Debunking Tom Phillips, #1

**"Spontaneous generation," disproved long ago, has never been observed. Instead, we always observe that life comes from previous life - and, as Scripture teaches, ultimately from an ever-living God.**

Mr. Phillips is right when he says that "spontaneous generation" was disproved long ago. In a classic experiment done by Francesco Redi in 1668, it was showed that maggots do not spontaneously generate inside rotting meat left out in the open. Taking three containers, he put meat inside each one. Then, he sealed the first one, overlaid the second with cheezecloth, and left the third open. In the second and third containers, flies became attracted to the meat, and later, maggots appeared. The maggots were upon the meat in the third container, but on the second container, where flies couldn't get past the cheezecloth, the maggots only appeared on top of the cloth itself. In this way, it was shown that maggots came from the eggs of flies, and did not spontaneously generate from within dead meat.

So, is evolution a kind of belief in "spontaneous generation?" Is saying the DNA molecule came about through natural processes the same thing as believing that maggots spontaneously appear inside meat? The answer is no. Why? Because the dawn of life was hardly spontaneous! DNA came about after a long, arduous evolutionary process. It didn't happen overnight. Life cannot come from non-life, that's true. But life CAN come from proto-life! And proto-life can come from proto-proto-life! And proto-proto-life can come from non-living organic molecules!

Scientists have been able to observe the spontaneous formation of proto-life and proto-proto-life inside the laboratory for decades. That's how they know, with certainty, that it's not only possible, but highly probable. Oh, they haven't yet been able to make "life in a jar," that's true, but they're tantilizingly close. All, not some, of the nucleotides, amino acids, and basic molecular building blocks have been seen to be capable of forming in nature - and easily! We've seen them go from simple molecules, to complex ones; from complex molecules to nucleotides; from nucleotides to RNA, and from RNA to DNA. We've learned how cell-walls formed, and we've recently discovered how all the nucleotides became "left-handed" in their chirality. (A later post will deal with that.) All we need is the final puzzle piece that will teach us the exact history of how it all came about. In the meantime, we've amassed enough knowledge to prove that no divine hand was behind it.

Eric

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Throws Gauntlet!

There are many among the political right-wing who insist that the "mainstream media" is biased in favor of liberalism. And while it's true that most major television and print media does have a slightly left-of-center disposition, that's only because it is necessary to affront commonly held ideas in order to improve ratings and subscription sales. But for those who think that the media is clearly on the left, as opposed to very centrist and only slightly left (which is clearly the case), I offer you this recent editorial from yesterday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Any news outlet which could publish something this radically right-wing cannot be called "liberal-biased." Factor in the monopoly that extremist conservative-bias has over talk radio and Fox News and we find that there's a bias in favor of right-wing politics in the "mainstream media."

But all this is a rant. The editorial follows below. And the next series of blogs posted here will debunk all of the ridiculous statements this religiously-motivated spin-doctor makes. I encourage all to write in to the Journal Sentinel to show this poor man just what science means.

-----------

Science debunks evolution
By TOM PHILLIPS
Posted: Dec. 21, 2005

There has been much propaganda regarding intelligent design.

In truth, creation/design is the scientific position; evolution is unscientific. By definition, science is based upon what we observe in the physical world and logical inference from what we observe.
While microevolution, which is change within a species, is observed and scientific, macroevolution, which is what "evolution" customarily means, is not. It asserts life somehow arose from non-life by chance.

Such "spontaneous generation," disproved long ago, has never been observed. Instead, we always observe that life comes from previous life - and, as Scripture teaches, ultimately from an ever-living God.

Evolution also asserts one life form can change into another, higher form - something also never observed and thus unscientific. Instead, we always observe exactly what Genesis states numerous times: Life reproduces "according to its kind," i.e., cats beget cats, crickets beget crickets, etc. They never change into something else. With microbiology, we understand why.
All life contains DNA, a genetic blueprint containing information. But purely material processes cannot create information, which originates only from a "mind." Evolution proceeds via chance, the antithesis of information. The DNA in simple bacteria has several million specifications; man's has several billion.

The DNA molecule, the most complex structure we know and unquestionably the most efficient copying device, with self-correcting processes, prevents one life form from "changing" into another. We are all copies of a copy of a copy, etc., going back to the very first human parents.
Genesis 3:20 says Eve was "the mother of all the living." Science proved we are descendents of one woman, whose genes are carried by all mankind. Even evolutionists accept the finding that all humans descended from a relatively recent woman whom scientists have taken to calling Eve, based on the DNA in our mitochondria, the cell's powerhouse. Mitochondrial DNA comes unmixed, only from the mother.

The fossil record disproves evolution. If the first life form changed into another, higher form by gradual gene changes, and so on down the line, accounting for all life then, quoting Darwin, "the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great."

The whole world would be awash in the remains of "infinitely numerous connecting links." It isn't. Darwin conceded that fact, calling it "the most obvious and serious objection" against his theory. He attests the "sudden appearance" of species, complete and distinct, in the fossil record - just as if God created all life individually.

Evolution is scientifically preposterous. Laws of probability are real scientific laws. Our DNA is unique because the odds of another person having our exact DNA are so remote we can dismiss that possibility altogether. Likewise with evolution.
Nobel laureate Francis Crick calculated nature's chances of producing one small protein: 1 in 10 to the 260th power. Crick reminds us there are only 10 to the 80th power (1 followed by 80 zeros) atoms in the whole universe; he concludes even the elementary components of life "cannot have arisen by pure chance."

Mathematician Emile Borel states an event will never happen when the odds are less than 1 in 10 to the 50th power.

Sir Fred Hoyle, mathematician and astronomer, calculated nature's chances of producing the 2,000 enzymes found in life: 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. He states: "The Darwinian theory of evolution is shown to be plainly wrong" and concludes, "Life cannot have had a random beginning . . . but must have come from a cosmic intelligence."
Nobel laureate Ernst Chain said, "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts."

Albert Einstein said, "I want to know how God created this world." Einstein knew the universe didn't happen by chance.

Atheism and evolution are dead. Science destroyed them. Those claiming evolution is scientific must demonstrate that life can come from non-life by purely material processes and that one life form can turn into another, higher form.

Science demands it. Put up or shut up.

Tom Phillips of Milwaukee is director of Catholics Serving the Lord.

-----------

Okay, Tom. You asked for it. And this blog will give it to you!

Eric

Landmark Court Ruling In Dover, PA

Once again, creationism has been challenged in court. And once again, it has lost. Here is the lowdown from the National Center for Science Education:

-----
A special evolution education update to bring you the news from Harrisburg. The decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover was issued, and the plaintiffs triumphed. In his 139-page decision, Judge John E. Jones III concluded, "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID [Intelligent Design] Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

The Associated Press reports (December 20, 2005) that Pepper Hamilton's Eric Rothschild, the lead attorney for the families who challenged theDover Area School Board's "intelligent design" policy, described the ruling as "a real vindication for the parents who had the courage to stand up and say there was something wrong in their school district." NCSE agrees, and congratulates the plaintiffs and their lawyers from Pepper Hamilton, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, for their well-deserved victory.

And what do the creationists say?

"The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work," said Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute.

Judge Jones anticipated this response in advance, and pointed out that his court has had a long, distinguished track record of not being an activist court. Not only is this the case, but his appointment was part of the conservative movement to shift the Federal Court system to the right.

Judge John E. Jones III commenced his service as a United States District Judge on August 2, 2002, and was appointed to his current position by none other than President George W. Bush in February, 2002, and was unanimously confirmed by the Republican-controlled United States Senate on July 30, 2002.

In other words, a conservative judge, appointed by a conservative president and a conservative congress, has ruled against Intelligent Design.

So stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

Eric

Grantsburg, WI, One Year Later...

Back on December 6, 2004, the School Board in Grantsburg, WI voted to permit theories of origin other than evolution to be taught in its science curriculum. Ken Bahr, who was then the president of the Creation Science Society of Milwaukee, commented in the "Take Five" column of the Miluwakee Journal Sentinel on Dec. 9th of that year. I thought it would be a good idea to examine where we've come since then, and to take a look at what Ken told reporters one year ago.

When asked, "What's the biggest change you've seen?" Ken responded that the creationist movement had grown. He pointed out how the CSSM went from 40 or 50 members to 150 members, and from 400 mailings to 900. Is that a lot? Well, to put things into perspective, 390,000 people in Britain purport themselves to be "Jedi" in their religion. True, Britain is more populous, but not much bigger than Wisconsin in terms of land-mass. Ken should realize that with a spiking population worldwide, even the tiniest mosquito of crazy-idea-laden minority can experience tremendous growth. (M.E.L. now has a membership of equal size and no budget!)

When asked for examples of how the Bible confirms science, he pointed out the verse that says that the Earth "hangs on nothing" and that life is in the blood. Now, these are shirt-tail examples at best, and could be discerned by common sense with a non-scientific mind. He leaves out talking snakes, global floods, and dead people coming back to life.

When asked about what's new since the 1925 Scopes' Trial, Ken said that the movement was no longer questioning whether evolution should be taught in schools, but merely saying that alternatives should be taught alongside it. Now, that may sound fair at first, but let's apply that logic to other subjects. Shall we teach alternatives to mathmatics, such as numerology? How about alternatives to astronomy, such as astrology? (What's your sign, man?) Maybe we can offer video games as an alternative to phys. ed.? Offering bunk as an "alternative" is not being fair and balanced, nor is it being "fair and hearing both sides" to hand the microphone over to the loony-tunes of the world. If there is another side to be heard, scientifically, then we should teach both sides, yes. But from a scientific standpoint, there is no controversy. Evolution stands alone.

Ken was asked what CSSM's goal is. He answered, "We don't say you have to teach creation in the public school. That's not our point. The point is, we should be allowed to discuss the difficulties in the evolutionary hypothesis and allow students to hear them." In other words, the goal is to go to public schools and muddy the water. Oh, he phrases it in a politically correct manner, but that's what he means. Should this be allowed? Or should competent science teachers be allowed to do their job uninhibited? I'm for the latter.

The reporter pointed out to Ken that a lot of scientists spoke out and signed letters opposing the Grantsburg School Board's decision. Ken replied that he could provide "a whole list of professors who are for alternative views of origins being taught." But such lists have been debunked before. These professors often teach at private, Christian schools. Moreover, since Ken probably meant to say 'scientists,' those individuals with scientific credentials are nearly always from the applied sciences: engineers, medical doctors, oil-prospecting geologists, computer technicians, even dentists. Never are there true research scientists whose work has to be evaluated by another scientist rather than a CEO who only got as far as "Geology 101; Rocks for Jocks."

So Ken wants lists? Here's a list: Project Steve, provided by the National Center for Science Education. It's now over 600, and is comprised only of scientists named Steve who endorse evolution. (Stephano or Stephanie would qualify.) Contrast this with the lists Ken referred to, which seldom reach 200, have few representatives of earth or life science, and who have many names which are deceased. When you figure that "Steves" comprise only about 1% of the names out there, we find quite an endorsement of evolution.

Here's another list: In response to the Grantsburg mishap, 10,000 Christian clergymembers signed letters in opposition to the School Board's decision! The board reversed its decision quickly when all the publicity hit, but it's good to know so many Christians refuse to let creationists pull the wool over their eyes.

Eric

March of the Penguins

Not long ago, my niece celebrated her 2nd birthday. (She's in that extremely cute phase.) One of the presents she got was a book featuring March of the Penguins, which was the surprise sleeper-hit documentary of emperor penguins in the Antarctic. (My niece loves books. She can't read yet, but she loves turning pages. Keeps her occupied for hours!)

Curious about it, I Netflixed the movie and watched it. It's quite good! But it got me thinking. Penguins don't fit very well into a creationist context, do they? They're so well adapted to the unbelievably harsh polar environment, and yet we know from core-drilling that Antarctica was once a lush rainforest.

Now, creationists explain this away by saying that Antarctica was green and lush before the Fall of Adam, and afterward, with Sin in the world, the region went cold. But does that really work? The answer is no. If Antarctica went suddenly cold, could penguins have become suddenly well adapted to living there at the same time? The idea is absurd. The opposite idea could be that penguins were perfectly designed for cold weather living at the beginning. But that makes no sense either, since nothing "perfectly designed" would include animals freezing and suffering in such harshly cold temperatures.

And this is just the beginning. What about Noah's flood? Did the penguins have to migrate all the way to the Ark and all the way back again? One creationist hypothisis is that continental drift happened suddenly as the flood waters gushed forth from the deep recesses of the Earth. If so, Antarctica would have been lush and green, then suddenly drifted during the Flood event. But that doesn't fit either, because then nothing would have survived on Antarctica, let alone penguins.

There is only one thing which explains the presence of penguins on Antarctica. Slow, creeping continental drift over millions of years. Slowly, the birds on that continent would have become better adapted to cold-weather living, until they could survive the harshest environment known. Slowly, all but the best adapted animals would be wiped out. Survival would be harsh, but would happen. Penguins show that Darwin was right.

So let's hear it for the penguin, the new champion of evolutionary fact. And let's hear it for March of the Penguins. It's success at the box office and DVD sales hails the day when creationism will be a curious footnote in history.

Eric

The Pope and Intelligent Design

Pope John Paul II was amicable toward evolution, though not outright conciliatory. On a number of occasions, he said that accepting evolution was not contrary to Catholic teaching, thus setting a precedent for Catholicism which will help it survive well into the 21st Century.

But while his successor, Pope Benedict XVI, does not overrule his late boss, he does seem determined to do evolution in by siding with the "wedge" strategy of the Discovery Institute, and backing the "Intelligent Design" argument.

Saying that the universe was made by an "intelligent project," he quoted St. Basil the Great, saying that some people are "fooled by the atheism that they carry inside of them, imagine a universe free of direction and order, as if at the mercy of chance."

"How many of these people are there today?" the Pope went on. "These people, fooled by atheism, believe and try to demonstrate that it's scientific to think that everything is free of direction and order."

Well, the Pope is an intelligent man, but reckless in his biased reasoning. Let's start with the assumption of an "intelligent agent" which so many people insist on. If I were to say that the Sun shines because there is a giant firedragon within its core, and that it did not burn solely by nuclear fusion, you would think me daft -- and you would be right. Why? Because I would have presented no evidence for the existence of a fanciful firedragon. No evidence means that I cannot cite it as a cause.

Now let's apply that to an intelligent designer. Is there any evidence for such a thing? Interestingly, the amount of evidence in favor of such a designer is exactly equal to the amount of evidence against it: Exactly zero! With no evidence for or against any such designer, can we cite such a fanciful thing as a scientific explanation? The answer is no. To be scientific, we must first find conclusive evidence (as opposed to the zero evidence we have) that such a designer is even there. Until then, "intelligent design" is as unscientific as firedragons inside the sun.

That handles one side of Pope Benedict's myopic statement. But are scientists "fooled by atheism," as he attests? Clearly not, as the overwhelming number of evolutionary scientists who are also devout Christians attests. There are also many more agnostics who fully embrace evolution. Darwin's idea did many things, but one thing it didn't do was endorse a lack of belief in God.

Yet evolution does imply a natural universe -- one where nothing divine influences the regular laws of physics. What does that say about God? Well, three things:

1. There is a God, but He doesn't care to show Himself, and is consequently apathetic to our worship or praise of Him.
2. There is a God, but is too weak to manifest himself in a way which we can observe, making him too impotent to be the God of lore we are all used to.
3. There is no God after all.

Well, all three possibilities are contrary to Catholicism, so it's understandable why Pope Benedict would want to oppose evolutionary science. Yet there is one more possibility: That the universe is a kind of preuve de merite, a test of worthiness. If we are able to figure out the permutations of string theory (or "M" theory, as it's now called), and if we are able to find the underlying equation which governs everything in the universe, we will have achieved the level of intellectual maturity necessary for God to finally reveal Himself via that equation, or by some other means. In other words, God isn't absent, he's just waiting for us to grow up through science -- waiting for us to become smart enough to see Him behind all the stardust which makes the universe go. If so, Pope Benedict, the Discovery Institute, and the Creationist movement are all hindering Man's path to God. They are, in a real sense, unwitting agents of His antithesis, which we can only call Satan. Now isn't that an intriguing notion?

Of course, these are not things I truly believe, nor are they something you the reader should accept. But they are interesting ideas. Will we find God by solving the universe through science? To be honest, I don't know. But it would make one hell of a scientific experiment!

Eric