|
|
|
Major Misrepresentation by Talk.Origins
Major Creationist
Misrepresentation by Significant Evolutionary Website
By A.T. Ross
Many are familiar with the ardently anti-creationist website
talk.origins (TO from now on). To the knowledgeable creationist, its
pseudo-intellectual articles are a never-ending frustration—not because
of any legitimacy but because of vacuous illegitimacy. To the less
knowledgeable creationist and the general public, it is also a
frustration, because their articles seem to have the ring of scientific
accuracy.
Interested in determining the truth, I thought that I should examine
their claims and see if these things be so. As I often tell
evolutionists, if they can demonstrate legitimately that I am wrong in
holding the creationist position, I will abandon it. So far there has
been no legitimate demonstration. Indeed, in my examination of TO, I
found that not only is their science questionable at best but also that
seemingly every time they touch the creationist materials they
demonstrate little comprehension of them, or they are purposely
ignoring creationist claims in order to confuse the hapless reader who
will not bother to check their references. I intend to address some of
these misrepresentations in the following pages.
General
Accusations
In it’s large ‘Index of Creationist Claims’ as well as elsewhere[1], TO
propagates the ad hominem implication that creationism and its
proponents are, in fact, racist, despite this assertion’s patent
absurdity. Indeed, if skeptics were to make any worthwhile reading of
the creationist literature they would indeed understand that
creationists are diametrically opposed to any conception to the notion
of biological racial difference.[2] Many creationist articles and books
have been devoted to demonstrating this.
In addition to this accusation, the TO site also attempts to equate
creationism with the Flat Earth Society and Geocentrism,[3] neither of
which are either scientific or defended by any informed person,
creationist or evolutionist. As Robert Doolan states, ‘We personally
don’t know any creationist groups who teach a flat earth, but we could
easily point out that some evolutionists believe in astrology, tea-leaf
prophesy and lucky charms.’[4]
The same TO article attempts to connect scientific creation with other
various assortments of esoteric non-or-pseudo-scientific fringe
movements such as Omphalos, the belief that the earth was created young
but with the appearance of extreme age, the Raelians, who believe that
life was created by scientists on another planet and where thought to
be gods, Panspermia, the belief that life was carried to earth somehow
and evolved from there, Islamic Creationism, Vedic (Hindu) Creationism,
Native American Creationism, Finnish mythology, New Hebrides mythology,
Norse mythology, Huron mythology, Lipan Apache mythology, and Quiche
Maya mythology.
I can see only one intention in doing this: to attempt to force
scientific creation to the realm of fringe theories and unsubstantiated
mythology. The implication of this is, of course, that TO is determined
to win by any means, even low, under-handed, unsubstantiated ad hominem
accusations.
Henry Morris is racist?
TO’s article[1] directly accuses Dr. Henry Morris of ICR of being a
blatant racist, despite superficial disclaimers at the beginning and
end of the article. In the article, author Richard Trott quotes from
Morris’s The Beginning of the World in an attempt to connection Morris
and racism. He quotes from pg. 147-148 of that text as follows:
The
descendants of Ham were marked especially for secular service to
mankind. Indeed they were to be 'servants of servants,' that is
'servants extraordinary!' Although only Canaan is mentioned
specifically (possibly because the branch of Ham's family through
Canaan would later come into most direct contact with Israel), the
whole family of Ham is in view. The prophecy is worldwide in scope and,
since Shem and Japheth are covered, all Ham's descendants must be also.
These include all nations which are neither Semitic nor Japhetic. Thus,
all of the earth's 'colored' races,--yellow, red, brown, and
black--essentially the Afro-Asian group of peoples, including the
American Indians--are possibly Hamitic in origin and included within
the scope of the Canaanitic prophecy, as well as the Egyptians,
Sumerians, Hittites, and Phoenicians of antiquity.
The
Hamites have been the great 'servants' of mankind in the following
ways, among many others: (1) they were the original explorers and
settlers of practically all parts of the world, following the
dispersion at Babel; (2) they were the first cultivators of most of the
basic food staples of the world, such as potatoes, corn, beans,
cereals, and others, as well as the first ones to domesticate most
animals; (3) they developed most of the basic types of structural forms
and building tools and materials; (4) they were the first to develop
fabrics for clothing and various sewing and weaving devices; (5) they
were the discoverers and inventors of an amazingly wide variety of
medicines and surgical practices and instruments; (6) most of the
concepts of basic mathematics, including algebra, geometry, and
trigonometry were developed by Hamites; (7) the machinery of commerce
and trade--money, banks, postal systems, etc.--were invented by them;
(8) they developed paper, ink, block printing, movable type, and other
accoutrements of writing and communication. It seems that almost no
matter what the particular device or principle or system may be, if one
traces back far enough, he will find that it originated with the
Sumerians or Egyptians or early Chinese or some other Hamitic people.
Truly they have been the 'servants' of mankind in a most amazing way.
Yet
the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so
far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later,
taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed
them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites,
especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even
slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly
with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the
intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the
religious zeal of the Semites.
I do not currently have a copy of this particular text, nor was I able
to acquire one for determining the accuracy of the above citation.
However, I do own numerous other Morris books,5 which deal with the
same concept, and I found it completely unnecessary to check the
accuracy of this statement from Morris’s The Beginning of the World volume
in order to determine the inaccuracy in depicting of Morris as any kind
of racist.
To demonstrate, in his book The Long
War Against God, Morris states quite unambiguously:
As
previously noted, we are not suggesting that racism began with Darwin
and the other nineteenth-century evolutionists. Racism seems to be as
old as the nations. Almost every tribe and nation has, in one way or
another and at one time or another, held the belief that it was
superior to others. Whatever the original source of such beliefs may
have been, it was not the Bible! The modern slanderous fallacy that
racism—especially the notion of white supremacy--is a biblical doctrine
could not be further from the truth. The Scriptures teach plainly that
God "hath made of one blood all nations of men" (Acts 17:26) and that
all men have "one father" (Mal 2:10). The fact that some have distorted
certain biblical passages to teach racism (e.g. the Hamitic curse) does
not by any means involve the Bible itself in racism, for it is clearly
opposed to it.[6]
Additionally, in his The Biblical
Basis for Modern Science he states:
Some of the
Hamites (Gen. 10:6—20) are fairly well identified, especially Mizraim
(Egypt), Cush (Ethiopia), Canaan (the Canaanites, Phoenicians,
Hitties), and Put (Libya). Though the lineage is not easily traced, it
is probable that the Negro tribes are also Hamitic, since it seems that
only the Hamites moved into Africa. The first Babylonians, the
Sumerians, were also Hamites, under Nimrod...Man has a tripartite
nature—physical, mental, and spiritual—and in every case man one or
another of these three seems to predominate. In Noah’s sons, it had
become evident that the interests of Ham were primarily physical, those
of Japheth were intellectual, and those of Shem were religious. ...
However, “physical” does not mean either “trivial” or “menial,” and
Ham’s contributions have been most impressive. Among his descendants,
we believe, have been the Sumerians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Hitties,
Dravidians, Chinese, Japanese, Ethiopians, Incas, Aztecs, and Mayans,
as well as the modern-day Negros, American Indians, Eskimos, and
Pacific island tribes.
These
peoples have not been primarily noted for either spiritual or
scientific contributions, but they have made innumerable advances in
the technological and “creature comfort” aspects of civilization. For
example, they were the original pioneers in the exploration and
settling of the geographical regions remote from Ararat and Babel.
Neither Columbus nor Lief Ericson discovered America—the Indians did!
Very likely many of the Indians came across the land bridge at the
Bering Strait during the Ice Age, after the Flood, and are descendants
of various Mongol tribes. Evidence is accumulating that others came by
sea, perhaps from Phoenicia or Egypt. In any case, all of these are
probably descendants of Ham.
Similarly,
among the Hamitic peoples were the first mariners, the first city
builders, the first printers, and probably the first to develop
agriculture, animal domestication, and metallurgy, as well as many
other technological contributions. The invention of writing, whether
Sumerian cuneiform, Egyptian hieroglyphics, or Phoenician alphabetic
writing, seems also to have been a Hamitic contribution, at least
insofar as the “new” languages dating from Babel are concerned (Shem
himself presumably did not participate in the rebellion of Nimrod at
Babel and thus probably perpetuated the one written language with which
he was familiar from pre-Flood times.) The art of printing is due to
the Chinese, as is the navigation by magnetic compass. In general,
provisions for all the basic physical needs associated with organized
human societies—exploration, food, shelter, clothing, transportation,
communication, metal working, and similar functions—seem probably to
have been primarily Hamitic in origin.[7]
From this statement, we can indeed see that there is nothing racist in
what Morris has said concerning the Hamitic nations. Indeed, he is not
implying racial or genetic inequality, nor by his statement of
“physical” interests of Ham’s descendants does he imply anything carnal
or lesser than Semitic or Japhetic, merely that Ham and his
descendants, instead of being priests or scientists, were geared more
towards a “handy-man” mentality. It does not reflect the intelligence
of any such ‘race’ but merely that each of the three tended to have
different focuses. Does this preclude in any way that anyone within the
Hamitic groups has less than the same developmental potential for
intellectualism or religion than the Semitic or Japhetic groups? I fail
to see how.
Nevertheless, at the beginning of the article, Trott states “I should note first,
however, that I personally don't believe that Morris is a racist” yet
continues on in the same paragraph to say “it is quite interesting to
see Morris, in a creationist context, deal with race in a way that
would give comfort to racists.” Ah, so even though Trott feels
that Morris really isn’t a racist, what he’s saying is comforting (aka
supporting the position of) racists?
Trott then states “Morris
concludes that this is not racist by invoking a strange definition of
racism. Somehow, if other human beings are responsible for the plight
of a group of people, that is racism; however, if someone (such as
Morris) believes that a general line of people (such as the Hamites)
are "possessed of a genetic character" that makes them innately less
"intellectual," "philosophical," and "religious" than the other
approximately two-thirds of humanity, this is not racism.”
In light of the above citations I have provided, it becomes abundantly
clear that Morris never stated, believed, or intended to imply that
simply because the Hamitic nations focus more on the more technological
and physical end of things in no way implies that they are any less
spiritual or intellectual than others. using the strange definition of
racism Trott evokes, one would also feel the need to accuse the
historian of American History of racism because he discusses the fact
of black slavery in America in the 18th century, which is, of course,
patently absurd!
Furthermore, Trott’s statement is another subtle implication that he
may actually believe Morris to be racist or supremacist, by implying
that Morris is deceiving himself (“invoking a strange
definition of racism”) about his racist statements (“Somehow, if other human
beings are responsible for the plight of a group of people, that is
racism; however, if someone (such as Morris) believes that a general
line of people (such as the Hamites) are "possessed of a genetic
character" that makes them innately less "intellectual,"
"philosophical," and "religious" than the other approximately
two-thirds of humanity, this is not racism”).
At the end of his article, Trott writes, “It may be difficult for
some to understand why I conclude that Morris is, in fact, not really a
racist. After all, Morris has written that the "racial character" of a
certain population results in that population being "less
intellectual," "philosophical," and "religious" than the other
approximately two-thirds of humanity,” again subtly implying
that despite the evidence and written statements to the contrary, he
must conclude, from the noblest heart of hearts, that somehow he
(Trott) must somehow be mistaken, in the face of clear evidence.
And besides, if Trott genuinely doesn’t believe Morris to be a racist,
why does he feel the need to publish an article that clearly implies
that this is so, from which others will gain a false understanding of
the issue? Somehow, that is worse than genuinely thinking Morris to be
a racist.
In light of this, I feel that it would be hardly over-the-top for TO to
replace the article and publish in its stead a full apology and
retraction of such ad hominem,
slanderous, remarks, that have been demonstrated to be without merit.
For TO to continue to allow visitors to access such libel knowingly
smacks of the deepest intellectual dishonesty. God knows how many they
have confused by their statements.
More Misrepresentation of Henry
Morris
In TO's ‘Index to Creationist Claims,’ Mark Isaaks published an article
titled ‘Lewis Overthrust’,[8] in which he makes some preposterous
claims, misrepresenting Morris as he does so.
In the article, Isaaks asserts:
Whitcomb and
Morris [1961, 185-195] quote a description of the Lewis Overthrust out
of context to give the impression that rocks along the fault are
undisturbed. They quote Ross and Rezak [1959],
‘Most
visitors, especially those who stay on the roads, get the impression
that the Belt strata are undisturbed and lie almost as flat today as
they did when deposited in the sea which vanished so many million years
ago.’
The
quote continues:
‘Actually,
they are folded, and in certain places, they are intensely so. From
points on and near the trails in the park, it is possible to observe
places where the Belt series, as revealed in outcrops on ridges,
cliffs, and canyon walls, are folded and crumpled almost as intricately
as the soft younger strata in the mountains south of the park and in
the Great Plains adjoining the park to the east.’
This is astounding. Did Isaak actualy read Morris’s
book,[9] or did he purposefully ignore its text? It’s nothing more than
a classic case of elephant hurling.
I checked the text Isaaks referenced to and carefully read over the
pages (pg. 185-195) Isaaks claims contains this quote. At first,
because I was checking only the main text, I thought that Isaaks had
invented the quotation or referenced the wrong area of text, but it
turns out that the quote actually does appear in the book. In a
footnote. On page 187, footnote one, Morris and Whitcomb quote the
first part, which Isaaks correctly points out. However, the rest of the
quote which Isaaks cites does not support Isaaks’ claim that it is “out
of context.” Rather, it supports whole-heartedly what Morris and
Whitcomb have been saying all along in the main text.
In actual fact it is Isaaks who is quoting out of context by claiming
that Morris and Whitcomb “quote a description of
the Lewis Overthrust out of context to give the impression that rocks
along the fault are undisturbed.” This is false, completely and
utterly.
In point of fact, Whitcomb and Morris repeatedly state:
It is quite
true that the entire area (as is true of mountainous areas in general)
gives much evidence of faulting, folding, and general tectonic
activity, both at the so-called fault planes and at many other
locations, including planes which are supposed to be normal bedding
planes. On a small scale, it is evident that overthrusting has actually
occurred in many places. ... [T]here is evidence of disturbance at many
points of the supposed fault plane, and above...[10]
From this we can see it is perfectly evident that Morris and Whitcomb
acknowledge that there is much faulting, folding, and tectonic activity
at the Lewis Overthrust. To state, as Isaaks does, that they “give the impression
that rocks along the fault are undisturbed” is to set up an
invalid straw-man. Furthermore, Isaaks ignores the remaining pages and
their references which establish why Morris and Whitcomb disagree with
the explanation of overthrusting as the cause of the movement of eight
hundred thousand billion tons of rock (pg. 191)
Duane Gish
and the Bullfrog
TO is also one of the proselytizers of the infamous myth of Dr. Duane
Gish and the case of the bullfrog protien.[11]
The author of the ad hominem article is Robert Schadewald, and in his
introduction states:
Many
prominent creationists apparently have the same view of truth as
political radicals: whatever advances the cause is true, whatever
damages the cause is false. From this viewpoint, errors should be
covered up where possible and only acknowledged when failure to do so
threatens greater damage to the cause. If colleagues spread errors, it
is better not to criticize them publicly. Better to have followers
deceived than to have them question the legitimacy of their leaders.[11]
With this statement, Schadewald attempts to equate creationists with
amoral, lying, deceitful individuals more concerned with propaganda
than accuracy. This bald assertion is typical of skeptics seeking to
discredit creationist arguments by any and all means necessary,
disturbingly similar to those political radicals who care only for “whatever advances the
cause is true, whatever damages the cause is false.”
To my knowledge, there have been no creationist error-coverups as the
creationist-conspiracy minded Schabewald would like to think. It is
true that there have been many criticisms and assertions of error from
the evolutionist camp of creationists, however, in nearly every case
they have been illegitimate. Schabewald should remember that just
because someone asserts errors or deceitfulness at creationists does
not mean the criticism is correct—and in most instances to the
objectively minded they turn out to be invalid criticisms.
Schabewald then comments:
In science,
fame accrues to those who overturn errors. In dogmatic systems, one who
unnecessarily exposes an error to the public is a traitor or an
apostate.
This is perfectly correct, though more accurately assigned to the
dogmatic evolutionist camp.[12]
Schabewald then states:
[Dr. Duane]
Gish has a reputation for making erroneous statements and then
pugnaciously refusing to acknowledge them.
It is far more likely that Dr. Gish has been accused of all sorts of
things which are completely untrue and there is no reason to abandon
them, causing those accusers who believe themselves correct to in turn
accuse Gish of refusing to “own up.”[13]
Let us allow each of these two, Schabewald and Gish, to present their
sides without interruption, shall we? We shall allow Schabewald to go
first.
Schabewald states:
In July
1983, the Public Broadcasting System televised an hour-long program on
creationism. One of the scientists interviewed, biochemist Russell
Doolittle, discussed the similarities of human proteins to chimpanzee
proteins. In many cases, corresponding human and chimpanzee proteins
are identical, and in others they differ by only a few amino acids.
This strongly suggests a common ancestry for humans and apes. Gish was
asked to comment. He replied:
If we
look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be assumed that man
is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But on the
other hand, if you look at other certain proteins, you'll find that man
is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is a chimpanzee. If you
focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more
closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee.
I had
never heard of such proteins, so I asked a few biochemists. They
hadn't, either. I wrote to Gish for supporting documentation. He
ignored my first letter. In reply to my second, he referred me to
Berkeley geochronologist Garniss Curtis. I wrote to Curtis, who replied
immediately.
Some
years ago, Curtis attended a conference in Austria where he heard that
someone had found bullfrog blood proteins very similar to human blood
proteins. Curtis offered an explanatory hypothesis: the "frog" which
yielded the proteins was (he suggested) an enchanted prince. He then
predicted that the research would never be confirmed. He was apparently
correct, for nothing has been heard of the proteins since. But Duane
Gish once heard Curtis tell his little story.
This
bullfrog "documentation" (as Gish now calls it) struck me as joke, even
by creationist standards, and Gish simply ignored his alleged chicken
proteins. In contrast, Doolittle backed his televised claims with
published protein sequence data. I wrote to Gish again suggesting that
he should be able to do the same. He didn't reply. Indeed, he has never
since replied to any of my letters.
...
Gish also
attended the conference, and I asked him about the proteins in the
presence of several creationists. Gish tried mightily to evade and/or
obfuscate, but I was firm. Doolittle provided sequence data for human
and chimpanzee proteins; Gish could do the same -- if his alleged
chicken and bullfrog proteins really exist. Gish insisted they exist
and promised to send me the sequences. Skeptical, I asked him
pointblank: "Will that be before hell freezes over?" He assured me that
it would. After 2-1/2 years, I still have neither sequence data nor a
report of frost in Hades.
After this point, Schabewald makes a point about hammering home the
idea that he bugged Gish about this consistently over the period of
July 1983 to February 1985, and largely thanks to Schabewald’s efforts,
the erroneous myth that Gish somehow made a mistake and refused to
acknowledge it has sprung up and refused to die.
Seems fairly clear-cut and objective, doesn’t it? Well, let us read
Gish’s side of the story.[14]
Gish states:
On March
4-6, 1977, I attended a symposium on human origins at the University of
California, Davis. The symposium was jointly conducted by the
Foundation of Research into the Origins of Man, and the University
Extension, University of California, Davis. The faculty included
Richard Leakey (son of Louis and Mary Leakey) who had gained much fame
in the past decade and a half as a fossil hunter in Africa; Donald
Johanson, the discoverer of “Lucy”; Alan Walker, now of Johns Hopkins
University, who has worked with Richard Leakey; David Pilbeam, then of
Yale University; Garniss Curtis, of the University of California,
Berkeley; Owen Lovejoy, of Kent State University; and Glyn Isaac, of
the University of California, Berkeley.
Curtis
is a radiochronologist who has dated a number of samples for
anthropologists. He presented a lecture at a symposium on the technique
of radiometric dating. He and other radiochronologists, using
radiometric dating, had obtained dates suggested for these events that
are quite divergent from the dates suggested for these events by those
who employ the “protein clock” hypothesis developed by A.C. Wilson,
Vincent Sarich, and others at the University of California, Berkeley.
Before development of the “protein clock” hypothesis, it had been
suggested, for example, that the divergence of man and the apes from
their common ancestor had occurred sometime between 20 and 30 million
years ago. Wilson and Sarich, however, on the basis of their “protein
clock,” have suggested that this divergence had occurred no more than
four or five million years ago.
This divergence of opinion, between the radiochronologists and the
“protein clock” people, naturally had created tension between those
holding strong views on each side. Curtis therefore wished to put down
the “protein clock” hypothesis and the dates that might be obtained
using this technique. He mentioned that, according to comparisons based
on the structures of certain serum albumins, humans were nearly as
similar to bullfrogs as they were to apes. Using the “protein clock”
idea, then, one could assume that man had split off from the amphibians
about the same time he had split off from the apes—clearly a ludicrous
suggestion, according to evolutionists.
Dr.
Gary Parker, then a member of the Institute for Creation Research
staff, had suggested another unacceptable conclusion based upon the
comparison of the structures of proteins. I had heard him describe this
situation in a lecture. Subsequently, he published the account. After
describing the problems evolutionists have with the hemoglobins, Parker
says:
' The same
seems to be true for a fascinating protein called lysozyme.... By
comparing lysozyme and lactalbumin, Dickerson was hoping to “pin down
with great precision,” where human beings branched off the mammal line.
The results are surprising. In this test, it turned out that humans are
more closely related to the chicken than to any living mammal tested!
Every evolutionist knows that can’t be true, but how can he get around
the objective evidence? In his concluding diagram, Dickerson slips in a
wiggly line for rapid evolution, and that brings the whole thing back
in line again with his evolutionary assumptions. But notice that his
protein data, the facts that he observed, did not help him at all with
his evolutionary idea.' [15]
On the basis
of what I had heard from Garniss Curtis and Gary Parker, on two
occasions I stated that, following the reasoning of evolutionists based
on the similarity of certain protein molecules, one would assume that
man is as closely related to bullfrogs and chickens as he is to apes.
One occasion was during a debate with John W. Patterson on a radio
station in Ames, Iowa, and the other was during the videotaping of a
program for Public Broadcasting Television. Evolutionists have
vigorously contested that statement and have challenged me to provide
documentation.
Robert
Schadewald, a free-lance writer and virulent anti-creationist, wrote to
Garniss Curtis to check out my story after I had informed him
concerning the source of my information on serum albumins. Curtis, in
his reply, reported that he had indeed told the story the way I had
revealed it. Now Curtis claimed, however, that he had told this story
with tongue in cheek, more or less a joke.[16] It was perfectly clear
to me at the time Curtis gave his talk that there was a joke involved,
all right, but it was equally clear that Curtis intended for the joke
to be on the “protein clock” people, and not in the nature of the data
he presented. Thus, if the data were faulty on which I had based my
remarks about the serum albumins of man, apes, and bullfrogs, the
responsibility for the faulty data (if indeed it is faulty) is due to
false information provided in a public address by an evolutionist.
The documentation for the claim concerning the relationship of the
lysozymes of humans, mammals, and chickens is available in the
scientific literature. Dickerson and Geis, in their book, The Structure and Action of Protiens, provide this
documentation. [17] According to Dickerson
and Geis, and other evolutionists, lactalbumin, a protein found in
milk, and lysozyme, an enzyme found in most plant and animal cells and
which catalyzes the digestion of bacterial cell walls, are descended
from a common ancestral protein. It is believed that the genes for
lysozyme and lactalbumin resulted from a gene duplication about the
time of the divergence of the amphibians and reptiles.
If
one compares the differences in amino acid sequences of mammalian
lactalbumins (including humans) and human and chicken lysozymes, the
results pose a surprising puzzle for evolutionists. It is found that
human lysozyme is more similar to chicken lysozyme than it is to
lactalbumin. As Dickerson and Geis point out, on the basis of the usual
evolutionary assumption that amino acid differences can be used to date
times of divergence, one would arrive at the conclusion shown in Figure
1 [note: only available on pg. 100 of Dr. Gish’s text].
Thus, if one approaches these results in all innocence, using the
commonly accepted assumptions of evolutionists concerning the meaning
of amino acid sequence differences in proteins, humans are more closely
related to chickens than they are to mammals, including the apes. Of
course, to evolutionists, this conclusion is completely unacceptable,
even ludicrous. What makes this conclusion outrageously ridiculous is
the fact that, based upon these data, humans would be more closely
related to chickens than they are to themselves! What this really
demonstrates is that amino acid sequence similarities or differences do
not reveal the degree of relatedness in an evolutionary sense.
Evolutionists attempt to explain away the contradictions these data
pose for evolutionary theory by making the ad hoc assumption that for
some unknown reason, amino acid substitutions occurred much more
rapidly in the various mammalian lactalbumins than in the mammalian
lysozymes. In this case, then, the “protein clock” notion is deceptive,
because the clock is running at different rates in these two difference
cases. Therefore, such a clock can never be trusted. In any case,
evolutionists should spend more time straightening up their own house,
instead of hurling accusations against creation scientists. [14]
From this excerpt, we see that Schabewald, to put it simply, has no
case. One is forced to wonder why TO reprinted the article,
particularly one so terribly out of date in terms of the issue and
there being a response by Dr. Gish.
Nevertheless, TO has accused Dr. Gish of being deceitful and
incompetent, confusing the hapless reader who shall come to their site
expecting accurate information instead of baseless ad hominem assaults
upon creationist character and intention, not to even speak of the
implication to creation science’s integrity, of which it appears TO has
little.
Duane Gish and the Bombardier
Beetle
Robert Schabewald has parroted another myth about Dr. Gish. This is the
case of the Bombardier Beetle.[11] I will let Schabewald speak for
himself on the matter:
[A]n
erroneous translation by another creationist (Kofahl) once led him to
believe that hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone, two chemicals used by
the bombardier beetle, spontaneously explode when mixed. This error led
him to claim in a book and in his presentations that the beetle had to
evolve a chemical inhibitor to keep from blowing itself up. When he
learned that hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone do not explode when
mixed, he said, he corrected the error in his book.
...
Gish
neglected to mention certain details of the bombardier beetle business.
Early in 1978, Bill Thwaites and Frank Awbrey of San Diego State
University mixed hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone in front of their
"two model" class with a nonexplosive result. Gish may have corrected
his book, but he continued to use demonstrably false arguments about
the bombardier beetle in debate presentations. I personally heard him
do so on January 17, 1980, in a debate with John W. Patterson at
Graceland College in Lamoni, Iowa.
Again, it appears like straightforward reporting. But then, appearances
can be deceiving. Dr. Gish, do you have any comments to make on this
topic?
Another
charge hurled at me is that I continued to repeat an error in my
description of the remarkable defense mechanism of the bombardier
beetle, even after I had become aware of the error. [18] I described this
complex mechanism in my book on dinosaurs for children, Dinosaurs:
Those Terrible Lizards,19 and used it first publicly in a debate that
Dr. Henry Morris and I had with Professors Frank Awbrey and William
Thwaites at San Diego State University on April 26, 1977.
The
bombardier beetle has a remarkable defense mechanism and, after
describing this incredible mechanism, I challenged Awbrey and Thwaites
to explain how an ordinary beetle, though a series of random,
accidental mutations, acted upon by natural selection, could gradually
change into a bombardier beetle. Neither at that time nor since have
Awbrey and Thwaites been able to explain how this could have taken
place. Awbrey and Thwaites subsequently, however, did utilize the
common evolutionist ploy of ignoring the challenge and grasping for a
flaw, even minor, in the creationist’s argument.
When
a bombardier beetle (Brachinus) is threatened by a predator or an
offensive invader of any kind, at the appropriate point of approach the
bombardier beetle swings his tail end around in just the right
direction (he never misses) and hot, noxious gases, heated to 212
[degrees] F (the boiling point of water), are explosively released from
twin combustion tubes right into the face of his enemy. This is, of
course, sufficient to discourage any further notion of an attack on the
bombardier beetle. Research has revealed the fact that this beetle has
a double set of apparatus. In twin storage chambers, he stores an
aqueous solution of two chemicals—10% hydroquinone (a reducing agent
used in photographic developing fluids) and 23% hydrogen peroxide (a
powerful oxidizing agent). Remarkably, these chemical agents do not
react, the solution remaining as crystal clear as pure water.
Apparently the bombardier beetle adds an inhibitor which prevents the
chemicals from reacting. If these chemicals are mixed in the
laboratory, the solution soon becomes discolored, as the hydrogen
peroxide oxidizes the hydroquinones to quinones (in the bombardier
beetle a mixture of hydroquinone and methylhydroquinone is used).
When
the bombardier beetle is ready to fire his defensive mechanism spray,
he squirts a charge of the chemical solution into each of the
combustion tubes. There an enzyme, catalase, catalyzes the extremely
rapid decomposition of hydrogen peroxide into oxygen and water, and
another enzyme, peroxidase, catalyzes the oxidation of the
hydroquinones to quinones—noxious, irritating chemicals. The chemical
reaction generates sufficient heat to raise the temperature of the
mixture to 212 [degrees] F, and the excess oxygen produced provides the
high pressure, and valves in the ends of the combustion tubes are
opened at the appropriate time.
[20-22]
My
original source of information (and the only source available to me
early on) was a little pamphlet, “Darwin and the Beetles,” published in
the early sixties by Dr. Robert E. Kofahl, then president of Highland
College and now science consultant to the Creation Science Research
Center, San Diego. In his reading of the article by Schildknecht and
Holoubek, Kofahl apparently mistranslated the German word for
“unstable” to read “explosive.” Kofahl in his pamphlet thus reported
that a mixture of 10% hydroquinones and 23% hydrogen peroxide was
explosive. Following Kofahl, as I told the story of the bombardier
beetle in lectures, in the debate at San Diego State University, and in
the book, Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards, [19] I said that ordinarily
a mixture of these chemicals at those concentrations was explosive.
Awbrey and Thwaites, anxious to find a way out of the dilemma posed by
the bombardier beetle, diligently searched for any possible slip in my
story. As soon as they discovered that the mixture was not explosive,
they made no attempt whatever to explain how the bombardier beetle
could have evolved, but trumpeted loudly, everywhere, this minor slip
in the story. Other evolutionists eagerly grabbed onto the story, and
it found its way even into Nature, the prestigious British science
journal. [18]
As soon as I
learned of this little hitch in the story of the bombardier beetle, I
modified the story I related in my lectures. I had to wait until the
publisher was ready to publish a revised edition of Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards, [19] however, to correct
the story there. In the meantime, the first edition was continuing to
be sold. That apparently was the source of the charge that I had
continued to tell the original story even after the problem had been
called to my attention.
Dr.
Kofahl, in an article entitled “The Bombardier Beetle Shoots Back,”
which he published in the evolutionist journal Creation/Evolution, [23] in response to the
critical article by Weber,[18] accepting
responsibility for the slip in the story. He further argued powerfully
that Weber’s attempt to explain the evolution of the bombardier beetle
from an ordinary beetle was exceedingly weak and seriously flawed. In
spite of this explanation, published in 1981 in the major
anti-creationist journal, evolutionists have continued to bring up the
story, implying that I have persisted in using a flawed case, even
after having been made aware of the problem. As recently as by debate
with Grover Krantz at Washington State University on March 3, 1987, an
evolutionist professor from the University of Idaho brought up this
subject during the question/answer period. It is long past time that
this old tired story should be laid to rest.
...
[E]volutionists
have resorted to an ad hominen attack on a creation scientist in order
to obscure their failure to explain fatal flaws in evolutionary theory.
...
It is
unfair, unethical, and demeaning to science as a profession for
evolutionists to incessantly charge creation scientists with quoting
out of context, misquoting, distorting science, and telling outright
falsehoods. These tactics are simply an admission of weakness on the
part of evolutionists and their inability to refute scientific
challenges to their sagging theory. [24]
The fact that TO continues to propagate such ad hominem attacks such as
these should speak volumes to their objectivity and integrity in this
debate.
Similarly to their accusations against Dr. Henry Morris, one hardly
thinks that a retraction and apology is out of place, particularly
considering the falsity of these statements. Perhaps they’ll surprise
me and actually do so.
References
[1] See TO’s ‘Evolution and racism’ response
<http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005.html>; and their
more specified article ‘Creationism implies racism?’
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/racism.html> both accessed
04/30/04
[2] K. Ham, One Blood: The Biblical
Answer to Racism, Green Forest, AR, Master Books, 1999
[3] See TO’s article ‘What is Creationism?’
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html> accessed 05/01/04
[4] R. Doolan, ‘Games that Scoffers Play,’ Creation, 15(2):4
[5] The Genesis Flood (1961);
The Twilight of Evolution
(2nd ed 1998); What is Creation
Science (1982); The Long War
Against God (1989); The
Genesis Record (1976); and The
Biblical Basis for Modern Science (1984)
[6] H. Morris, The Long War Against
God, 1989, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, pg. 63-64
[7] H. Morris, The Biblical Basis
for Modern Science, 1984, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, pg.
439, 441-443
[8] see ‘Index to Creationist Claims’ article ‘Lews Overthrust’ at <
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD102_1.html>, accessed
05/01/04
[9] H. Morris and J. Whitcomb, The
Genesis Flood, 1961, The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing
Company
[10] H. Morris, ref. 9, pg. 185-187
[11] see ‘Scientific Creationism and Error’ at <
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html>, accessed 05/01/04
and is an online reprint of an article in the evolutionary magazine Creation/Evolution, 6(1):1-9, 1986
[12] See J. Bergman, “Contemporary Suppresstion of Theistic Worldview,”
TJ, 9(2):267-275
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v9n2_suppression.asp>
[13] D. Gish, Creation Scientists
Answer Their Critics, 1993, ICR, El Cajon, CA
[14] D. Gish, ref. 13, pg. 96-101
[15] D. Gish, ref. 13, ref. 29 in text; H. Morris and G. Parker, What is Creation Science?, Master
Books, San Diego, CA, 1982, pg. 24, 25
[16] D. Gish, ref. 13, ref. 30 in Chap. 4 text; Personal Communication
to D.T. Gish from Robert Schadewald.
[17] D. Gish, ref. 13, ref. 31 in Chap 4 text; R.E. Dickerson and I.
Geis, The Struction and Action of
Protiens, W.A. Benjamin, Inc., Menlo Park, CA, 1969, pg. 77, 78
[18] D. Gish, ref. 13, ref. 32,33 in Chap 4 text; C.G. Weber, Creation/Evolution, 2(1):4, 1980; and T.H. Jukes,
Nature, 308:398, 1984
[19] D. Gish, ref. 13, ref. 34 in Chap 4 text; Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards,
Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1977, pg. 50-55
[20] D. Gish, ref. 13, ref 35 in Chap 4 text; H. Schildknecht and K.
Holoubek, Angewandte Chemie,
73(1):1, 1961
[21] D. Gish, ref. 13, ref. 36 in Chap 4 text; T. Eisner and D.J.
Aneshansky, Science, 215:J83,
1982
[22] D. Gish, ref. 13, ref. 37 in Chap 4 text; J.A. Miller, Science News, 115:330, 1979
[23] D. Gish, ref. 13, ref. 38 in Chap 4 text; R.E. Kofahl, Creation/Evolution, 2(3):12, 1981
[24] D. Gish, ref. 13, pg. 101-103, 104, 107
|
