Followers Say Reminder

Followers Say is coming up in just a little less than three weeks! (Saturday, March 27th) It's definitely sneaking up on me, so it might be for you, too!

If you're too lazy to scroll down and read the information about Followers Say, here's a link for you ;)

Second Biannual Followers Say

So far the participants who have emailed me (livinglovinglaughinglearning@gmail.com) are:

Lissy
Post 1: "I disbelieve the Theory of Evolution because of biological processes"
Post 2: President John Adams' inaugural speech with her own commentary. (This post would likely be a bit lengthy, and she was wondering if you all would still be interesting in reading it?)

Christopher Kennedy
What the Bible means to him

There is no deadline for "entering", but I will need you to email me so I will have a way to send the invitation to post on March 27th.

Probably Followers Say won't be as big this time around. I think September will be the main Follower Say. Still, it's nice to have two opportunities a year in case you've got some good ideas floating around!

Looking forward to reading everyone's posts and and responses to others' posts!

Part 5: The Cambrian Explosion

Introduction
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Continuing with Dr. Jay Wile and Marilyn Durnell...

Word count: 1,192
Estimated reading time: 6-9 minutes

Before we leave our discussion of the fossil record, we have to mention probably the greatest problem that faces macroevolutionists today. The problem exists as a result of some fossils that were “rediscovered” in the mid-1980s, and based on those fossils, we know that at least the bottom portion of the geological column as presented in Figure 9.2 (and all introductory biology and geology textbooks to our knowledge) is incorrect. You see, as presented in Figure 9.2, the geological column is used to give the impression that the fossil record indicates that only the “simplest” multicellular life existed in the years represented by the Cambrian rock (570-500 million years ago), and then through the years represented by the Ordovician rock (500-435 million years ago), the life got more complex. This supposedly continued through to the times represented by the Silurian rock (410-435 million years ago) as well as the time represented by Devonian rock (360-410 million years ago). As a result, the diverse life that we see in the oceans did not fully evolve until about 400 million years ago. Now remember, all of these numbers for how many millions of years ago these things happened are based on a lot of assumptions, and we don't have time to go into those assumptions. However, we are discussing how macroevolutionists interpret the geological column, and this is how they do it.

Based on the “rediscovery” we mentioned earlier, we now know that the macroevolutionists' view of the lower layers of the geological column is simply false. What do we mean by “rediscovery?” Well, in the early 1900s, Charles Walcott (a paleontologist) discovered a lot of fossils in a layer of Cambrian rock called the “Burgess Shale.” However, these fossils were not what Walcott expected. Remember, according to the geological column, only the “simplest” of multicellular life was supposed to have existed in the times represented by Cambrian rock. However, Walcott found thousands of fossils of very complex life. In fact, by the time the collection was complete, Walcott had found representatives from every major animal phylum that exists in our classification scheme (see Figure 9.5 below).

What did this stunning discovery mean? It meant that the bottom of the geological column as presented in textbooks (still to this day) is wrong. Walcott found fossils of the “simple” animals that were supposed to be in Cambrian rock, but he also found thousands of examples of animals that were too complex to have evolved in the short time represented by Cambrian rock. According to the geological column, some of these animals were supposed to have formed much, much later, in the times represented by Silurian and Devonian rock. Why in the world were these complex fossils found in Cambrian rock? Walcott had no real answer to that question.

In other words, Walcott had discovered something revolutionary! This was a find that would radically alter the scientific world's understanding of the geological column. What, then, do you think he did? What would you do if you discovered something so revolutionary? I would think that you would publicize it so that the whole world would see it. That's not what Walcott did, however. He wrote a few modest articles in an extremely obscure scientific journal (Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection), and then he reburied the fossils in his laboratory drawers, and he never mentioned them again. It would be 80 years before the fossils were “rediscovered” and their importance understood.

What is their importance? As we mentioned, they tell us that the first few layers of the geological column as presented in the geological column are simply false. After all, the geological column pictures the animals in the “simple” phyla evolving into the animals of the more complex phyla over a period of about 170 million years (from Cambrian rock to somewhere in the middle of Devonian rock). This, however, is not what the fossils say. The fossils discovered by Walcott (more than 60,000 in all, some of which are reconstructed in the figure below) and those discovered later by others tell us that all of the major animal phyla can be found in Cambrian rock.

These fossils lead to a serious problem for macroevolution. All macroevolutionists agree that macroevolution takes a long time. No one presently understands how such a huge amount of evolution could have taken place in the relatively “short” time supposedly represented by Cambrian rock. Even if the currently-assumed ages for Cambrian rock are correct, it took “only” 70 million years for evolution to go from the simplest animal phyla to the most complex animal phyla. At present, no one understands how this could have happened in the context of macroevolution. In fact, the problem is so well-known in the field of paleontology, it has a name. It is called the Cambrian Explosion, which refers to the fact that there seems to have been an “explosion” of life in Cambrian times.

Not only is the “short” time a problem for macroevolution, but the fossils themselves present a real problem as well. Even though the fact that there are no intermediate links in the fossil record is a well-known problem for macroevolution, the problem is much more dramatic in Cambrian rock. After all, a huge amount of macroevolution had to have occurred in the time represented by Cambrian rock, but there is just no evidence for it. There aren't even possible transitional forms like Archaeopteryx or Australopithecus. In fact, the creatures that are fossilized in Cambrian rock just appear there suddenly, exactly as you would expect if each of these creatures was simply made by God.

One of the most honest summaries of the problem that the Cambrian Explosion presents to macroevolution is given by prominent macroevolutionist Richard Dawkins:
(block quote) It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative. (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, [New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996], 229-230) (block quote)

Notice how honest Dr. Dawkins is in this quote. He tells us that the fossils seem to have just “appeared” there, without any evidence of evolution whatsoever. He says that both schools of macroevolutionists (we will discuss what “Punctuationists” and “Gradualists” are later) agree that even though the fossils seem to indicate that the creatures were created divinely, they must reject that notion, and they must therefore assume that the appearance of “planting” is just due to imperfections in the fossil record. What does he mean by “imperfections?” He means that the intermediate links did, indeed, exist, but they just happened to have not been fossilized. This is what you are forced to believe if you look at the fossil record and reject the most obvious conclusion that it presents: that the organisms preserved there were divinely created.

Inconclusive Evidence: The Geological Column

Introduction
Part 1
Part 2

Part 3 of the Evolution series with Dr. Jay Wile and Marilyn Durnell.

Word count: 1,931
Estimated reading time: 7-12 minutes

As we said in the previous section, there is some evidence for the hypothesis of macroevolution. For example, consider some of the facts uncovered by geology. As you should have learned in a physical or general science course, geologists classify rocks as either igneous (the result of lava cooling), metamorphic (the result of rock being transformed under extreme conditions of temperature and/or pressure), or sedimentary (formed from particles of sediment). The sedimentary rock usually forms layers that are called strata.

Strata – Distinct layers of rock

In these strata, geologists find the preserved remains of once-living organisms. Those remains are called fossils.

Fossils – Preserved remains of once-living organisms

Each row in [the geological column] represents a set of layers of sedimentary rock. The rows on top are those sedimentary rocks closest to the surface, and those at the bottom are the deepest sedimentary rocks. Now please realize that the fossils listed in each of the rows are simply the ones that best characterize each layer. There are many other fossils in each set of rocks, but the ones listed in the figures are those that distinguish each set of layers from the others. When the rock layers are illustrated in this way, we say that you are looking at the geological column.

Notice the general trend in the geological column. As you go deeper in the geological column, the fossils seem to get more and more “simple.” Now we have already clearly seen that there is no such thing as a simple life form, but remember, we are talking about evidence for Darwin's hypothesis of macroevolution. Darwin and his early supporters did not have the benefit of microscopic analysis and detailed explanations of how organisms work. Thus, they did not really know that there is no such thing as a simple life form. Instead, they saw that the strata which were near the surface of the earth contained fossils of animals like horses, lions, and humans, while the deeper strata gave way to fossils of life forms like reptiles and small mammals. Even deeper, these fossils disappeared and only fossils such as fishes, squids, and trilobites remained. Darwin and his supporters thought that this progression of fossils went from “complex” organisms like human beings to “simple” organisms like squids.

Before we discuss how Darwin and his followers interpreted this geological column, we must make two important points. First, even though Figure 9.2 is a common representation of the geological column, it is not really what the geological column actually looks like! You see, 95% of all fossils that we recover are those of clams and similar organisms. There are, quite literally, fossilized clams in every region of the earth in nearly every layer of rock. So what we are showing in this representation of the geological column is really only about 5% of the fossil record. Thus, it is not a realistic representation of what the geological column actually looks like. Nevertheless, since the geological column is usually discussed in reference to macroevolution, the clams are ignored. Thus, any conclusions you make based on the geological column are, in fact, based on a tiny minority of the available data!

Second, it is very important to realize that the geological column is an idealized representation of the sedimentary rock and fossils that we see on the earth. There is really no place on the planet where you can dig and find every layer of the geological column as well as the fossils in those layers. Instead, you will find one set of fossil-bearing strata in one area of the world, and another set of fossil-bearing strata in another area of the world. These sets often contain some of the same strata, so by comparing many such sets of strata, Figure 9.2 is a representation of what the geological column might look like if you could find all of the strata and their fossils in one place. In other words, it is a theoretical construct that may or may not be accurate. It probably is a reasonable representation of the nature of the fossil record, but nevertheless, it is not pure data. That must be remembered when using it as evidence for or against any hypothesis, including that of macroevolution.

Now we can discuss how Darwin and his followers interpreted the geological column. To do that, we must discuss how the geologist Lyell (who influenced Darwin tremendously) interpreted it. Lyell said that the strata shown in the geological column were laid down sequentially over vast eons of time. Using his idea that the present is the key to the past, Lyell said that the strata seen by geologists were formed when sediments accumulated slowly over time. We see this happening today, he said, and it results in layers of sediment. Eventually, Lyell postulated, various chemical and environmental factors would take a given layer of sediment and harden it into rock. This would result in a single layer of sedimentary rock. As time went on, another layer of sediment would slowly accumulate on top of this layer of rock, eventually forming another layer of sedimentary rock on top of the previous layer. This would happen over and over again, eventually forming the layers of rock seen in the geological column.

Now, of course, all of this is speculation, but it is accepted by many geologists today as the way in which the rock strata in the geological column were formed. Well, if you accept this speculation as fact, then you are left to conclude something rather obvious. The deeper a rock layer is in the geological column, the farther back in earth's past it was formed. After all, since Lyell's process requires the lower rock layers to form before the higher ones can, the rock layers on top should be younger than the rock layers on the bottom. In fact, geologists even try to assign time frames for when these rock strata were supposed to have formed. Cambrian rock, for example, is supposed to have formed between 570 and 500 million years ago. The next set of rock layers (Ordovician rock) is supposed to have formed between 500 and 435 million years ago. Such numbers exist for every layer in the geological column. They are based on many assumptions, and it is not clear that they are accurate, but they are commonly used in reference to the geological column.

So, from the concrete scientific facts that sedimentary rock generally forms in layers and we find fossils in those layers, we develop a theoretical construct called the geological column. Then, when we add Lyell's speculation to the geological column, we are forced to conclude that the lower the strata in the geological column, the older the rock. If we further add more assumptions, we can even come up with how long ago such rock formed. If this is the case, then fossils found in strata that are low in the geological column are the remains of creatures that lived hundreds of millions of years ago. In the same way, fossils in strata near the top of the geological column must be the remains of creatures that lived in the more recent past.

Based on Lyell's speculation, then, Darwin and his followers argued that the geological column shows us that long ago, only “simple” life forms existed. That is why we see fossils of only “simple” forms in the lowest geological strata. As you look up the geological column, however, the fossils become more and more “complex.” This indicated to Darwin that as time went on, life forms got more and more complex. Well, Darwin argued, this is great evidence for macroevolution. After all, macroevolution predicts that life started out simple and, over eons of time and guided by natural selection, more complex forms of life emerged.

Now you have to realize that this conclusion is based on assumptions. You must assume that the geological column is an accurate picture of the earth's sedimentary rocks and the fossils found in them. You also have to believe that those rocks are formed as Lyell and many geologists today speculate: by the slow accumulation of sediment over eons of time. The geological column is evidence for macroevolution only if those two assumptions are right.

So the big question is, are those two assumptions right? The answer, from a scientific standpoint, is that we don't know. The geological column is probably a reasonable representation of the sedimentary rocks on earth. However, the issue of how those rock strata are formed is quite tricky. Since this is not a geology course, we do not want to spend a lot of time on the specifics. Instead, we will simply say that scientists have seen layers of sediment form slowly as a result of a process much like that suggested by Lyell. These sediment layers look a lot like “soft” versions of the sedimentary rocks we see today. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that sedimentary rocks can form that way. However, scientists have also seen that natural catastrophes like floods and volcanic eruptions can lay down many layers of rock virtually overnight. Geologists who have spent time studying the results of the eruption of Mount St. Helens in the state of Washington, for example, have documented the formation of a huge wall of sedimentary rock that has many strata in it, all in the span of about five hours.

Science tells us, then, that rock strata can be formed either slowly in a process like that suggested by Lyell or quickly as a result of natural catastrophes. So, if you want the geological column to provide evidence for macroevolution, it does. You simply have to assume that it was formed much in the way Lyell suggested that it was formed. If, on the other hand, you don't want the geological column to provide evidence for macroevolution, you can assume that it was not formed that way. Instead, you can assume that it was formed quickly as the result of one or more catastrophes. For example, we consider the major parts of the geological column to be the result of the worldwide flood that happened during Noah's time. An excellent book written by Dr. Steven Austin entitled Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe uses the specific example of the Grand Canyon to provide convincing evidence that this is, indeed, the case. Of course, those who believe that the geological column was formed according to the speculations of Lyell also have evidence of their own, so the final answer is not clear.

Since, from a scientific point of view, we really don't know whether the geological column was formed according to the speculations of Lyell or by catastrophe, the data from the geological column is inconclusive. IF the geological column was formed according to the speculations of Lyell, then it is excellent evidence for macroevolution. IF, on the other hand, it was formed by one or more catastrophes, then it is excellent evidence against macroevolution. Creation scientists, for example, believe that the worldwide flood can easily explain most of the geological column. Thus, they believe that the geological column is evidence against macroevolution because it indicates that most of the fossilized organisms lived at the same time, in direct contradiction to the evolutionary view. Evolutionists, on the other hand, think that Lyell's speculations are the best way to explain the fossil record, so they believe that the geological column is evidence for macroevolution.

Stick around for "Part 4: Details of the Fossil Record: Evidence Against Macroevolution".

Part 2: Microevolution and Macroevolution

Introduction
Part 1

To continue our study of Evolution with Dr. Jay Wile and Marilyn Durnell...

Word count: 1,709
Estimated reading time: 7-12 minutes

As we learned in Module #1, once a hypothesis is formed, it is tested against experimental data. If the data continue to support the hypothesis, it eventually becomes a theory. If it does not, it must be altered or discarded. This is the next step in the scientific method, and it is where Darwin's hypothesis ran into some trouble.

After leaving the HMS Beagle, Darwin began experimenting with pigeons. He raised and bred them, trying to see if natural selection could result in new species of pigeon. To investigate further, he talked to other animal breeders. He interviewed those who bred dogs, horses, and pigeons, looking to their experience as a guide to whether or not his hypothesis could be correct. Indeed, he found much evidence that confirmed at least part of his hypothesis. He noted several cases of breeders who, over several generations, succeeded in producing pigeons that were so different from the species with which the breeder started that they could reasonably be classified as a new species of pigeon. The same seemed to be the case with dogs and horses as well.

As another piece of evidence for his hypothesis, Darwin compared the domesticated versions of many animals with their wild counterparts. Wild dogs, for example, looked and behaved quite differently from domesticated dogs. In fact, many breeds of domesticated dog cannot reproduce with wild dogs. Thus, by the definition of species as laid out in Module #1, these domestic dogs would be considered a wholly different species from any species of wild dog. Despite these incredible differences, domestic dogs were, many generations ago, simply wild dogs that men began to train and domesticate. Over generations, however, dog breeders would selectively mate those dogs that had what the breeder considered the best traits for domestication. Thus, the “wilder” dogs were not allowed to reproduce, and the tamer dogs were. This “manmade” selection, Darwin realized, mimicked natural selection, allowing the small variations that occurred during reproduction to “pile up,” leading to a new species of dog: the domesticated dog.

With these observations, Darwin was able to do two things. First, he established as a valid scientific theory the idea that the natural variations which occur during reproduction could, when guided by natural (or manmade) selection, take one species and pile up so many changes that the result could be something reasonably classified as another species. In other words, he showed that his explanation for the many species of finches in the Galapagos archipelago was scientifically viable. Second, Darwin was able to destroy forever an idea that had been established for generations before him: the immutability of species.

The immutability of species – The idea that each individual species on the planet was specially created by God and could never fundamentally change

In other words, scientists of Darwin's day believed that every creature was created during the time of creation and has existed, essentially the same, ever since that time. In the case of dogs, for example, those who held to the idea of the immutability of the species would say that in the Garden of Eden, there were Doberman pinschers, Saint Bernards, dachshunds, and chihuahuas. Each of these breeds of dog continued, essentially unchanged, up to the present. Darwin masterfully showed that this just wasn't true. He showed that all of these breeds of dog came from some original dog ancestor, and the natural variations that occurred in reproduction, guided by natural (or manmade) selection, resulted in the many different breeds of dog that exist to this day.

Although it sounds like Darwin had remarkable success in testing his hypothesis, you need to realize that what Darwin showed to be true was only a small part of his hypothesis of evolution. The idea that one ancestral finch could, over generations, give rise to many different species of finch was revolutionary, but it was not where Darwin's idea stopped. Once he had destroyed the idea of the immutability of the species, he wanted to go much further. He wanted to show that this same process, over millions (or perhaps billions) of years, could, eventually, cause the ancestral finch to give rise to an eagle. This is where Darwin ran into all sorts of trouble when comparing his hypothesis to the data.

Although it was rather easy to show that a species of wild dog could, over time, give rise to several breeds of domestic dog, it was quite another to show that a dog could give rise to a radically different species, such as a horse or a cow! In fact, Darwin found some evidence for this idea, but it was inconclusive at best. We will be looking at this data in depth in the next section, but for right now it is enough to say that there was so much data contradicting this part of his hypothesis, that he spent the majority of his book discussing the problems with his hypothesis.

In the end, Darwin found ample evidence that starting with a basic life form (a finch, for example), many other specialized species of this life form (many species of finch) can arise as a result of variation guided by natural (or manmade) selection. However, when it came to showing that a basic life form (once again, a finch) could evolve into a completely different life form (like an eagle) by natural selection, there was precious little evidence for his hypothesis and plenty of evidence against it. This has led scientists to divide Darwin's theory of evolution into two parts: the theory of microevolution and the hypothesis of macroevolution.

Microevolution – The theory that natural selection can, over time, take an organism and transform it into a more specialized species of that organism

Macroevolution – The hypothesis that processes similar to those at work in microevolution can, over eons of time, transform an organism into a completely different kind of organism

The distinction between macroevolution and microevolution cannot be overemphasized. There is so much evidence to support the idea of microevolution that it is a well-documented scientific theory. There is so little evidence for macroevolution and so much evidence against it that it is, at best, an unconfirmed hypothesis.

Well, if Darwin could not find much evidence in support of macroevolution and found a lot of evidence against it, how did it become so popular among scientists? There are several answers to that question, but one of the most important ones is that at the time, scientists were rather ignorant about a great many things which we take for granted. As a result, Darwin could argue his point rather convincingly.

Darwin basically said that since microevolution is so clearly apparent from a scientific point of view, then macroevolution should also be rather obvious. After all, if finches can change a little over a small amount of time, shouldn't they be able to change a lot over a long period of time? Assuming that the amount of change a given species can experience is essentially limitless, it will just take a little longer for microevolution to slowly lead to macroevolution.

To scientists of Darwin's day, this sounded like a reasonable argument. You see, they didn't know what we know about genetics. They didn't know that the genetic code is responsible for determining the range of characteristics that a species has. Thus, they didn't know that the natural variation we see in reproduction today is simply the result of different alleles being expressed in different individuals. Since we know that the number of alleles in the genetic code of any species is limited, we also know that the natural variation which occurs as a part of reproduction is limited as well. Thus, unlike Darwin argued, the variation that a species can experience is not unlimited. It is limited by the number and type of alleles in the species' genetic code. Thus, today we know that macroevolution cannot occur the same way that microevolution occurs.

You see, microevolution is simple to explain. When God created the animals and plants, he built into their genetic code a great amount of variability. As these plants and animals began reproducing, this variability began manifesting itself. This built-in variation was then acted upon by natural selection to create the variations that we see within a particular kind of creature. Thus, God probably created a “typical” dog during the creation week, and then the process of microevolution produced the many variations of dog that we see today. Microevolution, then, is a testament to God's foresight. As the Creator, God knew that the creatures of His world would have to adapt in order to survive. Thus, He built in their genetic codes the ability to change, and microevolution is simply the theory that describes how that change takes place and is directed by the pressures of the environment.

Macroevolution, however, is something quite different. The hypothesis of macroevolution assumes that a given life form has an unlimited ability to change. This means that some process must exist to add information to the creature's genetic code. After all, a creature's ability to change is limited by the information in the genetic code. There are only a certain number of genes and alleles of those genes. There is therefore only a certain number of possible variations in genotype and therefore a limited number of possible phenotypes. Thus, in order to get an unlimited amount of change, a creature must somehow find a way to add genes and alleles to its genetic code! This is something altogether different from microevolution and, as we will see in the next few sections, there is precious little data supporting such a hypothesis and quite a lot of data contradicting it.

In the end, then, we can distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution by referring to genetics. If we are talking about a species varying within its genetic code, we are talking about microevolution. This is how wild dogs became domestic dogs and how the many varieties of finch formed in the Galapagos archipelago. On the other hand, if we are talking about a species suddenly adding information to its genetic code, we are talking about macroevolution. The distinction is quite important, because the former is a well-established scientific theory while the latter is an unconfirmed hypothesis.

Look for Part 3, "Inconclusive Evidence: the Geological Column", tomorrow.

Introduction: Charles Darwin

The following was taken directly from Exploring Creation With Biology by Dr. Jay Wile and Marilyn Durnell.

Word Count: 1,693
Estimated minutes to read: 5-10

Because he is such an important figure in the field of biology, it is necessary to look at the life of Charles Darwin in some detail. This will help us gain insight to how he developed his theory, and, hopefully, you might learn a lesson or two from his story.

Charles Robert Dawrin was born in the village of Strewsbury, England on February 12, 1809. Charles Darwin On that same day, far away, Abraham Lincoln was born in Kentucky. Darwin was born into a relatively wealthy family where education and artistic enrichment were stressed. In 1825, he enrolled at the University of Edinburgh, where all the men in his family had been educated. His father wanted him to study medicine, but he was sickened at the first sight of surgery being performed without anesthesia. He also showed little aptitude for the subject, so after two years, he abandoned the study of medicine.

When he left the study of medicine, he transferred to Christ's College in Cambridge, England, to study theology. Contrary to what you might have heard about Darwin, he seemed to be a deeply committed Christian at this point in his life. During this part of his life, he said that he did not “…in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word of the Bible” (Julian Huxley and H.B.D. Kettlewell, Charles Darwin And His World, [New York,NY: Viking Press, 1965], 15). Since he considered himself a devout Christian, the study of theology came quite naturally to him, and he graduated with a B.A. in theology, Euclid, and the classics.

Although his degree was in theology, Euclid, and the classics, Darwin developed a keen interest in geology while at Cambridge. Thus, when he had the opportunity to accompany a Cambridge professor, Adam Sedgewick, on a geology field trip in the summer of 1831, he jumped at the chance. While on that field trip, he was offered the position of naturalist on the HMS Beagle, a ship that planned to circumnavigate the globe. Although you might think it unusual for a ship to employ a naturalist, nearly every ship had such a position available. Darwin eagerly accepted the assignment, and that voyage changed both Darwin's life and the face of science forever.

Before that voyage, Darwin had read a book written by Thomas Malthus entitled An Essay on the Principles of Population. In this book, Malthus said that all individuals within a population struggle against other individuals to obtain what is necessary (food, shelter, a mate, etc.) in order to survive and reproduce. While on board the HMS Beagle, Darwin also read some of the works of a controversial geologist named Sir Charles Lyell. Lyell was one of the first scientists who rejected the history of the world as told in the Old Testament and tried to show that the same processes we see at work today could, given eons and eons of time, produce all of the geological features in the world. Geologists often summarize Lyell's idea with the catch phrase “The present is the key to the past.”

Darwin voyaged on the HMS Beagle for five years; during that time, he made many observations. Each time the ship dropped anchor, Darwin collected samples and made observations of the species native to whatever island or land mass he was on. These observations, some of which we will detail later, combined with the ideas of Malthus and Lyell, led Darwin to formulate his theory, which he called “natural selection.” Although his theory was completely formulated by the time he left the HMS Beagle, he did not publish his book for another 23 years. Part of the delay was due to Darwin trying to perfect his work, but most of it was due to his wife, who recognized the devastating effect that his work could have on the church. She pleaded with him not to publish, and he respected her wishes for some time, but in the end, he felt that he had to communicate his ideas to the scientific world. He therefore published The Origin of Species in 1859.

It is important to note that Darwin was a careful, meticulous scientist. He was not the anti-religion crusader that many have made him out to be. If you actually read his work, you will find that it is quite evenhanded. Indeed, Darwin devoted more space to discussing the reasons a scientist might not want to accept his main hypothesis than he did to the discussion of why a scientist should accept it! You will not find that kind of evenhandedness in the majority of scientific writing that occurs today. Indeed, modern scientists (especially evolutionary crusaders) could learn a lot from Darwin's style. Darwin's only real mistake was to allow his faith to erode as a result of the science he pursued on the HMS Beagle.

The best illustration of how Darwin's faith eroded while on the HMS Beagle and the years after can be found by comparing two statements he made. During the earliest part of his voyage, he wrote in his diary that he often bore the brunt of a good deal of laughter “…from several of the officers for quoting the Bible as final authority on some moral point” (Bern Dibner, Darwin of the Beagle, [Cambridge, MA: Burndy Library, 1964], 82). Only a few years after his voyage, however, he stated "...that the Old Testament from its manifest false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos [sic], or the beliefs of any barbarian” (Dibner, pp. 82-83). Clearly these are the statements of a man whose faith at first seemed strong but then eroded over time to nothing!

Charles Darwin died in 1882 as the result of a long illness. He died a celebrated naturalist whose views were said to usher in a new age of science. He was buried in Westminster Abbey along with such scientific greats as Sir Isaac Newton and Sir William Thomson Kelvin. There is a myth going around the Christian community that Darwin recanted his theory on his deathbed. This is a lie, and historians think that it was started by the widow of Sir James Hope, fleet admiral for the Royal Navy. She claims to have visited Darwin shortly before his death and to have heard him recant his theory and ask to be told how he might be saved. Darwin's own daughter Henrietta, however, said, “…[the admiral's widow] was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her....” In addition, she states that “He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier…The whole story has no foundation whatever” (Paul F. Boller and John George, They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, & Misleading Attributions, [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989], 19-20). Although the story of a deathbed recantation by Darwin is appealing to Christians, it is almost certainly a lie and therefore such a story does not, in any way, honor God.

Although this biography was rather long and involved, it was necessary for four reasons. First, it is important that the phony story of Darwin's deathbed recantation not be spread any further. Second, it is important for you to realize that although Darwin's theory has had devastating effects on the faith of many people, Darwin himself was not an antireligion crusader like many evolutionists are today. Darwin was a careful, dedicated scientist who started his career speaking like a Bible-believing Christian. There is not a shred of evidence that he had any intentions of harming the church. He was merely communicating what he thought were the obvious conclusions of science. Third, it shows that even careful use of the scientific method can result in the wrong conclusion. Despite the fact that Darwin did everything right in terms of the science that he did, we can show that although a portion of his theory is valid, the major conclusion is not. Thus, proper use of the scientific method does not guarantee a correct answer!

Finally, a look at Darwin's life can show you how horrible the results are when you put your faith in science. As we stated in Module #1, science is limited and is constantly changing. What we thought were scientific laws less than a century ago are now known to be wrong. Indeed, as you will see in the rest of this module, we now know that most of Darwin's ideas were very wrong. You simply cannot put your faith in something as limited and subject to change as science. Had Darwin realized that, he would not have allowed his faith in the Bible to be eroded, and he might never have championed this errant theory that has had such a devastating effect on the faith of others!

This is the introduction to a ten part series on viewing Evolution through good science.

Because of "issues" in the past, I would like to set some parameters for commenting:

1. No insulting. At all. NONE. Comments doing so will be deleted completely. Watch it.
A. No degrading examples (Einar), and no patronizing tone barely hidden within every sentence (Alex).
B. No attacking people's intelligence or lack of open-mindedness. This debate is not about how ignorant you think your opponent is, it's about the cold hard facts of science.
C. Being insulted by someone's belief does not count as an insult as long as the belief is expressed with civility.

2. If you are going to counter anything being said, please back up your argument with evidence. Posting links is not necessary, but do cite your source, please.

3. If you are asked to give further information, please do so when asked the first time, just out of courtesy.

4. If you think I am being a bossy, controlling, overbearing snot, that is perfectly fine. It will not be the first time someone has thought that. However, the rules still apply ;)

5. Go for it.

You

I'm studying DNA and genes in biology this week; you know, what makes you, you. Your DNA controls your physical characteristics almost entirely. You can lift weights or something to get stronger, of course, but there's actually a limit to how far you can go. Your DNA determines that limit.

But what about our thoughts and personalities? I've been told that I "act just like my mom" sometimes, but is that because of my DNA, or my mom's influence on me throughout my life? Hmm.

Peoples' personalities are (obviously) very different. I can't figure some people out, and other I understand perfectly. Some people love the color purple, and others (like me) find it a horrible color for whatever reason (sorry, purple-lovers :)). Some love to read, others don't. Some think Obama is the best thing since remote controls, others think it wouldn't hurt him to be a little less like one.

I have often wondered what makes us who we are. DNA to some extent, parental influence to some, God shaping us to some as well, but who are WE?

What is YOU?

I don't mean what do you like. I don't mean when you go shopping and see a cute jacket that is "so you". I mean what are you. Where is the "you" in your body? What makes you, YOU?

If I cut off your finger, is that finger "you"?

Well, yes and no...It's PART of you, but it's not really YOU...

Okay, so you aren't in your finger.

I tend to think people are in their heads. But it's not as if you could dissect someone's brain and find a little piece inside that's "them".

So...what makes us who we are?

It's our minds, yes. Our thoughts. But what are thoughts? Just electric impulses in our brains? How do little electric impulses tell us right and wrong, what to like, how to act? How do little electric impulses make us love to read, or write, or go horseback riding, or paint? How do little electric impulses tell us to be scared, happy, sad, or excited? How do little electric impulses make us love and hate?

Maybe we'll never really know what thoughts are. Maybe people DO know and I just don't yet :) But it's really kind of interesting, isn't it? What separates "you" from "your body"? What are thoughts?

Just something to think about ;)

Taking a Stand: The Monster Unleashed :D

Some of you may recall a blogger named JT Norlander who commented on Alex's post during Followers Say. He did not seem to think I was firm enough about my position against homosexuality. He suggested on his blog that I should "take a stand".

Those of you who know me in person: try not to laugh out loud XD

One thing I've had to be very careful about in my life is how I come across to people. When I research something and form an educated opinion, my opinions are, if you'll pardon the reference to Mulan, written in stone. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever standing up for myself and my beliefs. I frequently have to run my comments by someone else to make sure I am not completely blowing holes in what other people are saying.

Some people might call it having a temper, but I prefer to think of it as being "strong-willed". *smirks* All good training for law school, right? XD

So, just to be make it clear that I am very much a True Christian, let me run through the 11 basic beliefs we've covered on Carpe Noctem.

1. The New America: America is falling. Our founding priciples are crumbling, personal freedoms are slowly being taken away.

I thought the "New America" would be decades from now. I thought the big changes and awful things would come later.

I was wrong.

The New America is here. It is now.

America is going to fall, and when she does, who is going to pick her back up? People who are educated and persuasive. People who are good thinkers and people who can use logic.

When America falls, we will need LEADERS. Leaders with good ideas, principles and morals who can build America back up to the nation she was meant to be.

Plenty of people have good ideas, principles and morals, though. Most of them will not be able to help. Do you know why?

Because they don't know how to think, how to write, how to persuade.

It's a very basic concept, one that can be good or bad.

Winners, leaders, are not chosen because of their outstanding character. Not really. They are chosen because they know how to persuade people.

End of mini rant.

Controversial, extremist, and offensive point: When America falls, classically educated homeschoolers will rise to power because they know how to think, use logic, persuade, speak publically, and articulate their ideas well.

2. Feminism: It's not a dirty word. Feminism is not a sin. It can be pretty stupid, but it's not a sin.

Girls are just as smart as guys, but, face it, WE'RE NOT SUITED FOR THE NFL.

The whole attitude of Girls-Can-Do-ANYTHING-Guys-Can-Do-So-HAH attitude is getting really old and is frankly not true.

Girls and guys were made differently, so instead of pretending to be guys, let's celebrate the difference, shall we?

3. Discrimination: Racial discrimination is a terrible thing, a definite no-no. Discrimination, however, is not a bad thing.

Discrimination: to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately

Is that wrong? Nope. When chosing a babysitting for your three year old, are you going to chose the tidy girl who make straight As and is always smiling, or the girl wearing black lipstick cussing her brains out at a stranger on the street?

Discrimination. Not bad in itself, just where we point it.

4. Global Warming: Bite me. You can tell me global warming is true, BLAH BLAH BLAH, but the HARD, COLD, FREAKIN' FACT is that it's

NOT.

Sorry. Do you research. All the big-name weather guys are telling you the same thing: LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE, PEOPLE. GLOBAL WARMING IS FAKE, FAKE, FAKE.

There is NOTHING WRONG WITH OUR ATMOSPHERE in the long run. This is a PHASE.

I've said this a bunch, and I'll say it again. It's a hoax. Do your reasearch.

5. Weird vs. Normal: It's all so relative that there's really no such thing.

6. Being Great: C'mon, you scaredy cat. DO SOMETHING. BE MISUNDERSTOOD. DARE TO BE GREAT.

7. Terrorists/War: Can't we just live and let live?

To put it simply, NO.

Now, some people say that we should stop fighting the terrorists. Leave them alone, they say. Live and let live.

I'm fine with that. You're probably fine with that. Most people (serial killers not included) are good with that.

Except the terrorists.

THEY WANT TO KILL US. It's part of their religion. Their Bible explicitely says "KILL ALL THE NON-MUSLIMS!"

Yay, peace. Peace is good. But I think for peace to work, both sides have to agree to NOT KILL EACH OTHER.

I am all for peace. Really. As much as I enjoy stirring up trouble and debating, world peace is a wonderful that I want us to have! I think it would be WONDERFUL if we could live in harmoney with the Muslims. Some of them are probably really great people.

But as long as they are bombing America, it is America's job to fight back.

America is not "attacking" the terrorists. It is purely self-defense.

8. Articulacy: Ah, articulacy. The lost art. Let's think. If people were all articulate and persuasive, what could we achieve...?

We could paint picture in the air with our words!

We could solve disputes in half the time.

We could skip all the tedious daily arguments.

We could persuade people to do all kinds of things.

We could make people understand us.

We could talk our way up the corporate ladder.

We could charm the most uncharmable character.

We could rise to infinite power!

So, what are you waiting for? Get out a dictionary and learn to talk.

9. Going Green: Don’t get me wrong, I am all for keeping Earth alive for as long as possible, especially considering I live here. But the whole concept of “going green” has gotten SO ANNOYING. I am getting a little fed up with the whole GAHHH!!!-DID-YOU-JUST-THROW-THAT-CAN AWAY-THAT-IS-RECYCLABLE-MATERIAL!!!!!! thing. It’s really starting to get on my nerves.

The whole world is “going green”, which is a fine thing, just not when every time I open a magazine they’re screaming “secrets” about how to go even GREENER than we already are. It’s in children’s programs, even! Entire episodes of Curious George have been dedicated to making sure kids know they’re killing trees with every drawing they create.

Everyone already knows about being green. Do we have to keep dedicating entire episodes and magazine issues to the movement? Just let it sit for a while. Bring it up again for the next generation.

If we really wanted more “green” tips, we could Google it.

10. Evolution: *HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*

*wipes tears from eyes* *gasp*

Okay, sorry. I'm not even going to go into this. If you look at your facts, you'll come to the same conclusion. If you look at the facts and don't, there is something wrong with you.

11. Homosexuality: It's bad. It's against God. It's a choice.

Line of Logical Reasoning (this will only go for those who proclaim themselves Christians):

All sin is a choice.
Homosexuality is a sin.
Therefore, homosexuality is a choice.

And it's that simple.

Hopefully this reitteration of my beliefs has helped you guys. JT, congratulations on unleashing the monster ;)

Posts 8-12 In One

I'm a week late posting. I apologize.

I'm beginning to re-think my series. I plan to finish it, but since I did not start this blog for political reasons, I'd like to get through those debates and get back to the things I really want to post about (see my earlier posts).

To do this, I'm going to combine the rest of the Logic posts into this one.

Also, don't forget about Followers Say coming up in just two weeks!

Logical Fallacies to Watch Out For (continued):

8. Straw Man Argument:

Another personal favorite. This occurs when someone distorts their opponent's oppinion to make it easier to attack.

Christians are especially vulnerable to this. This is partly due to the "Inherit the Wind" standard set up, and partly because of the truly stupid arguments some Christians have made.

Darwinists like to make the public think that only the most extreme religious fundamentalists disagree with their theory. This is simple not true. (If you think it is, please provide some evidence.)

A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "just 32% of the public accepts [Evolution] as true."

I find it hard to believe that all 68% of America are extreme religious fundamentalists.

Why do Darwinists like to portray the argument as Science vs. the Bible?

Because, guess what? When the debate is set up that way, science always wins.

Despite what many Darwinists say, the evidence for Evolution is shakier than they would like. To draw attention away from this, they set up the Straw Man Argument.

9. Begging the Question:

An argument is said to be begging the question if it assumes the answer to the inquiry in question.

Example:
Question: Why should we believe what the Bible says?
Answer: Because the Bible says so.

Question: What evidence proves that life evolved from non-living molecules?
Answer: Don't reject a scientific theory just because of religious bias.

The latter answer assumes what is in dispute: that the evidence for chemical Evolution is so strong that only prejudiced people would be skeptical.

In arguments that beg the question, answers usually assume that science and reason are always on the same side.

This fallacy ties in to the Straw Man as well. If you let a Straw Man define the terms, you will always lost.

10. Lack of Testability:

We must learn to distinguish between theories that put themselves at risk (can be tested) and ones that cannot be show to be either true OR false.

Not everything a scientist says is scientific, and some theories coming from eminent scientists might be about as accurate as musings about Heaven. Both Creationism and Evolution can be stated in safe or risky ways.

If a Creationist says that they believe in Creation on faith, then there's nothing we can do to prove or disprove the theory. However, if a Creationist says that the evidence says taht living organisms are the product of intellegent life and could never have come into being by completelyl natural means from a probiotic soup of chemicals, that statement invites scientific testing.

Darwinism was first stated in a testable, risky way. It predicted that fossil hunters would eventually discover a great number of transitional intermidiates between the major groups (they didn't) and that animal breeders would succeed in creating distinct species (they didn't).

Today, Darwin's theory is stated in a risk-free way. Naturalistic evolution is identified with science itself, and any different theories or suggestions are immediately disqualified as "religion". This makes it impossible to have a scientific debate over whether the theory is true.

11. Vague and Shifting Definitions:

When debating, people (unfortunately mainly Darwinists) like to use the "bait and switch" strategy. They will lead you to agree to a harmless definition, and then use teh definition later in a very different way. Terms that are commonly subjected to this switch are "science" and "e/Evolution".

Someone might lead you to agree that dog breeding is evolution. Well, you might agree with that. Sure. If what "evolution" means is that there are variations within speicies, sure. (By the way, dog breeding is guided, and only variation, not evolution.)

The correct answer, then, for when someone asks you if you believe in evolution is:

"Define 'evoulution'."

12. Original Sin:

We need to look at all the facts with an open mind (not so open that your brain falls out, of course). Beware the original sin: believing what we want to believe. We are all guilty of this. It's human nature.

In the words of Richard Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool."

Thank you, and talk to you next time!

3: Faith vs. Reason

This is possibly my "favorite" mistake in Creation vs. Evolution. All kinds of people, Creationists, as well as Evolutionists, like to paint this debate as "Faith vs. Reason". Science on one side, fantasy on the other. Fact on one side, wishful thinking on the other. Reason on one side, faith on the other. Well, here's something that might surprise you:

Faith and reason are not opposites.

Or, better put, faith and reason do not contradict each other.

In TV debates, newspaper articles, etc., people like to write off Creation by saying it's just faith. No reason involved. Just blind faith. Here's another something that might surprise you:

God does not even WANT us to have blind faith.

God is a very reasonable, logical god! He doesn't want us to follow him blindly. He doesn't want us to take everything every preacher says. He doesn't want us to take in the Bible without looking into it, testing it, questioning it. God thinks that faith and reason should go hand in hand!

Why have faith in something if reason says otherwise? It doesn't make sense, and our God is a VERY sensical God!

Evolutionists like to make God out to be like a grown-up version of Santa Claus. Santa makes little kids feel safe, watched, and loved by someone bigger than just their own family circle. The child has faith, and that's all that matters to him.

As the child gets older and is exposed to more ideas and opinions, he will be told that Santa isn't real. The child will, at first, think this is a horrible lie and refuse to look into it further. As the child gets older, he will probably preform a little expirement and stay up to see if Santa comes.

When the child sees his parents sneaking gifts under the tree, he will be faced with two options: one, stick with faith and continue to believe something he knows is a lie, or two, go with reason and give up his faulty belief.

If the child choses to believe in Santa despite what he has seen, people will probably put up with him, maybe even think he is cute, but they will not take him seriously. If he continues to believe in Santa into adulthood, he will probably be labeled insane.

So, is the God of the Bible like Santa Claus? Just a cute little myth that one must rely on faith to believe? One can defend a myth by saying that it gives comfort, and can even be morally and socially helpful if kept in its place. Even athiests worry about what will happen to society if religion disappears completely. Christians can even buy the tolerance of agnostics by using the "faith escape".

So, for all scientific and intellegent purposes, Christianity is classified as a "higher supersition", which is basically an irrational belief that's relatively respected in society.

But all this isn't true. Faith and reason are not opposites, they are not mutually exclusive, and they do not contradict each other.

I know what you're thinking: "Easy to say. Show me. Prove it."

Okay. I will.

Keep reading, because that's just what I intend to do. I refuse to be one of the Christians who believes in God simply because it's what they were always taught, it makse them feel better, and they don't want to explore other options. I refuse to take what I've always been given simply BECAUSE it's what I've always been given. I refuse to believe in God only because it makes me feel better about my life. God gave me a brain, he gave me resources to explore, and theories that need to be looked into.

I firmly and honestly believe that God is happiest when we challenge him, look into things for ourselves, test him. Wanna know why?

Because God isn't scared.

God has nothing to be afraid of.

God is the truth, so what IS there to be afraid of?

Why should we refuse to test God because we're afraid he won't stand up to it? If we're afraid to look too hard, if we're afraid we'll disprove God, why are we still believing in him? If God is a big phoney, DON'T YOU WANT TO KNOW?

That's why this series is not just for Evolutionists. It's for Creationists, too. Don't be afraid to test God. Don't be afraid to look into the Bible, asked the hard questions, tear apart Jesus's logic.

Because faith and reason are not opposites.