Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Honest Evolutionists Part II

Expand Messages
  • mrphilowens
    Jim Allan says that previously, when people brought up creationist interpretations of the evidence he would say, `Why bring that nonsense to me?—it s not
    Message 1 of 19 , Jul 1 6:37 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Jim Allan says that previously, when people brought up creationist
      interpretations of the evidence he would say, `Why bring that
      nonsense to me?—it's not science.'

      Dr James Allan, M.Sc.Agric. (Stellenbosch), Ph.D. (Edinburgh),
      retired as senior lecturer in the Department of Genetics, University
      of Stellenbosch, South Africa, in 1992. He has researched the
      genetics of fruit flies, snails, chickens, dairy cattle, and fish,
      and taught students quantitative and population genetics,
      particularly in its application to the breeding of animals.


      Dr Allan told us that he accepted evolution as a young student at
      university `virtually from the word go.' He says, `For about 40
      years I believed in the theory of evolution.' He thought that
      evolution explained the similarities that exist between living
      things—such as all living things sharing the system of coding
      genetic information on DNA—and never questioned the idea. Things
      shared the DNA code because they had a common ancestor, he thought.

      Susan: If he is a scientist familiar with evolutionary
      biology, he is a cold, calculating liar. It is
      kinder to suppose that he is not a scientist and ignorant of his
      subject.

      OWENS: Why does he have to be a liar? Because he doesn't agree with
      what you've been told regarding evolution? Are the rest of the
      scientists on this list all liars too? And given his educational
      background, I'd say he's far more knowledgeable of his subject than
      you are.
      What does his religious view have to do with anything? Didn't you
      state your religious views? The additional information you provided
      on him only demonstrates that he finally came to terms with his lack
      of objectivity regarding the theory that he once had.

      "It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologist and lawman
      that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined
      nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself
      and in its turn is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are
      certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious
      fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reasons.
      The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself.
      The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within
      rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Decent of Darwin:
      A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11


      "The evidence for Darwinism is not only grossly inadequate, it's
      systematically distorted. I'm convinced that sometime in the not-to-
      distant future, people will look back in amazement and say, 'How
      could anyone have believed this?' Darwinism is merely materialistic
      philosophy masquerading as science." Jonathan Well, Ph.D. in
      molecular and cell biology, specializing in vertebrate embryology,
      1994, from UC Berkeley.


      • Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
      • Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
      • Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
      • Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist
      • Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
      • Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
      • Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
      • Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
      • Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
      • Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
      • Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
      • Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics &
      Nuclear Physics
      • Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
      • Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
      • Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
      • Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
      • Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
      • Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
      • Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
      • Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
      • Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
      • Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
      • Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
      • Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
      • Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
      • Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
      • Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
      • Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
      • Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
      • Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
      • Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
      • Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
      • Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
      • Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
      • Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
      • Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
      • Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
      • Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
      • Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
      • Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
      • Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
      • Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
      • Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
      • Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
      • Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
      • Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of
      Biology
      • George T. Javor, Biochemistry
      • Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
      • Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
      • Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
      • Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
      • Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
      • Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
      • Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
      • Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
      • Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
      • Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
      • Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
      • Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
      • Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
      • Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
      • Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
      • Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology,
      Neurobiology
      • Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
      • Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
      • Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
      • Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
      • Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
      • Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
      • Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
      • Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
      • Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
      • Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
      • Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
      • Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
      • Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
      • Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive
      Physiologist
      • Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
      • Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
      • Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
      • Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
      • Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
      • Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
      • Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
      • Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
      • Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
      • Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology
      (Paleontology)
      • Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
      • Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
      • Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
      • Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
      • Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
      • Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
      •
      • Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
      • Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
      • Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
      • Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
      • Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
      • Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
      • Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
      • Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
      • Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
      • Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
      • Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
      • Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
      • Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
      • Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
      • Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
      • Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
      • Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
      • Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
      • Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in
      Zoology)
      • Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
      • Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
      • Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
      • Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
      • Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
      • Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
      • Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
      • Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
      • Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
      • Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
    • mrphilowens
      Susan: If you want to quote a scientist, actually read what the scientist says and then quote from that book or article. That way you will know if your quote
      Message 2 of 19 , Jul 1 8:19 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Susan:


        If you want to quote a
        scientist, actually read what the scientist says
        and then quote from that book or article. That
        way you will know if your quote is honest--or not.

        Susan
        OWENS: OK, HERE YOU GO. I HOPE I PROVIDED TEXT FOR YOU NOT TO GO
        FALSELY CLAIMING " OUT OF TEXT QUOTE" OUT OF TEXT QUOTE"!!!



        FOREWORD
        By Professor Maciej Giertych
        Sometime in 1955, when I was taking Honor Moderations in Science
        (Botany, Chemistry and Geology) at Oxford University, the O. U.
        Biology Club announced a lecture against the theory of Evolution.
        The largest auditorium in the Biology Labs was filled to capacity.
        When the speaker was introduced (I regret I do not remember his
        name), it turned out he was an octogenarian with a Ph.D. in biology
        from Cambridge, obtained in the 19th century. He spoke fervently
        against the theory of Evolution, defending what was for us an
        obviously indefensible position. He did not convince anybody with
        his antique arguments; he did not understand the questions that were
        fired at him; he rejected science as we knew it. We all had a good
        laugh hearing this dinosaur. He fought for his convictions against a
        sophisticated scientific environment, deaf to any opinions inspired
        by religious beliefs. Today his views are being vindicated by new
        evidence from natural sciences. May his soul rest in peace.
        In 1955, like all in my generation, I was fully convinced that
        Evolution was an established biological fact. The evidence was
        primarily paleontological. We were taught how to identify geological
        strata with the help of fossils, specific for a given epoch. The
        rocks were dated by the fossils, the fossils by the strata. A
        lecturer in stratigraphy, when asked during a field trip how the
        strata were dated, explained that we know the rate of current
        sedimentation, the depths of strata and thus the age of rocks. In
        any case, there are new isotopic techniques that confirm all this.
        This sounded very scientific and convincing.
        In my studies I went on to a B.A. and M.A. in forestry, a Ph.D. in
        plant physiology and finally a D.Sc. in genetics. For a long time I
        was not bothered by geology, Evolution or any suspicious thoughts. I
        had my own field of research in population genetics of forest trees,
        with no immediate relevance to the controversy over Evolution.
        Gradually, as my children got to the stage of learning biology in
        school and discussing their problems with Dad, I realized that the
        evidence for Evolution had shifted from paleontology and embryology
        to population genetics. But population genetics is my subject! I
        knew it was used to explain how Evolution progressed, but I was not
        aware it is used to prove it. Without my noticing it, my special
        field had become the supplier of the most pertinent evidence
        supporting the theory.
        If Evolution were proved in some field I was not familiar with, I
        understood the need to accommodate my field to this fact, to suggest
        explanations how it occurred in terms of genetics. But to claim that
        these attempted explanations are the primary evidence for the theory
        was quite unacceptable to me. I started reading the current
        literature on the topic of Evolution. Until then I was not aware how
        shaky the evidence for Evolution was, how much of what
        was "evidence" had to be discarded, how little new evidence had been
        accumulated over the years, and how very much ideas dominate facts.
        These ideas have become dogma, yet they have no footing in natural
        sciences. They stem from materialistic philosophies.
        My primary objection as a geneticist was to the claim that the
        formation of races, or microevolution, as it is often referred to,
        is a small scale example of macroevolution—the origin of species.
        Race formation is, of course, very well documented. All it requires
        is isolation of a part of a population. After a few generations, due
        to natural selection and genetic drift, the isolated population will
        irreversibly lose some genes, and thus, as long as the isolation
        continues, in some features it will be different from the population
        it arose from. In fact, we do this ourselves all the time when
        breeding, substituting natural with artificial selection and
        creating artificial barriers to generative mixing outside the
        domesticated conditions.
        The important thing to remember here is that a race is genetically
        impoverished relative to the whole population. It has fewer alleles
        (forms of genes). Some of them are arranged into special,
        interesting, rare combinations. This is particularly achieved by
        guided recombination of selected forms in breeding work. But these
        selected forms are less variable (less polymorphic). Thus what is
        referred to as micro-evolution represents natural or artificial
        reduction of the gene pool. You will not get Evolution that way.
        Evolution means construction of new genes. It means increase in the
        amount of genetic information, and not reduction of it.
        The evolutionary value of new races or selected forms should be
        demonstrable by natural selection. However, if allowed to mix with
        the general breeding population, new races will disappear. The genes
        in select combinations will disperse again; the domesticated forms
        will go wild. Thus there is no evidence for Evolution here.
        Mutations figure prominently in the Evolution story. When in the
        early '60s I was starting breeding work on forest trees, everyone
        was very excited about the potential of artificial mutations. In
        many places around the world, special "cobalt bomb" centers were
        established to stimulate rates of mutations. What wonderful things
        were expected from increased variability by induced mutations. All
        of this work has long since been abandoned. It led nowhere. All that
        was obtained were deformed freaks, absolutely useless in forestry.
        Maybe occasionally some oddity could be of ornamental value, but
        never able to live on its own in natural conditions. A glance
        through literature on mutations outside forestry quickly convinced
        me that the pattern is similar everywhere. Mutations are either
        neutral or detrimental. Positive ones, if they do occur, are too
        rare to be noticeable. Stability in nature is the rule. We have no
        proofs for Evolution from mutation research.
        It is sometimes claimed that strains of diseases resistant to
        antibiotics, or weeds resistant to herbicides, are evidence for
        positive mutations. This is not so. Most of the time, the acquired
        resistance is due to genetic recombination and not due to mutations.
        Where mutations have been shown to be involved, their role depends
        on deforming part of the genetic code, which results in a deformed,
        usually less effective protein that is no longer suitable for
        attachment by the harmful chemical.
        Herbicides are "custom made" for attachability to a vital protein
        specific for the weed species, and they kill the plant by depriving
        the protein of its function when attached to it. A mutation that
        cancels attachability to the herbicide and does not totally deprive
        the protein of its function is in this case beneficial, since it
        protects the functionality of the protein. However this is at a
        price, since in fact the change is somewhat detrimental to normal
        life processes. At best it is neutral. There are many ways in which
        living systems protect functionality. This is one of them. Others
        include healing or eliminating deformed parts or organisms. Natural
        selection belongs here. So does the immunological adaptation to an
        invader. Of course such protective adaptations do not create new
        species, new kinds, new organs or biological systems. They protect
        what already exists, usually at a cost. Defects accumulate along the
        way.
        Within the genome of a species, that is, in the molecular structure
        of its DNA, we find many recurrent specific nucleotide sequences,
        known as "repeats." Different ones occur in different species. If
        this variation (neutral as far as we know) arose from random
        mutations, it should be random. How then did the "repeats" come to
        be? If mutations are the answer, they could not have been random. In
        this context "genetic drive" is postulated, as distinct
        from "genetic drift." But Who or what does the driving? The
        empirical science of genetics knows only random mutations.
        Currently there are new suggestions that molecular genetics provides
        evidence for Evolution. Analyses of DNA sequences in various species
        should show similarities between related ones and big differences
        between systematically far-removed species. They do exactly that.
        Molecular genetics generally confirms the accuracy of taxonomy. But
        at the same time, it does not confirm postulated evolutionary
        sequences. There are no progressive changes, say from fishes to
        amphibians, to reptiles to mammals. Molecular genetics confirms
        systematics, not phylogeny; Linnaeus, not Darwin. No. Genetics has
        no proofs for Evolution. It has trouble explaining it. The closer
        one looks at the evidence for Evolution, the less one finds of
        substance. In fact, the theory keeps on postulating evidence and
        failing to find it, and moves on to other postulates (fossil missing
        links, natural selection of improved forms, positive mutations,
        molecular phylogenetic sequences, etc.). This is not science.
        A whole age of scientific endeavor was wasted searching for a
        phantom. It is time we stopped and looked at the facts! Natural
        sciences failed to supply any evidence for Evolution. Christian
        philosophy tried to accommodate this unproved postulate of
        materialist philosophies. Much time and intellectual effort went in
        vain, leading only to negative moral consequences. It is time those
        working in the humanities were told the truth.
        Gerard J. Keane is doing exactly that. In clear and simple language,
        he reviews the present status of the Evolution-Creation controversy.
        I am very happy to be able to recommend this book. Indeed, Creation
        Rediscovered by science comes to the rescue of Christianity.
        Professor Maciej Giertych, B.A., M.A. Oxon, Ph.D. Toronto, D.Sc.
        Poznan Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Dendrology, 62-035
        Kornik, Poland

        OWENS: LOOKS LIKE THIS PARTIAL LIST OF SCIENTISTS CLEARLY SHOWS
        THAT NOT ALL SCIENTISTS ARE EVOLUTIONISTS AS YOU WOULD HAVE
        EVERYBODY BELIEVE!!

        • Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
        • Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
        • Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
        • Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist
        • Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
        • Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
        • Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
        • Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
        • Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
        • Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
        • Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
        • Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics &
        Nuclear Physics
        • Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
        • Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
        • Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
        • Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
        • Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
        • Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
        • Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
        • Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
        • Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
        • Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
        • Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
        • Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
        • Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
        • Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
        • Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
        • Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
        • Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
        • Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
        • Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
        • Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
        • Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
        • Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
        • Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
        • Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
        • Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
        • Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
        • Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
        • Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
        • Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
        • Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
        • Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
        • Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
        • Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
        • Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of
        Biology
        • George T. Javor, Biochemistry
        • Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
        • Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
        • Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
        • Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
        • Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
        • Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
        • Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
        • Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
        • Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
        • Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
        • Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
        • Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
        • Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
        • Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
        • Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
        • Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology,
        Neurobiology
        • Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
        • Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
        • Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
        • Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
        • Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
        • Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
        • Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
        • Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
        • Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
        • Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
        • Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
        • Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
        • Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
        • Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive
        Physiologist
        • Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
        • Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
        • Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
        • Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
        • Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
        • Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
        • Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
        • Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
        • Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
        • Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology
        (Paleontology)
        • Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
        • Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
        • Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
        • Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
        • Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
        • Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
        •
        • Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
        • Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
        • Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
        • Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
        • Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
        • Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
        • Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
        • Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
        • Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
        • Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
        • Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
        • Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
        • Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
        • Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
        • Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
        • Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
        • Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
        • Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
        • Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in
        Zoology)
        • Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
        • Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
        • Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
        • Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
        • Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
        • Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
        • Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
        • Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
        • Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
        • Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
      • Susan Cogan
        ... who said HE was a liar? You notice he retired. I doubt he is the author of that website you quoted so extensively from. If he IS the author of the website
        Message 3 of 19 , Jul 1 2:00 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          >AIG website:
          >Dr Allan told us that he accepted evolution as a young student at
          >university `virtually from the word go.' He says, `For about 40
          >years I believed in the theory of evolution.' He thought that
          >evolution explained the similarities that exist between living
          >things—such as all living things sharing the system of coding
          >genetic information on DNA—and never questioned the idea. Things
          >shared the DNA code because they had a common ancestor, he thought.
          >
          >Susan: If he is a scientist familiar with evolutionary
          >biology, he is a cold, calculating liar. It is
          >kinder to suppose that he is not a scientist and ignorant of his
          >subject.
          >
          >OWENS: Why does he have to be a liar?


          who said HE was a liar? You notice he retired. I
          doubt he is the author of that website you quoted
          so extensively from. If he IS the author of the
          website then, yes, he is a liar. I have a feeling
          he retired in order to avoid misrepresenting science. It's to his credit.

          >Because he doesn't agree with
          >what you've been told regarding evolution?


          that website you quoted had many ordinary facts
          incorrect. It wasn't a differing interpretation
          of the facts. It lied about the fact themselves.

          >Are the rest of the
          >scientists on this list all liars too?


          depends on whether they say things that aren't true.

          >And given his educational
          >background, I'd say he's far more knowledgeable of his subject than
          >you are.
          >What does his religious view have to do with anything?


          they have nothing to do with anything. Many
          evolutionary biologists are Christians. I've
          never read any of his writings that deliberately
          misrepresented the facts of science

          >Didn't you
          >state your religious views?


          I have said in the past that I am a Unitarian
          Universalist, but otherwise I don't think I've
          ever discussed my religious views.

          >The additional information you provided
          >on him only demonstrates that he finally came to terms with his lack
          >of objectivity regarding the theory that he once had.

          no. It means he had a conversion experience and
          he was conned into believing that he will go to
          hell if he believes the evidence for evolution is
          compelling. In fact he explicitly said he
          abandoned science altogether "I became aware that
          the Word of God was more important than my
          concept of science." That means he now has a
          hypothesis that cannot be rewritten or changed in
          any way. It is absolute and fixed. Therefore he ceased to be a scientist.

          Susan
        • Laurie Appleton
          Hi Owens, ... From: mrphilowens To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 4:16 AM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Honest Evolutionists Part II
          Message 4 of 19 , Jul 1 5:05 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Owens,

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: mrphilowens
            To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 4:16 AM
            Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Honest Evolutionists Part II




            OWENS: Of course no evidence to support this claim.(quotes taken out
            of context) Do you really believe that everyone other than the other
            Darwinian sheep on here simply takes your word that these quotes are
            out of context?

            Susan:I've provided the context for several of them.
            They are out of context. They are lies.

            OWENS: No, you did not. You've commented on several of them, gave
            excuses for not being able to track others down but no clear
            evidence was provided that any of the quotes where taken out of
            context. The quotes provided aren't sentence fragments. If I say to
            you, "dog is a German Shepard," and you quote me as saying that my
            dog is a German Shepard, then we'd might have something taken out of
            context. On the other hand,if I said, "My dog is a German Shepard",
            and you later quoted me as saying that my dog is a German Shepard,
            I couldn't possibly turn around and accuse you of misquoting me!


            Nothing else I said after that could possibly lead someone to
            believe that what I meant was that my dog is a poodle. Even if you
            honestly believe you found a couple of quotes that were out of
            context, by you repeatedly refering to all of the quotes are out of
            context, you're being being misleading. You know it and so does
            everyone else.
            By the way, how are the qotes lies? Are you referring to all of
            them? Who's doing the lying? Also, at the beginning of the subject
            post entitled "Evolution Part II, it states that the "MAJORITY of
            the scientists are evolutionists"

            Susan stated:
            mutations aren't rare.

            Science states:

            Mutations

            1 - Rare effects. Mutations are very rare. They hardly ever occur in
            the natural world. Their very rarity dooms the possibility that they
            could produce the prolific number of plant and animal species found
            in our world.

            Mutations are simply too rare to have produced all the necessary
            traits of even one life form, much less millions. For each plant and
            animal has millions upon millions of specific characteristics.-p.
            12.

            2 - Random effects. Mutations are always random-always! They are
            never purposive or directed. Yet the millions of characteristics in
            a living creature are very special: Each one is needed and serves an
            important function.

            A mutation is a random, wild, event. It is something like an
            automobile crash: It comes suddenly, when least expected, and no one
            can predict the outcome. But one thing you can be sure of: It will
            produce damage.-p. 12.

            3 - Not helpful. Evolution requires improvement, but mutations never
            help anyone. They only weaken or injure.-p. 13.


            LA> I am impressed by your knowledge and the reasonable answers that you provide here, just as I am impressed by your courteousy and patience. I start to wonder however, whether your opponents are scientifically competent enough to understand the subject anyway. They seem to be doing little more than arguing for the sake of argument and this leads to the thought that science itself may have very little to do with what they think and what they believe.

            LA> Could it be that, just as some people are born blind and some are born deaf, and still others are born with various other imperfections, that the minds of people who think that "people came from monkeys" might be those that lack some aspects of reason and logic? It might be that, if they can be reached at all, it might be by some other means, or with additional means as well as scientific facts and evidence?

            LA> Perhaps the following might suggest where some of the problem originates;

            --------------
            "I had motives for not wanting the world to have
            meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able
            without difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this
            assumption..."

            "The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is
            not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure
            metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no
            valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to
            do...."

            "For myself, as no doubt for most of my
            contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was
            essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain
            system of morality. We objected to the morality because it
            interfered with our sexual freedom."

            (Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist,"
            Report: Perspectives on the News, Vol. 3, June, 1966, p. 19, as
            found in, King of Creation, Morris, p.82)
            =============
            Laurie.

            "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was strongly brainwashed
            to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
            creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed."
            (Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted ex atheistic scientist, 1981)

            New Message Search
            Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.



            Share feedback on the new changes to Groups

            Visit Your Group
            SPONSORED LINKS
            a.. Intelligent design
            b.. Evolution of
            c.. Beyond belief
            d.. Lancer evolution
            e.. Mitsubishi lancer evolution
            .



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • mrphilowens
            Laurie Appleton: I start to wonder however, whether your opponents are scientifically competent enough to understand the subject anyway. They seem to be doing
            Message 5 of 19 , Jul 2 8:36 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Laurie Appleton:

              I start to wonder however, whether your opponents are scientifically
              competent enough to understand the subject anyway. They seem to be
              doing little more than arguing for the sake of argument and this
              leads to the thought that science itself may have very little to do
              with what they think and what they believe.

              OWENS: Ya think? Just look at some of the rationale Susan offers
              when refing to the scientist Dr. Jim Allen

              Susan:

              You notice he [is] retired. I
              doubt he is the author of that website you quoted
              so extensively from. If he IS the author of the
              website then, yes, he is a liar. I have a feeling
              he retired in order to avoid misrepresenting science. It's to his
              credit.

              OWENS: lol Now, ignoring the most common reasons why people choose
              to retire, Susans intuition I guess you would say tells her that he
              did so to avoid msirepresenting science.


              >Susan: If he is a scientist familiar with evolutionary
              biology, he is a cold, calculating liar. It is
              kinder to suppose that he is not a scientist and ignorant of his
              subject.

              Susan: who said HE was a liar?

              OWENS: Um .. hello! You
              did!

              Are the rest of the scientists on this list all liars too?

              Susan:
              depends on whether they say things that aren't true.

              no. It means he had a conversion experience and
              he was conned into believing that he will go to
              hell if he believes the evidence for evolution is
              compelling.



              OWENS:OMG! Where does he say that????

              Susan:

              In fact he explicitly said he
              abandoned science altogether "I became aware that
              the Word of God was more important than my
              concept of science." That means he now has a
              hypothesis that cannot be rewritten or changed in
              any way. It is absolute and fixed. Therefore he ceased to be a
              scientist.

              OWENS: "I became aware that
              the Word of God was more important than my
              concept of science." Nothing wrong with that. This statement can
              certainly stand alone. However, he continues " And I truly can say
              that I became aware that I'd been worshipping and serving created
              things rather than the Creator" It doesn't say that that he
              abandoned science altogether. I'm sure his scientifc knowledge
              continues to cripple yours.



              "Jim Allan says that previously, when people brought up creationist
              interpretations of the evidence he would say, `Why bring that
              nonsense to me?—it's not science.'
              But in the last decade or so, as he has considered a number of
              these, he has found that they are perfectly reasonable and
              intellectually acceptable. He now finds it sad that anyone should
              insist on evolutionary interpretations, which are `unproven and
              unprovable.'

              Susan:

              that website you quoted had many ordinary facts
              incorrect. It wasn't a differing interpretation
              of the facts. It lied about the fact themselves.

              OWENS: So you say. What ordinary facts? Who knows?

              "Perhaps no area of science is more contentious than the
              search for human origins. Elite paleontologists disagree over even
              the most basic outlines of the human family tree. New branches grow
              amid great fanfare, only to wither and die in the face of new fossil
              finds. 228 Robert Locke, "Family Fights," Discovering Archaeology,
              July/August 1999, p. 36-39.

              Susan: (refering to a previously qote posted)
              the above quote is not from a scientists, but from a creationist
              website.

              OWENS: More of Susan's logic.

              So, I'll continue to post the partial list of scientists who are
              creationists who are scientists until it clicks.




              Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
              • Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
              • Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
              • Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist
              • Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
              • Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
              • Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
              • Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
              • Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
              • Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
              • Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
              • Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics &
              Nuclear Physics
              • Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
              • Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
              • Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
              • Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
              • Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
              • Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
              • Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
              • Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
              • Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
              • Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
              • Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
              • Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
              • Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
              • Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
              • Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
              • Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
              • Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
              • Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
              • Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
              • Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
              • Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
              • Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
              • Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
              • Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
              • Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
              • Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
              • Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
              • Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
              • Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
              • Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
              • Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
              • Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
              • Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
              • Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of
              Biology
              • George T. Javor, Biochemistry
              • Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
              • Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
              • Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
              • Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
              • Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
              • Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
              • Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
              • Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
              • Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
              • Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
              • Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
              • Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
              • Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
              • Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
              • Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
              • Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology,
              Neurobiology
              • Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
              • Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
              • Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
              • Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
              • Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
              • Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
              • Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
              • Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
              • Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
              • Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
              • Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
              • Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
              • Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
              • Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive
              Physiologist
              • Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
              • Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
              • Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
              • Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
              • Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
              • Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
              • Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
              • Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
              • Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
              • Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology
              (Paleontology)
              • Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
              • Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
              • Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
              • Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
              • Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
              • Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
              •
              • Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
              • Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
              • Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
              • Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
              • Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
              • Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
              • Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
              • Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
              • Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
              • Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
              • Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
              • Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
              • Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
              • Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
              • Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
              • Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
              • Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
              • Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
              • Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in
              Zoology)
              • Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
              • Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
              • Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
              • Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
              • Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
              • Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
              • Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
              • Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
              • Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
              • Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
            • chris
              ... problem originates; ... XIAAN: I became a nonsupernaturalist for a mix of reasons- not wanting the world to have meaning was not one of them. Rather, I
              Message 6 of 19 , Jul 2 11:44 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                > LA> Perhaps the following might suggest where some of the
                problem originates;
                >
                > --------------
                > "I had motives for not wanting the world to have
                > meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able
                > without difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this
                > assumption..."

                XIAAN: I became a nonsupernaturalist for a mix of reasons- not
                wanting the world to have meaning was not one of them. Rather, I
                came to understand that my supernatural beliefs about the world were
                solely my (and others') mental projections onto reality and not
                otherwise an aspect of reality itself. Oh, and realizing that the
                supposed supernatural events I'd witnessed in my life were frauds
                manipulating the supernatural assumptions of myself and others.

                > "The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is
                > not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure
                > metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no
                > valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to
                > do...."

                XIAAN: As long as people exist, morality, ethics, social restriction
                and concern over right and wrong, and the desire to inforce or
                impose the above, will never go away, whether anyone agrees with any
                of it or not. They represent an aspect of one portion of the world:
                humans.

                > "For myself, as no doubt for most of my
                > contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was
                > essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain
                > system of morality. We objected to the morality because it
                > interfered with our sexual freedom."

                XIAAN: Perhaps so. In my case, though, I didnt lose my virginity
                until long, long, after I became a nonsupernaturalist.

                I dont agree that "expertise" or "retirement" are relevent issues-
                more importantly the arguments should stand or fall on their own.
                But as long as Owens and Laurie continue to lunge after the gristle
                and not the meat, who am I to critize Phil and Sue?

                xiaan
              • garrett00683
                Xiaan I dont agree that expertise or retirement are relevent issues- more importantly the arguments should stand or fall on their own. But as long as Owens
                Message 7 of 19 , Jul 2 1:54 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Xiaan

                  I dont agree that "expertise" or "retirement" are relevent issues-
                  more importantly the arguments should stand or fall on their own.
                  But as long as Owens and Laurie continue to lunge after the gristle
                  and not the meat, who am I to critize Phil and Sue?

                  Garrett: I disagree. I think the source is extremely relevant. I
                  don't want to waste time reading what a couple of students have to
                  say unless they have supporting evidence. I'd personally like to
                  hear where Phil S field of expertise lies myself.


                  Owens:


                  "Perhaps no area of science is more contentious than the
                  search for human origins. Elite paleontologists disagree over even
                  the most basic outlines of the human family tree. New branches grow
                  amid great fanfare, only to wither and die in the face of new fossil
                  finds. 228 Robert Locke, "Family Fights," Discovering Archaeology,
                  July/August 1999, p. 36-3


                  Phil S:
                  These are just disagreements over the fine points of the hominid
                  lineage. There is wide agreement over the fact that some species of
                  Australopithecus were ancestral to Homo habilis which was ancestral
                  to Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster & Homo erectus which were
                  ancestral to Homo sapiens. If all paleontologists agreed on all the
                  details of every lineage before all the data came in, they would be
                  acting like religious fundamentalists rather than scientists.

                  Garrett: That's not what it said. How do you equate "just
                  disagreements over the fine points" with "disagreement on the most
                  basic outlines", and on what basis?

                  Owens
                  So, I'll continue to post the partial list of scientists who are
                  creationists who are scientists until it clicks.

                  Phil S:
                  Nice list of 100 to 200 names, less than 100 of which are biologists
                  or geologists. I would like to post a list of all the professional
                  earth & life scientists who accept evolution. However, I would
                  probably exceed the bandwidth of this discussion forum with half a
                  million names. Why do you think such a small list makes your point?
                  OK, so there are a handful of biologists who actually believe in
                  creationism or the Loch Ness monster or Big Foot.

                  Garrett: Again, please read more carefully. It says PARTIAL list.
                  I've seen other partial lists with different names where scientists
                  voluntarily add their name to a steady growing list. The fact that
                  most biologists accept macroevolution as fact in spite of the lack
                  of evidence has already been established.Also the list includes
                  chemists, geneticists, zoologists, and paleontologists. Are you
                  trying to say that these fields have nothing to do with zoology?

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

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


                  "Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see
                  the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not
                  prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably
                  vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and
                  geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution,
                  but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does
                  not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists
                  have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them
                  to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write
                  articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning
                  evolutionary theory."
                  FOREWORD
                  By Professor Maciej Giertych
                  Sometime in 1955, when I was taking Honor Moderations in Science
                  (Botany, Chemistry and Geology) at Oxford University, the O. U.
                  Biology Club announced a lecture against the theory of Evolution.
                  The largest auditorium in the Biology Labs was filled to capacity.
                  When the speaker was introduced (I regret I do not remember his
                  name), it turned out he was an octogenarian with a Ph.D. in biology
                  from Cambridge, obtained in the 19th century. He spoke fervently
                  against the theory of Evolution, defending what was for us an
                  obviously indefensible position. He did not convince anybody with
                  his antique arguments; he did not understand the questions that were
                  fired at him; he rejected science as we knew it. We all had a good
                  laugh hearing this dinosaur. He fought for his convictions against a
                  sophisticated scientific environment, deaf to any opinions inspired
                  by religious beliefs. Today his views are being vindicated by new
                  evidence from natural sciences. May his soul rest in peace.
                  In 1955, like all in my generation, I was fully convinced that
                  Evolution was an established biological fact. The evidence was
                  primarily paleontological. We were taught how to identify geological
                  strata with the help of fossils, specific for a given epoch. The
                  rocks were dated by the fossils, the fossils by the strata. A
                  lecturer in stratigraphy, when asked during a field trip how the
                  strata were dated, explained that we know the rate of current
                  sedimentation, the depths of strata and thus the age of rocks. In
                  any case, there are new isotopic techniques that confirm all this.
                  This sounded very scientific and convincing.
                  In my studies I went on to a B.A. and M.A. in forestry, a Ph.D. in
                  plant physiology and finally a D.Sc. in genetics. For a long time I
                  was not bothered by geology, Evolution or any suspicious thoughts. I
                  had my own field of research in population genetics of forest trees,
                  with no immediate relevance to the controversy over Evolution.
                  Gradually, as my children got to the stage of learning biology in
                  school and discussing their problems with Dad, I realized that the
                  evidence for Evolution had shifted from paleontology and embryology
                  to population genetics. But population genetics is my subject! I
                  knew it was used to explain how Evolution progressed, but I was not
                  aware it is used to prove it. Without my noticing it, my special
                  field had become the supplier of the most pertinent evidence
                  supporting the theory.
                  If Evolution were proved in some field I was not familiar with, I
                  understood the need to accommodate my field to this fact, to suggest
                  explanations how it occurred in terms of genetics. But to claim that
                  these attempted explanations are the primary evidence for the theory
                  was quite unacceptable to me. I started reading the current
                  literature on the topic of Evolution. Until then I was not aware how
                  shaky the evidence for Evolution was, how much of what
                  was "evidence" had to be discarded, how little new evidence had been
                  accumulated over the years, and how very much ideas dominate facts.
                  These ideas have become dogma, yet they have no footing in natural
                  sciences. They stem from materialistic philosophies.
                  My primary objection as a geneticist was to the claim that the
                  formation of races, or microevolution, as it is often referred to,
                  is a small scale example of macroevolution—the origin of species.
                  Race formation is, of course, very well documented. All it requires
                  is isolation of a part of a population. After a few generations, due
                  to natural selection and genetic drift, the isolated population will
                  irreversibly lose some genes, and thus, as long as the isolation
                  continues, in some features it will be different from the population
                  it arose from. In fact, we do this ourselves all the time when
                  breeding, substituting natural with artificial selection and
                  creating artificial barriers to generative mixing outside the
                  domesticated conditions.
                  The important thing to remember here is that a race is genetically
                  impoverished relative to the whole population. It has fewer alleles
                  (forms of genes). Some of them are arranged into special,
                  interesting, rare combinations. This is particularly achieved by
                  guided recombination of selected forms in breeding work. But these
                  selected forms are less variable (less polymorphic). Thus what is
                  referred to as micro-evolution represents natural or artificial
                  reduction of the gene pool. You will not get Evolution that way.
                  Evolution means construction of new genes. It means increase in the
                  amount of genetic information, and not reduction of it.
                  The evolutionary value of new races or selected forms should be
                  demonstrable by natural selection. However, if allowed to mix with
                  the general breeding population, new races will disappear. The genes
                  in select combinations will disperse again; the domesticated forms
                  will go wild. Thus there is no evidence for Evolution here.
                  Mutations figure prominently in the Evolution story. When in the
                  early '60s I was starting breeding work on forest trees, everyone
                  was very excited about the potential of artificial mutations. In
                  many places around the world, special "cobalt bomb" centers were
                  established to stimulate rates of mutations. What wonderful things
                  were expected from increased variability by induced mutations. All
                  of this work has long since been abandoned. It led nowhere. All that
                  was obtained were deformed freaks, absolutely useless in forestry.
                  Maybe occasionally some oddity could be of ornamental value, but
                  never able to live on its own in natural conditions. A glance
                  through literature on mutations outside forestry quickly convinced
                  me that the pattern is similar everywhere. Mutations are either
                  neutral or detrimental. Positive ones, if they do occur, are too
                  rare to be noticeable. Stability in nature is the rule. We have no
                  proofs for Evolution from mutation research.
                  It is sometimes claimed that strains of diseases resistant to
                  antibiotics, or weeds resistant to herbicides, are evidence for
                  positive mutations. This is not so. Most of the time, the acquired
                  resistance is due to genetic recombination and not due to mutations.
                  Where mutations have been shown to be involved, their role depends
                  on deforming part of the genetic code, which results in a deformed,
                  usually less effective protein that is no longer suitable for
                  attachment by the harmful chemical.
                  Herbicides are "custom made" for attachability to a vital protein
                  specific for the weed species, and they kill the plant by depriving
                  the protein of its function when attached to it. A mutation that
                  cancels attachability to the herbicide and does not totally deprive
                  the protein of its function is in this case beneficial, since it
                  protects the functionality of the protein. However this is at a
                  price, since in fact the change is somewhat detrimental to normal
                  life processes. At best it is neutral. There are many ways in which
                  living systems protect functionality. This is one of them. Others
                  include healing or eliminating deformed parts or organisms. Natural
                  selection belongs here. So does the immunological adaptation to an
                  invader. Of course such protective adaptations do not create new
                  species, new kinds, new organs or biological systems. They protect
                  what already exists, usually at a cost. Defects accumulate along the
                  way.
                  Within the genome of a species, that is, in the molecular structure
                  of its DNA, we find many recurrent specific nucleotide sequences,
                  known as "repeats." Different ones occur in different species. If
                  this variation (neutral as far as we know) arose from random
                  mutations, it should be random. How then did the "repeats" come to
                  be? If mutations are the answer, they could not have been random. In
                  this context "genetic drive" is postulated, as distinct
                  from "genetic drift." But Who or what does the driving? The
                  empirical science of genetics knows only random mutations.
                  Currently there are new suggestions that molecular genetics provides
                  evidence for Evolution. Analyses of DNA sequences in various species
                  should show similarities between related ones and big differences
                  between systematically far-removed species. They do exactly that.
                  Molecular genetics generally confirms the accuracy of taxonomy. But
                  at the same time, it does not confirm postulated evolutionary
                  sequences. There are no progressive changes, say from fishes to
                  amphibians, to reptiles to mammals. Molecular genetics confirms
                  systematics, not phylogeny; Linnaeus, not Darwin. No. Genetics has
                  no proofs for Evolution. It has trouble explaining it. The closer
                  one looks at the evidence for Evolution, the less one finds of
                  substance. In fact, the theory keeps on postulating evidence and
                  failing to find it, and moves on to other postulates (fossil missing
                  links, natural selection of improved forms, positive mutations,
                  molecular phylogenetic sequences, etc.). This is not science.
                  A whole age of scientific endeavor was wasted searching for a
                  phantom. It is time we stopped and looked at the facts! Natural
                  sciences failed to supply any evidence for Evolution. Christian
                  philosophy tried to accommodate this unproved postulate of
                  materialist philosophies. Much time and intellectual effort went in
                  vain, leading only to negative moral consequences. It is time those
                  working in the humanities were told the truth.
                  Gerard J. Keane is doing exactly that. In clear and simple language,
                  he reviews the present status of the Evolution-Creation controversy.
                  I am very happy to be able to recommend this book. Indeed, Creation
                  Rediscovered by science comes to the rescue of Christianity.
                  Professor Maciej Giertych, B.A., M.A. Oxon, Ph.D. Toronto, D.Sc.
                  Poznan Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Dendrology, 62-035
                  Kornik, Poland
                • Chris Ashcraft
                  It is not permitted to criticize anyone on this list. You are also not allowed to question list members regarding their education or fields of expertise. Doing
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jul 2 2:06 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    It is not permitted to criticize anyone on this list. You are also not allowed to question list
                    members regarding their education or fields of expertise. Doing so is an obvious personal attack.

                    Discuss the topic (creation, evolution, and intelligent design) and stay off people.


                    > But as long as Owens and Laurie continue to lunge after the gristle
                    > and not the meat, who am I to critize Phil and Sue?
                    >
                    > I disagree. I think the source is extremely relevant. I
                    > don't want to waste time reading what a couple of students have to
                    > say unless they have supporting evidence. I'd personally like to
                    > hear where Phil S field of expertise lies myself.

                    Christopher W. Ashcraft
                    Northwest Creation Network
                    http://nwcreation.net
                  • Phil Owens
                    How is aking someone what their field of expertise is a personal attack? Please explain that to me. Otherwise please have your supervisor explain it to me.
                    Message 9 of 19 , Jul 2 3:39 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      How is aking someone what their field of expertise is a personal attack? Please explain that to me. Otherwise please have your supervisor explain it to me.

                      Chris Ashcraft <ashcrac@...> wrote: It is not permitted to criticize anyone on this list. You are also not allowed to question list
                      members regarding their education or fields of expertise. Doing so is an obvious personal attack.

                      Discuss the topic (creation, evolution, and intelligent design) and stay off people.

                      > But as long as Owens and Laurie continue to lunge after the gristle
                      > and not the meat, who am I to critize Phil and Sue?
                      >
                      > I disagree. I think the source is extremely relevant. I
                      > don't want to waste time reading what a couple of students have to
                      > say unless they have supporting evidence. I'd personally like to
                      > hear where Phil S field of expertise lies myself.

                      Christopher W. Ashcraft
                      Northwest Creation Network
                      http://nwcreation.net







                      ---------------------------------
                      Do you Yahoo!?
                      Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Chris Ashcraft
                      Public responses to moderations are forbidden. Rules for OriginsTalk: * Derogatory comments or insults of list members or persons abroad are forbidden. * Posts
                      Message 10 of 19 , Jul 2 4:16 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Public responses to moderations are forbidden.

                        Rules for OriginsTalk:
                        * Derogatory comments or insults of list members or persons abroad are forbidden.
                        * Posts must remain on-topic
                        (Creation Science, Evolution & Intelligent Design)
                        * Posts must contain content
                        (I Agree, I'm Sorry, or Thankyou-type post are not permitted)
                        * Posts Limit of 2 per day.
                        * Attachments are not permitted.
                        * Profanity or expletives are forbidden.
                        * Public Responses or comments regarding moderation are forbidden.

                        --- Phil Owens <mrphilowens@...> wrote:

                        >
                        > How is aking someone what their field of expertise is a personal attack? Please explain that
                        > to me. Otherwise please have your supervisor explain it to me.
                        >
                        > Chris Ashcraft <ashcrac@...> wrote: It is not permitted to criticize anyone on
                        > this list. You are also not allowed to question list
                        > members regarding their education or fields of expertise. Doing so is an obvious personal
                        > attack.
                        >
                        > Discuss the topic (creation, evolution, and intelligent design) and stay off people.
                        >
                        > > But as long as Owens and Laurie continue to lunge after the gristle
                        > > and not the meat, who am I to critize Phil and Sue?
                        > >
                        > > I disagree. I think the source is extremely relevant. I
                        > > don't want to waste time reading what a couple of students have to
                        > > say unless they have supporting evidence. I'd personally like to
                        > > hear where Phil S field of expertise lies myself.
                        >
                        > Christopher W. Ashcraft
                        > Northwest Creation Network
                        > http://nwcreation.net
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ---------------------------------
                        > Do you Yahoo!?
                        > Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >


                        Christopher W. Ashcraft
                        Northwest Creation Network
                        http://nwcreation.net
                      • Susan Cogan
                        ... one would hope so. ... You have a tendency to intercut your remarks with the work of others and it s sometimes hard to tell what you are referring to.
                        Message 11 of 19 , Jul 3 4:02 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          >Susan:
                          >
                          >You notice he [is] retired. I
                          >doubt he is the author of that website you quoted
                          >so extensively from. If he IS the author of the
                          >website then, yes, he is a liar. I have a feeling
                          >he retired in order to avoid misrepresenting science. It's to his
                          >credit.
                          >
                          >OWENS: lol Now, ignoring the most common reasons why people choose
                          >to retire, Susans intuition I guess you would say tells her that he
                          >did so to avoid msirepresenting science.


                          one would hope so.


                          > >Susan: If he is a scientist familiar with evolutionary
                          >biology, he is a cold, calculating liar. It is
                          >kinder to suppose that he is not a scientist and ignorant of his
                          >subject.
                          >
                          >Susan: who said HE was a liar?
                          >
                          >OWENS: Um .. hello! You
                          >did!


                          You have a tendency to intercut your remarks with
                          the work of others and it's sometimes hard to
                          tell what you are referring to. Nevertheless I
                          thought I made it clear I was referring to the
                          author of the website, not Allen.

                          >
                          >Are the rest of the scientists on this list all liars too?
                          >
                          >Susan:
                          >depends on whether they say things that aren't true.
                          >
                          >no. It means he had a conversion experience and
                          >he was conned into believing that he will go to
                          >hell if he believes the evidence for evolution is
                          >compelling.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >OWENS:OMG! Where does he say that????



                          that's a supposition on my part which should be
                          pretty clear in what I wrote. There's no
                          scientific reason to abandon evolution and no
                          religious one either. Therefore he's been conned.
                          There's a con going around convincing people they
                          have to choose between evolution and God. A lot
                          of people fall for it. He appears to be no exception.


                          >Susan:
                          >
                          > In fact he explicitly said he
                          >abandoned science altogether "I became aware that
                          >the Word of God was more important than my
                          >concept of science." That means he now has a
                          >hypothesis that cannot be rewritten or changed in
                          >any way. It is absolute and fixed. Therefore he ceased to be a
                          >scientist.
                          >
                          >OWENS: "I became aware that
                          >the Word of God was more important than my
                          >concept of science." Nothing wrong with that.


                          and that is the heart of the matter. Ideology
                          trumps reality. The ideology is above everything.
                          The truth is of no consequence.


                          >This statement can
                          >certainly stand alone.


                          no kidding


                          >However, he continues " And I truly can say
                          >that I became aware that I'd been worshipping and serving created
                          >things rather than the Creator" It doesn't say that that he
                          >abandoned science altogether. I'm sure his scientifc knowledge
                          >continues to cripple yours.



                          whatever that means.

                          >"Jim Allan says that previously, when people brought up creationist
                          >interpretations of the evidence he would say, `Why bring that
                          >nonsense to me?—it's not science.'
                          >But in the last decade or so, as he has considered a number of
                          >these, he has found that they are perfectly reasonable and
                          >intellectually acceptable. He now finds it sad that anyone should
                          >insist on evolutionary interpretations, which are `unproven and
                          >unprovable.'


                          a scientist knows that science doesn't "prove"
                          things. The evidence is there or it's not. Allan
                          had provided some of the evidence for evolution himself.


                          >Susan:
                          >
                          >that website you quoted had many ordinary facts
                          >incorrect. It wasn't a differing interpretation
                          >of the facts. It lied about the fact themselves.
                          >
                          >OWENS: So you say. What ordinary facts? Who knows?


                          are mutations rare? No they are not. Compared to
                          gene duplication which happens hundreds of
                          thousands of times per day in a single human
                          body, sure. But rare as most people think of as
                          rare? No. They happen all the time. That's a
                          fact. Beneficial mutations? They are observed all
                          the time. They exist. and so on. Those are facts.
                          Ordinary facts that you can check out for yourself.


                          > "Perhaps no area of science is more contentious than the
                          >search for human origins. Elite paleontologists disagree over even
                          >the most basic outlines of the human family tree. New branches grow
                          >amid great fanfare, only to wither and die in the face of new fossil
                          >finds. 228 Robert Locke, "Family Fights," Discovering Archaeology,
                          >July/August 1999, p. 36-39.


                          ha! you are changing the subject! It's another
                          out of context quote. The context is that
                          scientists argue over the details of science.
                          I've mentioned that several times. The exact
                          arrangement of the human family tree is one of
                          those arguments. We evolved from earlier hominid
                          ancestors. That is not disputed.


                          >Susan: (refering to a previously qote posted)
                          >the above quote is not from a scientists, but from a creationist
                          >website.
                          >
                          >OWENS: More of Susan's logic.
                          >
                          > So, I'll continue to post the partial list of scientists who are
                          >creationists who are scientists until it clicks.

                          I'm not sure what's supposed to "click."

                          Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry

                          he can be a great theoretical chemist and a
                          creationist. But that doesn't make him an expert on evolutionary biology.

                          From Evowiki:
                          Edward A. Boudreaux is a theoretical chemist,
                          Professor emeritus of chemistry at the University
                          of New Orleans, Louisiana, and an "adjunct
                          professor of chemistry" at the ICR. He has
                          written a number of creationist tracts, most
                          focusing on the supposed impossibility of abiogenesis.

                          • Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist

                          This guy interested me because of the
                          "paleontologist" tag. I googled "Dr. Harold
                          Coffin, Palaeontologist" and got nothing but 400
                          websites with this identical list. When I googled
                          "Dr. Harold Coffin, Creationist," I got this:
                          http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/coffin00.htm

                          Dr. Ken Cumming, "Professor of Biology"
                          Ph.D., 1965, Harvard University
                          Taught at Virginia Tech (where he met Henry Morris), Christian
                          Heritage College (founded by Tim LaHaye, and which spawned
                          the ICR), and is presently Professor of Biology at the ICR
                          Graduate School (_Back to Genesis_, March 1991)

                          • Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
                          • Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
                          • Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
                          • Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
                          • Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
                          • Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
                          • Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
                          • Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
                          • Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
                          • Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
                          • Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
                          • Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
                          • Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
                          • Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
                          • Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
                          • Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
                          • Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
                          • Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
                          • Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
                          • Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
                          • Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
                          • Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
                          • Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
                          • Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
                          • Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
                          • Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
                          • Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
                          • Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
                          • Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
                          • Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
                          • Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of
                          Biology
                          • George T. Javor, Biochemistry
                          • Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
                          • Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
                          • Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
                          • Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
                          • Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
                          • Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
                          • Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
                          • Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
                          • Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
                          • Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
                          • Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
                          • Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
                          • Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
                          • Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
                          • Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
                          • Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology,
                          Neurobiology
                          • Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
                          • Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
                          • Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
                          • Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
                          • Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
                          • Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
                          • Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
                          • Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
                          • Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
                          • Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
                          • Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
                          • Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
                          • Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
                          • Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive
                          Physiologist
                          • Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
                          • Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
                          • Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
                          • Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
                          • Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
                          • Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
                          • Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
                          • Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
                          • Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
                          • Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology
                          (Paleontology)
                          • Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
                          • Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
                          • Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
                          • Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
                          • Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
                          • Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
                          •
                          • Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
                          • Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
                          • Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
                          • Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
                          • Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
                          • Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
                          • Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
                          • Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
                          • Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
                          • Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
                          • Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
                          • Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
                          • Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
                          • Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
                          • Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
                          • Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
                          • Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
                          • Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
                          • Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in
                          Zoology)
                          • Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
                          • Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
                          • Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
                          • Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
                          • Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
                          • Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
                          • Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
                          • Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
                          • Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
                          • Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.