- PERSPECTIVE -

- EVERYONE SEEMS NORMAL UNTIL YOU GET TO KNOW THEM! -

My Photo
Name:
Location: London, Canada

Thanks for reading my blog.

Saturday, May 31, 2008

The Real Answer to the Evoution / Creation Debate!

A little girl asked her mother: How did the human race appear?

The mother answered: God made Adam and Eve and they had children and so was
all mankind made.

Two days later she asks her father the same question. The father answered:
Many years ago there were monkeys from which the human race was developed.

The confused girl returns to her mother and says: Mom how is it possible that you told me that the human race was created by God and Papa says they were developed from monkeys.

The mother answers: Well dear, it is very simple. I told you about the origin of my side of the family, while your father told you about his side.............!

Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site www.God-101.com

Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://Allans-Perspective.blogspot.com

Labels: , ,

Sunday, May 25, 2008

The Audition!

Still don't believe in evolution, eh? Take a look at this bunky!
But, it's not all that easy! Watch this guy go to an audition!!!!!

Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site www.God-101.com

Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://Allans-Perspective.blogspot.com

Labels: , ,

Friday, May 09, 2008

“Penn & Teller Creationism Bullshit”







Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site www.God-101.com

Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://Allans-Perspective.blogspot.com

Labels: , ,

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Some People are Fucking Idiots!

I am not going to make many friends with this piece but it needs to be said.

Never mind all the arguments back and forth between the Darwinists and the Creationists! If you want a good indicator of who is right and who is wrong read this!

The previous article was a spoof on the evolution - creation debate called "People are not Animals." (Which of course we are!)

I distributed this piece to my two blogs, God-101/Perspective and Allans-Perspective plus to My Space, My Yahoo and Gather. From the large amount of mail I got back something came to light which both disturbed and saddened me.

Almost without exception every person who knew that Evolution/Darwinism was real recognized the article as "satire" and "sarcasm" and treated it as such. O.K.?

Now, EVERY person who BELIEVED in CREATIONISM, (without exception) thought the article was supporting their point of view and congratulated me on setting the record straight.

In other words they were too fucking stupid to realize they were getting their leg pulled!

But then again if they believed in Creationism in the first place what more could we expect from them!

What a shame!

(I will reproduce it here one more time! Special thanks to Edward Current for this!)



AND JUST FOR GOOD MEASURE, LET'S THROW THIS ONE IN AS WELL!



Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site www.God-101.com

AND FINALY, LET'S CONVERT TO EVERY RELIGION! (Just in case!)



Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://allans-perspective.blogspot.com

Labels: , ,

Saturday, April 26, 2008

People Are Not Animals!



Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site www.God-101.com

Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://Allans-Perspective.blogspot.com

Labels: , ,

Monday, March 10, 2008

Dr. Kent Hovind and the Evolution Debate

I ran acros this letter from the Fall of 2005 and it brought back a whole bunch of memories for me!

Dr. Kent Hovind, (Who I'm sure you have heard of) was offering a quarter of a million dollars to anyone who could prove evolution so naturally I took him up on the offer and sent him a whole bunch of stuff!

I started out with this quote from Isaac Asimov. (Who I am also sure you have heard of!)

The exact mechanism of evolution, (the fine details) remain under dispute since the process of discovery and development is not yet finished and may never be entirely completed. Even the most argumentative of those who quarrel over the details do not deny the evolutionary concept itself.
Creationists, on the other hand, present no evidence in favor of their view. They argue entirely from the negative. They maintain that if the concept of evolution is wanting, then that alone is sufficient to force acceptance of creationism.
They then insist that the concept of evolution is indeed found wanting. They point out insufficiencies, uncertainties and contradictions in the evolutionary arguments and say, triumphantly, “Thus we establish creationism!”
-Isaac Asimov - The Dangerous Myth of Creationism
I then went on to give arguments from people who are much smarter than I am including the likes of Albert Einstein, Dr. Richard Dawkins, Dr. Burton Mack, Dr. Susan Blackmore, Max Weber, Durkheim and a host of others.

Then at the end of these arguments I put in my two cents worth from my book "The Plain Truth About God"!

A final few words to end the “evolution/creation” debate once and for all!

“What we have here is failure to communicate!”

Maybe not an original quote, but as far as the evolution / creation debate goes, perhaps a very appropriate one! The constant war of words between Darwinists and Creationists has been ongoing for many years and has not been resolved to anyone’s satisfaction.

Perhaps we should go right back to the very basics and start to build from there; just to see what happens!

First of all we have to take a position that there is either a God, or there is not!

If there is no God then the Darwinists are absolutely right and everything was created by dumb luck and there is no purpose to anything!

I can see why evolutionists have been so adamant that natural selection and the progression of lower life forms into higher ones, without outside help, seem to be the natural order of things.

They have a compelling argument and the term; “Just the facts, Ma’am” bear them out.

However, the supposition that life, and by correlation intelligence, is the result of blind chance with no interference from a God, is the same as saying that by default there is no God!

In other words, to accept evolution from a scientific point of view without taking into account the theological implications of the Atheists being right, does a great disservice to anyone who has any feelings at all of a religious/spiritual nature.

I personally cannot imagine a world where there is no God at all. That this whole kit-and-caboodle we call the Universe is just a random organization of the basic elements with no ultimate purpose!

This extremist’s view is no better than those of religious fanatics who try and tell me that the world is no more than seven thousand years old. Both are the result of people polarized in their own views and beliefs.

After all, a belief that there is no God is in no way any different than the view that there is a God; both depend on a personal belief system, since neither can be scientifically proven!

This is not to say that we should teach the biblical version of the creation of the universe as literal truth.

Any rational, semi-educated person realizes that Holy Scripture is a compilation of parables, prophesy, folk-lore, metaphor’s and common sense in a first century context!

Nor should we refer to the bible as a historical work since it is more concerned with the mind-set and morality of people than an account of their achievements!

If we can learn to distinguish between the metaphorical and the historical aspects of the scriptures then it makes it all the easier to differentiate between the divergent aims of scientific and theological schools of thought.

Just as the far right claims biblical truth and rejects scientific evidence, the Darwinists are at a loss to explain how the Universe (The Big Bang) came into being from absolutely nothing.

It’s like comparing apples and oranges. Both are different and have a different purpose.

To attempt a comparison is the same as looking for common ground when talking about two totally different things. With this in mind there is no real conflict between religion and science. God is by God’s very nature unknowable.

What I object to is the human trait of forming special interest groups whose sole job is giving only their explanation of God and even making proclamations and laws in God’s name.

This to me is the height of human arrogance and self-deception.

We do not know how God interacts with our universe and should not use one philosophy (religion or science) to try and explain the other.

“Render therefore to Cesar the things which are Cesar’s, and to God the things which are God’s.” In other words, I am all for teaching Creationism in school; as soon as they start teaching evolution in church!


After all this effort and writing Hovind sent this letter back! (You might have to click on it to enlarge it enough to read clearly)



This was a very neat trick from DR. Hovind; "You mentioned that you offered proof for evolution. I have read it carefully and failed to find any evidence whatsoever presented for evolution!"

So, in effect, what he said was; "You can say what you want and prove what you want BUT, I don't see it, so there!" (And no $250,000.00 dollars for you!)

Since then this shyster has gotten his just desserts by being sent to jail for tax fraud and a bunch of other stuff. I think it was about 5 years for the tax beef and another two just for being an asshole!

Doesn't matter though, I'm still pissed about the quarter million.

Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site http://www.god-101.com/

Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, March 07, 2008

KANSAS


Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site www.God-101.com

Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com

Labels: , ,

Thursday, February 14, 2008

The Church of Allan. The evolution of religion. Part 2

A serialization of the Book; The Plain Truth About God! @2002

Humans began to slowly dominate their environment several hundred thousand years ago, and since then our evolution has been developing at an ever-increasing rate.

This included the high point of the hunter-gatherer communities, the mass killing of herd animals on a many-band or tribal basis.

The hunt, and then the mass hunt, gradually declined as an activity essential to the community about ten thousand years ago with the invention of agriculture. This, and the invention of writing about five thousand years ago, may be taken as the official end to pre-history.

The last part of our long journey from pre-humans to modern man also includes the oldest traces of religion and art. Thus Man the philosopher was born.

The development of the human mind over the last hundred thousand years led to the unprecedented awakening of a new order and purpose to life that we are only now beginning to fathom. Our position with regard to the other animals centers around two apparently contradictory truths.

One is that we have much in common with them, indeed even more than is generally realized. At the same time, we represent an entirely different order of being that has never before been seen on this planet.

All species, with only the recent exception of humanity, evolved by a process of mutation and natural selection. This came about through the changes in inherited genes that were duplicated repeatedly during successive divisions of cells following the fertilization of an egg.

The duplication process at work on the molecular level of cells turns out millions of copies of itself within close biological tolerances. This process ensures a kind of natural conservatism that maintains the “status quo” and ensures a distinct and unchanging species.

Powerful biological forces make the cells resistant to change and it is only through the very rare slip-up of the chemical reactions that hereditary traits depart from the master plan that guides one generation of cells to the next.

Eventually a mutation does occur on the genetic assembly line, and although rare, these small discrepancies occur simply because nothing is perfect. The molecule departs in a small way from its inherited blueprint and this is what makes evolution possible.

As we said, Man is not only a different kind of species, but also the pioneer of a very recent and completely new kind of evolution.

But before we get into the reasons we stand apart from the millions of other species that are now alive, or have become extinct over the ages, let us look at the basic workings of evolution that can be demonstrated with a colony of ants.

Adding something poisonous to their environment, such as a pesticide, produces a catastrophic event that will kill off almost all of the millions or even billions of ants.

You will notice that we said almost all of the ants. If they all had identical genes, then they would all die. However, because of genetic error or mutation, we have an effective insurance policy against total disaster. The total population of ants is neither identical nor uniform.

Out of the billions of individuals, there might be a few - a very few - that through a rare combination of mutated or rare genes, will happen to be more resistant to the effects of the pesticide. Therefore, out of a population of a billion ants, the survival of as few as a handful will insure the future of their kind. They will pass on the resistance to that particular poison and give rise to a new population of individuals. Ants that can survive and multiply in what would normally be a deadly environment.

This process is at work in all species, because every population has individuals with a wide assortment of traits that make them capable of adapting to a wide variety of environments.

It must be said that this process plays havoc with the individual. Millions may perish from changes in the environment, climate, or available food supplies. They all die so that a few may progress to a better model of their species.

This in a roundabout way is God at work. Many are sacrificed for the good of the few. The long-term gain however, is the survival of the species.

Evolution works in terms of the entire population. Survival depends on being in the right place, at the right time, with the right genes.

All the living things on this planet, with the exception of humanity, have all the things they need to survive right on and in their bodies. Their genes alone determine what sort, shape, and size, they need to be in the daily struggle for survival.

People, on the other hand, do not only depend on just their genes to get by! They also learn and pass on accumulated knowledge from one generation to the next.

(Learning might play an important role amongst the lower animals, but it is always a one-generational / one-dimensional lesson.)

We, however, are the only animal that takes the accumulated knowledge of all previous generations and then uses this as a foundation to expand and build.

This was the very first step, in the mists of our distant past, which started to set us apart from what we now refer to as the “lower animals.”

The dominate influence of heredity on evolution is that given a reasonably stable environment, the focus is on the status-quo. People on the other hand may use their inherited brains to make their own shelters and weapons, and even their own environment. Learning and traditions acquire a new order of importance.

We can now say that cultural evolution has overtaken the importance of genetic evolution.

The progressive step that made humanity different from the great apes is that we no longer need any outside pressure to bring about change. At some time in the past we ceased to adapt to the world at large in the conventional way and became self propelled, generating our own internal pressure.

In other words, we not only adapt to change, but in our own way we “make” change occur.

Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site www.God-101.com

Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com

Labels: ,

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Creationism vs Evolution one last time!

I response to the many letters I get from idiots that just won't let go of their Creationist beliefs, or that the world is just 7,000 years old, I have this one last argument!

Fossils.... Fossils ... Fossils ..... Fossils, Damn It!

(I win!)

Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site www.God-101.com

Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, January 05, 2008

Saturday Morning Confusion. #14

I have got to tell you right from the "get-go" this morning that I will be rather busy this weekend.

I just had my dick size increased by 3" and have also taken all sorts of vitamins and performance enhancer Meds that I ordered from Canada, so I will be on the go satisfying women just like the ads say.

If you need me, or are a woman with a need then you will have to get me on my cell phone!

---------------------------------------------------------------

Now, as usual we have more than enough contenders for "Asshole of the Week" so this time around we are going to give the trophy and a loud fart to two people again.

First is Britney Spears for getting herself sent for a psychiatric assessment and loosing custody of her kids

Then we have this piece of shit who actually deserves to win the trophy all by himself.

A Sheboygan, Wisconsin man has been charged with break and enter and felony burglary after sneaking into a toddler's bedroom and stealing $20 from a piggy bank while the two-year-old girl slept.

Authorities say DNA evidence linked Ryan Mueller, 30, of Sheboygan Falls to the crime that occurred Aug. 10. They said the girl's mother was in another room with another child when she saw a light turn on in her two-year-old daughter's room.

She walked into the girl's bedroom and saw a man shaking the piggy bank as the girl slept.

The man fled before police arrived, stealing the money but leaving the piggy bank. (They got him on DNA evidence!)!
----------------------------------------------------------------

Next we are going to add a new category to our awards. This one is the "Loser of the Day," for stuff that happens above and beyond the call of duty or is just plain unfortunate!

Two cleaning women spent two days trapped inside a broken elevator in a Chicago suburb.

Beata Bartoszewicz and her mother, Roma Borowski, entered an elevator in an empty building in the suburb of Niles on Dec. 22. After the elevator doors closed, the women discovered they were stuck on the first floor of the two-storey building.

Bartoszewicz says there was no response from an emergency call alarm and the women couldn't pry open the doors.

Neither had a cellphone or water and the building wasn't due to open until after Christmas.

Two days later, on Christmas Eve, an employee of the building happened to go to work and they yelled for his attention.

He heard them and fire crews freed them an hour later.

The women tried to sleep on their coats and used a corner of the elevator as a bathroom.

Bartoszewicz said her mother continually reassured her.

"She kept saying, 'We're going to be OK, and we're going to spend Christmas Eve at home,"' the 25-year-old said.

Bartoszewicz says the moral of the story is simple: "Always take your cellphone with you."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are also going to give a special "Winner of the Day" trophy to the National Academy of Sciences who on Thursday issued a spirited defense of evolution as the bedrock principle of modern biology, arguing that it, not creationism, must be taught in public school science classes.

The academy, which operates under a mandate from Congress to advise the government on science and technology matters, issued the report at a time when the theory of evolution, first offered in the 19th century, faces renewed attack by some religious conservatives.

Creationism, based on the explanation offered in the Bible, and the related idea of "intelligent design" are not science and, as such, should not be taught in public school science classrooms, according to the report.

"We seem to have continuing challenges to the teaching of evolution in schools. That's something that doesn't seem to go away," Barbara Schaal, an evolutionary biologist at Washington University in St. Louis and vice president of National Academy of Sciences, said in a telephone interview.

"We need a citizenry that's trained in real science."
Evolution is a theory explaining change in living organisms over the eons due to genetic mutations. For example, it holds that humans evolved from earlier forms of apes.

The report stated that the idea of evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. "Science and religion are different ways of understanding the world. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of each to contribute to a better future," said the report.

But teaching creationist ideas in science classes confuses students about what constitutes science and what does not, according to the report's authors.

The report was released by the academy and the Institute of Medicine, which advises policymakers on medical issues. It updates academy publications issued in 1984 and 1999. It was written by a committee headed by University of California-Irvine biology professor Francisco Ayala.

"Biological evolution is one of the most important ideas of modern science. Evolution is supported by abundant evidence from many different fields of scientific investigation. It underlies the modern biological sciences, including the biomedical sciences, and has applications in many other scientific and engineering disciplines," the report stated.
The authors highlighted developments in evolutionary biology, citing its importance in understanding emerging infectious diseases. They noted the discovery, published in 2006, of the remains of a Tiktaalik, a creature described as an evolutionary link between fish and the first vertebrate animals that walked out of water onto land 375 million years ago.

President George W. Bush said in 2005 American students should be instructed about "intelligent design" alongside evolution as competing theories. "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said.
Advocates of "intelligent design" contend that some biological structures are so complex they could not have appeared merely through natural processes.

A judge in Dover, Pennsylvania ruled in 2005 that the teaching of intelligent design violated the U.S. Constitution, which requires a separation of church and state, because it is based on religious conviction, not science.

A 2006 Gallup poll showed that almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

We have a couple of honourable mentions here that would have received trophy's on their own except that it's rather old news by now, but if you haven't heard about it yet, a New York window cleaner who survived a 47-storey fall from a skyscraper last month is making a gradual recovery - in what doctors say is a "miracle".

Alcides Moreno, 37, tumbled some 500ft to the ground in a scaffolding accident that killed his brother. (He rode the scaffold down and that broke his fall somewhat!)

And finally this note from Reuters's News.

Remember the guy from Toronto who is 85 and was charged with street racing for going over 100 mph on the 401?

We have a lady in England who did the opposite.

LONDON (Reuters) - A woman banned from driving for seven days after traveling at speeds of less than 10mph on the motorway told Reuters on Friday: "that road's my nemesis." Stephanie Cole, 58, of Fishponds, Bristol, straddled the hard shoulder and inside lane as she dawdled along a stretch of the M32 near her home last August.

In the back window of the car was a sign which said: "I don't do fast, please overtake."

Cole admitted driving without reasonable consideration at North Avon Magistrates' Court on Friday and was told she would have to take another test at the end of the ban.

"I didn't intend getting onto the motorway, but all of a sudden I found myself on it and I could not get off," she told Reuters after the hearing.

"I just panicked. I hate that particular stretch of road and I avoid it normally. It is my nemesis."

Cole had been traveling from her home to a stationer's when she was arrested in her Perodua Kenari mini people-carrier.

"I thought "thank God" when I saw the blue flashing lights," she said. "I thought they could help and I asked them if they could drive me home."

Cole, who has multiple sclerosis, said she depends on her car for getting around.

"I will try and retake the test," she said.

"I will have to do my best when driving, and hope it is better than it was."
Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site www.God-101.com

Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, December 28, 2007

DARWIN vs CREATION (The final word!)

O.K. kids, one more kick at the cat....... and you know how I feel about cats!!!

Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site www.God-101.com

Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Institute for Creation Research wants to train future science teachers

Ladies and Gentlemen, the following article from the "Religious News" website is being presented here untouched, unmarked, unadulterated and unwashed. I am not going to make any comments about it since I think you know my position on something like this already.

The nonprofit Institute for Creation Research in Dallas wants to train future science teachers in Texas and elsewhere using an online curriculum. A state advisory group gave its approval Friday; now the final say rests with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which will consider the request next month.

The institute’s proposal comes amid a fierce debate over how to teach evolution – the theory that humans and other species evolved from lower forms of life – in Texas public schools.

Some advocacy groups are attacking the creation institute’s plan, saying it’s an attempt to undermine the teaching of science in public schools.

“They teach distorted science,” said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the California-based National Center for Science Education, which opposes teaching creationism in public schools. “Any student coming out from the ICR with a degree in science would not be competent to teach in Texas public schools.”

The institute was created in 1970 by the late Henry M. Morris, a Dallas native known as the father of “creation science,” the view that science – not just religion – indicates that a divine being created the Earth and all living things.

Patricia Nason, chairwoman of the institute’s science education department, said that, despite the institute’s name, students learn evolution along with creationism.

“Our students are given both sides,” said Dr. Nason, who has a doctorate in curriculum and instruction from Texas A&M University. “They need to know both sides, and they can draw their own conclusion.”

The institute, through its graduate school, wants to offer an online master’s degree in science education.

According to the school’s Web site, it offers typical education classes, teaching such fundamentals as how to use lab equipment, the Internet and PowerPoint in the classroom. But it also offers a class called “Advanced studies in creationism.”

And the course Web page for “Curriculum design in science” gives this scenario: “The school board has asked you to serve on a committee that is examining grades 6-12 science goals. Both evolutionist and creationist teachers serve on the curriculum committee. How will you convince them to include creation science as well as evolution in the new scope and sequence?”

The school has offered science degrees in California for years. It offered its first graduate courses in 1981, and its first online courses about two years ago.

The institute began moving its headquarters from the San Diego area to Dallas last year, making it necessary to get approval from the state of Texas to offer degrees here.

The school now has more than 50 students taking online classes all over the world, school officials say.
Since I am not going to comment on this it is up to you, dear reader, to give some input to this story.

Please leave a comment on this however you like, just let your feelings be known!

Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God at www.God-101.com and visit the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com

Labels: , , ,

Friday, December 14, 2007

Borat vs the Creationists

A few months ago I looked at some statistics for the type of people who visit this site and much to my dismay, (this was a few days before Halloween) over 50 % of the people that visited "Perspective" logged on to the page that showed "Borat's Halloween costume!"

The mere thought that most of the people who visited the blog came here for stuff like Borat threw me into an instant and severe depression.

Here I was looking for stuff that I thought people would find interesting and instead I learn that well over half of my readers were just looking for the lowest form of humor. On top of it all, it wasn't even that funny a picture and I had serious reservations about putting it on the blog in the first place.

The thought that my blog was catering to "idiots" almost made me quit the whole thing and I had to take a few days off to reflect on what I wanted to do.

After my brief vacation I decided that from now on I would only write about things that I personally found interesting and if other people like it too then all the better. There would be no more catering to the lowest common denominator since most of those people wouldn't get what I was trying to say anyway!

With this in mind I did a survey this week on who believed what in the Evolution/Creation debate

We had found out that Americans believed in Creationism over Evolution by a margin of about two to one. But, my dear readers of "Let's get things back into perspective here" held on to the belief of Darwinism over Creationism by a factor of about three to one!!!!!!!

(It would have been higher but I have a suspicion that the Creationists snuck a few extra illegal votes in. You know, like Bush did in 2000!)

This leaves me feeling rather vindicated that I am talking to a reasonably intelligent and educated audience when I post something on this blog and for that I would like to thank each and every one of you!

Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God at www.God-101.com and the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Give me the money!

I just ran across this correspondence from a few years ago where I had a rather heated discussion with a certain Dr. Kent Hovind who you may or may not remember is a fundamentalist preacher with a lot of strange ideas about biblical history and the evolution/creation debate.

Hovind acknowledges many contributors to his model of how the earth was formed and puts his own peculiar slant on most of the stories in the bible.

The model includes the following explanation of the Biblical account of Noah: Noah's family and two of every "kind" of animal (including dinosaurs) safely boarded the Ark before a minus 300° F ice meteor came flying toward the earth and broke up in space.

Some of the meteor fragments became rings and others caused the impact craters on the moon and some of the planets. The remaining ice fragments fell to the north and south poles of the earth.

The resulting "super-cold snow" fell near the poles, burying the
mammoths standing up.

Ice on the North and South pole cracked the crust of the earth releasing the fountains of the deep, which in turn caused certain ice age effects, namely the glacier effects. This made the earth "wobble around" and collapsed the canopy that protected it.

During the first few months of the
flood, the dead animals and plants were buried, and became oil and coal, respectively. The last few months of the flood included geological instability, when the plates shifted.

This period saw the formation of both ocean basins and mountain ranges and the resulting water run-off caused incredible erosion — Hovind says that the Grand Canyon was formed in a couple of weeks during this time.

(Well bunky, what do you think so far? Is it starting to sink in that a lot of these guys are much more than just a brick or two short of a load.)

After a few hundred years, the ice caps slowly melted back retreating to their current size and the ocean levels increased, creating the continental shelves.

The deeper oceans absorbed much of the carbon dioxide in earth’s atmosphere and thus allowed greater amounts of radiation to reach the earth's surface. As a result, human lifespans were shortened considerably in the days of Peleg.

On top of all this Hovind's website has offered $10,000 since 1990 to those who can "prove the theory of evolution."

Since at least 1999 the offer has been for $250,000:

"I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief."

Critics view this offer to be spurious because of the conditions which Hovind imposes.

Hovind also insists that evolution equates to atheism even though belief in a deity or deities is arguably unrelated to evolution and the two are not mutually exclusive.

The asterisk denotes the terms which he claims show significant gaps in the gradual progression predicted by the theory of evolution:

Hovind has said a panel of judges would decide if a claim had met his criteria, but he has refused to say who would be (or is) on that panel. He has even refused to say what their qualifications might be.

Challengers who have submitted claims to Hovind have become convinced that he does not actually use a panel of judges, in spite of his promise to do so.

In one case, after twice stating that he would send a particular response to
his judges (according to his website any responses he sent were considered
"legitimate" Hovind then reneged stating, "Thanks for reminding me about not sending minor changes to the committee. This would be a waste of time for everyone involved. If you ever get any evidence that does support evolution please send it to me".

The respondent was not amused and felt that this indicated dishonesty on Hovind's part and proved that he'd never intended to pay.

The winter 2005 issue of Skeptic included an article titled "Doubting Dr. Dino" by Adam Kisby.

Kisby lays out Hovind's arguments in formal logic, and says that the assumptions "God is a necessary cause of the universe" and "The universe is eternal, i.e., un-caused" lead to contradictions.

Kisby sent his proof to Hovind and reports that "many weeks later I received a terse reply from Hovind in which he dogmatically rejected my proof."

Hovind's reason was "the universe is evidence of a Designer - not proof there is no Designer."

Thus Kisby concluded "I contend that either my proof is technically correct or Hovind's $250,000 offer is fundamentally flawed. If my proof is correct, then Hovind is constrained by the terms of his offer to release the money.

On the other hand if Hovind's offer is flawed then he is morally obligated to withdraw it or modify it."

Others have approached Hovind in regard to the challenge, addressing it from perspectives ranging from "large-scale evolution" and "the big bang" to "polar bears."

I myself sent Hovind a proof of Evolution based roughly on the Scientific principals that were covered in great detail by Scientific American and featured in this blog a few days ago.


Just as in the other cases, Hovind wrote me back and did a little sideways shuffle, rejected my arguments and refused to send me the 1/4 of a million bucks!


For my effort, (And I still maintain that I adequately explained and proved evolution!) Dr. Hovind sent me this message! (You might want to click on it to get it larger!!!)




Since I knew from the beginning that he was going to be a slime ball about the whole thing I sent him this little love note! (Click again)


The way things have turned out I would never have gotten the money anyways since Hovind AND his wife are now cooling their heels in a federal prison for 10 years after being convicted of tax fraud.

Hovind is a dip shit from the word go and he has now learned that you might be able to fool some of the population, some of the time, but don't ever fuck with the government.

They'll getcha every time!

Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God at http://www.god-101.com/ and the blog "Perspective" at http://god-101.blogspot.com/

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Humans Evolving Faster. Sorry Creationists!

Sorry all you Creationist Dudes, not only are we evolving, but we are doing so at an ever increasing rate!

Anthropology researchers at the University of Utah have found the pace of evolution has accelerated in the past 50,000 years, especially since the end of the Ice Age 10,000 years ago.

Meanwhile, according to research leader Henry Harpending, a professor of anthropology at the university, Human races are evolving away from each other and are very different from what they were 1,000 or 2,000 years ago,

(That explains, in part, the difference between Viking invaders and their peaceful Swedish descendants.)

"The dogma has been these are cultural fluctuations, but almost any temperament trait you look at is under strong genetic influence," Harpending said in a release.
The findings were published in Monday's edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The researchers looked for genetic evidence of natural selection, or the evolution of favourable gene mutations, over the past 80,000 years by analyzing DNA from 270 individuals in the International HapMap Project, which is an initiative to identify variations in genes that cause disease.

They studied 3.9 million chromosome mutations from 270 people in four populations: Han Chinese, Japanese, Africa’s Yoruba tribe and northern Europeans, represented largely by data from Utah Mormons. Harpending and his team examined the speed at which chromosome mutations broke up and recombined and found that about seven per cent are undergoing rapid, recent evolution.

The main result of these findings is to deflate the commonly held befief that human evolution has remained static over the last 50-100,00 years said Dr. Harpending.

"Our study denies the widely held assumption or belief that modern humans appeared 50,000 years ago, have not changed since and that we are all pretty much the same," he said. "We show that humans are changing relatively rapidly on a scale of centuries to millennia, and that these changes are different in different continental groups."
The researchers noted that rapid population growth, along with big changes in culture and ecology, have resulted in major genetic changes, such as skeletal and dental changes.

In fact, people today are genetically more different from people living 5,000 years ago than those humans were different from the Neanderthals who vanished 30,000 years ago, according to anthropologist John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin.

Human migration into new environments has also led to adaptations to colder weather, such as less skin pigmentation to allow for more vitamin D absorption.

The genetic changes have related to numerous different human characteristics, the researchers said.

Many of the recent genetic changes also reflect differences in the human diet brought on by agriculture, as well as resistance to epidemic diseases that became mass killers following the growth of human civilizations, the researchers said.

For example, Africans have new genes providing resistance to malaria.

In Europeans, there is a gene that makes them better able to digest milk as adults.

In Asians, there is a gene that makes ear wax more dry.

The changes have been driven by the colossal growth in the human population -- from a few million to 6.5 billion in the past 10,000 years -- with people moving into new environments to which they needed to adapt, added Henry Harpending, a University of Utah anthropologist.

"The central finding is that human evolution is happening very fast -- faster than any of us thought," Harpending said in a telephone interview. "Most of the acceleration is in the last 10,000 years, basically corresponding to population growth after agriculture is invented," Hawks said in a telephone interview.
Beneficial genetic changes have appeared at a rate roughly 100 times higher in the past 5,000 years than at any previous period of human evolution, the researchers determined. They added that about 7 percent of human genes are undergoing rapid, relatively recent evolution.

Even with these changes, however, human DNA remains more than 99 percent identical, the researchers noted.

Genes have evolved relatively quickly in Africa, Asia and Europe but almost all of the changes have been unique to their corner of the world. This is the case, he said, because since humans dispersed from Africa to other parts of the world about 50-100,000 years ago, there has not been much flow of genes between the regions.


Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God at www.God-101.com and the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com

Labels: , , ,

Friday, December 07, 2007

15 Definitive Answers to Creationist Nonsense.

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up. Rather than re-hash all the arguments the Creationist keep bringing up here is an objective view of the whole thing by Scientific American magazine.

After all, if you can't trust them, who can you trust?

Guest post By John Rennie.

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination. (And U.S. public opinion - ED.)

Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms.

As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.

Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.

To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."

No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity or the theory of gravity for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'"

The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time.

Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

"Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction.

That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances.

Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources.

Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders.

In a pioneering study of finches on the Galapagos Islands, Peter R. Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild [see his article "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches"; Scientific American, October 1991].

The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.

3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution.

Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species.

Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field. (As in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Galapagos finches.)

Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries.

For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows.

But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way.

If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.

No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.

Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent.

In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science.

Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.

Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted.

Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes).

In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.

5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.

Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more.

These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology.

Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists' comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements.

Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model, Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution.

(Punctuated equilibrium explains patterns in the fossil record by suggesting that most evolutionary changes occur within geologically brief intervals--which may nonetheless amount to hundreds of generations.)

Yet creationists delight in dissecting out phrases from Gould's voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had doubted evolution, and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs.

When confronted with a quotation from a scientific authority that seems to question evolution, insist on seeing the statement in context. Almost invariably, the attack on evolution will prove illusory.

6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution.

The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?" New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.

7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.

The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry.

Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.

Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.

8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities.

Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.

As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length.

But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds.

Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.

9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.

This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.

10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.

Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow.

In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.

Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear.

Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.

11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.

Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures.

Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.

Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms.

Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection.

Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved.

12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.

Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species.

The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed).

Biologists therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership.

Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection--for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits--and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders.

For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.

13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.

Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups.

One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs.

A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found.

A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus.

Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May].

Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group.

Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.

Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships.

Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.

14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.

This "argument from design" is the backbone of most recent attacks on evolution, but it is also one of the oldest.

In 1802 theologian William Paley wrote that if one finds a pocket watch in a field, the most reasonable conclusion is that someone dropped it, not that natural forces created it there. By analogy, Paley argued, the complex structures of living things must be the handiwork of direct, divine invention.

Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species" as an answer to Paley: he explained how natural forces of selection, acting on inherited features, could gradually shape the evolution of ornate organic structures.

Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved. The eye's ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its parts, these critics say.

Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the eye's evolution--what good is half an eye?

Anticipating this criticism, Darwin suggested that even "incomplete" eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement.

Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently.)

Today's intelligent-design advocates are more sophisticated than their predecessors, but their arguments and goals are not fundamentally different.

They criticize evolution by trying to demonstrate that it could not account for life as we know it and then insist that the only tenable alternative is that life was designed by an unidentified intelligence.

15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.

"Irreducible complexity" is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.

As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap--a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole.

What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify.

The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design.

He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.

Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections.

First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work.

The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells.

The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution.

The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego.

So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all.

Complexity of a different kind--"specified complexity"--is the cornerstone of the intelligent-design arguments of William A. Dembski of Baylor University in his books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Essentially his argument is that living things are complex in a way that undirected, random processes could never produce.

The only logical conclusion, Dembski asserts, in an echo of Paley 200 years ago, is that some superhuman intelligence created and shaped life.

Dembski's argument contains several holes. It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences.

Researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular automata at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns.

Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally.

"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms.

Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena.

The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.

In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?)

Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones?

Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.

Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another.

Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas.

Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works.

Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape.

Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.


Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God at www.God-101.com and the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, December 01, 2007

More Americans believe in Devil and Witches than Darwin

I started this blog because of things like this article from Great Britain.

If I can ridicule and shame a few people into questioning their belief's and to look at the world from a point of view that is not whitewashed by religious dogma then I have done my job!

Read this and weep!

DALLAS (Reuters Life!) - More Americans believe in a literal hell and the Devil than Darwin's theory of evolution, according to a new Harris poll released on Thursday.

It is the latest survey to highlight America's deep level of religiosity, a cultural trait that sets it apart from much of the developed world.

It also helps explain many of its political battles which Europeans find bewildering, such as efforts to have "Intelligent Design" theory -- which holds life is too complex to have evolved by chance -- taught in schools alongside evolution.

The poll of 2,455 U.S. adults from Nov 7 to 13 found that 82 percent of those surveyed believed in God, a figure unchanged since the question was asked in 2005.

It further found that 79 percent believed in miracles, 75 percent in heaven, while 72 percent believed that Jesus is God or the Son of God. Belief in hell and the devil was expressed by 62 percent.

Darwin's theory of evolution met a far more skeptical audience which might surprise some outsiders as the United States is renowned for its excellence in scientific research.

Only 42 percent of those surveyed said they believed in Darwin's theory which largely informs how biology and related sciences are approached. While often referred to as evolution it is in fact the 19Th century British intellectuals theory of "natural selection."

There are unsurprising differences among religious groups.

"Born-again Christians are more likely to believe in the traditional elements of Christianity than are Catholics or Protestants. For example, 95 percent believe in miracles, compared to 87 percent and 89 percent among Catholics and Protestants," according to the poll.

"On the other hand only 16 percent of born-again Christians, compared to 43 percent of Catholics and 30 percent of Protestants, believe in Darwin's theory of evolution."
What is perhaps surprising is that substantial minorities in America apparently believe in ghosts, UFOs, witches, astrology and reincarnation.

The survey, which has a sampling error of plus or minus two percent, found that 45 percent of the respondents believed in UFOs and 41 percent in witches.

More born-again Christians -- a term which usually refers to evangelical Protestants who place great emphasis on the conversion experience -- believed in witches at 37 percent than mainline Protestants or Catholics, both at 32 percent.

THIS IS ABOUT THE SAME PERCENTAGE AS THOSE THAT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION AND PLAINLY SHOWS JUST HOW FUCKED UP THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS!!!!!!

Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God at www.God-101.com and the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com

Labels: , , , ,