An Interesting and Scary Poll

Here's some information that's reasonably shocking, courtesy of the online Campus Inquirer, published by the Center for Inquiry.

New Scripts Howard/Ohio University Poll Shows Half of U.S. Adults Want ID Taught

The survey of 1005 Americans found that 54% of respondents believe humans and the universe were created in their present form by God in 6 days, 24% believe in evolution, 16% believe that God guided evolution, and 6% were undecided.Regarding the teaching of Evolution, 69% of respondents agreed that most scientists believe in evolution so it should be taught in Science classes. %20 do not believe evolution should be taught in science classes and 11% were undecided.Finally, 50% of respondents agreed with President Bush that Intelligent Design should be taught alongside Evolution, while 37% disagreed and 13% were undecided.

Fossils, Fossils, Fossils!

Here we go again with more of Tom Phillips' nonsense:

**"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."**

Darwin was correct that it was a serious objection -- back in his day. Since then, so many fossils cataloging the history of evolution have been unearthed that they are hard to catalog. The world is indeed "awash in the remains of infinitely numerous connecting links," and we've known this for quite some time. The only defense for the creationist to this is to deny that these are at all transitional fossils, and for the sheep of the flock, this rationale suffices. But that creates a fatal problem for the creationist view: If the miriads of fossils are, none of them, transitional, then why is it that 98% of the species on the planet have gone extinct? Could all that massive variety have been wiped out in Noah's flood? It seems utterly preposterous, and that's only because it is. When that 98% shows a pattern of progressive evolutionary history (and it does), one has to wonder why anybody would use Mr. Phillips' argument regarding fossils.

So why did life appear so suddenly? Why did the "Cambrian explosion" take place? We now know that the life forms which seemed to appear suddenly were not absent prior to the Cambrian period, but they were too small to be initially noticed -- they were microfossils. Then, the Earth became gripped in a massive ice-age which prevented life from creeping far onto land. In fact, it was probably the glaciers of this period which planed off the "Great Unconformity" in the Grand Canyon. (See "Grand Canyon's Great Unconformity," posted on November 9, 2005.) Meanwhile, life continued to evolve in the periphery, growing significantly larger, and only slightly more complex. As the ice age ended, this life came inland, and many more fossils became possible. The "explosion" of fossils had taken place. Oh, and the fossils all lacked key modern forms -- chiefly among them, mammals, which includes Man. Just how does that mesh with Genesis?

Eric

More Fun With Tom Phillips

Here's some more debunking of the man whose Journal Sentinal editorial recycled the same-old garbage arguments:

**"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. "**

Honestly, does this really need to be debunked? Of course one life form cannot change into another. I cannot change into a bird anymore than a tortoise can change into a hare. That would be transmogrification -- not evolution. So how the hell is that even relevant? But the offspring of an animal can change slightly, and this often takes place. If the change is positive, it sticks around for generations afterward. If the change is negative, it dies off. As countless generations go by, the little changes add up. Eventually, something which was an ancestral cat evolves into something which is definitely not a cat, although it may retain some cat-like qualities. This is how evolution works. It is never "one animal changing into another" as the ignorant so mischaracterize it.

**"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."**

Of course purely material processes can create information! Saying otherwise displays a lack of understanding of how information works. Information requires a recording mechanism, and something capable of reading it. That's it. Tectonic activity rifts a new faultline, essentially drawing or recording a "line" in the earth. Rain and snow "read" this line, and a new canyon begins to form. Yes, recording and reading information really can be that simple! The first analog recording devices invented by humans had a metal wire drawn across an electromagnetic loop to read and record differences in magnetic polarity in the metal. Today's tape-recorders work on the same principle. But this type of analog recording is happening every day as the oceanic sea-floor splits and spreads apart. As the magma along the rift cools, it records the magnetic polarity of the planet, just like a tape recorder. Information! As sediment collects on an ocean bottom, it creates a record of the kinds of life which get buried, creating a kind of analog recording. Information again! In fact, reading that information in the rocks helps confirm the truth of evolutionary change! Information is being recorded in nature everywhere. And DNA is only one small example.

**"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."**

Both evolution and six-day creation posit that there was a common ancestor for us all. So what? If science confirms this, it bolsters neither viewpoint, right? The point becomes utterly moot.

But DNA is not the most efficient copying device, nor is its self-correcting process perfect. We are not 'copies of a copy of a copy, etc.' Only half of one's DNA is copied from parent to child. In every case, one half of the DNA genetic structure is lost, while the two halves from each parent are "zipped" together. Sometimes, there is a mutation in that process, and then the self-correcting mechanisms work to reinforce the mistake rather than correct it.

Honestly, this is pretty basic stuff. How could anybody ignore these facts unless they deliberately blinded themselves to it in order to reinforce a religious worldview?

Eric

Wisconsin Gets An "F" In Evolutionary Teaching

In the news, the Fordham Institute has issued its evaluation of science standards for each state in the U.S. on December 7, 2005. Top states received a 3, bottom states received a 1, or worse, a zero. Wisconsin got a zero. Here's how the scoring shook out nationwide:

Receiving a grade of 3: CA, DE, GA, IL, IN, KS*, MD, MA, MI, MO, NJ, NM,NY, OH, PA, RI, SC, TN, VT, VA, WA
Receiving a grade of 2: AZ, DC, LA, MN, NV, OR, UT
Receiving a grade of 1: CO, HI, NE, NC, ND, SD, TX, WV, WY
Receiving a grade of 0: AL, AK, AR, CT, FL, ID, ME, MS, MT, NH, OK, WI

Some special notes: Iowa has no state science standards. And there is an asterisk to note for the Kansas science standards. Once again, school board members with a dearth of science understanding reversed guidelines in teaching evolution, making Kansas into a national joke. This shifts its overall grade from 3 to a 0.

Eric