The following questions are found on the CSC (Center for Scientific Creationism) website and are supposed to be real "stumpers" for those who support the Theory of Evolution. There are supposed to be 20 questions, but there are really reasonably around 50 questions here. No problem. I have been 'challenged' by a creationist friend to answer them. Hold on to your hats... I can be blunt at times. You can follow this link to find out why I think creationism isn't science in any sense.
These "tough" questions have been around for years, and been answered ad infinitum (ad nauseum), but the creationists still wave them around as if no one has ever asked them before. I think it is, at least, a matter of questionable ethics to lead your followers to believe that there are 20 substantial questions still outstanding on the issue. Evolution is a science that sits in the crossroads of many different disciplines, and it is indeed difficult to read the amount of information that it takes to get a coherent grasp of the subject. It is far easier just to hide behind metaphors, analogies and literal adherence to scripture.
What creationists really do when they present long lists of questions like this is to draw the public's attention away from the fact that there is no positive evidence to support creationism. Not one scrap. Creationists should stop wasting their time with this non-scientific junk and start working to support their position.
Their questions appear in pink. My answers are in white. Their questions have not been edited in any way. Here is the original URL at which they can be found. You may want to drop them an email to let them know that an amateur is answering their 20 questions.
This is a work in progress. I began it on Thursday, October 15th 1998 at 9:00 am. I wish to do it well, so I don't anticipate it being finished until the end of the century. Please have patience- don't criticize the answers just yet- none of them are finished. This page is evolving.
Last update 11/9/99
1. Where has macro evolution ever been observed? What's the mechanism for getting new complexity such as new vital organs? How, for example, could a caterpillar evolve into a butterfly?
There are 3 questions here, each one of them complex and requiring a lengthy explanation.
1) Where has "macro evolution" ever been observed? First of all, macro evolution is a term frequently misused by creationists to imply a separate process from micro evolution. They are the same thing. What he means is speciation- the emergence of one species from another. The time scales involved for observing speciation are too large (at least for large organisms, because of the relatively long time between generations) is one reason, the other is that it is difficult to identify a species in transition. Evolution is most easily identified in retrospect. Case in point- seals. How do you know that seals are not in a transition to a fully water bound mammal? We don't. Seals may very well be on their way into a dolphin-like sea mammal. The only way to know this for certain is to build a time machine, and zip a few million years into the future, and identify what they evolved into. Hindsight identifies transitional species.
Also, this question implies another misconception- that individual organisms somehow evolve into something else. This is a staggeringly common misconception. Individuals do not evolve- they remain as they are born. Species evolve, organisms do not. Creationists consistently play up this misconception by trying to get the listener to envision a mouse turning into an elephant, or some other ridiculous straw man caricature. No one would believe that kind of stuff, and evolutionary science does not propose that.
Speciation, or the emergence of a new species, takes many generations to happen. In most cases, the life span of species, especially large animals, is too long for us to observe changes directly. For very short lived species such as insects, the emergence of new species has indeed been observed. "Macroevolution" is observed whenever species divide.
Here
are plenty of examples of observed speciation.
Here
are even more examples of new species.
2) The mechanism for "new" vital organs- that statement in itself is a mislead to his followers- new organs do not pop up "new" in organisms or in a few generations. That is another example of a straw man argument. (An explanation of the evolution of vital organs will follow).
3) Another error here-- I'm not aware that caterpillars evolve into butterflies... Caterpillars are not a species at all- caterpillars are the larval form of certain insects like butterflies, moths and some beetles and flies. That is ontogeny, not evolution. Oops! He should seriously consider omitting that part of the question. It makes him look ignorant.
Just because something happened a long time ago, and no one witnessed it, does not mean that we cannot get a clear picture of what happened and how. As a simple analogy, a man can commit a murder, with no one watching him, and he can still be executed for the crime. Forensic science can reconstruct what happened with a high degree of certainty using the evidence that is gathered from the scene. We learn how evolution happened in the same way.
Here is a response
from Dave Matson.
2. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if your theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don't we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both?
In the first place, a billion fossils have never been unearthed, let alone purely "transitional" ones. His insistence of "Billions!" is a fallacious mislead to his followers. Evolution theory predicts that there will have been billions of transitional organisms. It does not predict that all these organisms will have been preserved as fossils. Nevertheless, we do find a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, and in the fossil record. But he refuses to acknowledge it.
Here are plenty of real examples of transitional fossils.
How about transitions between humans and our ape-like ancestors?
Archaeopteryx, one of the most well publicized examples, is one undeniable transitional fossil. What living creature has both feathers and teeth? The July 1998 issue of National Geographic magazine has a wonderful cover story about the transition of dinosaurs into birds.
Here is a response from Dave Matson.
3. Who are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects? The evolutionary tree that's in the textbook: where's its trunk and where are its branches?
I'll crack open a book and look that one up. I suspect it was some sea invertebrates along the lines of crustaceans. Not a real tough one. Just because he apparently doesn't know the answer does not mean that the answer is not known.
Here is a response from Dave Matson.
4. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an intelligent radio signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also imply an intelligent source?
Complexity does not require a designer, it requires an explanation.
Read this: The Genetic Basis for Evolutionary Change
There are implications of the origins of DNA, not direct evidence. How does he suppose that such an event (the origin of DNA some 3.5 billion years ago) could ever leave physical evidence behind? I'm sure he knows that it could not. Knowing that, I find it highly unethical to pose such a question, because it implies a shortcoming on the part of evolutionary science where there is none.
The fact that we can, using simple, common elements, produce as much complex carbon proteins as we want (the building blocks of DNA) under early earth conditions, is as strong an indication as you can imagine that the origin of DNA is a natural occurrence. But the fact that we cannot (yet) precisely duplicate the origin of DNA (something that left no trace) should not be considered an impediment to our understanding or progress.
Also, there is a false analogy in question 4. An "intelligent" radio signal is an artificial sequence of radio waves, and is by its very nature a phenomenon not caused by any known natural source-- such as a series of radio bursts corresponding to prime numbers (numbers only divisible by one and themselves- 1,2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, etc.) There is no natural phenomena which produces prime numbers, so natural explanations can be confidently excluded. Seti (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) in no way supports the notion that DNA should be similarly thought to be the product of intelligence. It is a blatantly false analogy.
Click HERE for DNA information.
The likelihood is not that an entire DNA sequence, plus all the machinery needed to make it work, would suddenly and spontaneously self assemble, but rather that something much simpler would self assemble and more complex forms evolve over time. See Steps Towards Life By Eigen and Schuster, 1992 for details of the best reconstruction.
To turn the tables for a moment, can he suggest one reasonable
scientific hypothesis for the origin of DNA that is consistent with his
creation hypothesis, or that the complexity of DNA absolutely requires
an designer? (One that is testable, falsifiable and does not involve
any miraculous interventions-- otherwise it is not science!)
5. How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? How could a bacterial motor evolve?
Four questions here, each requiring a lengthy technical explanation. I will do my best to provide a brief, non technical explanation for each. And it doesn't matter if the organs come from "even a tiny bird" or a bull elephant- the level of complexity is the same- it is ignorant to suggest that there is a difference.
There is also a common implication by creationists, either explicitly or implicitly, that leads their followers to believe that evolution allows for (or even requires that) complicated organs spring up by chance in a generation or two. Who in their right mind would believe that? That is another example of a ridiculous straw man argument, because evolution stipulates no such thing.
The evolution of complex organs like the eye
Read Richard Dawkin's "Where'd You Get Those Peepers"
To turn the tables for a moment, can he suggest one reasonable scientific hypothesis for the origin of complex organs that is consistent with his creation hypothesis? (One that is testable, falsifiable and does not involve any miraculous interventions-- otherwise it is not science!)
Here is a response from Dave Matson.
6. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least 6 moons revolve backwards?
This has nothing to do with biological evolution. It is an astrophysics question. Question 6 merely presents the questioner as "the author of confusion". Also, the use of the word "evolved" in this question is misleading, suggesting some kind of explicit connection between it and biological evolution. The processes have nothing to do with each other.
I wonder why he is under the impression that backwards rotation and revolution imply that the solar system could not have formed under purely natural conditions... I would like to have that explanation before I bother digging up the answer!
To turn the tables for a moment, can he suggest one reasonable scientific hypothesis as the reason that some planetary bodies rotate backwards that is consistent with his creation hypothesis? (One that is testable, falsifiable and does not involve any miraculous interventions-- otherwise it is not science!)
Here is a response from Dave Matson.
7. Why do we have comets if the solar system is billions of years old?
Because there is no reason we should not.
He is implying that if the solar system is very old, all the comets would have collided with planetary bodies by now. I know that many comets are long term comets. Short term comets do collide with planetary bodies, but there are still many short period comets: Haley at 76.1 year; Ikeya-Seki at 880 years; Bennett at about 1680 years. They do in fact lose much of their volatile components with each pass around the sun. But the question assumes that no new comets are entering the solar system. During the formation of the solar system, some stellar material far removed from the sun never accumulated to form planets. Some of this material formed comets which still exist in the "Oort Cloud" far beyond the outermost planet, Pluto. Because of their size and distance, these comets cannot be directly observed until a nearby star disturbs a comet's path and deflects it towards the sun. At this point, it becomes a "long period" comet, and will normally loop around the sun and leave the solar system. If such a comet happens to approach one of the planets, its path can become an ellipse. It will then orbit the sun as a "short period" comet forever. So, short period comets are continually being created. The length of term is determined by its orbital circumference. Longer term comets spend more time in the outer reaches of the solar system, and therefore the chances of colliding with a planetary body are greatly reduced, thereby prolonging its 'life span'.
There is the evidence of cratering on planetary bodies that indicate the presence of a large number of interplanetary objects in the past. It is clear that over time, the number of interplanetary debris would be reduced due to collision. But, any argument which asserts that ALL comets must be gone by now is unrealistic, and does not take into account the size and emptiness of our solar system.
Space, contrary to popular perception, is mostly empty, and planets are very far apart. Imagine setting a basketball down on the ground, getting in your car and driving a couple of miles, and placing a marble on the ground. Those are the distances between the planets. The assumption that comets should be in constant collision with planets or each other is misinformed. While such collisions are unlikely in tens of thousands of years, they are inevitable in hundreds of millions of years.
Here is a response from Dave Matson.
8. Where did all the helium go?
The answer to this has been available for quite some time. The fact that it is still being asked simply goes to show that the purpose of these questions is simply to confuse the public, and make them doubt serious scientific findings because a certain sect finds them in contradiction with their literal interpretation of the bible.
That question is to assert that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Follow this link to learn about the actual age of the earth, and how it is determined.
Creationist assert something like this: Helium-4 is created by radioactive decay and is constantly added to the atmosphere. Helium is not light enough to escape the Earth's gravity (unlike hydrogen), and it will therefore accumulate over time. The current level of helium in the atmosphere would accumulate in less than two hundred thousand years, therefore the Earth is young.
But helium can and does escape from the earth's atmosphere, and at rates nearly identical to rates of production. In order to secure a young age from their calculations, creationists categorically dismiss mechanisms by which helium can escape. For example, Henry Morris writes:
"There is no evidence at all that Helium 4 either does, or can, escape from the exosphere in significant amounts." (Morris 1974, p. 151)
But Morris is wrong. Creationists can't "invent" a dating mechanism by simply ignoring processes which work in the opposite direction of the process which the date is based on. Dalrymple says:
"Banks and Holzer (12) have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of (2 to 4) x 106 ions/cm2/sec of 4He, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 +/- 1.5) x 106 atoms/cm2/sec. Calculations for 3He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the estimated production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern (112) estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss." (Dalrymple 1984, p. 112)
Dalrymple's references:
(12) Banks, P. M. &
T. E. Holzer. 1969. "High-latitude plasma transport: the polar wind" in
Journal of Geophysical Research 74, pp. 6317-6332.
(112) Sheldon, W. R. &
J. W. Kern. 1972. "Atmospheric helium and geomagnetic field reversals"
in Journal of Geophysical Research 77, pp. 6194-6201.
Colin Groves writes:
"The first time I saw Carl Wieland (director of
what is now Answers in Genesis) in action, I listened open-mouthed
to him actually correct a questioner who asked him why he hadn't mentioned
the lack of helium in the atmosphere. Carl Wieland answered that
helium is the second-lightest element, and easily reaches escape
velocity. I wish I'd taped that!"
The escape velocity of the earth is about 7 miles per second. Mr. Wieland should provide a scientific demonstration of how helium can be accelerated to that speed.
Here is a response from Dave Matson.
9. How did sexual reproduction evolve?
Ah, finally, an actual evolution question. One thing is important to understand. We cannot say how such things DID evolve, because they left no physical trace. We can suggest how such things MIGHT HAVE evolved, based on the physical evidence we do have, and on biological processes that are well known, and by what is suggested from living species. But there is nothing wrong with that. Sexual reproduction could have evolved in a number of ways, but it probably evolved from selection for the ability to exchange genetic material, for sexually reproducing species seem to resist extinction longer than asexual species. sexual reproduction evolved initially as an accident due to the diploid nature of the DNA material, and was conserved in later lineages.
Here
is the answer
Here
is another
To turn the tables for a moment, can he suggest one reasonable scientific hypothesis for the origin of sexual reproduction that is consistent with his creation hypothesis? (One that is testable, falsifiable and does not involve any miraculous interventions-- otherwise it is not science!)
Here is a response from Dave Matson.
10. If the big bang occurred, where did all the information around us and in us come from? Has an explosion ever produced order? Or as Sir Isaac Newton said,"Who wound up the clock?"
And we're back to astronomy again. Does the author know the differences between the sciences? He should be cautious in his attack of the Big Bang Theory-- the alternative is the Steady State Theory- an idea even more destructive to his cosmogony because it states that the universe had no beginning at all. He should follow the example of the Catholic Church and embrace the Big Bang Theory (just for safety). The Big Bang Theory does not rule out the possibility of a Creator (if you choose to insert one), it's just that a Creator is not implied or required.
Also, the use of the word "explosion" is a mislead. It is not (at least by popular definition) what cosmologists propose happened. There is no relationship between anything the average person knows as an explosion and the Big Bang cosmology. That statement illustrates the nonscientific thinking of the author.
His use of Sir Isaac Newton's quotation is an 'Appeal to Authority'. Newton's subjective support of an idea does no more to support it than mine. Testable evidence, falsifiable predictions and repeatable experiments are what's required to establish the truth of a theory, not someone's opinion, even if it is the revered Sir Isaac Newton.
But the real problem here is that question is not a scientific question. Read it again. What is he asking for? "Information" is not sufficiently defined. Is he asking for a causal link between the Big Bang and biological evolution? All of question 10 is clearly a lay person's question. Just read Carl Sagan's book COSMOS-- it's written for the general public.
Here is a response from Dave Matson.
11. Why do so many of the earth's ancient cultures have flood legends?
Because most cultures have experienced local floods.
Response from Kenneth Fair:
"A careful examination of the flood myths listed in the Flood Stories FAQ reveals that there are too many variations in the stories for them all to be describing the same flood as Genesis 6-9. (Genesis 6-9 is almost certainly an adaptation of the older Sumerian myth of Gilgamesh.) Some stories describe the flood as covering the entire Earth, while others tell of localized floods, albeit large ones. Some survivors floated in boats and others climbed to high ground, while in some stories everyone died.
People create stories to explain the world surrounding them. This is especially true of significant natural disasters, which become strongly imprinted on the memories of people who survived them. Ask anyone in south Florida about Hurricane Andrew, or speak with survivors of the earthquake in Kobe, Japan, or of any other natural disaster.
It is natural to think that primitive peoples with no understanding of the processes that shape our world-- meteorology, vulcanology, plate tectonics, and the like-- would attempt to create stories to explain the events that have been important in their lives. Consider this: The most fertile land is found in flood plains. People depend on fertile land for agriculture and water for drinking and irrigation. That's why people have tended to settle near rivers throughout history, precisely where floods are likely to occur. It should be no surprise that many cultures have flood myths. Moreover, as cultures migrate and spread, they take their stories with them. When two cultures interact, often a mutated version of an important story will be passed along.
In short, flood myths are a fascinating glimpse at how varied is the human imagination at describing similar events, such as localized floods, all around the world. But evidence for a Earth-covering global flood? Hardly."
What about the fact that some human cultures do not have flood myths?
A GLOBAL FLOOD DID NOT HAPPEN. HERE is the definitive proof.
Here is a response from Dave Matson.
12. Where did matter come from? What about space, time, energy, and even the laws of physics?
He's not asking too much, is he?
Those questions are not even addressed in the theory of evolution, and they are not critical to its understanding.
I can tell you right now where the laws of physics came from-- human minds. Scientific Laws are generalizations that describe natural phenomena. Laws, like facts and theories, can change over time as our data and observations improve. It is important to know that theories do not develop into laws as they become more substantiated. (That is a common creationist falsehood.) Theories are explanations of natural phenomena, and laws are descriptions of natural phenomena. Theories are the goal of science, not laws. Doesn't the Center for "Scientific" Creationism know all this??
The universe must behave some way. It happens to behave as it does. So what? Can he offer evidence that the universe could behave in some other way, such as gravity being repellent rather than attractive, or that 2+2=5?
While we are on the subject of laws and theories:
Why do they think a theory cannot also be a fact? The definition of the word "theory" from the National Academy of Science:
"Theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses."
What part of that sentence excludes a theory from being a fact? Nothing does. The rest of the paragraph:
"Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong."
To turn the tables for a moment, can he suggest one reasonable scientific hypothesis for the origin of matter, space, time, energy that is consistent with his creation hypothesis? (One that is testable, falsifiable and does not involve any miraculous interventions-- otherwise it is not science!)
Here is a response from Dave Matson.
13. How did the first living cell begin? That's a greater miracle than for a bacteria to evolve to a man. How did that first cell reproduce?
This is two simple questions in one that both require incredibly complex answers..
Here is one answer, representing the best we can give, to the question of how the first living cell began, and how they reproduced. Here is another.
The first living thing was not nearly so complex as a bacterium. That is already a highly evolved organism. The issue here is not about an entire DNA sequence, plus all the machinery needed to make it work, suddenly and spontaneously self-assembling, but rather that something much simpler would self-assemble and more complex forms evolve over time.
Also, question 13 implies the argument that "it is too improbable that the first living cell arose from non-living matter". We frequently get requests to justify abiogenesis (how life arose) in terms of mathematical probabilities.
Such probability calculations are not possible. The most important reason is that to do such a calculation, you must assume that all present life forms are the goal, and not the result of the process, and then calculate backwards. Since we have no indication that the present biological world represents the only possible "final product" of evolution, we cannot set the parameters, nor assign numerical values to any part of the process. But, since creationism is under the concrete belief that humans are the end product of a creator's scheme, they have no problem in thinking in terms of probability (but they don't seem to understand why it doesn't apply).
Here is my analogy. You have to agree this is reasonable.
You buy a lottery ticket. The odds are 100 million to one. You win. You are amazed. "The odds are a hundred million to one!" you exclaim. "There is no way I could have won! The odds are too great. It MUST be a miracle!"
The problem with this miraculous explanation is that no one predicted at the outset that YOU WOULD WIN. You just... won. After the fact, when you are sitting there with the winning ticket, the odds are one to one. If you win the lottery, and are convinced that the incredible odds against you winning are evidence that there was some sort of 'intelligent intervention' acting on you behalf, that would be an Ad Hoc explanation, and irrational. If, however, you predicted that you would win beforehand, that would indeed be an indication that something hitherto unexplained is going on.
To turn the tables for a moment, can he suggest one reasonable
scientific hypothesis for the origin of the first living cell that is consistent
with his creation hypothesis? (One that is testable, falsifiable
and does not involve any miraculous interventions-- otherwise it is not
science!)
14. Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen?
We assert that it did not. This is not too difficult to understand. Oxygen is comparatively rare in the universe. No other planet in our solar system has any trace of oxygen. By what reason should we suppose that our planet started out with copious amounts of this toxic molecule? I say toxic, because oxygen is toxic to the first proposed life forms and the dominant life on the planet- plants. Plants create oxygen- they do not need it for their survival, it is their waste product. Through photosynthesis, plants extract the hydrogen from H2O and exude the oxygen into the air. It is very plausible that all of the oxygen on the earth was in fact produced by plant life, which preceded the oxygen atmosphere.
* The oldest known microfossils are prokaryotic organisms strikingly similar to modern anaerobic bacteria. Anaerobes cannot tolerate oxygen. They die, instantly, if exposed to oxygen. The fact that the oldest microfossils are anaerobes indicates strongly that when those organisms lived, the atmosphere contained little or no oxygen.
* In several parts of the world, there are Archaean sedimentary
rocks that are rich in iron and other minerals. The minerals uraninite
and iron pyrite are common in these rocks. Uraninite and pyrite oxidize
extremely
rapidly in the presence of free atmospheric oxygen. These beds are
sedimentary and were deposited in nonmarine environments -- which means
they were exposed to the atmosphere. If there was free oxygen around,
those minerals should have oxidized. They didn't. The very
existence of extensive uraninite and pyrite formations in Archaean rocks
indicates strongly that there was no free oxygen
around to oxidize them.
* In strata dated at roughly 2.5 to 1.8 billion years old, we find huge masses of "red beds." Like the uraninite and pyrite beds, Archaean red beds are non-marine sedimentary deposits, often heavily metamorphosed. They draw their name from their color, and their color is due to the large quantities of oxidized (i.e., rusted!) iron minerals in them. The presence of red beds in these rocks apparently corresponds to the oxygenating of Earth's atmosphere by early plant life.
All data cited here is taken from EARTH AND LIFE THROUGH TIME, 2nd Ed., 1989. This does not prove that the Archaean atmosphere was anoxic, but it is definitely significant evidence for it..
If he supposes that the earth had oxygen at its inception,
what are the reasons for such a belief? (Scientific ones, please--
no scripture).
15. Why aren't meteorites found in supposedly old rocks?
They are. By "old rocks" he means deep strata. It is surprising that he should ask this question, since there is such a massive preponderance of physical evidence.
He should separate his questions into biology, geology, astrophysics, cosmology, etc., and direct his questions at the scientist most qualified to answer them (that is, if he is at all interested in receiving an actual answer, which I doubt). He presumes to attack all of these independent scientific disciplines (each of which affirms the findings of the others), but he asks the questions in this disorganized, scatter-gun approach. Creationists are trying to assert that the earth is not old, but young.
Here is a response from Dave Matson.
16. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
This is not a scientific question. It asks for my opinion. Well, I'll give it...
There is no known natural process that produces precisely crafted arrowheads. If he knows of a process that he would like to propose, then his "analogy" might be an appropriate one. But as it stands, it is a false analogy. We know for a fact that human hands produce arrowheads. We have no knowledge, nor even the merest suggestion, that natural forces produce arrowheads. Arrowheads have no capability to reproduce themselves... they have no DNA, and no chance to be shaped by Natural Selection, arrowheads do not spawn little baby arrowheads... This is clearly a false analogy, but it sounds good to his followers because it has emotional appeal and it might have the appearance of logic to them-- but it is completely unscientific and rather childish.
The second part of the question is just as bad... it is a blatant straw man argument. It is a vast oversimplification of the processes by which humans are thought to have been produced. I know of no scientist who proposes that you put hydrogen in a flask and wait a few million or billion years, and you get a human at the end of the process. The mere question as it is phrased creates a false impression in the minds of his readers, confusing an already complicated issue. Not very ethical, in my opinion.
Here is a response from Dave Matson.
17. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA--which can only be produced by DNA?
How are we sure that the only way proteins can be produced is through DNA? There are debates about the likely early chemistry that are not yet resolved. RNA sequences are capable of forming and replicating without the assistance of proteins. These RNA sequences may also catalyze protein formation. As Martin Olomucki notes:
"There is nothing to contradict the notion that the primordial RNA's may have promoted the polymerization of...the amino acids...nucleic acids may, by a reaction similar to the one leading to RNA polymerization, have been able to facilitate the polymerization of amino acids by supplying a suitable catalytic center and sacrificing one phosphodiester bond to permit the formation of a peptide bond." (Olomucki, 1993, 74-75).
The issue here is not about an entire DNA sequence, plus all the machinery needed to make it work suddenly and spontaneously self-assembling, but rather that something much simpler would self-assemble and more complex forms evolve over time.
To turn the tables for a moment, can he suggest one reasonable scientific hypothesis for the origin of DNA or proteins that is consistent with his creation hypothesis? (One that is testable, falsifiable and does not involve any miraculous interventions-- otherwise it is not science!)
Here is a response from Dave Matson.
18. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there-- any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren't students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary theories for the moon's origin?
Another astronomy question, and a rather strange one at that... What in the world does that question have to do with the Theory of Evolution? The second loaded question is nonsense.
HERE are his answers.
To turn the tables for a moment, can he suggest one reasonable scientific hypothesis for the origin of the moon? (One that is testable, falsifiable and does not involve any miraculous interventions-- otherwise it is not science!)
Here is a response from Dave Matson.
19. Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a written, scientific debate ?
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor! Here is one written debate. Here is another. We have been trying for years to do so. I know of people who have tried many times to arrange a debate, but were unable to get the creationist to commit. But in all honesty, scientists have better things to do with their time than debating dead issues.
I hereby publicly challenge Dr. Walt Brown to a written scientific online debate.
It has to be an open, no-holds barred, online debate with no restrictions as to material.
20. Would you like to explain the origin of any of the following twenty-one features of the earth:
The Grand Canyon and Other Canyons (The Colorado River)
Mid-Oceanic Ridge (Plate Tectonics)
Continental Shelves and Slopes (Plate Tectonics)
Ocean Trenches (Plate Tectonics)
Seamounts and Tablemounts
Earthquakes (Plate Tectonics)
Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
Submarine Canyons (Plate Tectonics)
Coal and Oil Formations (Oil comes from "cooking" of phytoplankton buried in fine grained organic rich strata; coal comes from both the thermal cracking of oil and the "cooking" of terrestrial plant material found in sediments and composing coal. That is one reason coal contains so much methane gas. In fact, using its chemical composition, oils can easily be traced back to the specific organic rich strata from which they were distilled.)
Glaciers and the Ice Ages
Frozen Mammoths (here)
Major Mountain Ranges (Plate Tectonics)
Overthrusts
Volcanoes and Lava (Plate Tectonics)
Geothermal Heat
Metamorphic Rock
Strata
Plateaus
Salt Domes
Jigsaw Fit of the Continents (Plate Tectonics)
Fossil GraveyardsIf so, I will point out some obvious problems with your explanation and refer youto 77 pages that explain them all as a result of a global flood.
That's obviously not one question, but twenty one,
and each one needs a separate answer. Most of these are time-wasters.
All Mr. Brown needs to do is go to the nearest library
and check out some recent textbooks on physical geography, physical geology,
and historical geology and he will find well documented answers to all
of the questions in number 20. What I would challenge him to do is
read the conventional explanations for the origin of each of these.
In case of some of these, i.e. the so-called frozen mammoths, he will find
that the creationist claims are based on folklore, mythology, and misinformation
which conveniently ignore the real facts of the situation.
What did the carnivores eat after they got off the Ark? (All the herbivores, of course...) {Here is a question from Dave Matson.} But seriously folks:
Please answer JUST THIS ONE QUESTION
without avoiding it...
"What evidence would falsify the doctrine of scientific
creationism?"
The answer given by creationists is always "none!" That's because creationism is a direct manifestation of religious faith, and is not science in any way. Don't believe me? Read their statement of belief.
Creationism IS NOT SCIENCE.
Read this:
"It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the *facts* of science can contradict the Bible"..
-Dr. Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey
I rest my case. Creationism is not science by definition and by the above admission that it starts with its conclusion, and will not admit any evidence or observation to contradict said conclusions (not unless they are "rightly interpreted"). It is unfalsifiable.
Here are a few more similar statements:
"There is no observational
fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation
model."
- Henry Morris President, Institute for Creation Research
"If one is willing to make adjustments
in the historical claims of the Bible, they can be correlated with the archaeological
evidence, if one is willing to take some liberties with the archaeological
evidence."
- J. Maxwell Miller
If you are amused (or shocked) by these statements, and want to read more, follow this link.
Here are essays I wrote, "Why Creationism is Not Science", and "The Nature of Science and the Nature of Faith".
Is evolution falsifiable? Absolutely!
There are many observations that would hypothetically
overturn evolution as a viable theory... fossils found at random in the
geological strata; DNA evidence that ran contrary to what we would expect
from an evolutionary perspective; a terrestrial species of mammal suddenly
discovered with 6 legs; proof that physical traits are not inherited...
there are others as well.
(those are just a few of my personal ones. At the bottom of the page is a link to the SERIOUS questions.)