Topics
Creationism vs. Evolution
Organized Religion
Human Life
What's New?
Hate Mail
Links
About Me
Last Updated December 6, 2003
The Home link will now take you to the blog. This site is no longer being updated. | Shattering Delusions: Winkey Pratney Part 1: The Chemical Record by Winkie Pratney Over a century and a half ago, an academic controversy swept the world, as a liberal, materialistic philosophy collected data to give Man a new view of his origins. Strong religious reaction began; foolish and unfounded statements were made by uninformed church people. Science and faith quarreled, and for the first time in a great many years, received a virtual divorce. Early viewpoints became clouded, ignored, or discarded; our century has thus inherited almost wholly humanistic thought. For over a hundred years we have accepted this philosophy and tried to live with it; till again, on the brink of nuclear disaster, we seem to have tried everything from drugs, sex, mysticism, and UFO-hunting to find a new future. Now the chips are down, the facts are coming in, and it's time we had a long, hard look at what an idea can do to a world. Notice how he opens. He wants to give the impression that the Creationism/Evolution debate is some sort of Holy War, and that Evolutionary Theory is, somehow, responsible for all of the things that he's listed. Furthermore, the "virtual divorce" he is speaking of is simply untrue. The Pope has publicly acknowledged Evolutionary Theory's validity, and said that you can still be a Christian if you accept it. The only "divorce" between science and religion is the one that has always existed, being that logic (science) cannot be implemented in faith-based practices (religion). THE ORIGIN OF LIFE-THE FINAL FRONTIER We've certainly come a long way since the day a researcher stood up to declare there was nothing significant left to discover. (Shortly before the invention of the atomic bomb, the transistor, and the laser). Yet for all our advances, Life itself is the "final frontier" for a bewildering complex of sciences. "Indeed, only two major questions remain shrouded in a cloak of not-quite fathomable mystery: (1) the ORIGIN OF LIFE (i.e. the events that first gave rise to the remarkable co-operative functioning of nucleic acids and proteins) and (2) the MIND-BODY problem (i.e. the physical basis for self-awareness and personality). Great strides have been made in the approaches to both these problems but the ultimate explanations are perceived very dimly indeed" (Biology and the Future of Man -- Ed. Philip Handler). Well, what ARE the options? Really only TWO. It all depends on your premises and presuppositions. Everything comes down to ONE OF TWO ALTERNATIVES, summed up like this: Stop right there. There are a lot of religions in the world, and many have their own, separate ideas of how creation happened. Notice how he has casually dismissed every other religion's viewpoint on creation. Even if Evolutionary Theory were disproven tomorrow, it would not be automatic vindication of Biblical Creationism. Just because one argument is disproven, that doesn't mean that the opposing argument is proven. This is very simple logic, which seems to escape our dear Mr. Pratney. If you don't see why this is faulty logic, please do the gene pool a favor, and remove yourself from it (preferably in a humorous fashion; you could get a Darwin Award!). (1) "In the beginning, GOD CREATED the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1) and "By FAITH we understand that worlds were framed by the Word of God so that which is seen does not owe its existence to that which is visible" (Heb. 11:3, Weymouth Translation). He quotes the Bible as if it has any sort of scientific bearing on...well...anything. Sorry, Winkie, the Bible isn't a valid source of scientific data. Furthermore, there are two Creation stories in Genesis, not one. The two give a completely different depiction of events. The Bible can't even maintain self-consistency, and we're supposed to use it as a valid resource for the physical happenings of the Universe billions of years ago, instead of geology and astrophysics textbooks? (2) "Once upon a time perhaps two and a half billion years ago, under a deadly sun, in an ammoniated ocean topped by a poisonous atmosphere in the midst of a soup of organic molecules, a nucleic acid molecule came ACCIDENTALLY INTO BEING that could SOMEHOW BRING ABOUT the existence of another like itself" (Isaac Asimov, science-fiction author, The Well-Springs of Life). When describing Evolutionary Theory, where does he decide to go? To a Biology textbook, perhaps? Maybe, a Genetics textbook? No, he decides to go to Isaac Asimov, who is not a biologist. Furthermore, what he is describing, laughably enough, is not Evolutionary Theory. It is the Abiogenesis Theory (the theory that the first forms of life came from a primordial soup). Right off the bat, he demonstrates total ignorance of what exactly Evolutionary Theory states. This is what Evolutionary Theory states: 1. All life forms (species) have developed from other species. 2. All living things are related to one another to varying degrees through common decent (share common ancestors). 3. All life on Earth has a common origin. In other words, that in the distant past, there once existed an original life form and that this life form gave rise to all subsequent life forms. 4. The process by which one species evolves into another involves random heritable genetic mutations (changes), some of which are more likely to spread and persist in a gene pool than others. Mutations that result in a survival advantage for organisms that possess them, are more likely to spread and persist than mutations that do not result in a survival advantage and/or that result in a survival disadvantage. (Source) That's a far cry from "accidentally came into being," isn't it? Furthermore, the fact that amino acids can form from an atmosphere like Earth's billions of years ago from induced energy via a lightning bolt or ultraviolet radiation is observed fact. This experiment was conducted by Miller, which is explained later on in this document. As an aside, I'll explain the most basic flaw with the Creationist premise: Evolution is both a fact and a theory. A scientific theory is an explanation for observed occurrences. When Darwin, in his time, saw a natural progression in the living creatures he observed (he didn't have fossils to work with), he said that this progression was due to Evolution, thus was born Evolutionary Theory. Creationists seem to think that Evolution isn't an observed fact and that it is simply Darwin's unsupported idea of what happened. Convincing people of this falsehood is the only way they can win standing for their position. If they bring Evolutionary Theory down to the same level as the their unsupported opinion on existence, then it is far easier to convince people that Evolutionary Theory is wrong because the Creationists' opinion is more like a happy fairy tale, due to the popularity of Christianity as a world religion. If there's no reason to accept something else, Christians (the devout ones, anyway) will always turn to what the Bible says is true. The Creationists' ultimate goal is to make it look like there's no reason to accept Evolutionary Theory over "The Word," when there are countless reasons. This goal, again, is achieved by falsely relegating Evolutionary Theory to the same status as the Creationist viewpoint: a wholly-unsupported opinion. If one scientific theory is subject to scrutiny by Creationists, then so are all scientific theories, since Creationists are telling people not to trust scientists' conclusions which have been reached after years of painstaking research and testing. Would Creationists dare to attack Einstein's Theory of Relativity? Of course not! They'd be laughed out of any debate floor or forum. The bottom line is this: Einstein came upon the Theory of Relativity by the same process of testing and concluding, the scientific method, that Darwin and the biologists that followed him did. If you do not question the Theory of Relativity on the basis that it's a theory, then you cannot question Evolutionary Theory on that basis, either. Two choices. Pick the FIRST, and you see all natural history as divinely guided towards Man's coming; with it the conviction that man has special destiny and moral responsibility (with a probable judgment on the horizon as well). Pick the SECOND, and you are left with no God, Heaven, Hell, or for that matter, any confidence in humanity and its future. The choice is really quite narrow. Of course both sides have their creeds, authorities, and prophets, and both in the final analysis are religious -- are matter of faith. The only question is, which one has the facts going for it? Whoa, hang on just a second! Evolutionary Theory does, in no way, state that there is no Heaven, Hell or God! It just says that species that develop advantageous mutations will survive, and those that don't won't, that's all. As stated before, the Pope, himself, has publicly stated that Catholics can accept the Theory of Evolution and still be Catholic. As for his comments about Evolution being "religious," I'd challenge him to prove that little bit of ignorance. Evolution is based in science. Science deals with real-world phenomena and attempts to explain them based on actual, physical observations. Religion is based in faith, which has no physical observations or phenomena to prove it. If you have faith, you believe in something, even though there really is no evidence behind that belief. That is where Creationism comes from, not Evolution. Evolution is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of whether or not you believe actual, physical observations. This is a perfect example of the aforementioned Creationist tactic of bringing Evolutionary Theory down to the same level as the Creationist viewpoint. SIX-MILLION DOLLAR MAN? "A man consists of some seven octillion (7X10 to the 27th) atoms grouped in about 10 trillion cells (10 to the 13th). This agglomeration of cells and atoms has some astounding properties. It is alive, feels joy and suffering, discriminates between beauty and ugliness, and distinguishes between good and evil" (Genetics of the Evolutionary Process -- Theodosius Dobzhansky). Interesting. He quotes from a book dealing with Evolutionary Theory for a passage which is utterly insignificant to the argument at hand, yet, for his previously-stated description of Evolutionary Theory, he chooses a science-fiction writer's description of Abiogenesis and not a description given in the above textbook. This leads one to wonder whether he actually read anything beyond the above quote, or if he simply ignored what the rest of the book said, due to his unshakable faith in God. How much ARE you worth? Old estimates (from the book Time, Chance & Matter = Man & The Whole Universe) put your value (with inflation) at around $7.50; the new reckonings are greatly revised. Your proteins, steroids, and hormones alone are terribly complex and costly, and as for LIVING ORGANS, how much is a replacement heart worth if you need a transplant? The point is, your value has been reappraised because we now appreciate much better the scarcity and complexity of your molecules. Man IS marvelously complex, and complexity shows one of TWO THINGS: incredible luck or intricate engineering. The seven system-command computers on the Columbia space shuttle (cross-checking each others' fact and figures, and voting on the result) didn't mutate from some engineer's lost four-function calculator; yet Man's design leaves the computers' far behind! Hold on there. Incredible complexity must denote either incredible luck or engineering? Why? Why can't the reason simply be that that's the way it is in nature? Look at it this way: Does a prospective mother get "lucky" if the child she carries reaches its full development over the course of 9 months? She certainly doesn't "engineer" the child. This is simply nature at work. Complexity is not proof of intelligent design. The Sun is a perfect example. It is full of complexity in the form of entropy. It's nuclear processes create huge amounts of molecular disorder. Was the Sun "intelligently designed?" No, there's absolutely no reason to think that. The sun came about when hydrogen atoms were drawn to each other because of natural forces (gravity) and began fusing, because of natural processes (nuclear fusion), thus resulting in the giant ball of gas that sustains Earth. TACKLING THE EVOLUTIONARY OBSTACLE COURSE Naturally enough, since this theory was accepted by so many for such a long time, it takes some courage and conviction to change your position now, especially to the dismay or ridicule of professional colleagues. Evolutionary theory still runs right through many, many sciences, and its collapses in one field are not always heard in others. People seeing real problems in their ONE area assume researchers in OTHER fields have the missing evidences; this forms a series of interdependent "hurdles," making it difficult for honest researchers to see the situation clearly. Thus, "Expert Opinion" assumes "The Specialist is Always Right" -- which dismays the poor specialist, who (as careful as he or she can be) is after all, only human. "Specialized Biology," for instance, may assume "the rocks are as old as the fossils"; while "Specialized Geology" assumes "the fossils are as old as the rocks." Hopefully, geochronology (dating-methods data) will unhesitatingly confirm the age of both! But if all else fails, won't a majority opinion prevail anyway? (I mean, that's right isn't it? How could so many be so wrong! Lie still, and try not to think of Hitler.) Then again, if you are terribly committed to the premise that there "cannot possibly be a God" (Who will one day call us into account for all the funny ideas we had about His creation), you would no doubt always find some objections to what Creationists are saying. Notice how he simply tosses aside the credentials of nearly every biologist, physicist, astronomer, et cetera in the entire scientific community, in favor of his "divinely inspired" ideas about creation. Furthermore, he is purporting the idea that there is some conspiracy within the scientific community to cover up Evolutionary Theory's "flaws" (the ones that only Creationists seem to catch). He makes a fundamental error in treating science as if it was a dogma-based religion. It isn't. Granted, science is in the hands of human beings and is, therefore, vulnerable to some human subjectivity, but not to the extent that religion is. The flaw in Creationism is simple: Creationists want a certain outcome, so they look for any evidence that proves that outcome. A scientific theory is much different. A scientific theory is formulated when a scientist observes phenomena and tries to determine why they happen. He then creates a theory, explaining those happenings, dictated by Occam's Razor (i.e.: not introducing unnecessary statements or requirements into a theory). The scientist then tests the theory to prove it wrong. If he cannot find an instance in which that theory is wrong, then that theory stands. This is why there is no "Creationism Theory." Creationism cannot be proven right or wrong, nor have any Creationists tried to do so. They fixate on proving Evolutionary Theory wrong, and then using that as automatic support for their opinion on how life was created. Also, no Creationist has ever submitted a formal research paper on Creationism to any official scientific institution. The reason is simple: If they did so, it would be laughed out, on its way to the fireplace. So, rather than trying to convince biologists that Creationism is correct, they try and convince the average scientific layman with arguments that sound as if they were based in science, but are, in reality, mockeries and misportrayals of science, a prime example being the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which will be covered later on. In short, Creationists want their idea to be the right one, so they look for evidence to support it. Evolutionary Theory was the result of collecting evidence with no preferred outcome. It merely describes what happens in nature. We've observed through the fossil record, that evolution takes place. The theory simply describes the working mechanisms of the observation in question. This is a very big difference in the philosophies behind each idea. Creationists want to liken the Evolution vs. Creationism debate to a courtroom battle, where each lawyer looks for evidence to support his side of the argument, and ignores everything else. Science simply doesn't operate in this fashion. Also, notice his comments near the end of this paragraph, the ones dealing with God judging everyone regarding their "funny ideas" about his creation. This is a scare tactic. He can't make a concrete case, so he's trying to scare the reader into saying no to the "evil" Evolutionists and their Satanic dogma.ĘThis is known as an appeal to fear. "NOW JUST A MINUTE!" Pick up almost any magazine today to see how hot the Creation-Evolution debate has become. Creationists openly challenge Evolutionists to packed, public debates in university forums around the world. There is a growing body of creation-favoring research and literature, thousands of procreation scientists, and many Evolutionists willing to carefully and honestly consider both possibilities. Yet almost without exception, the secular media (accepting evolutionary theory uncritically for decades) has been deeply threatened; their "rebuttal" articles sound increasingly shrill, or are based on the idea, "say it often enough and people will keep on believing it -- despite the facts." Now, it's the "secular media's" fault, is it? He mentions a "growing body of creation-favoring literature," but doesn't give any specifics. He mentions "thousands of procreation scientists," but fails to give even one name. Actually, later on in his essay, he gives quite a few names. The only problem with them is that they're all dead scientists who either died before Origin of the Species was published or they were just like everyone else in their time period: devout Christians. The reason the media is so accepting of Evolutionary Theory is quite simple: Those who are knowledgeable in the field (biologists) say that, based on their research, Evolutionary Theory is consistent with their findings in nature, and is, therefore, correct. He also gives the impression that the debate in question only takes place in the media. If this is the case, then the scientific community will never accept the ideas of Creationism. The scientific community, unlike the Creationist community, considers those theories which have been presented in a formal research paper or experiment, not simply an untestable idea spawned from a religious text. Many of the biased articles say: (1) Creationists "misuse the word 'theory' to convey the false impression that Evolutionists are 'covering up the rotten core' of their premise." Translation: It is "not fair" to point out well established rules of science, especially if according to those rules evolution doesn't even qualify as scientific THEORY much less as proven FACT. (The key to the scientific method is to SEE it and REPEAT it; with macro-evolution you can do neither.) (As opposed to micro-evolution, which means changes within kind, or "species" -- as in the development over the centuries of different breeds of dogs, cattle, etc., which of course obviously occurs. Macro-evolution would involve one species evolving into another -- like a lizard evolving into a bird.) The accusation that Creationists misuse the term "theory" is entirely correct. The fact that Evolution is a scientific theory was used as grounds for its dismissal form the Kansas Board of Education's curriculum (i.e.: "It's just a theory, and any other theory is just as valid"). This was based on a very gross misunderstanding of what a scientific theory actually is. His example of macro-evolution involving a lizard evolving into a bird is an outright lie. This is not what macro-Evolution proposes. Micro and macro-Evolution refer to changes within the species itself and changes above the species level, respectively. Basically, micro-evolution is any small change in a species, such as cockroaches becoming more resistant to certain poisons over time. This is a definite environmentally-driven change, but it is not such a large change that the new cockroach would be classified in its own species category. Macro-evolution is what categorizes large changes to organisms which set the new organisms apart from the old ones to such an extent that they may be classified as a new species. The perfect example is human beings. Like it or not, we came from apes. Through a very gradual series of incrementally-departing species, human beings came about from apes. Basically, one day, an ape mother bore an offspring that was sufficiently different from apes to be classified as a new species. This creature reproduced and, over the generations, offspring descendent from this creature became Neanderthals, then Cro-Magnons, then, eventually, humans. Note that there were "baby-steps" in-between these developments. A Cro-Magnon did not give birth to a human. A Cro-Magnon gave birth to a creature with human and Cro-Magnon features, which continued the sequence of events, eventually bearing a human offspring. Notice this casual admission: As opposed to micro-evolution, which means changes within kind, or "species" -- as in the development over the centuries of different breeds of dogs, cattle, etc., which of course obviously occurs. He even admits that Evolution occurs below the species level, however, he doesn't seem to think that Evolution would occur on a level above that of the species level. Why not? Logic would dictate that, after a sufficient number of micro-evolutionary changes have occurred, the members of the species with all those micro-evolutionary changes could easily be classified as a new species, which is the true meaning of macro-Evolution, not this "lizard becoming a bird" nonsense. The mechanisms driving the two are the same. So, for all you Christians out there, macro-evolution can be likened to Catholicism and the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther began piling up more and more grievances with the Church's policy on certain issues, but he remained a Catholic. When he nailed his "95 Theses" onto a church door and the Church began hunting him down, he finally formed Lutheranism, a new "species" of Christianity. (2) Creationists "misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution." (Really? Improper to criticize an idea in the light of DIRECT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE -- such as the fossil record, laws of probability, thermodynamics, and laws of genetics?) Current media tactics also repeatedly CALL evolution "a fact" then discuss how it is BOTH fact AND theory, getting fact and theory hopelessly (purposely?) confused (S.J. Gould, DISCOVER Magazine, "Evolution As Fact & Theory," pp. 34-37, May 1981). Stanley Weinberg recommends that Evolutionists do not publicly debate, as they will not win. He says this is mainly because Creationists use "selective quotations"; "They put them together in such a way as to make an argument which the writer had no intention of making" (Stanley Weinberg: Science Council of New York, Dec. 1980). Creationist authors usually do two things: quote directly from evolutionist sources and document everything, so the quotes can be checked out in context. Notice how he doesn't give one example of any of the fictitious "direct scientific evidence" which contradicts Evolutionary Theory. Well, later on he purports the ridiculous argument that the Law of Entropy contradicts Evolutionary Theory, but that is simply a lie, as I will discuss later. Creationists frequently misrepresent certain scientific principles and twist their wording to make them beneficial to their case. Also, notice his ignorance of what a scientific theory is. He speaks as if a scientific theory isn't based on observed fact. Evolution is a fact. We've seen it happen on a small scale in nature and the fossil record shows clear progressions of species from simpler forms to more complex forms. "WATCH THEM SNEAKY CREATIONISTS!" Gould says the Evolutionists' best approach is to say: (a) "creation isn't 'science' as it is universally defined today"; (b) "tearing down a scientific theory doesn't make that critics' program scientific"; and (c) "a scientific argument against evolution is not automatically an argument for creation" (Jim Adams: St. Louis Dispatch -- "Evolution -- An Old Debate With A New Twist," May 17, 1981). Is creation really not "science" as it is "universally defined today"? The whole world of research is undergoing tremendous change; once again it appears science is rapidly moving AWAY from materialistic world-views as new discoveries break down our last century's limited and totally inadequate picture of reality. Much of the life-sciences, locked into a century of old physics, are now under intense scrutiny and challenge. What is significant about all this is one fact -- the cutting edge of research today points DIRECTLY TOWARDS THE SPIRITUAL. This is preposterous. Science will never move away from the materialistic world, because it is fundamentally based in the materialistic world (simply another way of saying the physical world). His statement that current research "points directly towards the spiritual" is totally unfounded and woefully incorrect. Notice how he also tries to make "old physics" invalid, because it's "old." This is demonstrative of a total ignorance of how the universe works. The laws of physics don't change. The "old" laws of physics will always apply. There will always be a fixed quantity of energy plus mass in the universe. The conservation of energy/mass, momentum, charge, et cetera are all universally true and not subject to debate, especially by a religious fanatic with a clearly-demonstrated, fundamentally weak grasp of the scientific method. Notice, also, how he doesn't even address points b and c in his quote. This is because Creationists use this logic to a veritable extreme. Anything discovered that has the slightest indication that Evolutionary Theory might be wrong is treated, by them, as direct proof of their scripture-based opinion. This is like finding out that your computer isn't 866Mhz, like the specs said it should be, then automatically leaping to the conclusion that it is a 25Mhz system. ON MOLLUSKS TO MONOLITHS IN MEDIA Some magazines' editorial policies seem peculiarly devoted to evolutionary thought, like Time/Life, Science Digest, and of course, Scientific American. Evolution is a basic idea in popular movies of the past like "King Kong," "Planet of the Apes", and its sequels. More recently in the sci-fi field, the theme develops still further: Man may eventually reach a "Godlike" state, as in the conclusion of what A. C. Clark called "the first ten and a half million dollar religious film" -- the classic "2001: A Space Odyssey," and more recently, "Star Trek -- The Motion Picture." On T.V. we had "Battlestar Galactica" with its city of lights, and Carl Sagan's multi-million dollar "Cosmos" TV series. It seems there is too much evidence for design on Earth, but since we can't go on talking about God, we might as well come up with a novel solution to the design problem: "There IS intellect and personality behind Man's creation all right -- super-beings from space!" Bring on Eric Von Danniken and his Chariots of the Gods or Gods from Outer Space. (And let's not talk about how THEY got here, shall we? Perhaps "long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away" If we move the problem back far enough and long enough ago, maybe it'll go away.) Perhaps someone could explain to me the significance of science-fiction movies and TV shows to this debate. The dilemma that he's trying to point out is the "infinite cause" dilemma, which is used as a circumstantial proof for the existence of God. Everything is caused by something else, so there must be an originator, or the "uncaused cause." This is what most religions label as "God." Unfortunately for him, this dilemma has absolutely nothing to do with Evolutionary Theory and is a logical fallacy, anyway, addressed elsewhere on my site. This is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. No part of Evolutionary Theory requires a believer in it to be an atheist, Satanist, voodoo practicioner, witch or what-have-you. Evolutionary Theory is simply a way of stating what happens in nature as a result of environmental conditions and changes. What he seems to be attacking is the Big Bang Theory, and he'd be hard-pressed to refute that, since the discovery of ripples in cosmic background radiation in 1992 all but seal the fact that the Universe was born of a "Big Bang" (not to mention everything in the Universe has been observed to be traveling on a vector which can be traced back to a common origin). Furthermore, I find it mildly amusing that he berates the supposition that "super-beings from space" created humanity. Why is this such a laughable notion, when faced with the supposition that God created us? God is something that is so enormously complex that we can't possibly understand it or prove its existence. Aliens from space is a testable hypothesis. If you're willing to blindly believe in a divine creator for which there is no evidence of his existence, then you probably shouldn't be laughing at people who flood Roswell looking for aliens, because, if you're a Christian, you do the same thing every Sunday. Congratulations, Mr. Pratney, on leading the entire debate off on a red herring. PREMISES, PREMISES Do Christian researchers "bring in God" just to explain what cannot currently be explained? Is He invoked to "fill gaps" for faulty theories, perhaps to be squeezed out by the next scientific advance? No way. We honor Him as Creator God, evident in His Universe NOT because other explanations fail, but because studies point to His mind, His purpose, and His planning. Can there be "gaps" about origins? To acknowledge God as Creator is to honor Him where science reaches its limits and cannot ever expound. He's making it seem like science's ultimate goal is to answer every single question ever proposed by man. This is false. Maybe he should take a quantum physics class, sometime. Many professors will begin such a class by saying, "Don't ask me why all this stuff happens, that's just the way it is." I took a modern physics course where the professor would simply ask the students to read a section in the book and write down any questions pertaining to that section. We would then go over them in class, as a group. You'd be surprised at how many times my professor would answer, "If I tell you why, you won't like it," or "It's because of Black Magic." Science doesn't claim to have all the answers, nor does it try to attain all the answers. Science stays within its bounds, the physical level, unlike the Christian religion, which often likes to shove its head into matters of science and politics, rather than staying where it should: the spiritual level. A lot depends on your PREMISES. A "premise" is an idea you start with (a "presupposition") before you collect facts to try to answer questions. Very often it is not the fact that cause arguments; conflicts come because two people start with very different BASES by which they interpret what they see. For someone about to give a lecture on how to form a premise, he's certainly displayed an utter lack of any in his paper, thus far. He starts off his little essay with the false premise that there are only 2 choices for how life came into being, and then he goes on to falsely define the choice that he is arguing against. Great premise. Maybe he should teach a class on how not to argue. For instance, a fish and a submarine are alike in some ways; they both have tails, move underwater, and so on. The FACTS are: they are SIMILAR in many ways. Now assume the PREMISE: "Similarity equals COMMON ANCESTRY." With all the right FACTS (the noted similarities), we decide therefore that "the fish is a highly-advanced, miniaturized great-nephew of the submarine." This is no doubt offensive to fishes as well as common sense, but "facts are facts!" CHANGE your PREMISE to "Similarity equals common DESIGN," and with the SAME SET OF FACTS you see something very different: "Both fish and submarines were DESIGNED TO WORK UNDERWATER" (one by Man, one by Mans Creator). With the right FACTS but a wrong PREMISE, you can come up with the WRONG answer for all the RIGHT reasons. One would expect him to know all about coming up with the wrong answer for the right reasons: He can't define Evolutionary Theory. He doesn't even know what he's arguing against! SOME OF THE FACTS Great fussing is going on today about "the origins of life." We had Miller and Ureys' experiments, shooting little sparks though organic gases in concentrations carefully picked to favor the formation of life's building blocks. Not surprisingly, some were formed. Never mind that Earth's original atmosphere couldn't hold HEAVY gases like xenon and krypton (shades of Superman!) let alone that a REAL lightning bolt would effectively FRY a darling little amoeba-in-the-making. It is bothersome also that ultraviolet light from our sun knocks out ammonia faster than it can form, and old sedimentary rocks ought to show significant amounts of organic stuff in them if this is the way it was, but they don't (P. Abelson: "Some Aspects Of Paleobiochemistry," Annuals of New York Academy of Science, 69:275, 1957; "Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 55:1365, 1966). Again, he's not even attacking Evolutionary Theory. He is attacking Abiogenesis. Of course, he doesn't mention that Abiogenesis simply states that a collection of primordial "ooze" simply came together and formed the first strings of life, amino acids. The formation of amino acids in conditions like Earth's many millions of years ago has been observed in a laboratory, and thus, is fact. But, since he's labeling a scientific experiment as wrong for reasons that no one but he and other Creationists have noticed or pondered, let's put this into perspective, shall we? His description of Miller's experiment is deliberately vague. If he actually told the reader which gases and compounds that Miller used, the reader would quickly see that his following point about krypton and xenon is a red herring. Miller used neither of these gases in his experiment. Here is a brief description of Miller's experiment: Miller took hydrogen, methane, water and ammonia, and stuck them all into a chamber. In order to "speed up" time, he boiled the water and subjected the mixture to an electrical discharge, similar to lightning, rather than ultraviolet rays. After one week, Miller had a residue of organic compounds, including amino acids. Now, according to Mr. Pratney, this experiment is invalid because a real bolt of lightning would destroy an amoeba. The most outstanding problem with this objection is that the bolt of lightning is what helps form the amoeba. In other words, the bolt of lightning doesn't strike the amoeba, because, when it strikes, the amoeba hasn't been created yet. It is created after the bolt of lightning strikes. The other problem is that a bolt of lightning isn't what originally charged the mixture on early Earth. The simulated bolt of lightning that Miller used was used in place of ultraviolet rays. Those are what induced the necessary "charge," for lack of a better word. For more information on Miller's experiment, you can read this article. A bit of a technical flaw in Mr. Pratney's statements is that the experiment was conducted by both Urey and Miller. Only Miller conducted the experiment; he simply used Urey's model for early Earth's atmosphere. It has been argued that the ultraviolet radiation would have destroyed any such organic compounds fairly quickly. While this is true, ultraviolet radiation doesn't penetrate water very effectively. Any compounds formed within water would have been much less exposed to ultraviolet radiation and, thus, safer. As to his comment about ultraviolet radiation "knocking out" ammonia "faster than it can form," I'd like to know what he means by "knocks out." Melts? Boils? Disintegrates? Atomize? How exactly does this happen? What is present in ultraviolet radiation that stops ammonia from forming out of its requisite elements? Could he possibly be any less vague? Of course not. If he were more specific, it wouldn't be too difficult to find flaws in his reasoning, because ammonia did exist on early Earth, according to chemists, who have actual degrees in the relevant fields and are qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject like Harold C. Urey and unlike Winkie Pratney. A LEFT-HANDED CREATION? Add to that what Louis Pasteur, Linus Pauling, and Francis Crick (evolutionist co-discoverer if the DNA structure) all pointed out: The amino acids of life, from mold up to Man, are all of ONE SPECIAL FORM. John Maddox, English biologist, call this "an intellectual thunderbolt": Randomized experiments always give a "racemic" mixture (a mixture of both right and left-handed molecules), approximately EQUAL proportions of D- and L-, right-handed and left-handed amino acids (chemically identical, but "mirror images" of each other) -- whereas life proteins consist of LEFT-HANDED MOLECULES ONLY! (Francis H.C. Crick, Molecules and Men, Seattle University of Washington Press, 1966, p. 60; John Maddox, Revolution in Biology, New York, Macmillan Company, p. 59). Now why in the world should that be so ACCIDENTAL? It's enough to drive poor scientists batty trying to dig up some exotic catalyst that might shift the yield in some tiny way (to date always less than 10%) in the "right" direction (left!) (James F. Coppedge: "The Mystery of Left-Handed Molecules in Proteins"; Evolution -- Possible or Impossible?, pp. 55-79). What is even more disappointing is that NO high-order, information-carrying molecules like those life uses EVER arrive in the soup, let alone anything remotely looking as if it could move, eat, or reproduce itself. This is an old Creationist argument. They never seem to consider that left-handed amino acids simply may have formed first. As to "poor scientists going batty" over trying to find an explanation, there are three that have been put forth: 1. Luck. The first one to form just happened to be L, and then the rest followed. 2. There may be some effect during formation due to coriolis force or the (hemisphere dependent) magnetic field (as lightening went DOWN, the effect may be polarized). 3. Quantitative calculations indicate that the fundamentally left-handed neutral-weak force with the electromagnetic force could introduce an energy preference (very slight). Aside from any steric preferences, one form could be energetically more stable than the other. (Source) FOXY MICROSPHERES Then there is Sidney Foxes' ingenious "microsphere" idea. "Perhaps," he thinks, "volcanoes did it." Cook a dry mix of L- amino acids and you get a "thermal pan-polymer" or "proteinoid." Drop these amino acid chains into water and they clump into little groups he calls "microspheres." Since these little shapes look and act physically in many ways like living things, Mr. Foxe believes this is the way it happened. Top marks for ingenuity, but proteinoids resemble life like a junkyard resembles a Ferrari, and they grow like a wet toilet roll, not like an orange. Real life proteins are unique because of their structure and information-carrying sequence. "ProteinOID: is not at all proTEIN; the name looks the same to the innocent, but they lack tertiary form (a technical term involving a three-fold arrangement of molecules), their structural mix of amino acids is hopelessly different, and they are essentially random, too fragile, and too simple. Other than superficial, physical characteristics, they have nothing complex enough going for them inside or outside to ever grow up to be real proteins (S.L. Miller & HC Urey: "Organic Compounds Synthesis on the Primitive Earth," Science, 130:247, 1959; Fox, Harada, Woods, & Windsor: Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, 102:439, 1963; H. Holter: "How Things Get Into Cells," Scientific American, 205:167-180, 1961; M. & L. Hokin: "The Chemistry of Cell Membranes," op. cit. 213:78-86, 1965). Sydney Fox did not simply "propose" this idea. He experimentally verified it. When you put mixed amino acids into water and expose them to heat, proteinoids are formed. Pratney tells us that proteinoids looked and acted like life. This is true. Proteinoids exhibited many characteristics of life, including growth, metabolism, reproduction via a budding process and responsiveness to stimuli, all without the aid of genetics (Source). However, Pratney maintains that proteinoids don't resemble life at all, despite the above-listed characteristics. Interesting how he, himself, doesn't supply a definition of life to compare the characteristics of proteinoids to. He simply dismisses them as having no way of "growing up" to be "real" proteins. While it is true that proteinoids by themselves probably wouldn't ever evolve into present life, Pratney seems to forget that there were other things happening at the time proteinoids were formed. The current theory is that proteinoids interacted with ribozymes (an RNA strand that is "catalytic," or induces a reaction), which then laid the foundation for the current genetic code. Basically, the catalytic RNA reacted with proteinoids to form a proteinoid with amino acid sequences taken from those of the rybozime's replicating sequences. (Source) LIFE IN A TEST-TUBE? "But didn't scientists make life in a test-tube somewhere?" No, Virginia, they did NOT. (Some have TRANSPLANTED little lives -- the "test-tube babies" -- but that is another story.) Neither DNA nor protein is a molecules that can duplicate itself; DNA is the servant of the cell. Likewise the virus is absolutely dependent on the cell for its survival, and either came AFTER the cell or was created WITH it (R.L. Wysong: "Is Life Definable?", The Creation-Evolution Controversy, Inquiry Press, 1978, pp. 190-220). Gary Parker, an ex-evolutionary biologist and geologist (whose excellent little book Creation-The Facts of Life, along with Wysong's detailed volume was one of the best resources for this article), has written DNA: The Key to Life (Educational Methods, Inc., Chicago), a programmed textbook of the subject. He asks, "What does it take to make a living cell alive? The answer is something every scientist recognizes and uses in his laboratory, something every scientist can infer from his observations of DNA and protein CREATIVE DESIGN and ORGANIZATION. What we know about the DNA-protein relationship suggests that living cells have the CREATED KIND of design" (Creation -- The Facts of Life, pp. 14-15). Again, he is looking at Evolutionary Theory as if one of the requirements of it is that there is no God. This is blatantly untrue. Evolutionary Theory has no bearing on the question on whether or not there is a God or ultimate creator. Science simply attempts to explain the way things work. The question of God is left to philosophers and theologians. When performing an experiment, a scientist doesn't factor in divine intervention, God's will, the Ten Commandments or anything from Christianity or any other religion. And, again, complexity does not denote intelligent design. Look to the aforementioned example of our sun. FRANKENSTEIN HAD A BETTER IDEA People have shot long-suffering pools of chemicals with everything they can think of -- sound, light, heat, gamma-rays, even bullets, but naturally enough, they stay dead (J. Keosian: The Origin of Life, N.Y. Reinhold 28, 68, 1968). All this with the express and intelligent PURPOSE of creating life by ACCIDENT. We could save a lot of trouble and revisit Dr. Frankenstein who had a better idea. All the material we need is in the morgue. Why bother battering around poor old amino acids when there are all the cells, DNA, enzymes, and proteins you need ready assembled in your local cemetery (or even the supermarket)? Save the taxpayers millions; hit, burn, and shoot sparks into corpses or chicken gizzards. When all is said and done, there's a great deal more said than actually done. "Chemistry is not then our ancestor, it's our problem. When cells lose their biological order and start reacting in chemical ways, we die. What's lost at death is balance and biological order that otherwise uses food to put us together faster than chemistry can tear us apart!" (Parker, op. cit., pp. 8-10). If the ultimate computer-researcher interface successfully synthesizes an egg, no self-respecting hen will touch it. Life is not merely chemical complexity, but a gift from the Living God. Again, with the assumption that Evolution and Abiogenesis presuppose an atheistic point of view. For reasons already explained, this is blatantly false. Creationists only take this avenue of attack because they like to preach to their own choir of people who already believe them. Most professors would have thrown this essay in the trash after the first few pages, with some keeping it around for laughs. Additionally, it's entertaining to note that he believes that all laboratory results are invalid because there is "intelligence" behind them. Does he seriously believe that the Laws of Physics don't apply when humans test them? Does this mean that when physics students drop objects, their tests are invalidated because they're intelligent? No, of course not. Miller's experiment verified that amino acids could have arisen from Earth's atmosphere millions of years ago when subject to the right conditions (in Miller's case, conditions that naturally existed). DUST OR DESTINY Take your pick. We are either (1) the product of a cosmic crap-game; or (2) imagineered by Wisdom, Love, and Power beyond comprehension. Those are the option; accident or design, chance or creation. You either have three impersonals: Time, Chance, and Matter, adding up to Impersonal Man and an Impersonal Universe; or you have Pre-existent Personality imposing order on creation, giving meaning to love, truth, and dignity. These options have profound implications for the way you feel about yourself and others in this world. What, for instance, do you do when overwhelmed by the beauty and awesome, orderly arrangement of a flower? Vote scenario two and say "Thank You God!" Vote scenario one and be stuck with "Praise and honor be to Gases, Geology, and Genes." And did you ever think it odd that a brilliant man could spend fifty years of his life in a lab trying to duplicate life to show NO INTELLIGENCE WAS NECESSARY to form it in the beginning? More preaching that is utterly inconsequential to the question at hand. In his quest to "prove" Creationism over Evolution, he has only offered disproofs for Evolutionary Theory in the form of bad science, faulty logic and a general misunderstanding of Evolutionary Theory. As an aside, why is it that Evolutionary Theory is a heresy? I'd think that Evolutionary Theory would make for an even more awesome God, and that Creationism is the heresy! Think about it this way: Which God is more imaginative, creative, intelligent and awesome? A God who sets up an intricate series of chemical reactions to form very simple life forms, and then lets that life go and evolve according to a very complex system of rules and physical laws...or a God who simply snaps everything into existence? Christians who believe in Creationism over Evolutionary Theory are saying that they'd rather have a simple-minded, unimaginative God than one who is capable of setting up a complex series of biological rules for life to follow. I'm guessing that most Christians want the most intelligent and imaginative God they can get, don't they? In the first, hilarious installment of his three-part stream of stupidity, Pratney has managed to misunderstand, misquote, misrepresent and just plain miss Evolutionary Theory. He's also managed to lie about scientific experiments, their implications and the Laws of Physics in general? Think he's finished screwing up just yet?   |