From Otakufan: I have just read the story directed to in your "What Darwin didn't know" article. While amusing, I feel it necessary to point out that the scientist in this story would most likely attempt scientifically accurate methods before attempting to create a man out of dirt.
Current scientific theory says that life began as single-celled bacteria in the ocean, so it is likely that the scientist would there.
So how do explain the appearance of a single-celled bacteria. What was its origin? That's actually harder to explain than dirt.
I would also like to point out that, at some point in the near future, I intend to write an essay that shows why "scientific creationism" is not scientific at all and why a great many of your arguments against evolution are scientifically inaccurate. When I am finished, I will to send you a copy.
From H: Hi! I have been reading up on all your articles and I just wanted to say that I totally agree with them. I think that all the evolution business is ridiculous. I laughed when I read the comments of some of the more ignorant people commenting on the Darwin article. I'm a high school student and I get really annoyed when evolution is taught in school. And if that is not enough, they are teaching it in middle school.
When I first was taught it was in grade six. Now thinking back I cannot believe it. My teacher was overly into evolution. She also was into Native American culture. One time in social studies she was discussing myths. She said: "some people call him gitchi manitu, some people call him Abaangui, some people call him Jesus, their all myths!"
I could not believe that. We were all eleven or twelve years old and we were being taught not to believe in Jesus Christ? Maybe if I had told someone my teacher would have gotten into trouble. As the years went on the text books worsened. In grade nine we needed to pass science. Now I am in grade ten.
I thank God for your faith and courage, H. Not many young "Christians" are willing to stand firm in God's truth when the crowds follow all the cultural trends.
From J: You said, "Please tell me about the 'huge amount of evidence supporting [evolution].' List some of the evidence."
Quite a large amount. First of all, we share vast amounts of dna with some of the other lifeforms on the planet. We share around 48% of our genes with the e-coli bacteria, around 89% with a chicken, about 98% with a rabbit, and 99% with a chimpanzee, our closest relative.If I remember right, the percentage difference is slightly more than you stated. But either way, this statistical difference is not evidence of the evolution of species or the origin of life. However, it is evidence of similarities in the basic biochemical make-up of the billions of molecules that form each living cell -- the building blocks of life. It shows that the larger percentage of the massive DNA deals with the basic nature of the living cell rather than the visible characteristics that differentiate between different kinds of life.
Every living system is made up of DNA and protein. The DNA is like a long string of letters that spells out the "instructions" for every detail of our make-up. Some scientists have estimated that the DNA information in a single human cell would be equivalent to one thousand 500-page books. With that much information, a 3 or 4% difference between the DNA in humans and chimpanzees would still fill about 40 large books.
In other words, the inconceivable complexity of the chemical and mechanical systems within a single cell cannot be explained by any evolutionary hypothesis. The incredible odds that such complex systems, which utilize massive amounts of intelligent information, could have evolved by chance is considered impossible by those who dare speak out against the politically correct assumptions.
In addition, two of the three hemoglobin molecules in a human are exactly the same as a chimp's, and the third has only one amino acid of a difference. These suggest that humans and chimps are extremely closely related.Let me quote a former evolutionist with far more authority than me: Dr. Gary Parker, who earned his doctorate in biology with a cognate in geology (paleontology) and was elected to the Science Faculty Fellowship from the Nation Science Foundation. His goal once was to teach his university students to reject "pre-scientific superstition, such as Christianity. After examining the "evidence" more closely and honestly, he writes,Also, the embryos of a fish, rabbit cow and human are nearly identical in their first stage, and that of the cow, rabbit and human are similar in their second stages. This suggests a common ancestor with that type of embryo."Using descent from a common ancestor to explain similarities is probably the most logical and appealing idea that evolutionists have. Isaac Asimov, well known science fiction writer, was so pleased with the idea that he said our ability to classify plants and animals on a groups-within groups hierarchical basis virtually forces scientist to treat evolution as a "fact." In his enthusiasm, Asimov apparently forgot that we can classify kitchen utensils on groups-within-groups basis, but that hardly forces anyone to believe that knives evolved into spoons, spoons into forks or saucers into cups and plates. "After all, there's another reason in our common experience why things look alike. It's creation according to a common plan. That's why Fords and Chevrolets have more in common than Fords and sailboats. They share more design features.... "I get support for my claim again from Denton in his chapter tilted "The Failure of Homology." Dr. Denton is not only a research scientists with ah Ph.D. in molecular biology, but also an M.D. with an intimate knowledge of comparative anatomy and embryology. He admits his desire to find naturalistic explanations for patterns of similarity among organism (homology), but he also admits the failure of evolutionary explanations. ... "No evolutionist, he says, claims that the hind limb evolved from the forelimb, or that hind limbs and forelimbs evolved from a common source...Worse yet for evolution, structures that appear homologous often develop under the control of genes that are not homologous. In such cases, the thesis that similar structures developed from genes modified during evolutionary descent is precisely falsified." (Creation - Facts of Life, pages 40-41)
You seem to be referring to the "biogenetic law" popularized through a 19th century drawings by the German evolutionist Ernst Haelchel. He claimed that the similarity between the embryos of fish, salamander, turtle, chicken, rabbit and human proved evolution. But his drawings were found to be fraudulent. Like many other zealous evolutionists, he had distorted the evidence to prove his point.
Embryologist, Dr. Michael Richardson did his own study of the above embryos, and his photographs -- checked by numerous biologists from different countries -- were entirely different. Apparently Haeckel had drawn pictures out of his own imagination. Perhaps he was driven to fraud by a quest for the kind of fame and honor awarded those who would build a plausible "scientific" basis for belief in evolution.
Even so, his familiar lineup of embryos continued for years to spread the intended misinformation in schools and universities, through textbooks and lectures. When presented as science, well marketed images have a way of communicating new ideas and concepts -- whether factual or not.
I'm only 14, so I don't know much more of the scientific evidence backing it up, but I'm sure there is much more.
A lot more, J.
Anonymous: I have e-mailed you many times before, and laughed at your ideas that you claim represent the truth of God's word. The Darwin Article however is just plain madness. There is scientific proof that all living things evolved from one organism in the ancient primordial soup.
Could you please send me some of that "proof"?If you have been listening to archeologists over the past few years, there is increasing evidence that there have been changes in the whole structure of the planet as it cooled off and allowed life to form.Would you please give me some specific data, so that I can respond to facts rather than suppositions.Why would God only take an interest of Creating humans in his image and not something like, a turtle?Let's stay on the subject of science. My point is that scientists have assumed, not proven, evolution as the source of life and species. If you read my article on Darwin, you would have seen his doubts. And those doubts and questions haven't yet been resolved. In fact, most of the former "proof" or evidence of evolution has proven totally wrong -- even intentionally falsified. I will deal with some of those fallen theories in Part 2 of the article.The answer to this is that nature favors different organisms.What does that statement mean, Jathan? That "nature" has some inherent intelligence that causes it to prefer and favor certain options? Many leading evolutionists would disagree with that idea. Others see no real explanations for the sudden appearance of complex processes apart from some kind of "intelligent design."Thank you for taking the time and effort to look at this and answer to it.From Dennis Monroe: I really enjoyed the pictures of the wildlife on the Galapagos Islands. When I look at the wonderful pictures you have posted, all I can see is that these wondrous creatures had to be made, i.e., created, out of the thoughts of a mind that is beautiful and lovely beyond all description and understanding. To say that all of these wondrous creatures, each having an individual set of distinct and minute details of color and beauty "evolved" out of some primal slime pit is simply gross stupidity to me, and I want nothing to do with that line of thinking. I find the theory of evolution to simply be stupid. The real reason of course is that the god of this world is very adept in the art of lies, deception and blindness.
Here are some other interesting statements from a recent New York Times article titled "Redrawing Humanity's Family Tree" (8-6-02):"Two ancient skulls... have shaken the human family tree to its roots, sending scientists scrambling to see if their favorite theories are among the fallen fruit. "Probably so, according to paleontologists, who may have to make major revisions in the human genealogy.... Yet, despite all the confusion and uncertainty the skulls have caused, scientists speak in superlatives of their potential for revealing crucial insights in the evidence-disadvantaged field of human evolution. "'This really exposes how little we know of human evolution and the origin of our won genus Homo.'" [Dr. Bernard Wood, a paleontologists at George Washington University]
"Every decade or two, a fossil discovery upsets conventional wisdom. One more possible 'missing' link emerges. ... At each turn, the family tree, once drawn straight as a ponderosa pine, has had to be reconfigured...."