Emeritus, Calif. State Univ., Long
prohibited the teaching of creation sci-
heard of our battle. Without knowing that Beach, and Adjunct Prof. of Physiology,
ence. However, the decision banned
the Charleston Gazette editor was a bitter ICR Graduate School.) They did not see
only the religiously motivated, com-
enemy of local creationists, he had con- the irony in this because, even if true, they
pulsory teaching of creation science.
tacted the editor and offered to come here were admitting that they were afraid to
The majority decision in fact opined that,
to speak as a scientist. After being re- debate a P.E. teacher. Dr. Mastropaolo, a
with respect to theories about man’s ori-
buffed, Dr. Mastropaolo mailed a letter to gentleman’s gentleman, calmly went about
gin, teachers are “free to teach any and
the only other person whose name he knew his business during his visit to our com-
all facets of this subject” (p. 9). Fur-
from news reports — board member Betty munity. He impressed a skeptical talk
thermore, the court stated:
Jarvis. I was awed when Betty called me show host so much that, in separate pro-
about the letter, for I had just ordered 100 grams, the talk show host criticized the Teaching a variety of scientific
copies of a current ICR Impact article Unitarian’s ethics and ridiculed the evolu- theories about the origins of
written by Dr. Mastropaolo. tionists for failing to academically defend humankind to school children
their sacred cow. might be validly done with the
Challenging evolutionists
clear secular intent of enhanc-
Dr. Mastropaolo then began an email ex- Banned from high school ing the effectiveness of science
change with local evolutionists, challeng- education (p. 14).
Space does not allow a detailed report of
ing them to debate. This sent them into a
all that transpired between Thanksgiving
panic because they had never heard of him. Here is Kanawha County’s policy. You
and the Board’s vote on December 16.
The details of their attempts to avoid de- be the judge.
There were statewide and local radio talk
bate would make an interesting article in shows, one-sided television reporting, and KANAWHA COUNTY SCHOOLS
itself. Dr. Mastropaolo had a knack for front-page newspaper coverage (including ADMINISTRATIVE
revealing their religious prejudice and an onslaught of Gazette articles seeking to REGULATION
academic cowardice. As a result of a
cast the debate as being between science
Creation Science
challenge I made to the local Unitarian
and fanatical Christianity). Dr. Mastro-
minister, Dr. Mastropaolo was allowed to Issued: 10.19.1987
paolo, at age 72, had a grueling speaking
speak at the Unitarian church.
schedule. He was even banned from one 5.01 Status. Neither State
That was an experience. The place high school, and was forced to march learning outcomes, nor any
was standing room only, and attendees down the street with interested junior high current program of studies
included most of the “big time” evolu- kids to meet at a local church. includes a creation compo-
tionists of the area. After listening to a nent. The teachers of science
By the time the board meeting date
witch lead part of the opening service, and and all other curricular ar-
had arrived, the Charleston Daily Mail had
avoiding a trap laid by the Unitarian min- eas are expected to provide
“lost” an article I submitted, the ACLU and
ister (intended to ridicule Dr. Mastro- instruction toward mastery of
Americans United for Separation of
paolo’s credentials), Dr. Mastropaolo pre- the State learning outcomes
Church and State had threatened to sue,
sented his case that evolution is biologi- as interpreted by the current
and the board attorney had circulated a
cally impossible and is, in reality, an occult program of studies. Thus,
secret memo requesting that board mem-
religion. creation science is not to be
bers vote against the very resolution he had
taught.
A lunch worth remembering prepared! We personally contacted two
board members who earlier had expressed 5.02 Creation Science Mate-
Afterwards, I invited to lunch Dr. Karl
open-mindedness, citing legal and scien- rials. Any materials per-
Fezer, the West Virginia liaison for the
tific facts to counter every argument they taining to Creation Science,
National Center for Science Education (an
presented. However, it was obvious that if retained, shall be housed
anit-creation group). The Gazette editor
the vote was going to be 4-1 against the in the school library.
tagged along, and what transpired was
resolution.
truly amazing. Dr. Mastropaolo and Dr.
2 A publication of the Creation Research Society January / February 2000
The showdown who came to support the teaching of Stay tuned
creation science which, as noted previ-
The night of the meeting the Unitarians The battle is worth fighting, because those
ously, was not the subject of the Resolu-
were there in force, with their minister or- who fight it will find friends and sup-
tion. The opposition had its usual quota of
chestrating their offense. As soon as Dr. porters they never knew were there. De-
college professors and liberal ministers.
Mastropaolo sat down, the Unitarian min- spite the difficulties, there will be many
ister got right in Dr. Mastropaolo’s face, The vote went as expected, but I am inspiring moments that will be forever
angrily accusing him of being from ICR. I tremendously encouraged. The strategy cherished. Every battle puts a small hole
had to actually place my body between employed here can easily be refined and below the waterline of the ship of evolu-
them and force the minister away. Later, used elsewhere. It just takes a small group tionism. Eventually it will sink. As for us
the minister was caught reading my notes of dedicated people. First, present to your locally, to quote Dr. Mastropaolo: “The
and writing something as he read them. local board of education something like events prior to the board meeting were just
the Buckna-Laidlaw “Origin of Life” pol- a warm-up period, the meeting was the
The meeting lasted over four hours.
icy (see endnote in previous article). In starter’s pistol, now the race has begun.”
There was an overwhelming majority of
order to reject such a policy, board mem- Stay tuned.
attendees in favor of the resolution. I had
bers will have to reveal their philosophical
only requested six speakers besides my-
position on the subject of origins. If pos-
self, but many others came to speak. Some
sible, find a well-qualified scientist to
of the others were a great asset to our side,
challenge evolutionists to debate.
but many were well-intentioned people
Homology Continued: Morphogenetic and Hox Genes
by George F. Howe, Ph.D.
Iam indebted to geneticist Matthew Jenkins3 pointed to a lethal mutation are also very deleterious to the fruit fly.
Rainbow (who does not share my which knocks out the dorsal gene.
The gap genes thereafter regulate
view of origins) for having brought
The product of another Drosophila pair-rule genes which are expressed in
the burgeoning field of fruitfly (Droso-
nurse cell gene called nanos accumulates seven bands, dividing the embryo into 14
phila melanogaster) morphogenesis to my
at the posterior end of the egg. The nanos zones. Snustad, Simmons, and Jenkens
attention. These morphogenetic genes
transcription product prevents the reported that “mutations in each of the
demonstrate a complexity and integration
mRNA’s of another gene, called hunch- several pair-rule genes produce embryos
that stagger the imagination. This subject
back, from accumulating in the posterior with only half as many parasegments as the
can be studied further by consulting any end of the egg. The end result is that the wild type.”3 As a result of such mutated
modem textbook in genetics or embryol-
posterior end of the egg is readied to de- pair-rule genes, every other parasegment is
ogy. In a search of library sources, one will
velop into the embryonic posterior. Muta- missing — some mutations delete odd
also find that literally hundreds of entries
tions that affect the nanos gene are also numbered segments, some delete the even
on this topic exist, most of them having harmful. Gilbert4 noted that such muta- ones.
been produced in the last ten years. Both
tions “... result in embryos that have dele-
the design features of Hox genes that Next, the segment polarity genes be-
tions or duplications of heads, tails, dorsal
workers have understood, and also some come active because they are regulated by
structures or ventral structures.” These
unexplained mysteries surrounding them, transcription products of the other genes
mutations lead to imbalance and death, not
fit with the creationist views expressed in previously activated. Segment polarity
to beneficial evolutionary adaptations.
my earlier articles.1,2 genes define an anterior and posterior
As fly development continues, gradi- compartment for each segment. Mutations
Morphogenetic genes — a
ents of gene products from maternal effect of segment polarity genes likewise hold
“cascade”
genes regulate the expression of another little promise for evolution. For example,
It is impressive to learn that products of the group of genes called gap genes through- mutations in the segment polarity gene
maternal effect genes formed by nurse out the embryo. In a mutation of one of gooseberry cause the posterior half of each
cells surrounding the egg actually confer these gap genes called kruppel, “... whole embryonic segment to be replaced by a
on that egg a front-to-back and a regions of embryonic segments are mirror image copy of the adjacent anterior
dorsal-to-ventral polarity, even before the eliminated.”4 Snustad, Simmons, and half segment.”3 This, too, is not an ad-
egg begins its division. The transcription Jenkins indicated that “Mutations in the vantage.
product of the dorsal gene, for example, gap genes cause an entire set of contiguous
Herein, then, is an amazing hierarchy
paves the way for the dorsal parts of the body segments to be missing; that is, they
of embryonic controls in which nurse cell
embryo to develop later and in a different create an anatomical gap along the
gene products control gap genes, the gap
manner than the ventral parts. Reviewing anterior-posterior axis.”3 Like mutations in
genes later control the pair-rule genes, and
this topic, Snustad, Simmons, and maternal effect genes, gap gene mutations
finally pair-rule genes regulate the tran-
January / February 2000 A publication of the Creation Research Society 3
scription of segment polarity genes. “The find that their evolutionist colleagues are those genes aren’t really deter-
genetic control of segmentation shows completely excluding this intelligent de- mining structure at all. Instead,
how sets of genes work in a regulatory sign option from their textbooks and re- they appear to be functioning as
cascade to determine the identities of search reports. This exclusion stems from binary switches between alternate
groups of cells in different regions of the religion and philosophy, not science. developmental fates, with the
embryo.”3 Surely these interlaced devel- information for resulting struc-
opmental control patterns leave plenty of Switching on another cascade tures residing elsewhere.”
room for a well-founded belief that a wise
A particular Hox gene switches on a cas- Some years ago Willem Ouweneel,
designer planned this system.
cade of other genes (target genes). These who was a specialist in homeotic genes at
target genes then govern the manufacture the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sci-
Homeobox (Hox) genes
of a particular body organ, such as a leg or ences, published a summary article on the
A group of homeotic or Hox genes has an eye in a fruit fly. In Drosophila or mice, origins implications of homeotic mutants
been discovered which initiate organ de- a very similar Hox gene triggers eye pro- in the Creation Research Society Quar-
velopment. They each encode homeodo- duction. But the transcription products of terly.6 Such mutations, in which certain
main transcription factors that have been many other genes actually proceed to make
organs are replaced by entirely different
shown to turn on developmental pathways a multifaceted compound eye in the fruit
organs, have been frequently observed in
involving several thousands of other fly, or a mammalian eye in a mouse. Al-
Drosophila. An example of such a muta-
genes.3 The 60 amino acids in a typical though the Hox genes are homologous, the tion is the transformation of a wing into a
homeodomain protein (corresponding to two eyes eventuating from them are very leg-like structure. Ouweneel made a num-
180 base pairs of DNA) have been found different. Wells and Nelson5 make this ber of important points in his article,
to be quite similar in Drosophila, mice, same point quite clearly: among which are these, which I’ve para-
men, and other organisms. “The very universality of homeo- phrased below:
Concerning this similarity (i.e., ho- tic genes, however, raises a seri- (1) Homeotic mutant organs
mology) of homeodomain chemis- yield large disadvantages to the
try, extending from invertebrates organism. No single homeotic
throughout all the vertebrates, mac- That this universal presence of mutant organ is known that is
roevolutionists state that the se- very useful switching genes functional and therefore useful
quence has been conserved to the organism. The organ may
could have been the product of
throughout evolutionary history. in fact be destructive. The ani-
But the very use of the word “con- common design rather than mal is sometimes left without
served” (a term that has become common ancestry is unfortu- the original organs which were
heavily ensconced in the literature) replaced by the mutant organs
is premature, prejudicial, and non- nately never mentioned ... such that pod flies, for exam-
scientific. Homeodomain homolo- ple, cannot fly.
gies likely resulted instead from a
wise creator who used them repeatedly ous problem for this view. Al- (2) What is needed in macroevo-
while creating many different animals. though mice have a gene very lution is the origin of essentially
Since these genes and gene products serve similar to the one that can trans- new organs. Homeotic mutant
as regulatory “switches” that activate net- form a fly’s antenna into a leg organs are not new, however, but
works of other genes, perhaps the creator (antennapedia), mice do not have are copies of organs found else-
incorporated various numbers of these antennae, and their corresponding where in the animal.
critical switching genes into different gene affects the hindbrain; and
(3) Homeotic mutations do not
kinds of animals for reasons which we, as although mice and flies share a
result in the appearance of higher
scientists, must discover. similar gene which affects eye
levels of organization. Most such
development (eyeless), the fly’s
Although first seen in Drosophila, mutants should be classed as
multifaceted eye is profoundly
Hox genes have been found in multicellu- backward steps.
different from a mouse’s
lar animals in general, from nematodes
(parasitic worms) to mammals. The num- camera-like eye. In both cases (4) Hox gene mutations simply
ber of Hox genes present in a particular (antennapedia and eyeless), show that one mutation can dis-
animal kind varies: sponges have one Hox similar homeotic genes affect the turb not just one small morpho-
gene, arthropods eight, and mammals 38. development of structures which logical feature, but the expression
That this universal presence of very useful are non-homologous by either the of dozens of other genes.
classical morphological defini-
switching genes could have been the
tion or the post-Darwinian phy- If macroevolution occurs easily,
product of common design rather than
logenetic definition. If similar quickly, and on a worldwide basis (as
common ancestry is unfortunately never
genes can ‘determine’ such radi- some workers maintain), then why are
mentioned in the technical reports on this
cally different structures, then macroevolutionary events not being rou-
phenomenon. Creationists are saddened to
4 A publication of the Creation Research Society January / February 2000
tinely reported in journals like Science and macroevolutionists regarding all homolo- rate kinds, and that variation occurs only
Nature? If all that is required for major gies (whether between organs, biochemis- within fixed limits.
changes to occur by chance in nature is the try, or Hox genes) still comes in answering
right burst of transposon activity to pro- this key question: does resemblance nec- References
duce the right mix-and-match of enhancer essarily mean kinship (common ances-
1. Howe, G.F. 1999. Origins and education: a
segments shunted onto new chromosomal try), or can it in many (or most) instances primer. Creation Matters 4(4):1.
locations, why did it take the ancestors of indicate common design? Creationists 2. Howe, G.F. 1999. Homology and origins. Crea-
the fly and the mouse 500 million years to adopt the second approach, that “similarity tion Matters 4(5):1.
evolve their separate ways? If Acan- shows common design.” They believe this 3. Snustad, D. P., Michael J. Simmons, and J. B.
Jenkins. 1997. Principles of Genetics. John
thostega arose once from a lobe-finned fits with the known data of science con-
Wiley and Sons. NY. pp. 625-629.
fish by mutation of a few Hox genes, why cerning homology and analogy.
4. Gilbert, Scott F. 1988. Developmental Biology,
don’t the lobe-finned fish repeat this per- If I could see a human arise in nature Second edition. Sinauer Associates. Sunderl-
formance now? If this is “asking too land, MA. p. 636.
now, from homeotic mutations in a pygmy
much,” then macroevolutionism is not 5. Wells, Jonathan, and Paul Nelson. 1997. Homol-
chimpanzee population, or if I could read
science, but is just one among several other ogy: a concept in crisis. Origins and Design
that the change from lobe fins to tetrapod 18:1219.
competing origins models.
limbs has been observed off the coast of 6. Ouweneel, Willem J. 1975. Homoeotic mutants
Madagascar, I would immediately become and evolution. Creation Research Society
Nothing new Quarterly 12:141-154.
a macroevolutionist, and at that point mac-
Hox gene studies actually bring nothing roevolution would have become a scien-
new to the creationist versus evolutionist tific fact. Until then, however, in the name
standoff. The crux of the difference be- of real science, I see no reason to change
tween scientific creationists and scientific from the view that God made many sepa-
Probabilities, Monkeys & Natural Selection
by David Woetzel
O
ne of the biggest challenges for hand, declared that given enough time all
creationists has been to clearly the possible combinations of matter, in-
illustrate the absurdity that passes cluding those necessary to produce a man,
off as probability arguments in the will eventually occur by chance mo-
naturalistic/evolutionary model of origins. lecular movement.
The old adage keeps popping up anew:
“Given so much time the ‘impossible’ be-
Typing monkeys
comes possible, the possible probable, and
the probable virtually certain. One has To prove his point, Hux-
only to wait: time itself performs ley asked Wilberforce to
miracles.”1 The reality is that the impos- allow him the service of
sible is still impossible, even with the six monkeys that would
magic elixir of huge spans of time (though live forever, six type-
with punctuated equilibrium in vogue, writers that would never
these time spans are themselves in doubt). wear out, and an unlim-
ited supply of paper and
On June 30, 1860, at the Oxford Un-
ink. He then argued that,
ion in England, Anglican Archbishop of
given an infinite amount
Oxford University, Samuel Wilberforce,
of time, these monkeys would eventually
and evolutionist and agnostic Thomas A good example of the evolutionists’ re-
type up all of the works of Shakespeare.
Huxley were engaged in the “Great De- sponse is given by Hawking. After citing
Unfortunately for Huxley, the availability
bate.” Bishop Wilberforce, a Professor of the monkey illustration he comments,
of the proposed infinite amount of time is
Theology and Mathematics at Oxford Uni- “very occasionally by pure chance they
just the first problem in his argument.
versity, argued that the design we see in will type out one of Shakespeare’s
nature required a Designer. Therefore, the Since then, creationists have often sonnets.”2 This is absurd. The assertion
information found in living systems (an employed this classic monkey myth to il- that the monkeys will not in fact perform
evidence for design) could not arise by lustrate the probability problems inherent this feat is as close as we can get to a sci-
random chance. Huxley, on the other to the naturalistic/evolutionary scenarios. entific fact. ReMine drives this point home:
January / February 2000 A publication of the Creation Research Society 5
“The monkeys could not ran- genes and pick among them directly. It
domly type merely the first 100 How Small is Small? must use bodies as an intermediary…
characters of Hamlet. If we count Hundreds of genes contribute to the
only lowercase letters and spaces building of most body parts and their ac-
Tossing around numbers with large ex-
(27 characters in all), then the tion is channeled through a kaleidoscopic
ponents may not immediately impress
probability of typing the 100 series of environmental influences…
us. But how large do the exponents have
characters is one chance in 27100 Parts are not translated genes, and selec-
to be before the event becomes impos-
(one chance in 1.4x10143). If tion doesn’t even work directly on parts. It
sible? Here is what one author has stated:
each proton in the observable accepts or rejects entire organisms because
universe were a typing monkey “We may be led to set at 10-50 suites of parts, interacting in complex
(roughly 1080 in all), and they [i.e., 1 chance in 1050; editor] ways, confer advantages.”5
typed 500 characters per minute the value of negligible prob-
A generous selection
(faster than the fastest secretary), abilities on the cosmic scale.
mechanism
around the clock for 20 billion When the probability of an
years, then all the monkeys to- event is below this limit, the I would propose another variation on the
gether could make 5x1096 at- opposite event may be expected monkey story in order to more realistically
tempts at the 100 characters. It to occur with certainty, what- take into account the play of natural se-
would require an additional ever the number of occasions lection. Suppose that the monkeys were
3x1046 such universes to have an presenting themselves in the randomly typing at computer workstations
even chance at success. We sci- entire universe.” — Borel, E. equipped with advanced word processing
entifically conclude that the mon- 1962. Probabilities and Life, p. 28. instead of typewriters. The word process-
key scenario cannot succeed. For ing application is not only capable of
“Events whose probability is
the scientist it would be perverse spell-checking and punctuation-checking,
extremely small never occur.”
to insist otherwise.”3 it automatically eliminates the mistakes in
— Borel, E. 1965. Elements of the
spelling and punctuation! Thus, the pri-
Theory of Probability, p. 57.
Creationists generally employ this il- mates would slowly produce words and, if
lustration in three of the most unlikely — Editor they were lucky enough to type a sentence,
naturalistic/evolutionary scenarios: a fine- the punctuation would be perfect.
tuned universe, abiogenesis, and biological
capable of being produced by a typewriter.
This modification (a generous selec-
complexity arising by random mutations.
On the relative top of the incline is the
tion mechanism) would improve their
Their opponents may grumblingly take the
sublime prose of Shakespeare. Ruse’s
odds tremendously. However, they are
first two scenarios sitting down. However,
suggestion of a cosmic teacher with
still left with the “fitness hill” problem.
the evolutionists will rise to their feet to cry
Shakespeare’s text and a bottle of white-
That is, they might produce words that
foul in the third instance. Here the mecha-
out implies that natural selection inexora-
satisfied the system yet did not make sen-
nism of natural selection is proposed to
bly, step by step marches only in the di-
tences (no grammar check). Moreover,
save the day, supposedly extricating natu-
rection of the optimal design.
computer crashes and viruses could wipe
ralism from the probability mire.
But the more realistic picture is that of out promising attempts or even the entire
Hence an important modification to a “fitness terrain,” where words are system!
the monkey-and-Shakespeare story is sug-
mounds, sentences are hills, and prose is a
Some have countered that my sce-
gested by Ruse. “Suppose, however, that
mountaintop. In between are valleys of
nario is unrealistic since prose poorly
every time the monkey strikes the ‘right’
misspelled words, canyons of improperly
models genetic encoding. For example,
letter, it records; but, suppose also that
punctuated sentences, and ridges of non-
one can change a single letter in a word
‘wrong’ letters get rubbed out (literally or
sense sentences. The cosmic teacher only
and you usually destroy its meaning,
metaphorically!). And suppose the elimi-
whites-out the worst efforts of the mon-
whereas a change in an amino acid usually
nation of the wrong letter is the full con-
keys, letting some get “stuck” with a word
does not prevent the protein from per-
sequence of a ‘mistake’: one does not lose
or two, even though it does not yet even
what has already been typed.”4 The idea is forming its function. Also the gene order,
make a sentence.
it is argued, is unimportant in the genome.
that natural selection acts as an invisible
cosmic teacher, allowing successes, while No guarantees
Three probability problems
rubbing out failures.
Secondly, there is no guarantee that “one
A bottle of white-out does not lose what has already been typed.” There are three probability problems that
While the monkeys are busy typing away, should be modeled here. First, the whop-
There are at least three problems with there are multiple forces working against ping unlikelihood of a truly beneficial mu-
Ruse’s scenario. First, Ruse takes a very them, like a bad accident (mutation) jam- tation that adds new information which
naïve view of natural selection. If one ming a typewriter, or random natural de- then becomes the basis for an evolutionary
follows the analogy, the poetic sensibility struction extinguishing the whole project. novelty. Secondly, assuming that suffi-
and grammatical complexity become “fit- cient of these mutations can be observed
Thirdly, Ruse ignores the challenge of
ness.” On the bottom of the proverbial hill over the course of time so that we can ac-
polygeny. “Selection simply cannot see
is a random jumble of the various marks curately determine the odds, we move on
6 A publication of the Creation Research Society January / February 2000
to Haldane’s Dilemma and the cost-of- fully dealing with the cost-of-mutation is- of correctly spelled words, we can assume
mutation problem. sue could be analogous to producing an a “spellchecker” with 75,000 words. Then
intelligent sentence; and obtaining a rea- the probability of typing, in order, all the
That is, since by anyone’s calculation
soned paragraph could then model the sonnet’s words is just one chance in
the great majority of mutations are delete-
evolution of an irreducibly complex sys- 75,000114 or 5.77x10555. This would re-
rious, can the population reasonably bear
tem. The “poetic sensibility and gram- quire 4.1x10412 universes more than the
the cost of removing these through differ-
matical complexity” that I mentioned ear- ReMine illustration above to have an even
ential survival? And what is the impact of
lier would finally be analogous to the chance at succeeding!
harmful mutations on the reproductive ca-
beautifully complex, highly adapted crea-
pacity along the way? To simultaneously References
tures we observe, in which many of these
substitute numerous genes in a generation,
systems ultimately work together in ex- 1. Wald, G., 1955. “The Origin of Life,” Physics
evolution requires a very fortuitous set of
and Chemistry of Life, p.12.
quisite symmetry.
reproductive circumstances.
2. Hawking, S.W., 1988. A Brief History of Time:
Does this scenario solve the monkeys’ From the Big Bang to Black Holes, p. 123.
Thirdly, assuming the positive muta-
probability challenge with the sonnet? 3. ReMine, W.J., 1993. The Biotic Message: Evolu-
tions keep occurring and the population
Let’s rework the calculation using Re- tion Versus Message Theory, p.80.
can continually produce the enormous host
4. Ruse, M., 1982. Darwinism Defended: A Guide
Mine’s assumption that we have as many
of specimens that must march off to ge- to the Evolution Controversies, p. 308.
monkeys as protons in the observable uni-
netic death, then we can finally get to 5. Gould, S.J., 1980. The Panda's Thumb, pp.
verse. Furthermore, let’s upgrade the
Gould’s polygeny and Behe’s “Irreducible 89-90.
monkeys’ skills to typing a miraculous 500
Complexity.” What then are the odds that
random words per minute (while gener-
a whole system can simultaneously be put
ously having the “nonwords” removed, and
into place so that it can actually be selected
mercifully being spared system crashes)
(e.g., an immune system, metamorphosis,
around the clock for 20 billion years.
sexual reproduction, altruism, etc.)?
There are 114 words in Shakespeare’s fa-
Say the odds of getting a "word" mod- mous sonnet When in Disgrace with For-
els the mutation problem. Then success- tune and Men’s Eyes. To provide a source
the fossil record is far more Dar- that these criticisms only apply to neo-
Distinctions ...
winian than it is. This probably Darwinism (Darwinism as modified by the
...continued from page 1
comes from the over- findings of modern genetics), not to the
Jay Gould has been particularly candid, simplification inevitable in sec- fact of evolution. On this point Johnson
pointing out that the primary characteris- ondary sources: low-level text- writes:
tics of the fossil record are sudden ap- books, semi-popular articles, and
“We can point to a mystery and
pearance (creatures appearing fully so on. Also, there is probably
call it evolution, but this is only a
formed) and stasis (creatures typically ex- some wishful thinking involved.
label. The important question is
hibiting little or no change), and that the In the years after Darwin, his ad-
not whether scientists have
idea that actual creatures bridged the gaps vocates hoped to find predictable
agreed on a label, but how much
is inference. Gould’s colleague, Niles El- progressions. In general, these
they know about how complex
dredge, writes: have not been found — yet the
living beings like ourselves came
optimism has died hard, and
“No wonder paleontologists into existence.” (1993, p. 10)
some pure fantasy has crept into
shied away from evolution for so
textbooks.” (1981, p. 289)
long. It never seems to happen ... The biochemical level
Evolution cannot forever be go- Orr and Coyne write: “We conclude
A second problem is that it seems quite
ing on somewhere else. Yet that’s — unexpectedly — that there is little evi-
unclear how evolution could have oc-
how the fossil record has struck dence for the neo-Darwinian view: its
curred at the biochemical level (see Behe,
many a forlorn paleontologist theoretical foundations and the experi-
1996). James Shapiro (1996) writes:
looking to learn something about mental evidence supporting it are weak.”
evolution.” (1995, p. 95) (1992, p. 726) In sum, the successes of the “There are no detailed Darwinian
Neo-Darwinian synthesis “are limited to accounts for the evolution of any
David Raup, one of the world’s most
the minutiae of evolution, such as the fundamental biochemical or cel-
respected paleontologists, provides addi-
adaptive change in coloration of moths; lular system, only a variety of
tional insight:
while it has remarkably little to say on the wishful speculations. It is re-
“A large number of well-trained questions which interest us most, such as markable that Darwinism is ac-
scientists outside of evolutionary how there came to be moths in the first cepted as a satisfactory explana-
biology and paleontology have place.” (Ho and Sanders, 1979, p. 589) tion for such a vast subject —
unfortunately gotten the idea that evolution — with so little rigor-
Of course, evolutionists might argue
January / February 2000 A publication of the Creation Research Society 7
ous examination of how well its available evidence so that they can distin- Eldredge, N. (1995). Reinventing Darwin: The
basic theses work in illuminating guish between the proven fact that crea- Great Debate at the High Table of Evolution-
ary Theory. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
specific instances of biological tures change and the theory that all crea-
Endler, J. A., & McLellan, T. (1988). The process
adaptation or diversity.” tures could have evolved from a common of evolution: toward a newer synthesis. An-
ancestor. Neither science nor education is nual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 19.
Research suggests that only about 9 advanced by the current lack of distinction Grasse, P. (1977). Evolution of Living Organisms.
percent of people in the U.S. accept the New York: Academic Press. [Editor’s note:
between these ideas.
“central finding of modern biology” that This book was first published (1973) in
We recommend that NKU’s Faculty French.]
evolution from microbes to humans oc-
Ho, M. W., & Saunders, P. T. (1979). Beyond Neo-
Senate reject the evolution statement ap-
curred, and through a random, purposeless,
Darwinism — an epigenetic approach to evo-
proved by the PCC, rather than endorse use
impersonal process (see Sagan, 1996, p. lution. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 78.
327). Some evolutionists will continue to of a term that promulgates continued mis- Johnson, P. E. (1993). Darwin on Trial (2nd ed.).
insist that the remaining 91 percent are understanding. Further, it is our recom- Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.
mendation that, as an educational and re- Orr, H.A., and Coyne, J.A. (1992). The genetics of
ignorant (ignorant, stupid, insane, or
adaptation: a reassessment. American Natural-
search institution, NKU should be a leader
wicked, according to R. Dawkins, 1995); ist, 140.
in clarifying the controversy. In doing so, it
others will continue to acknowledge the Raup, D. (1981). Evolution and the fossil record.
distinctions between the scientific fact of should provide definitions to the educa- Science, 213.
evolution and the scientific theory of evo- tional community for: 1) the scientifically Sagan, C. (1996). The Demon-Haunted World: Sci-
proven adaptive evolution and 2) the the- ence as a Candle in the Dark. Random
lution.
House: New York.
ory of evolution. Further, it should en-
Shapiro, J. A. (1996). In the details...what? Na-
Distinguishing fact from courage public educators to teach students tional Review, Sept. 19, 62-65.
theory how to think critically about this and other
important issues, and to develop an appre- Professors George Aldhizer, Gary Johnston
In summary, the term “evolution” is am-
ciation of scientific inquiry. and Douglas Krull are members of the NKU
biguous in that it is used to refer to both (Northern Kentucky University) Professional
scientific fact and scientific theory (a the- References Concerns Committee of the Faculty Senate.
ory that enjoys less than compelling em- Behe, M. J. (1996). Darwin's Black Box: the Bio- This is an adaptation of a minority opinion they
pirical support). Evolution is a central idea chemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: wrote taking exception to the senate’s position
that cuts across many scientific disciplines, Free Press. urging use of the word “evolution” in state
Dawkins, R. (1995). River Out of Eden. New York: curriculum guidelines.
and it is important that students be familiar
Basic Books.
with the term. However, students should
Dobzhansky, T. (1975). Darwinian or 'oriented' evo-
also learn to think critically about the lution? Evolution, 29.
A Probably Fraudulent Dinobird: What Shall We Make of It?
by David Bump
F
or those of you who haven’t al- imagine the evolutionary scenario by pic- I must say that my personal reaction at
ready heard, the title refers to the turing a creature that’s a chicken in front the time was rather ho-hum. Although
case of a fossil named Archae- and a lizard in back, you’ve got a lot of some primitive features were claimed for
oraptor liaoningensis, and the fraud has updating to do. the forepart of the fossil, it was clearly the
lead to the embarrassment of no less an dinosaurian tail that was the most exciting
Best illustration yet
institution than the National Geographic feature. However, judging from the pic-
Society. And yet that is relatively close to what tures of the fossil in natural and UV light,4
fooled the National Geographic Society, the tail bones did not seem especially
If you would like further background
and the respected scientists Stephen heavy or developed for attachment of
on the current state of evolutionary think-
Czerkas, Philip J. Currie, and Xing Xu. As heavy muscles. Of course, it was difficult
ing about the evolution of birds from di-
told in Science News,2 it began with the to judge by pictures of the size and quality
nosaurs, and why the data do not actually
announcement at a press conference in available to me, yet the picture of their
support this view, I recommend a visit to
October 1999. Archaeoraptor liaonin- own “sculptor’s depiction” of the creature
the online document “On the Alleged Di-
nosaurian Ancestry of Birds.”1 For now, I gensis was presented as the best illustra- in life appeared to me as indistinguishable
tion yet of a dinosaur evolving into a bird; from Archaeopteryx, the first-discovered
can only say that there are a number of
not able to fly well but probably getting off primitive bird.
fossils that evolutionists claim are transi-
the ground a bit. The society’s magazine
tional, or at least show the transitional A dubious background
also had a related story in November,
steps required. For most of them, the ar-
“Feathers for T. rex?”3 Apparently, the At any rate, it apparently was worth a good
gument is over; birds are dinosaurs.
society hoped this fossil would truly end deal of fanfare to the researchers who
They’re wrong, of course, but if you still
the debate once and for all. discovered it. Ah, but therein lies the
8 A publication of the Creation Research Society January / February 2000
trouble. It was not discovered by scientists became Archaeoraptor, the fossil which phasized and others ignored in order to
in situ, but rather it was smuggled out of three respected scientists and the National classify strange creatures as dinosaurs
China and bought by a researcher (techni- Geographic Society had presented as a rather than flightless birds, or even as an
cally, by the museum where Czerkas shining example of a dinobird. entirely different kind of animal? Many
works) in Utah. This sort of background similar challenges may be raised.
Don’t gloat
alone would be enough for evolutionists to
The supporters of the dinobird sce-
dismiss it if it were something presented So that’s the story. What are we to make
nario may feel that nothing has changed
by a creationary scientist. In this case, of it? I think we should avoid gloating
after this fiasco, but creationists and evo-
there was yet another problem, for as over this too much. First, there are several
lutionists supporting an alternate theory
Monastersky notes, the researchers “had other fossils which are claimed to illustrate
may well be encouraged in telling them
concerns about the tail because the bones this transition. Secondly, the evolutionists
that they are far from proving their case.
connecting it to the body are missing and can always say, once again, that it shows
the slab shows signs of reworking.”2 These the self-correcting nature of science.
References
concerns were hardly mentioned, if at all, Thirdly, there may still be something sal-
until after the bad news broke. vaged from this, such as claiming the di- 1. Camp, A.L. 1998. On the alleged dinosaurian
ancestry of birds. The True.Origin Archive.
nosaur from which the tail came had
It’s not as if the National Geographic So- (http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevo.htm).
feathers, or that the bird part of the fossil is
ciety and the researchers involved weren’t 2. Monastersky, R. 2000. All mixed up over birds
especially primitive. And finally, the tail
given any warning. The curator of birds at and dinosaurs. Science News 157 (15 Jan): 38.
the Smithsonian wrote an open letter5 cri- has not yet been proven to belong to an- 3. Sloan, C.P. 1999. Feathers for T. rex? National
other fossil. Certainly this case will not Geographic Magazine (November). [It should
tiquing the way the contraband fossil had
cast any doubt into the minds of the true be noted that it was only claimed that it was
been presented, the name put in print be-
probable that hatchling and juvenile tyranno-
believers in the evolution of birds from
fore a proper research paper was pub- saurs had downy feathers.]
dinosaurs.
lished, and the way the dinobird scenario 4. See http://www.nationalgeographic.com/events/
was being pushed. On the other hand, this clearly shows 99/feather/index.html and also Monastersky,
Ref. 2.
the zeal with which the dinobird scenario
Neither the Society nor the research- 5. Olson, S.L. Open letter to Dr. Peter Raven, Sec-
is being supported. We might well ask, if
ers seem to have voiced any doubts or retary, Committee for Research and Explora-
concerns until recently when, as Monaster- a smuggled fossil can be used this way and tion National Geographic Society, 1 Nov.
sky reports,2 one of the researchers was the possibility of fraud so easily over- 1999. http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevoletter.
htm [Editor’s note: The letter states in part,
looked or dismissed, what other errors
examining a fossil dinosaur and decided its “National Geographic has reached an all-time
have been made? How much considera-
tail looked exactly like the one on Ar- low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsub-
chaeoraptor. Apparently, it had split upon tion has been given to the possibility that stantiated, tabloid journalism.”].
“feathers” on dinosaurs were some other
excavation, and the other half had been
sort of covering or effect of the fossiliza-
attached to a fossil of a primitive bird to
tion process? Were certain factors em-
boost the price. That “specimen” then
What Are Creationists Thinking about ...?
As new scientific discoveries make the headlines, have you ever wondered how
your fellow creationists are reacting? Have you ever thought of a “crazy” new
idea about origins and wanted to bounce it off another creationist?
Now you can keep in contact daily with creationists from all around the world. The
Creation Research Society sponsors CRSnet, an online community of CRS members
who have e-mail access to the Internet. Not only do participants discuss the latest
scientific findings related to origins, but they also receive news about the CRS — its
research, publications, and activities — and other creation-related news.
For more information, send an e-mail message to Glen Wolfrom at [email protected].
Participation is limited to CRS members in good standing.
January / February 2000 A publication of the Creation Research Society 9
Creation Calendar
Note: Items in “Creation Calendar” are for information only; the listing of an event does not necessarily imply endorsement by the Creation Research Society.
March 4-5 April 18
Creation Talks by Dr. Don DeYoung Living Things as Evidence for Creation by Dennis Wert
Bethel Brethren Church, Berne, IN Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA
Contact: Pastor Joseph Nass [phone] 7:30 pm, Mars CM&A Church, Mars, PA
March 18 Contact: [phone]; [email protected]
Science Ridicules Evolution & Confirms Genesis by Dr. J. Mastropaolo April 28-30
Bible Science Assoc’n, San Fernando Valley Chapter Creation Talks by Dr. Don DeYoung
7:00 pm, Our Saviour’s Lutheran Church, Granada Hills, CA Grace Brethren Church, Martinsburg, PA
Contact: Mark Armitage [phone] x5519, marmitage @apunet.apu.edu Contact: Pastor Jim Laird [phone]
March 21 April 28-30
Cosmic Evidence for Creation (Design) & Catastrophism by W. Stillman Karst, Castle, and Cave Crawl Weekend
Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA CSA for Mid-America (Kansas City area)
7:30 pm, Mars CM&A Church, Mars, PA Contact: Tom Willis [phone]; [email protected]
Contact: [phone]; [email protected] May 16
March 31 and April 1 Geological Evidences for Creation and the Flood by Chuck Danley
Creation vs Evolution by Dr. Kent Hovind Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA
Albert Lea Sr. High Auditorium, Albert Lea, MN 7:30 pm, Mars CM&A Church, Mars, PA
Southern Minn. Association for Creation Contact: [phone]; [email protected]
Contact: Bryce Gaudian [phone], [email protected] May 18
April 15 Workshop: Winning Debates Against Evolutionists with Dr. Duane Gish
An Evolutionist Corrects a Creationist — Debate Attendance limited to members of the Creation Research Society
Bible Science Assoc’n, San Fernando Valley Chapter Registration fee — $40 ($10 discount if paid before May 1); mail fee to:
7:00 pm, Our Saviour’s Lutheran Church, Granada Hills, CA Dr. David Kaufmann, 3745 NW 7th Ave., Gainesville, FL 32607
Contact: Mark Armitage [phone] x5519, marmitage @apunet.apu.edu Contact: Dr. David Kaufmann [phone], [email protected]
May 19-20
Creation Research Society Annual Board Meeting
Atlanta, Georgia
Creation Matters
May 20
ISSN 1094-6632 Field trip and presentation
Azusa Pacific Electron Microscopy Facility
A publication of the Creation Research Society
Bible Science Assoc’n, San Fernando Valley Chapter
Volume 5, Number 1
1:00 pm, APU Graduate Campus, Mary Hill Center, Azusa, CA
January / February 2000
Contact: Mark Armitage [phone] x5519, marmitage @apunet.apu.edu
Copyright © 2000, Creation Research Society May 27-29
All rights reserved. Kansas Chalk Monuments, Museums, and Fossil Beds
General Editor: Glen W. Wolfrom CSA for Mid-America (Kansas City area)
Contact: Tom Willis [phone]; [email protected]
For membership / subscription information, advertising rates, June 20
and information for authors:
Evidence for a Young Earth by Jeff Lawther
Glen W. Wolfrom
Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA
P.O. Box 8263
7:30 pm, Mars CM&A Church, Mars, PA
St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263
Contact: [phone]; [email protected]
Email: [email protected] June 22-24
Phone/fax: [phone] Design and Its Critics — speakers include:
Drs. Michael Behe, William Dembski, Paul Nelson, et al.
Creation Research Society Website:
http://www.creationresearch.org Concordia Univ. Of Wisconsin, Mequon, WI
Contact: Dr. Angus Menuge [phone]; [email protected]
Articles published in Creation Matters represent the opinions and beliefs of the
authors, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the
Creation Research Society.
Creation Research Society
Nonprofit Org.
P.O. Box 8263
US Postage
St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263
PAID
USA
Creation Research Society
Return Service Requested
Creation Matters
January / February 2000
Vol. 5 No. 1