Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Mount St. Helens and the Grand Canyon



Creationists have long pointed to the volcanic blast of Mt. St. Helens as evidence for creationism. They saw how rapidly melted snowcaps and pyroclastic ash carved a large canyon which looked like the Grand Canyon in miniature, very rapidly. Naturally, they pointed to it and said, "That's it! The Grand Canyon after Noah's flood happened just like that!"

Dr. Alan Gishlick (pictured here, about to jump from the moss-covered central spring of beautiful Elves' Chasm, located inside Grand Canyon National Park) actually went to Mount St. Helens to visit the "Mini Grand Canyon" to see what it looked like. What he found disappointed him. Instead of sharply carved canyon walls, he found a canyon which had quickly eroded into smooth-flowing hillsides with sedimentary layers all but invisible. So much for that creationist argument!

This really shouldn't surprise anyone. The canyon which was carved by the St. Helens blast in 1980 cut into material which was not very hard. Most of it was volcanic ash which had been laid down in previous eruptions long before 1980. Oh, when it was first eroded, it's sharply defined sedimentary layers must have looked impressive. But had you taken a rock hammer to them, the hammer would have gone "thud" because the sediments were soft and crumbly. Now, take that same hammer to the Grand Canyon's uppermost layers, and it will go "chink!" That's because the Grand Canyon is carved a mile deep into solid rock!

The notion that a single flood could have 1. laid down the sediments 2. compacted them into rock within 100 days, then 3. Carved away 900 cubic miles of material with receeding floodwater in a single gush... Well, that just strains credulity way past the breaking point.

Eric

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Redwall Limestone Has Intriguing Fossils


Among the most amazing rock formations in the Grand Canyon is Redwall Cavern. Carved from flowing floodwaters over thousands of years, its massive expanse can leave you awestruck when standing inside it. (And a little fearful. It's very easy to picture that huge amount of rock suddenly falling down on your head!) The first western explorers to visit this cave felt it could seat 50,000 people.

Now, the redwall limestone really isn't red. It's stained red from the minerals which wash over it from above. But it is one of the thickest sediment deposits in the Canyon. Perhaps the thickest. Yet this limestone is one of the most fossil-rich layers within the grand canyon, and all of the fossils are marine organisms. That seems to indicate that the sediments were deposited in a marine environment. But the marine creatures which are fossilized are often extremely fragile creatures, such as cryazoids and bryozoans. Creatures like this disarticulate rapidly after death. The fact that they are fossilized intact indicates that they were buried rapidly. So rapidly, in fact, that the creatures were still alive when they were buried. Creationists insist that the best explanation for this is that they were buried by a massive flood, such as Noah's flood.

But not so fast. There are better explanations which are selectively ruled out by the creationist mind-set. The possibility that a hurricaine occasionally swept through and buried these creatures rapidly, is not considered. Also not given consideration is that the occasional Tsunami hit what was then a much more northerly American coastline. Given that there is proof of everglade (Hermit Shale) and even desert (Coconino Sandstone) sediment deposits in layers far above the redwall, these possibilities make far more sense than the Noah's flood scenario. But they are never mentioned in videos which peddle creationism to the masses. After all, to admit that better explanations exist is to give away the game.

Eric

Christian broadcaster disagrees with "six days."

Well, I just received my regular e-mail newsletter forwarded to me from Answers In Genesis ministries. In it, they tackle a question. Did a popular Christian broadcaster really say that a six-day creation didn't pass the "smell test?"

A.I.G. confirms that this did, in fact, happen. They go on to say that they are no longer surprised by the fact that many Christians have "compromised" their interpretation of scripture. But the actual broadcaster who disavowed six-day creationism on the air was not named in the newsletter.

I immediately combed through internet search engines, trying to find out which broadcaster it was, and what exactly he'd said, but I came up empty. While people of science should take heart that Christians everywhere are succumbing to common sense regarding creationist claims, I'm still left wondering: Which broadcaster was it? Does anybody out there know? Please respond to this blog if you know, or if you think you know. I'd very much like to find out.

But regardless of who it was, this broadcaster did nothing else but repeat what William Jennings Bryan did on the witness stand during the infamous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in Dayton, TN. Bryan took the stand, and openly stated to Clarence Darrow that he didn't feel that a "day" in Genesis 1 or 2 necessarily meant a literal, 24-hour day. The crowd gasped, as they knew Bryan had just given the whole game up. (For more, read "Summer of the Gods," by Edward J. Larson.)

Eric

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Where did all that material go?

The Grand Canyon is 277 miles long, 4 to 18 miles wide, and at least a mile deep. Some 900 cubic miles of space could fit inside the canyon. Yet we do not find 900 cubic miles of sediment in the delta of the Colorado River where it empties in the Gulf of California. Where did all that eroded material go?

The creationist explanation is that the material was washed out to the deep sea when the cataclysmic "breached dam" burst forth as the waters from Noah's Flood were receding. But there is another explanation which fits far better. The missing material was moved away by tectonic activity.

But first, let's overview some things. There already is a large amount of sedimentary material in the Gulf of California from the Colorado River. Also, most of the rock in the Grand Canyon is composed of limestone, dolomite, or or shale, which are materials which erode by being dissolved in the water and not precipitating out into a river delta. Still, despite these factors, there should be a lot more sediment where the Colorado empties out. Where did it all go? Why, it's San Andreas' fault as to where it went!

The San Andreas Fault runs along Mexico's western border, goes up through Baja, and into southern California. It is sliding to the northwest at a steady rate of a couple inches per year. And (get this) it runs directly beneath the Colorado River's delta in the Bay of California! That's right, as sediment gets dumped into the bay, the San Andreas Fault is carrying the sediment to the northwest. It's very much like someone dumping sand onto a moving conveyor belt. If one examines the land to the Northwest of the Colorado's river delta, one sees that the sediments have indeed been deposited along the moving faultline in the past, and today much of the landmass of Baja and other parts of Southeastern California are comprised of that sediment.

Which begs the question: If the Noah's flood model is true, why is there such convincing evidence of slow, million-year tectonic activity found in the Colorado River sediments?

Answer: Because the flood model is wrong.

Eric

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Nautiloids and the Canyon


Not too far down past the famous Redwall Cavern (a photo of which will be shown in a later posting) lies the tributary cleft known as Nautiloid Canyon. It is aptly named, because there are clearly visible fossils of nautiloids all over the canyon floor. And what are nautiloids? They are squid-like creatures with long, cone-shaped shells. A photo of one is shown here, illustrated by Professor Steve-Steve, the panda. The water helps show the outline of where the fossil is. (Note also to the picture's lower left. You'll see that Dr. Alan Gishlick has silver-painted toenails!)

Steve Austin (stone cold?) of the Institute for Creation Research notes that the nautiloid fossils are, more or less, pointed in a uniform direction. This, he says, indicates that the fossils were laid down in a moving current of water. It's almost as if the cone-shaped bodies acted like weather-vanes, indicating the direction of flow.

First, what has this observation got to do with evolution or creationism? The answer is, absolutely nothing! Austin maintains that evidence of a current being present bolsters the argument that the Grand Canyon's sedimentary layers were laid down by a moving flood and not a stationary ocean. But Oceans have currents too. Even if the nautiloids do show a directional flow (which they only barely do), so what? The Canyon's layers were put down by stationary pools, slow accumulations, as well as the occasional catastrophe.

Eric

Friday, November 18, 2005

Kent Hovind to Visit Milwaukee

Well, he's coming. Kent Hovind, the hero of the creationist movement. Ring all the bells and blow all the whistles. The always entertaining, talented, clever, naive, deluded tax-evader will be giving a presentation right here at UWM. Here's the details:

"Creation vs. Evolution... which has more merit?"
Presentation by Kent E. Hovind
Tuesday, December 6th, 2005. 6:30 p.m.
Bolton Hall, Room 150.

He's looking for a debate partner. I'm willing, but have neither the time nor the equipment to take him on this time. Oh, I'll debate him sooner or later, but perhaps I should tackle a different question. Since none of the professors are willing to debate this clown, we should ask, should university professors debate the creationists when they challenge? Is turning down such a challenge tantamount to conceding the truth of creationism?

Richard Dawkins was once challenged to a debate by creationist Duane Gish. Intrigued with the prospect, Dawkins contacted his old friend, paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, for advice. Stephen was adamant. "Don't do it!" he told him. As soon as you share time with a creationist onstage, he said, you lend legitimacy to the position. It won't matter what's said, all that the faithful flock will see is "their man" sharing the stage with a real scientist. This bolsters their view that they have a legitimate gripe with evolution -- and that's the wrong message!

Most creationist debaters are very much like Kent Hovind; slick, silver-tongued devils who could sell refrigerators to Eskimos. They can't reason well, but they can sure give one hell of an entertaining speech! And it is this which appeals to their mass of followers. By contrast, most professional scientists and university professors never even participated in their high school forensics teams when they were kids. Oh, they're smart, and they can give a reasonably good lecture, sometimes without putting people to sleep, but they aren't advocates. They'd make lousy lawyers. Creationists exploit this tendency well. Whenever a creationist tries to tempt a faculty member of a university into debating with him, the answer should always be a firm, "No!" It seems the faculty of UWM has gotten that message.

That having been said, creationism does need to be sternly opposed by faculty and teachers at all levels. Refusing to do public debates does not mean those with the scientific expertise should bury their heads in the sand like ostriches whenever creationism rears its ugly head. They should learn all they can about creationism, and debunk it publicly whenever possible. Dawkins has led by example, in this regard.

So what about public debates? Should they never happen on campus at all? I'm of the opinion that they should. But just as creationists use professional public speakers to argue their points, evolutionists should do the same. Someone who's entertaining, funny, eloquent, and utterly debasing and irrevrent to the other's points should be the only debater creationists ever see. Such people are few and far between, but I'm hoping to become one of them, someday.

Eric

Grand Canyon: Travertine Exposes Creationist Travesty


Travertine. What is it? Basically, it's calcium carbonate CaCO3, the same stuff which makes up stalactites and stalagmites in caves. But unlike either of those, travertine forms exclusively in the beds of rivers, streams, and springs. It contains traces of biological and mineral deposits which often give it interesting patterns and colors, making it an ideal rock for exotic jewelry. On the third day of the NCSE's rafting trip through the Canyon this summer, we trekked up the Little Colorado river to jump into the warm, mild rapids and let them suck us through and spit us out. That was FUN! In the photo, you can see Eugenie Scott being pulled through, feet-first. Better than a rollercoaster. But in the warmer water of the Little Colorado, we could see travertine actually forming along the river's bottom. In fact, it's the travertine which makes the turquoise color of the river in the picture.

Travertine is also found in many places along the walls of the Grand Canyon -- above the line of the Great Unconformity.

That's right, folks deposits of rivers, located right in the middle of sediments which creationists maintain were laid down during Noah's flood.

Many times before we'd even reached the Little Colorado, our boatmen pointed out areas in the Canyon walls where large, white blotches were clearly visible. "There's more travertine over there," they would say.

Now, how did this travertine get there? Did the Great Flood get put on hold, while Noah put the Ark in a designated parking spot, allowing the layers of the canyon, mid-way along in their deposition, to erode into rivers, which cut paths allowing deposits of travertine to form several dozen yards deep, after which the flood resumed it's normal globe-covering wateriness? Of course not! The very idea is absurd, both from a scientific and a theological viewpoint. No, these travertine deposits got there because many different geologic events went into the Grand Canyon. Sometimes, the environment was covered with water. Other times, it was bone-dry, and the erosion of rain formed thousand-year-old rivers with travertine forming in them. Other times, as we have already seen, the environment was an outright desert. And yet other times still, it's true, the occasional flood passed by. But none of the many floods which helped make the Grand Canyon what it is today was Noah's flood. And it really did take millions of years as a fact of geologic history.


Eric

A Clever Cartoon



Here's a nice editorial cartoon which appeared in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel on Sunday, Nov. 13th. Thought you all would like it.

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Creationism and the Coconino Footprints

The Coconino Sandstone is a layer of sediment roughly 1/5th of the way down into the Grand Canyon's chasm. It is unique among the layers because of its criss-crossed pattern, which indicates that it was layed down in alternating currents, probably by wind. Indeed, the cross-bedding strongly suggests sand dunes and a desert environment. There are even fossilized footprints where quadraped reptiles once walked across the sand. The upper-left photo shows some of these.

Naturally, creationists don't like this at all. They contend that the Grand Canyon's layers were put there, all of them, by the massive floodwaters during the time of Noah -- or at least, all the layers above the Great Unconformity. So finding evidence of a desert right in one of the upper-middle layers trumps their argument. Did the floodwaters dry out long enough to make a vast desert in North America while the Ark paused somewhere before the flood resumed once again? Not only would this be ridiculous, it would be contrary to the Bible! So they contend, very strongly, that the Coconino sandstones were layed down in water, and not in dry desert wind.

But the biggest problem for them for a long time were the footprints. How could an animal be walking around, leaving tracks, right in the middle of Noah's flood? For that matter, if the flood wiped out every living thing, why were there any creatures alive to leave tracks at all? It seemed their case was lost. But then, it was given new hope by an enterprising researcher named Leonard Brand. He tried reproducing the Coconino tracks in a watery environment using various kinds of quadrapeds. With a great deal of trial-and-error work, he managed to produce a good replica of them using a shallow watery environment with a light current. The creature which was able to make the tracks, was a salamander.

Now, the creationists were able to turn the argument around! They claimed the salamander tracks were a confirmation, rather than a debunking, of the flood model. The salamanders were still alive because, well, they were salamanders! Aquatic, or at least, amphibious creatures for whom a great deal of water would pose few problems.

Well, no. Time to rain on this parade. Mr. Brand's research was clever, but it attempted to confirm a preset conclusion, and stumbled upon one possible alternate scenario rather than truncated an existing one. But further evidence indicates that Brand simply didn't finish his homework. There are more tracks in the Coconino sandstones besides mere quadrapeds. There are numerous other tracks of what are clearly desert-dwelling insects. Scorpions, spiders, centipedes, and beetles are all well represented in the sandstone. Even snake trails can be found.

Clearly, these were desert creatures, not aquatic ones. Any global flood would certainly have wiped them out before they could leave footprints midway through the sedimentary layers, and their small insect and arachnid bodies would be far too light to leave tracks on wet sand, in any case. Furthermore, since no non-desert creatures are found, we can safely conclude that this was a desert environment. The dunes were deposited by dry wind, not water currents, and the tracks were made under a hot sun rather than in the midst of a global flood. These fossilized tracks thoroughly disprove the idea that the Grand Canyon's layers were deposited by Noah's flood.

Of course, we won't go into the subject of whether or not a God who commits mass-genocide against an entire planetary population is at all a just and loving one...

Eric

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Erosion in the Grand Canyon



Creationists say that there's just no way such a little river as the Colorado River could have carved a canyon so very large. They insist that instead of a little water and a lot of time, the Canyon formed from a lot of water and a little time. But the fact is, neither of these polar opposites is the case. Rather, the Canyon formed with a LOT of water over a LOT of time.

One almost needs to have rafted the Grand Canyon to appreciate just how mighty the Colorado truly is. It's not just another waterway! It carries enough water through it to provide power to all of Las Vegas via Hoover Dam. It provides enough water to meet much of the potable water needs of Los Angeles, CA. This ain't no stream, folks! It's a fairly consistent gusher with a lot of power behind it.

But not only that, the river is rich in highly abrasive sediment. As one travels the river, the sediments can be so thick that you can't put your hand more than a couple of inches below the surface of the water before it can't be seen. When rafting the river, boatmen often put their canned beverages in a drop bag and throw it over the side in order to keep them cool. (In fact, the Colorado is deep enough to be quite frigid year-round, even in the hot Arizona sun!) But the sediments erode everything, including the beverage cans. If you leave your beverage in the river for too long, the abrasion of the river will strip the paint right off the can! In the upper-left photo, Dr. Charlie Webb of Colorado Springs, CO illustrates this point quite clearly. If the paint is completely removed, rafters are left with the dilemma of trying to tell the difference between a can of Coca Cola and a can of beer! With erosion like that going on in the space of only several hours, imagine what millions of years could do! Perhaps the wonder of the Canyon is that it isn't significantly deeper. In fact, it probably would be much deeper, if a series of volcanoes along the North Rim hadn't dumped hot magma right into the middle of it about 15 million years ago.

That answers how the river cut such a deep canyon, but why is the canyon so wide? Could a river, no matter how mighty, have cut so wide a chasm when so comparatively narrow?

The answer is yes, for a number of reasons. First, canyons don't erode from the top-down. They erode from the bottom up. And when enough rock has eroded beneath, a rockfall from above ensues. This results in minor to major damming, forming new rapids or waterfalls, which erode very rapidly (thousands of years). Once level, the river cuts at a much slower rate. Also, occasional floods do occur with unusually large rainfalls on given years. During such periods, the river becomes much wider, erosion takes place much more rapidly, and more radical change takes place. It's wrong to look at the dry-season summertime Colorado River and say that such a "small" river couldn't have cut so wide a canyon.

Carrie Sager, daughter of Genie Scott, got to see this first hand on day three of the trip. During a heavy rainfall, a washed-off boulder fell and hit a side wall resulting in a large chunk of canyon getting knocked off into the river. It made a fantastic splash, and we all heard it, believe me! But Carrie was an actual eyewitness. What a story she got to tell!

It's very easy to accept that erosion made something so huge when you can actually see the rock widening right in front of your eyes.

Eric

Monday, November 14, 2005

Sometimes, you just gotta laugh...

Answers In Genesis (AIG) has just sent out its monthly newsletter, packed with propaganda. I just received a copy. In this issue, they try to tackle the difficult dilemma of explaining how a just and loving God could have allowed a disaster like Hurricane Katrina. From a creationist perspective, of course.

Ken Ham quotes from Nancy Gibbs, a writer for Time magazine online. According to the online article being quoted, Nancy interviews many religious leaders as to God's reasoning behind such a disaster as Katrina. An ultraconservative rabbi says Katrina is punishment for U.S. support of the Israeli pullout in Gaza. Louis Farrakhan calls Katrina judgment for the Iraq war. The Christian Civic Group of Maine notes that the hurricane hit just as a gay-rights festival was about to get underway. The consensus, notes Gibbs, is that Katrina was punishment for sin. The lack of consensus is just which sin it precisely was.

Enter Ken Ham's explanation. He also agrees that such mass death is punishment for sin, but says that the confusion as to which sin responsible stems from a lack of understanding of Genesis 1 through 11. According to Ken, the sin responsible is the original sin of eating the fruit of the tree in the Garden of Eden - an act which brought death and destruction to everyone. It is this sin, rather than the others, which should be blamed for the death and destruction which Katrina eventually brought. To Ken, Katrina is just one of the many consequences of "The Fall." A cutesy cartoon near Ken's article illustrates the pointing of many fingers at each other over Katrina, then at God, then finally at ourselves for our sinful natures. "It's our fault," the caption reads.

What's interesting is that normally, conservative Christians hate any "blame the victim" mentality. Yet here it is, spoken as though they were siding with the caracaturization of the liberals they purportedly despise. Ken doesn't touch on the irrationality of children being held responsible for the crimes of parents, to say nothing of grandparents or ancient ancestors. He doesn't point out that if humans were created by God, and Satan was created by God, that God is ultimately responsible for evil anyway. Blaming Satan doesn't work. Blaming Adam doesn't work. Both these puppets have their strings pulled by someone higher up, according to the Bible. "It is an occasion for atheists to remind believers of the flaws in the case for a benevolent God," Ken quotes from Gibbs' article. He lampoons this point, but comes up with exactly zero evidence against it.

So, we have to laugh. Not because it's funny. In fact, the fundamentalist outlook is rather glum. No, we laugh because Ken passes the buck, not realizing that he's given away his last dollar. He highlights the fallacy of creationism in flourescent yellow, and calls it an argument against evolution.

Perhaps the real proof of the lack of God's existence should be that no just God would let someone as ridiculous as Ken Ham into a position of leadership.

Eric

Sunday, November 13, 2005

Grand Canyon Says: Many Floods, Not Just One



Creationists love pointing to the Grand Canyon, saying that it shows evidence of massive flooding. But the dirty little secret they won't tell you is that it shows evidence of not one flood, but many floods.

In the upper-left photo, Dr. Genie Scott illustrates one piece of evidence of multiple flood events. The photo was taken on a hike through North Canyon, one of the tributary canyons along the Colorado River. This would put these rock layers in the mid-Supai group, probably the Manakacha Formation. At her shoulders, is a layer of sandstone which is pretty smooth and clean. It looks rather solid. But at her waist is a layer beneath which is pockmarked and rough. It doesn't look smooth at all. That's because this particular layer once had small invertebrates feeding and digging into the sandy, muddy bottom, looking for food. Later, they were suddenly buried. In geologic terms this is what's called a bioturbated rock layer.

Now, here's where it gets interesting. Above Genie's head is another bioturbated layer, followed by another smooth layer, followed by another bioturbated one, and so forth. Below Genie's feet, is another smooth layer, followed by another bioturbated one, followed by another smooth one, et cetera. So, if the Canyon layers were layed down in a great cataclysm, why did things get calm long enough for little critters to come in and start feeding, then get buried, then get calm again, then have little feeders come in again.... Doesn't this cycle indicate a shallow sea with the occasional hurricane burying things? Doesn't that make more sense than a global flood?

The Canyon is pretty unambiguous about what happened to form it. Many, many floods once passed over those rocks. Not one big one. Many hurricanes, many freezings, many dryings. There will be more on this in later postings, but one big event didn't make the rock formations in that Canyon. To insist so is just plain silly.

Eric

Friday, November 11, 2005

To Pat: Enough Is Enough!

Sometimes, you just have to throw up your hands and say, "this stupidity has gone on long enough."

Pat Robertson, addressing the people of Dover, Pennsylvania during a broadcast of his '700 Club' program, told them to not be surprised if a disaster struck their town because they had "Voted out God."

Of course, what those residents had really done is vote out school board members who favored 'Intelligent Design.'

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," he told them. "And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there."

So much for omnipresent.

As a secularist, it makes me happy that people like Pat Robertson continue to make fools of themselves. Yet somehow, someway, people continue to follow them. Pat won't change. He's too headstrong and set in his ways. But what about his followers? Why are they persistently clinging to the words of this dimented madman? Why do they accept the same creationist crap he does? Is the need for feeling like a valued member of a community really that important?

Because if it is, the humanists would love to make them feel welcome -- and at least they won't tell them to march in lockstep!

Eric

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Grand Canyon's Great Unconformity



Well, I've just gotten my hands on the latest newsletter from the Midwest Creation Fellowship. In it, they list the winners of their 2005 essay contest for junior and senior high school children. The winner? Beth Conway of Alliance, OH. And her essay was about, you guessed it, the Grand Canyon.

Essentially, she argues that one of the best evidences of the Genesis Flood comes from the Great Unconformity. This is a very visible line where angled sedimentary layers suddenly meet perfectly horizontal sedimentary layers. It looks almost as if someone took a kilometer-sized power sander and leveled off everything before more deposits were layed down on top. A picture of the unconformity is shown here, situated behind the portable commode we used while on the NCSE rafting trip. (This way we could contemplate the wonders of nature while, well, answering the call of nature.)

Beth Conway thinks that since the Great Unconformity was caused by the rushing waters of Noah's flood planing off rugged mountainous edges, before the currents settled down and layed down new sediments. But even the biggest amount of rushing water wouldn't level things off in such a perfect way. Waves pounding into a shallow oestuary could level off any jagged edges, but that wouldn't fit perfectly either, plus it would take millions of years, and that doesn't fit the creation model very well. What could have leveled the angled mountaintops before they were buried? What could have caused this pattern?

The best explanation seems to be that it was a glacier which did this. Only a glacier can plane off rugged, jagged mountaintops with such level precision. A massive enough glacier can literally bulldoze over rock, leveling off everything in its path. Also, the rock immediately below the unconformity dates to about 825 million years, while the rock immediately above it dates to about 570 million years, thus making a 255 million year gap in time between the two. Precisely during that gap in time, we know from other geologic evidence that the world was virtually covered in glaciers in the largest ice age the planet had ever seen. It makes perfect sense that a glacier planed off the angled, mountainous layers over 250 million years, before the earth warmed, oceans rose, and sedimentary deposits began to accumulate once again. Certainly, this makes much more sense than claiming that a global flood did it.

Eric

The Importance of Getting Involved

Just last month, the interim president of Cornell University, Hunter R. Rawlings, did something radical. During his "State of the University" address, he actually spent most of the time blasting the movement which supports "Intelligent Design," and passionately urging all academics to get involved in their local communities to help put a stop to it. Was he right to do this? Has creationism, and "ID" gotten to the point where university presidents need to make it a top priority?

The answer, I strongly feel, is yes, absolutely! While ID has lost in a court case in Dover, PA, it may only be a reprieve as the case gets appealed to a higher court. Meanwhile, in Kansas, the school board has made the same gaff which made the state a national and international laughingstock back in 2000. Just yesterday, the board voted science education standards which declare that basic Darwinian theory has been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology - a blatant lie. On top of this, our well-meaning and affable President Bush confirmed yet again that he is a dolt by stating that he felt "both sides" should be taught in the science classroom.

Clearly, this is no time for our university scientists to remain locked inside their ivory towers. It's time to underscore the truth: Evolution is a fact of history. Deal with it.

Eric

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Welcome!

This post is a repeat, but it bears repeating.

Welcome to the Milwaukee Evolution League's new blog site. Here, I'll be able to get information to everyone on a more regular basis than I have done in the past. With my crazy schedule, juggling two jobs, singing in a band, and trying to slip a social life in between, this will enable me to keep everyone informed -- at least during my odd lunch-break. Oh, there will still be actual physical meetings, but for now, enjoy our new forum!

If you have any questions you would like answered; some creationist claim you don't know the answer to or are having a hard time researching, don't hesitate to post a question for me to answer! That's the primary reason this forum will exist. Take full advantage of my expertise in this issue. It'll save you lots of time.Eric

Grand Canyon Information



Beginning today, I will begin recounting what I learned during my Grand Canyon rafting trip with the National Center for Science Education. I'll post images as often as I can, even though pictures can't do justice to the immense beauty the canyon offers. Stay tuned!

Entertaining Creationists Argue Back

There are times I truly enjoy debating with creationists. One such example is when I stumbled across James Holding's critique of my book, Creationism: The Bible Says No! (The title of which is a play off of another book by Duane Gish, called 'Evolution: The Fossils Say No!')

I've included Mr. Holding's web-posting as one of my permanent links in the right hand column, not only because I found it so entertaining, but also because I want as many people to read it as possible to see just how fascinating it is when my proven points get underscored.

You don't really need a copy of my book to see where the flaws in Holding's arguments are, (though perhaps it might help). Essentially, I argue against biblical literalism, which is the cornerstone of creationism, by citing numerous scriptures which are irreconcilably contradictory or false. Holding answers these contradictions by accusing me of interpreting scripture according to a strict, fundamentalist, literalist view using modern, rather than ancient, standards of interpretation.

Guess what? Guilty as charged! I do indeed do exactly that. But that's because that's what creationists do as well! I was only using the standards of interpretation which were predetermined by evolution's opponents. Holding, however, holds to the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy, which says:

"We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of metrical, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations."

I'll admit it, I hadn't heard of the "Chicago Statement" until I read Holding's article. But I had certainly heard that particular argument many times before. (Really, who really knows or cares that some ecclesiastical magisteria stamped a label on it?) What's interesting about it is that, if one accepts it fully, then one has to apply ancient standards of interpretation, which means that the original, primitive author(s) of Genesis regarded Adam and Eve as literal history simply because they did not, in that era, make a distiction between literal history and mythology. This means that the proper interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is that it is metaphor, not fact.

Holding's position may, just may, smooth over most Bible contradictions by seeing them as the shortcomings of the ancient mind, or mind-set. But the price of this view is the lack of necessity on insisting that Adam and Eve were literal people. All that is required to be a Christian is to accept that humanity, at some point in its evolutionary past, went astray from God. Maybe that's why there are so many evolutionary scientists who are also Christian.

Perhaps his misunderstanding of my views can best be summarized in a statement he made at the end in reference to my citing of the mathematical contradiction regarding Solomon's gold from Ophir:

"Incredibly the only answer Hildeman knows for things like, "Did Solomon get 420 or 450 talents of gold from Ophir?" is stuff like, "It was two separate trips." [165] Huh? (And he even has one half of this problem listed as being in 2 Corinthians!) This one (and others, such as the age of Baasha [172]) is one of the simplest, easily attributed to copyist error, but Hildeman doesn't even mention or apparently know that this is an answer! If this is what Hildeman learned at Bible college, maybe it isn't all his fault that he is so badly educated!"

Of course it occurred to me that it could be attributed to a copyist error. In fact, that was exactly my point. A copyist's ERROR. Meaning that errors in the Bible are a scientific fact! And if errors in the Bible are a fact, then why do creationists even bother? (I guess I'm not so poorly educated after all.)

Do follow up on the links. Have fun reading them!

Eric

Monday, November 07, 2005

Do Many Scientists Question or Reject Evolution?

Creationists often claim that many scientists question or reject evolution. Is it true?
Well, “many” is an ambiguous term. Ten or twenty people, for instance, could be thought of as “many.”
There is no evidence that suggests that there are “many” creationist scientists out there. The claim is made based on the increasing number of seemingly qualified recruits to the creationist movement. Yet these new recruits are still really only a scattered few. Of those, the vast majority of them do not deal in fields where evolutionary expertise is required. Of those few left who do deal with evolutionary fields (such as genetics or geology) the track records are dubious, at best.
According to a 1997 Gallup poll, creationists comprise about 600,000 out of the approximately 13 million people in scientific professions. That’s well below 5%. (4.615%, to be precise.) But that includes professions like computer scientists, engineers, and the like—people with nothing to do with either life-science or earth-science. If one restricts the numbers to the 480,000 scientists who work in fields related to evolution (according to Newsweek magazine, June 29, 1987, p. 23), namely the aforementioned life and earth sciences, only about 700 are creationists. 700. That’s it! (A literal ‘700 Club?’) Percentage-wise that’s .14583%, or significantly less than TWO-TENTHS of a percent! And that’s just in hyper-religious America. If one looks at the percentage of creationists outside the U.S. (which is almost none), the number falls to well below one tenth of a percent!
Clearly, the “theory in crisis” is creationism.
The National Center for Science Education has something which is known as “Project Steve,” in which scientists named Steve sign on as supporters of evolution. The project is named after the late Steven Jay Gould, and some notable scientists, including Stephen Hawking, have signed on board. As of 11/7/2005, the list stands at 630 scientists, and is growing! When one considers that about only 1% of the world’s population is named Steve, and that this percentage applies to the scientific population as well, one realizes that SIGNIFICANTLY LESS than 1% of evolutionary scientists have signed on to a list which nearly equals (90%) the approximate TOTAL number of creationists (700, remember?) in the U.S.!

Eric

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Is evolution an atheist doctrine?

Many creationists believe so. But this claim is empirically false. Many Christians and members of other religions embrace evolution, demonstrably proving evolution is not atheistic. Pope John Paul II has openly embraced evolution. The Rev. Bennett J. Sims, Episcopal Bishop of Atlanta, endorses evolution. The biologist Sir Ronald Fisher was an Anglican. President Jimmy Carter, a devout Baptist, has supported evolution. Many religious organizations have given their support for evolution in the National Center for Science Education’s publication, Voices for Evolution, including the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), The General Convention Of The Episcopal Church, The Lexington Alliance Of Religious Leaders, The Lutheran World Federation, The Roman Catholic Church, The United Methodist Church, and the United Presbyterian Church In The U.S.A.

A stubborn creationist might say that all of these people and organizations are just being inconsistent in their thinking. But it is certainly not more consistent to say that a talking serpent is a literal fact of history.

Courtesy: NCSE, Voices for Evolution: Statements from religious organizations.

Eric