The Evolution of Improved Fitness

Dr. Ross Olson, a creationist pediatrician,attended my debate with Dr. Duane Gish on February 22, 2001, andinitiated an Email correspondence with me. After reading myTalk.Origins essay on the Evolutionof Improved Fitness, Olson posted acritiqueat a creationist Website he maintains. Olson's critique includescriticisms of points I made at the debate and other points I made inprivate correspondence with him. The present page begins with myrebuttal to his first critique, and continues with a rebuttal to hissecond and third critiques.

Dear Ross,

I have read your critique of my Web page. In general, I found yourcritique a rather breezy essay, written for a non-technical audienceand filled with a lot of personal opinions and rhetorical devicesthat I will not bother to respond to. I have found 18 specificstatements that I take issue with, and I have quoted them belowfollowed by my comments. In many cases you have misread ormisinterpreted what I said in my essay (or presented at my recentdebate with Dr. Gish), or you ask a question that I have alreadyanswered.

1. "[Dr. Max] has chided Dr. Gish for his initialunfamiliarity with the phenomenon [of somatic mutation ofantibody genes]"

Not true. I chided Gish not for his initial unfamiliarity, but (1)for implicitly claiming expertise about antibody genes that he didnot have (bluffing a naïve audience into thinking he knew whathe was talking about, claiming that I was wrong when he was totallyignorant of the evidence I described) and (2) for failing to lookinto the evidence of somatic mutation after the first debate andtherefore making exactly the same false claims at a subsequentdebate. Do you think these behaviors are appropriate and reflect goodstandards of scholarship?

2. "Dr. Max finds corroborating evidence for evolution in acomputer model. . ."

Not true. I never claimed that the computer model was"corroborating evidence." What I said was:

"The importance of Dawkins's simulation is that it highlights the error of all the creationist arguments against the statistical improbability of evolution, by showing that the creationists' choice of a single-step versus cumulative multi-step model creates a falsely low estimate of the potential for deriving a particular sequence via random mutation and selection. Although both the single-step model and the cumulative multi-step model involve random sequences and selection, the predicted consequences of the two models are very different. The creationists ignore this difference and intentionally discuss only the model that gives the result they like, even though this model corresponds least well to the theory of evolution."

If you think that the computer model does not highlight thedifference between the creationist single-step model and thecumulative multi-step model, please explain why.

3. "Dr. Max likens the scholarship and methods of anyone in theCreationist camp to those of flat earth advocates or snake oilsalesmen . . "

I said that "failure of [creationist] proponents topresent their arguments in the peer-reviewed scientific literaturereveals the status of their scholarship to be on par with that ofdowsers, UFO enthusiasts and believers in a "Flat Earth."" If youknow of a creationist paper in the peer-reviewed scientificliterature, please let me know. However, if I am correct and there isno such publication, then with respect to publication in theprofessional literature, the creationists have exactly the same scoreas dowsers and flat-earthers, i.e. zero.

I also said "at the debates I point out numerous examples of poorscholarship by creationists that completely explain why their effortsdon't meet the standards of excellence for scientific publication." Ienumerated several examples of Dr. Gish's poor scholarship at thedebate and in my essay; and I list a few of them below [see thelast point of the present document]. These examples, in my view,do indeed resemble the methods of flat earthers and snake oilsalesmen. You have not defended a single one of these, and neitherdid Dr. Gish. Do you feel that any one of the examples I citedrepresents good scholarship?

4. "Yet, if helpful mutations can conceivably occur and spreadthrough a population, we ought to have seen at least some indicationof that in the ongoing experiments with fruit flies whose generationtime is about two weeks. And with bacteria, who can sometimesmultiply at a rate of once every 20 minutes, we ought to expect moredramatic progress than just antibiotic resistance."

There is a large literature on the response of fruitflies andbacteria to environmental stress through selection of mutationsfavorable for the new environment. If you need help finding thesepapers, let me know.

The theory of evolution explains changes occurring over millionsof years, or in rare cases, a few tens of thousand years. Accordingto this theory, one would not expect "dramatic" changes in the fewyears of a typical laboratory experiment. If you think that evolutionpredicts that we should expect "more dramatic" changes than have beenobserved in short term laboratory experiments, please explain why,and what specific changes you would expect.

5.. "[Dr. Max is] "begging the question" with respectto the evolutionary explanation for divergence of hemoglobingenes:"

I was not "begging the question." I was providing an illustrativeexample to clarify the concept of duplication and divergence of genesthat I was describing. At the end of the paragraph I made mypoint:

"If an information theory analysis claims that random mutation cannot lead to an increase in information but the analysis ignores gene duplication and differentiation through independent mutations, such an analysis is irrelevant as a model for gene evolution, regardless of its mathematical sophistication."

If you disagree with this point, please explain.

6. "Dr. Max feels he does not have to deal with the origin ofthe first living creature"

Evolution is a theory explaining how modern creatures might havearisen from primitive one-celled organisms. The validity of thetheory does not depend on how those primitive organisms arose in thefirst place. Just because I try to defend evolution againstcreationist attacks doesn't mean I am obligated to answer creationistarguments on other subjects. I hope you can see that abiogenesis andevolution are distinct questions.

7. "[Dr. Max] thinks it is obvious that DNA varies,causing proteins to vary until they are able to do somethingsignificant for the cell. Then they become desirable"

These words reflect a gross misunderstanding of evolutionarytheory and don't correspond to anything I ever wrote or said. Cellsdon't generally make useless proteins; rather, random mutations alterthe structure and function of pre-existing functional proteins,allowing for new functions.

8. "[If] you start to make random changes, deletions,alterations and substitutions in the computer code . . . the mostlikely results are either no change, loss of a function"

The most frequent results of gene mutations are similar what youdescribe about computer code (i.e. "either no change [or]loss of function"), as I stated in my essay: "Most cells undergoinghypermutation end up producing antibody with unaltered or reducedaffinity for the antigen; the latter cells would no longer beactivated by antigen. However, rare mutations lead to antibodies ofhigher affinity for antigen." Similarly, most mutations in germlineDNA are neutral or detrimental, but a small fraction allow usefuladaptations. If you have a disagreement with these words, pleaseexplain. Creationists tend to repeat obsessively the idea that mostrandom changes are neutral or detrimental as if this somehow relievedthem of the need to admit that rare random mutations are beneficialand that these beneficial mutations could explain evolutionaryadaptations.

Incidentally, there is a large literature on the use ofevolutionary algorithms to "evolve" improved computer programs bymultiple cycles of random alterations in parameters followed byrandom selection.

9. "Dr. Gish's knee jerk reaction was correct, we would notsurvive if our ability to fight infection were only based on randomchanges"

Unfortunately, Dr. Gish did not say what you state; you havealtered his claim to make him look better. In his own words: "He[Gish] stated flatly that a sick person would die long beforerandom chance mutations could ever produce the necessary antibodiesto fight off an infection, and that the body has a mechanism forsynthesizing antibodies precisely designed to protect it." Dr. Gishthus (1) suggested that no other immune mechanisms are available toprotect infected individuals early in an infection before mutationleads to high affinity antibodies, and (2) denied that somaticmutation of antibodies occur. Both of these "knee jerkreaction[s]" are incorrect.

10. "The mechanism Dr. Max so prizes as his evolutionary coupde grâce, is actually an incredibly complex system that is muchmore an evidence for sophisticated design . . .Yes, there arevariations that are being selected, for gradually improved function,and these come about by mutations of the DNA responsible for thoseprotein sequences. But the crucial difference is that this is done bya very sophisticated system"

I am not sure what you mean by "crucial difference"; differencebetween what and what?

I agree with you that the antibody gene system is complex, butthis is irrelevant to the point of my essay: that multiple rounds ofrandom mutation and selection can lead to improved fitness. Do youagree with that point? Your argument about complexity is just areiteration of the creationist view that a complex functioningstructure can originate only through design by an intelligent agent.That is precisely what evolution disputes, so you are begging thequestion.

11. "cells making less effective antibody seem to hangaround"

This is a minor point, but you are incorrect. As I stated in theessay: "With lower amounts of antigen present, the cells expressinglow affinity antibody on their surface become prgressively less ableto bind and be stimulated by antigen; in the environment of thegerminal center, these poorly stimulated B cells are programmed todie by a specific process known as "apoptosis." (Choe et al, JImmunol 157:1006, 1996)"

12. "For Dr. Max to say that [the antibody somatic mutationargument] proves evolution . . ."

Again you have mis-stated what I wrote. I specifically said thatthe antibody mutation argument does not prove evolution. I wrote:"Thus the molecular immunogenetics evidence of antibody evolutionthat I have described makes it clear that, contrary to thecreationists' claims, the combination of random mutation andselection CAN be a potent creative biological engine for thegeneration of progressive functional improvements. This evidencealone does not prove that life evolved as Darwin suggested, but ithighlights the emptiness of another invalid, though superficiallyappealing, creationist objection to evolution: the false idea thatrandom mutation is a uniformly deleterious process that could neverbe the source of improved biological function. If you believe thatrandom mutation can never be the source of improved function, thenplease explain how your view is consistent with the antibody mutationresults.

13. "Are [evolutionists] insisting that Creationists,particularly Biblical Creationists, must accept theirreligion?"

I can't speak for other evolutionists, some of whom hold positionsthat I disagree with. For myself, I have never suggested thatBiblical Creationists must accept evolution (which, of course, is nota religion). I was quite explicit about this in the debate, but youseem to have had trouble hearing me. What I said at the debate was:"I would respect anyone's faith that the origin of species occurredexactly as described in the Bible; no one is obligated to believe intheir heart only what has been verified by science. However, anyonewho feels this way should recognize that a belief based on Faith hasno place in the science classroom." Do you disagree with these words?If so, please explain.

14. "This is the challenge: Dr. Max, in the absence of any realmechanism (and lacking even a hypothetical mechanism) forabiogenesis, how can you ignore that area as a possible intellectualpoint for creationists?"

As I stated above, just because I oppose creationis beliefs aboutevolution, this does not obligate me to argue against all creationistbeliefs, e.g. about the origin of life.

15. "Would not the logical conclusion from the evidence be thatintrinsic factors cannot explain the presence of life in the naturaluniverse and therefore consideration must be given to the action ofsome factor outside the natural universe (therefore"supernatural")?"

When science has been unable to provide a naturalistic explanationfor phenomena in the past, many people have assumed that theexplanation must be supernatural. Thus lightning, sickness andearthquakes (to mention only a few phenomena) were believed to havesupernatural origins, until naturalistic explanations were found. Youseem to be arguing that we should postulate the supernatural toexplain any gaps in our understanding.

Many folks find this "God of the gaps" notion to be blasphemous;it implies a shrinking of God's realm over the last few hundred yearsas science explained more and more natural phenomena, and furthershrinkage would occur as our knowledge increases.

I find "God of the gaps" to be bad science. For me, unexplainedphenomena are just that: unexplained. I have no problem withreligious believers giving consideration to the supernatural as anexplanation for unexplained phenomena or for species origins, butunless they evaluate their hypothesis using the scientific method,what they are doing is not science. That doesn't make it bad orwrong, as I have repeated many times, just not science.

16. "And if so, does that not mean that Creationists, despitefrequent vilification by academia and the media, are actually doinggood science when they report data that supports thishypothesis?"

Contrary to what many creationists believe (apparenly yourselfincluded), what determines whether someone is "doing good science" isnot what conclusion that they support, but how well they achieve highstandards in data collection, interpretation and scholarship. It ison these grounds that creationists fail. At the debate and in myessay, I gave numerous examples of such failures of Dr. Gish, none ofwhich you have defended; so perhaps your standards are higher thanDr. Gish's, which would be only to your credit. But I have not heardany clear scientific argument against evolution from you.

17. "[W]ould you admit the hypothesis that thesupernatural factor could be described as intelligent and powerfuland could not be ruled out as a factor in more than just the originof life?"

As I stated many times at the debate and in our privatecorrespondence, I agree that the supernatural cannot be ruled out asa factor in the origin of life, any more than it can be ruled out asa factor in evolution or in lightning, disease and earthquakes. Mywords at the debate were: "There is no place in the science classroomfor the idea that the scientific evidence for evolution disprovesGod; any science teacher who claims that science disproves God shouldcertainly be rebuked, since atheistic conclusions are not part of theprofessional science literature any more than creationism is. So yes,Creationists are right in opposing anti-religious teaching in scienceclassrooms."

18. "Please write a paper explaining how, as an evolutionistyou can ignore the origin of life, admit that God might have done it,and still describe Creationists -- whose most powerful argument isthat there is design in life that requires a Designer -- ascomparable to flat earthers and snake oil salesmen?"

I do not ignore the origin of life, but regard it as an areawhich, so far, has not been illuminated by scientific evidence. Idon't know why you seem to think that because I oppose creationists'views on evolution, I must also argue against their views on othertopics, including the origin of life.

The creationist claim that "there is a design in life thatrequires a Designer" is exactly what evolutionists dispute. Ifcreationists' most powerful argument is one that begs the questionlike this, then creationists would be pretty similar to a flatearther who claimed that his best argument is that the earth is flat.At the debate I showed several examples of how the scientific method(hypothesis, prediction, data collection, and interpretation) has ledto evidence consistent with evolution and contrary to young earthcreationism. These examples illustrate the method of science. Youhave not argued against any of these specific examples. I also showedseveral examples of how creationists misled audiences with bad data,bad interpretations or simple bluffing. These examples, as pointedout above, do indeed resemble the methods of flat earthers and snakeoil salesmen.

I do not claim that creationism is incompatible with good science,but only that all the examples of creationist arguments that I haveseen (and I have seen many) have been badly flawed, and not up to thestandards of science that should determine what is taught in ourschools. And again I note that you have not defended any of theexamples of poor scholarship I cited at the debate, so perhaps youagree with me that these examples represent shoddy scientificscholarship. I have listed below several examples of Dr. Gish'sscholarship reflected in his claims from earlier debates. Let mesuggest that before you bring up any new creationist arguments, yougo on record with your opinion about each of these examples.

Human protein sequences supposedly more similar to bullfrog than to chimpanzee (no such data exist)

Sequence comparisons of cytochrome c between species show percent amino acid identities for yeast-human comparison is similar to yeast-fish and yeast-horse, allegedly in contradiction to evolutionary predictions (a misinterpretation of good data)

Evolution allegedly violates 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (pseudoscientific argument that Dr. Gish uses at debates but has never elaborated for a scientific audience even when challenged to do so)

Somatic mutation of antibody genes does not occur (false). We would die of all infections if it did (false). Implicit claim that Gish knows enough about the science of antibody genes to make an intellligent criticism of my argument (false; though maybe after hearing this argument for so many years he has educated himself a bit)

Basilosaurus, proposed as an intermediate in the evolution of terrestrial mammals to whales, could not be intermediate because it not a mammal but a reptile. (false)

Dr. Gish's arguments at our most recent debate were substantiallyidentical to the ones he made at earlier debates, but he had one newone. He stated that the Organ of Corti, which analyzes soundvibration in the inner ears of mammals, has no counterpart in lowervertebrates like reptiles, in contrast to what evolution wouldpredict. I stated at the debate that I believed this was false, thatlower vertebrates had a similar, presumably homologous organ forhearing but that it was not coiled as in humans. When I went home andchecked the literature, I found that I was correct and that Gish, asusual, was wrong. Although the term "Organ of Corti" does seem to bereserved in the literature for mammals, reptiles have a very similarorgan. If Dr. Gish looked at a scanning electron microscope pictureof the basilar papilla of the Gekkota (a kind of lizard), with itsthree rows of outer hair cells and its one row of inner hair cells(Miller, J Anat 138: 301, 1984; Figure #18), I doubt he would be ableto distinguish it from a mammalian Organ of Corti. After the debate Iwrote a courteous letter to Dr. Gish requesting the references thatwould support his claim at the debate. I have received no reply. Iconclude that Dr. Gish's claim about the mammalian Organ of Cortihaving no putative homolog in lower vertebrates is another example ofshoddy creationist scholarship.

So, Ross, that is my response to several points in your critique.I would be interested in hearing any rejoinders.

If you would like to add this response on your Website, you havemy permission as long as you include the entire response.

Best wishes,

Ed

Dear Ross,

We seem to be "talking past each other," and I think one reason isthat you misunderstand my position and my aims, so you don't see howindividual arguments I put forward fit into my overall position on"creation science." I tried to make this clear at the debate, but wasevidently unsuccessful. Here is my overall position; I will breakthis down into points you may want to address individually.

1. Creationism is only one of many minority views whose proponents would like to have their views represented in the public school classroom, including folks who believe that the earth is flat, or that the pyramids in Egypt were designed by ancient astronauts. We can't teach all of the minority views discussed in crackpot books and have any time left over for mainstream science, so how do we decide what to include and what to omit? In my view, publication in the peer-reviewed professional scientific journals should be a requirement for any view to be represented in the science classroom. Such publication certifies a minimal standard: that a manuscript was satisfactory to referees and editors who were not chosen by the author. This minimal standard has not been met by creation science. The modern professional peer-reviewed scientific literature contains much evidence presented in support of evolution but no papers that explicitly support a creationist model. (See my comments below on Gentry below.) Therefore, public science education should include evolution but not creationism.

2. Creationists cry foul, claiming that their views have been rejected from professional journals for inappropriate reasons, namely the refusal of the "elite" scientific establishment to consider anything that challenges the "dogma" of evolution (as in your comments about Gentry). Therefore, while creationists may agree that other minority views should be excluded from the classroom for want of representation in the peer-reviewed professional literature, they engage in special pleading for their own cause. They claim that their ideas have been rejected for inappropriate reasons rather than poor scholarship. It follows, they claim, that absence of creationism from the professional literature should not disqualify creationism from the public science classroom.

3. My position is that rejection of creationism from the professional literature is due to the failure of "creation scientists" to meet the minimum standards of scholarship for publication in a peer-reviewed professional science journal. Considering this failure, their special pleading has no merit.

The thrust of my antibody "Fitness" essay and all of ourcorrespondence has been to argue point (3) above. I am thus nottrying to "prove" evolution, or even to outline evidence thatsupports it; the latter aim has been well achieved by publications inthe professional science literature. Therefore you may well be rightwhen you say, "you have not really done much at all for the causeof evolution." All I am attempting is the very narrow goal ofshowing that specific "creation science" arguments are erroneous andreflect poor scholarship, and that these weaknesses fully explain whythese arguments are rejected by mainstream professional scientists.Therefore, creation "science" does not merit any exception from theprinciple that claims not represented in the professionalpeer-reviewed scientific literature should not be taught in publicschool science classrooms.

You mention my criticisms of Dr. Gish's arguments and then say"I wonder if you are harping on this to avoid dealing with thereal issue." Later you refer to my examples of erroneouscreationist arguments and say, "I am not going to deal with themat this point. Even if creationists were all mistaken on those pointsand are still mistaken and refuse to admit that they are mistaken,you still need to answer the fundamental issues I have broughtup." And you refer to "vast literature supporting a youngearth and solar system." You seem to feel that perhaps it is truethat my "nitpicking" might have detected a few invalidcreationist arguments, but there is no point in discussing thesesince there are many other valid ones so that the creationist case isstill strong. What I wonder is whether it ever might occur to youthat systematic detailed examination of EVERY creationist argument inthat "vast literature" that you refer to would show that each one -from moon dust to solute concentration of the ocean - is just asinvalid as the Gish arguments I discussed.

I am willing to defend what I wrote in my "Fitness" essay and whatI said at the debate regarding poor scholarship in specificcreationist arguments; but I haven't the time for a broad defense ofevolutionary theory, and certainly will not try to defend claims ofother evolutionists that I do not think are well supported byscientific evidence. If you want to argue that I have made errors inmy attempts to debunk specific creationist claims, it seems to methat you must accept the burden of examining those creationist claimsI discussed, rather than sidestepping those claims, bringing up othercreationist claims, and asking me to defend other arguments (e.g. onthe origin of life) that I have never made.

You take issue with my comparison of creationists with flatearthers and snake oil charlatans. But there is one resemblance thatseems unarguable to me: their claims are not supported in theprofessional literature. Another significant difference betweenscientists on the one hand and creationists and charlatans on theother is how they deal with claims they made that have been provenwrong. You cited Piltdown man and Nebraska man as examples showingthat mainstream science sometimes makes errors, as if the errors ofcreationists were no worse. But an examination of the way theseerrors were dealt with by mainstream science, as opposed to the waycreationist errors are dealt with in the creationist community, showsthat the way creationists deal with their errors makes them look likeflat-earthers and snake oil charlatans more than like scientists. Inmainstream science, once an error is pointed out in the publishedliterature, the scientific community learns of the error from readingthe literature, so this erroneous idea could never again be used tosupport a future argument without being immediately rejected. Indeed,I challenge you to find any modern professional scientificpublication drawing conclusions based on the original erroneousinterpretations of Nebraska man or Piltdown or Haeckel. In contrast,all the errors of Gish that I cited were used repeatedly after theywere refuted. The reason creationists are able to recycle refutederrors is that - unlike scientists writing for their fellowprofessionals - creationists address lay audiences who do not knowthat the erroneous arguments have previously been refuted. Mostcreationists learn about the creationist arguments from othercreationists. They almost never go back to the original professional(non-creationist) scientific literature to check whether thearguments are based on good data and good logic; rather, they arehappy to accept any argument that appears to contradict evolution,regardless of the merits of the argument. And the few creationistswho do discover that a creationist argument is false almost neverattempt to challenge or criticize one of their own. This allows falsearguments persist and be recycled over and over, just like the falseclaims of snake oil charlatans that are re-used in every newtown.

And, sad to say, you seem willing to continue the creationisttrash recycling tradition in that you have avoided dealing head-onwith Dr. Gish's errors. In my previous rebuttal I wrote: "Let mesuggest that before you bring up any new creationist arguments, yougo on record with your opinion about each of these examples." If youwanted to advance the cause of truth like a true scientist you couldhave taken my suggestion and examined my arguments about each ofGish's errors. You could have used the podium of your Website tocriticize the sloppy scholarship of Dr. Gish and to call for betterstandards among creationists and for the repudiation of these falsearguments. Instead, you said "I am not necessarily defending allthat Dr. Gish has said and done" and refused to state clearlywhether you agree that the examples I listed do in fact reflect poorscholarship that would not meet the standards of publication in theprofessional science literature. If you should reconsider and decideto undertake an evaluation of the examples in my list, then perhapsafter coming to agreement on some of those arguments we could take upother creationist claims (one at a time, please) that I believe areequally erroneous, like the ones you mentioned about the dust on themoon and solute concentrations of oceans.

(As I noted before in our correspondence, Archeoraptor was neverpublished in the peer-reviewed professional literature except toexpose the fraud [Rowe et al, Nature 410:539, 2001].Therefore archaeoraptor is not an example of an error in theprofessional science literature as you imply, but rather an exampleof how "nitpicking" scrutiny can weed out erroneous claims andprevent their contaminating the professional literature. I agree thatHaeckel's drawings are misrepresentations that should not beperpetuated in elementary biology textbooks, but these drawings havenot been accepted as a foundation for arguments in the modernprofessional literature any more than Piltdown has.)

Here are some comments on specific points you made.

1. On style: I prefer brief, directand unambiguous. I'm sorry if it comes across as arrogant. I find thearguments sufficiently interesting that they do not need to bedecorated by tangential flourishes. I did not mean to imply that whatyou wrote was "worthless," only that you wrote more than I couldrespond to. Furthermore, what you call "nitpicking" I see asattention to detail and avoidance of error. The devil is in thedetails. And those arguments of yours that I said couldn't understand- I wasn't trying to be perverse or contrary; sorry, but I reallydidn't understand them.

2. What I learned from Dr. Gish:nothing, other than debating style. If you think he offered any validscientific evidence against evolution that I should learn from, orany valid arguments defending against my criticisms of hisscholarship, please identify specifics. Occasionally fromcreationists I learn something indirectly - by tracking down theirarguments and learning the detailed science of why they were wrong.For example, by researching Dr. Gish's claim about the absence ofhomologs of the Organ of Corti in non-mammalian vertebrates, Ilearned something about the reptilian cochlea, which looks perfectlyhomologous to the mammalian Organ of Corti. In rare cases I haveactually learned some valid science from a creationist (but neverfrom Dr. Gish, to the best of my recollection).

3. In some of your comments you seemto be "begging the question" without realizing it. You write:

"evidence for design ought to point to a designer"

What we have in living organisms is evidence for astoundinglycomplex mechanisms that perform complex adaptive functions, whichresemble in some respects mechanisms designed by intelligent humans.But evolutionists believe that this resemblance is misleading; theyhypothesize that astoundingly complex mechanisms that perform complexadaptive functions can arise by evolutionary mechanisms from simplerorganisms without intelligent design. Therefore, unless you excludethe evolutionary hypothesis a priori by begging the question, thereis no "evidence for design" in the sense of evidence that compelsbelief in origin through intelligent agency as opposed to origin byevolutionary mechanisms.

4. On Gentry. I previously wrote:"If you know of a creationist paper in the peer-reviewed scientificliterature, please let me know." You replied:

I guess you didn't really read my responses to you word for word. Because, in the introduction to the online debate, still posted of the TCCSA Website, I mentioned Robert Gentry, whose work on polonium halos was in the mainstream journals . . . But, of course, you did not even look it up. I guess that makes you a poor scholar! Do you want to turn in your credentials or even fall on your sword right now?

I did read your responses in detail, but as I indicatedpreviously, I didn't have time to comment on every point. Since youmention Gentry again, I will comment. I read several papers by Gentryin the professional literature years ago when I first becameinterested in the creation/evolution debate. Although I have not beenable to get access to all of his papers, I have never found apeer-reviewed professional publication of his that explicitly arguesthe creationist position against evolution. I am listing the ones Ihave read (Science 160:1228, 1968; Science 169:670, 1970; Nature244:282, 1973; Nature 252:564, 1974; Science 184:62, 1974). Of these,only in the last one does Gentry refer to any kind of challenge tocurrent scientific beliefs, where at the end of his paper he says:"The question is, can . . . [isolated polonium halos] beexplained by presently accepted cosmological and geological conceptsrelating to the origin and development of Earth?" This sentence fallsfar short of explicitly arguing a creationist position. Since yousuggest I am a "poor scholar" for not being aware that Gentry haspublished a peer-reviewed professional paper arguing for creation, Iwould appreciate it if you would demonstrate your own scholarship bysending me the citation you are referring to. I am aware that Gentryhas written non-peer-reviewed material that argues a creationistposition more explicitly (perhaps the book you mentioned is anexample), but I am not interested in non-peer-reviewed material, asof course I know there are a lot of creationist publications in thatcategory. If you supply the citation, I will review it, and will behappy to have my error on this point corrected.

As to the validity of Gentry's claims, I cannot give themmeaningful evaluation since I have no expertise in his field. I donote that other scientists with appropriate expertise and credentialshave published peer-reviewed professional papers interpretingGentry's halos in ways that do not challenge conventional science(e.g. Von Wimmersperg and Sellschop, Phys Rev Lett 38:886, 1977;Moazed et al., Science 180:1274, 1973; Odom and Rink, Science246:107, 1989). Other criticisms of Gentry's views are found at

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/lorence_collins/polonium.html

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wood.html

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm

My take on Gentry is that his observations can be explained byseveral interpretations that don't contradict modern science orevolution. If a typical objective scientist learned that his originalinterpretation was contradicted by considerable published science(essentially all of geology in Gentry's case), and if he knew thatthe same observations could be interpreted in alternative ways thatwere consistent with accepted science, this knowledge would persuadehim to abandon his original interpretation. Gentry instead wantscling to his interpretation and to abandon conventional geology. ForGentry's theory to be correct, the vast geological literatureincluding radiometric dating would have to be reinterpreted, andGentry has not provided any such reinterpretation in thepeer-reviewed literature that I have seen. His non-peer-reviewedwritings clearly reflect a religiously motivated bias; and thoughthis doesn't mean he is wrong, it certainly raises a question in mymind about whether his judgment is being clouded by motivation thatshould not be part of scientific reasoning. It seems to me thatGentry is arguing for a model in which a Creator created the earthrecently, complete with myriad details of conventional geology whichHe designed to give earth the false appearance of age, but thatGentry outsmarted Him by detecting a clue to earth's recent age thatHe failed to conceal. I find Gentry's view scientificallyunconvincing (as well as theologically repugnant) and conclude thatGentry has not contributed anything that should affect instruction inpublic school science.

5. You claim "I have exposedfuzziness in your thinking." For someone accusing a person offuzzy thinking, you yourself seem surprisingly prone to misreadingwhat I have said and then arguing against your own misinterpretationrather than against what I have written. This is particularly truefor your comments about Gish's response to my antibody mutationargument and for your comments about my statements regarding thesupernatural.

5.a First, here are some ideas aboutmutation that you attribute to me but that I never wrote or said:

You see hyper-mutation in a small, precisely controlled and limited portion of the DNA and jump to the conclusion that everything is mutation.

If random mutation of everything were our only means of defense [as you imply] , we would indeed die.

Therefore, it is deceptive to say that mutations are the only source of immunity or even the main mechanism.

I have never concluded that "everything is mutation." Ihave never said that somatic mutation was our "only means ofdefense" or"the only source of immunity or even the mainmechanism." In fact, I have pointed out that there are many othermechanisms that contribute to defense against infection. You havesomehow ignored or misunderstood what I said at the debate and what Iwrote in our exchanges, and you attribute to me ideas that areincorrect.

Furthermore, consider the "knee jerk" reaction that you attributeto Dr. Gish and that you claim is "right": that "[if] ourability to fight infection were only based on random change [then] we would not survive" This is a syllogism of theform

If A then B

B is false

Therefore A is false.

I agree that A is false, but it is not false for the reason thatDr. Gish was trying to mislead his audience into accepting, i.e. theidea that somatic mutation does not occur as I had described.Instead, A is false because the other immune mechanisms that Ioutlined in my essay protect us before somatic mutation kicks in,protective mechanisms that Dr. Gish was ignorant of. Somatic mutationdoes occur and allows high affinity antibodies to evolve exactly as Idescribed. If you disagree, please state your reasons; if you agreeplease say so. Your implication that it was acceptable professionalscholarship for Dr. Gish to bluff his audience into accepting a "kneejerk" reaction that was false, intentionally misleading and foundedon Dr. Gish's ignorance of the scientific literature, when herepresented himself as an expert, is amazing to me. If you can'tadmit that Dr. Gish's behavior in this case reflected poorscholarship and integrity, then there is no point in continuing ourexchange, since you are obviously willing to accept standards ofscientific scholarship far below the norm for the profession.

Now the significance of the antibody mutation model for evolutionis another issue. I don't know how to be clearer other than to repeatthe very narrow point that I was trying to make in the essay:Creationists have claimed on various theoretical grounds that randommutation and selection can never lead to improved fitness; all Iargue is that this creationist claim is mistaken and that theantibody mutation story provides an illustrative counterexample tothat claim. In this model, following an environmental challenge(exposure to antigen) a gene which has not previously functioned todefend against this challenge turns out to have modest ability tohelp deal with the challenge (i.e. to encode an unmutated antibodythat would bind antigen with low affinity); then successive rounds ofrandom mutation followed by selection for the most adaptive mutationslead to a population with significantly improved adaptive function,without any intelligent design or pre-selected "target sequence."Whether the system requires complex mechanisms that you interpret as"designed" is totally irrelevant to the point that the improvement inantibody affinity derives from random mutation and selection.According to the creationist theorists, improved "fitness" cannotderive from random mutations and selection regardless of thecomplexity of the selection mechanism. This example proves that theirtheory is wrong, and that is all I was trying to show in myessay.

I must also remark that in order to discredit the idea of randommutation and selection you have made rather strange comments thatseem to reflect either a significant misunderstanding about the roleof mutation in the evolution model or rather imprecise writing. Yousay:

mutations often end the whole experiment by destroying the system

You seem to be forgetting that mutations occur in a minority ofthe population. A mutation may lead to the death of an individual,but the "system," i.e. the rest of the population, survives, allowingother individuals to experience different mutations, including somerare ones that may be beneficial. Similarly you state:

Dead organisms do not evolve. I cannot imagine why you are unable to see that, except for your knee-jerk reaction of rejecting anything stated by creationists.

Of course dead organisms do not evolve. What makes you think Idon't "see that"? But the entire population doesn't die if oneorganism suffers a lethal mutation. Rather the population evolves asselection operates to enhance the survival of individuals withmutations producing traits that are advantageous in theenvironment.

In another part of your critique you again misunderstand myargument. You ask:

How do you know that myoglobin is a mutation (excuse me - "duplication and differentiation") of hemoglobin?

I don't know that myoglobin and hemoglobin arose throughduplication and differentiation, and I don't argue that this isnecessarily what happened. I bring up these proteins only toillustrate a plausible example of a protein family that might beexplained by the evolutionist hypothesis of duplication anddifferentiation. My point is that this hypothesis - whether corrector incorrect - has been ignored by many creationist "informationtheory" experts. They claim that random mutations cannot be source ofnew information and but then they ignore the hypothetical possibilityof gene duplication followed by random mutation followed byselection. What they ignore is exactly what evolutionists arepostulating, so their analysis is irrelevant for evaluating theevolution model.

5.b. The other major area in whichyou seem unable to grasp my position despite multiple rephrasings andrestatements concerns my views on the supernatural and on creationismas a religious belief. You say:

you continue to oppose creation

I said repeatedly at the debate that I respect the belief increation and do not at all oppose it at all as a religious belief. Ieven held up a Bible and recommended it as a valuable resource forthe faithful. Do you disagree with my position that the Bible is thebest source for studying creation? What I continue to oppose is notthe religious idea of creation, but bad science; and bad science iswhat I hear from creation "scientists," as in the examples that youavoid discussing.

What you do seem to say, however, is that no supernatural causes may be postulated. How can you say that?

I do not say that; I say the opposite!

And, I need to remind you, it is impossible to say scientifically that once you have discovered the causes of earthquakes, that you can assert with assurance that a particular earthquake was natural and there was absolutely no supernatural element involved in its extent or timing.

Since . . . you have no scientific data for a mechanism [for the origin of life], do you think it is proper to rule out -- a priori -- a cause outside the scope of science?

I find it truly amazing that you can ask this after all I said atthe debate, in our correspondence and in my formal response to yourrebuttal. Once more, here is my view: I DON'T RULE OUT A CAUSEOUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S PROPER TO DOSO!!!! I don't rule out participation of supernatural causes in theorigin of life, in evolution, in lightning, in earthquakes or insickness. How can I make it clearer?

I agree that a public school science course might reasonablydiscuss any valid scientific reasons for concluding a supernaturalcause (if there should be any in the professional literature), but acause that is truly "outside the scope of science" (i.e. notsupported by any scientific reasons in the literature) should beoutside the scope of science curricula. If you disagree, I wish youwould explain why.

6. You wrote:

If a person were dead for three days, were confirmed to be dead, even beginning to decompose, and then came alive, would it be reasonable to wait for a natural explanation?

And you ask:

If it really were something supernatural, how would you be able to tell?

This, I think, is the most interesting question you have asked inall our correspondence, and I have given it some thought. It seems tome that two classes of supernatural manifestations can be imagined.There could be supernatural manifestations that don't violate ourunderstanding of naturalistic science (for example, nudging mutationsin a particular direction, causing lightning or an earthquake tostrike at a particular place), a kind of hidden influence overapparent chaos. For such examples that do not violate ourunderstanding of naturalistic science, there can be no scientificevidence for or against supernatural intervention. That's why I don'trule out the supernatural in such case, though I don't know howanyone could deduce supernatural intervention in the same exampleswithout reference to a faith-based framework.

Then as a second class, there could be supernatural interventionthat does violate our understanding - a miracle? For me to acceptsuch an example as a product of the supernatural, it would have to bewell-documented, and alternative interpretations would have to befairly considered but ruled out. As examples of alternateinterpretations I would consider:

1. lies by those who report the event (if I did not witness it myself)

2. embellishment of a true naturalistic event (especially if the story of the apparent miracle was handed down through many intermediaries and if no original contemporary documentation survives)

3. magic tricks, i.e. conjuring intentionally designed to be deceiving. The "miracles" witnessed by the faithful at the Oracle of Delphi apparently fell into that category, as do the "miraculous recoveries" faked by unscrupulous faith healers in our day. (I have witnessed many magic tricks that I cannot explain so I know I can be fooled by well-executed deception.)

4. hallucinations, misinterpretations or various forms of self-delusion regarding naturalistic phenomena that were not engineered to deceive

5. examples of naturalistic phenomena whose explanation is known, but not known to me

6. examples of naturalistic phenomena whose explanation is not known by anyone, implying that our understanding of science needs to be expanded, but not necessarily that the phenomena need to be attributed to the supernatural

7. a true supernatural event

I think you would agree that it may be difficult to distinguishbetween some of these possibilities, depending on the specificcircumstances of the example. I am curious how YOU would be able todetect the supernatural; what kind of assurances of veracity do youfeel would be required for you to abandon everyday assumptions ofnaturalism and to invoke the supernatural? There are many apparentlyunexplainable phenomena that get reported, and I am wondering: whichof these claims you accept, and on what grounds? For example

Efficacy of homeopathic medicines in "infinite" dilutions

UFOs including sexual encounters and abductions by space aliens

therapeutic touch (i.e. healing accomplished by physical touching of a patient's skin)

facilitated communication of autistic patients

alternative medicine modalities such as

Qi Gong, reflexology, iridology (iris examination to diagnose disease), chiropractic subluxation theory of disease, Ayurvedic medicine, acupuncture, magnetic treatment for pain

dowsing rods to locate underground oil or water

extrasensory perception, psychokinesis, spoon-bending by mental force

With respect to the example you suggested, a dead person returningto life after removal of some organs, David Hume's criterion seemsreasonable to me: is it more likely that the eyewitness wasdeceived/untruthful, or that the dead man returned to life?

I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates, then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion. [Hume, Enquiries]

Do you have some better criteria?

Perhaps in addition to the two possible interpretations that Humewas weighing, he should have considered "advanced technologies" as athird possible interpretation of some baffling phenomena. Have youseen the TV slow about the "Six Million Dollar Man," or the movies"WestWorld" or the recent "Artificial Intelligence"? These allconcern sci/fi technologies for creating artificial body parts thatare beyond current science but not inconceivable for the future. Suchtechnologies might have to be considered as an alternative to asupernatural resurrection example, and other technologies mightexplain other phenomena if one is open to the possible existence ofmore advanced technologies than our own. Advanced technologies areindistinguishable from magic, as Arthur C. Clarke pointed out.Explorers landing by plane in isolated regions with primitive peopleswere considered to be supernatural beings by the natives. I dare saythat David Hume might be persuaded of the supernatural if he metRobert Tools, who is walking around quite alive after his heart wasremoved, with no explanation that Hume could imagine based on thetechnologies of his time. The inclusion of advanced technology as apossible cause of baffling phenomena may have been less obvious toHume than to us, given the slower advances in technology in hisday.

Let me close by re-emphasizing that I cannot take the time for afreewheeling debate about evolution. I will defend the points that Imade at the debate and in my "Fitness" essay if you have criticismsthat I have not already addressed. But I insist that first, you takea stand on each of the items that I claim reflect poor creationistscholarship. On my part I have made it clear where and why I partwith evolutionists who try to use science to argue against religion,and I ask you to follow suit. If you are determined to spare fellowcreationists from criticism even in no-brainer situations like theexamples of poor scholarship of Dr. Gish that I pointed out (andwhich he has not defended), then I see no point in our continueddiscussion.

Best wishes,

Ed

Over the past few months I have been thinking about your lastresponse, but I was too loaded with deadlines to sit down and writeto you before. Now with one big project out of the way, I still havesome deadlines ahead, but am taking the time to put together somecomments. First let me say that I am glad you have recuperated fromyour accident, and hope that you will stay well.

Again I will be unable to comment on everything you said, but Iwanted to start by addressing several points under your heading:

ITEMS NO LONGER BROUGHT UP

1. Dawkins computer evolution model: the intermediate sequenceswould have had to be meaningful sentences that were useful on theirown

That is correct; the intermediate sequences are assumed in theDawkins model to have some function. You seem to think that thisassumption invalidates the model somehow. It doesn't, in my view. Nomodel captures all the features of the process it attempts toilluminate. Whether the model has value depends on a judgment aboutwhether the differences between the model and the real world processare so great that they invalidate the particular points the model wasdesigned to convey. Dawkin's narrow point was to distinguish betweenthe creationist straw man concept of single-step selection versus thecumulative multi-step model; and in my judgment this distinction isvalidly conveyed by the weasel model. I have discussed weaknesses ofthe Dawkins model already in the Box in my Fitness essay, and don'tsee that your concerns go beyond my discussion there.

2. Ice crystallization on the surface of a metal sphere

there is a crucial difference between the structure seen inice, which is regular and repetitive (like ABCABCABC), and thestructure in life which is full of information

Gish's argument that evolution violates the 2nd Law ofThermodynamics is invalid because he ignores the following principle,which I stated at least four times in our debate: "Localized regionsof increased order can occur in spontaneous processes withoutviolating the Second Law." Dr. Gish claims that increased order dueto life in the biosphere violates the Second Law, but he has failedto demonstrate an overall decrease in entropy associated with thedevelopment of life. He addresses only a localized decrease inentropy of the biosphere and ignores other changes outside thebiosphere that would have to be considered in any accounting of totalentropy changes. Therefore, he has not demonstrated any violation ofthe Second Law, since localized entropy increases are not aviolation. If you disagree with the principle I quoted above, pleaseexplain why. The model of ice on the copper ball that I discussed atthe debate was merely an illustrative example meant to help theaudience comprehend the principle about localized increased order notviolating the Second law. The differences you focus on in yourcriticism (information vs. ABCABCABC) are irrelevant to the validityof the quoted principle, and are also irrelevant to my point thatGish's argument is invalid because he has not made a full entropyaccounting of any defined system. Therefore, I still consider mycomplaints against Gish's argument to be valid. Incidentally, haveyou read the article I recommended on this point by Allan Harvey, anexpert in thermodynamics (who is also an evangelical Christian) atthe URL below?

http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html

If you still think Dr. Gish's argument is correct, perhaps youcould comment individually on the following:

(1) Do you agree that "Localized regions of increased order can occur in spontaneous processes without violating the Second Law"?

(2) Do you think that a valid thermodynamics analysis of the biosphere can neglect the sun's energy and the dissipation of solar energy into space?

(3) Do you really think that either you or Dr. Gish knows more about thermodynamics than a professional like Dr. Allan Harvey?

3. Generation time of fruit flies and bacteria: we should haveseen more dramatic changes in fruit flies and bacteria . . ..

how about the 20 minute generation time of a bacterium? In thatcase, 50 years of observation is equivalent to about 25 million yearsof an organism with a 20 year generation time. And, I think, we havebeen observing bacteria for more like 100 years.

This is an extension of your previous argument:

A lot is supposed to happen in 25 to 50 million years. Humansare supposed to have differentiated from Australopithecus-likecreatures over only a couple of million years! In the Cambrianexplosion, all sorts of multi-cellular organisms in a plethora ofsizes and shapes appeared "suddenly." Why have we not seen theselittle micro-organisms going macro? Or "postal?" Or unionizing? Orshowing specialization of some sort?

Think about it! Even if you want to quibble about the numbers,where are the incipient organs? Where are the first, second and 43rdof those multi-step stages that are leading to something wonderfulfor their kind? Or do we just happen to always examine only organismsthat prefer "stasis?" Isn't that like the invisible and totallyundetectable "pink elephant" usually associated with irrationalreligious beliefs?

According to the evolutionary perspective, the rough time line forearly life based on the fossil record and on dating as accepted inthe geological literature is:

4.5 BYA Earth formed

3.5 BYA First prokaryotic cell

1.5 BYA First eukaryotic cell

0.7 BYA Multicellular organisms

Given these dates in the evolution model, the laboratoryexperiments on "evolution in a test tube" would not be expected toduplicate bacteria "going macro," since the lab experiments involvetiny fractions of the millions of years required for the kinds ofchanges you describe. Part of the reason that it may have taken solong to go from the first bacteria to the first eukaryotic cell isthat, if modern organisms are any guide to the genome sizes of these"firsts," a large expansion in DNA and gene content would have beenrequired. (Several free-living bacteria have 1.5 million bp of DNA,and only about 1500-1700 genes, while the simplest eukaryote yetsequenced, a yeast, has roughly 12 million bp and 6000 genes.) Thisexpansion would take considerable time, even in rapidly proliferatingspecies of bacteria. In contrast, the evolution fromAustralopithecus to human occurred without any significant increasein DNA or gene content (if modern apes are any guide) and could haveoccurred much more rapidly. You ask why lab experiments don'tproduce "incipient organs," but I can't think of any totally neworgans that evolved in land mammals even in the millions of yearssince the mammalian radiation. We have seen changes in size, andstructural changes to accomplish changes in function (forelimbsadapted for flying for instance, or foregut swelling to becomeruminant rumen, or hindgut outpouching to become skunk's spraygland), but these are not totally new organs, and may in any casehave taken tens of millions of years to evolve. So I can't see whyyou think evolution predicts that we should see new "incipientorgans" in short-term laboratory evolution experiments. If you wantto consider examples of rapid changes through random mutation andselection, one example is the diversification of dog breeds over thepast 10,000 years, leading to great differences in body size andshape. This "experiment" of evolution has led to very rapidphenotypic changes with minimal genomic change.

4. Michael Behe's concept of irreducible complexity

Behe has shown how [step-by-step evolution] isimpossible because an irreducibly complex structure must be completeto be functional and cannot be produced by small steps and gradualapproximations.

Behe's concept of irreducible complexity ignores the possibilitythat a component that is now critical for the function of a modernbiomolecular structure may have evolved from a non-essentialcomponent in an earlier version of the structure, a version that hada different function than the modern homolog. The example given byH. Allen Orr in his review of Behe's book is appropriate toillustrate the concept: a lung is now critical for us but appears tohave evolved from a swim bladder. The swim bladder was not criticalfor survival of the fish in which it arose, since it merely assistedin "ballast control," while the critical function of oxygenation wasperformed by the gills. Clearly we cannot access the molecularprecursors of the clotting system or bacterial flagellum becausethese structures evolved millions of years ago and proteins don'tleave "fossil" evidence. Thus we can't document how the proteincomponents that are currently critical for a flagellum may haveevolved as beneficial but not essential components of a precursorstructure that had a function different from active motility; butthere is no reason to conclude that such precursors did not exist. In his book Behe neglects this idea, repeating over and over againhow the CURRENT system requires each component to get any function,while ignoring the possibility that individual components may havebeen dispensable in more primitive homologs with different function. Because Behe ignores this central point, his argument is unconvincingto evolutionary scientists.

Of course, some Behe followers have gone further and claimed thatit is impossible even to conceive of precursors that lack a givencomponent of an IC structure. This puts evolutionists in a strategicbind. If they propose a speculative scenario as a possibleexplanation for how such structures may have evolved, such scenariosare pounced on by creationists as "just-so stories." Yet if theydecline to propose a speculative scenario, creationists claim thatthis proves there are no conceivable evolutionary paths to modern"IC" molecular systems. Evolutionists accept the fact that we cannotaccess scientific evidence of molecular structures hundreds ofmillions of years old, but this does not lead them to conclude thatthese structures did not exist. It is a historical fact that asrecently as 40 years ago, no one had conceived of the recombinationalmechanisms that generate antibody diversity, but these mechanisms arenow well known. Perhaps 40 years ago some Behe-like scientists couldhave claimed that each antibody amino acid sequence had to beintelligently designed for a particular antigen because it wasimpossible to conceive of a satisfactory naturalistic explanation;but those scientists would have been wrong. Similarly, the fact thatwe may not at present be able to conceive of the evolutionary paththat led to a modern "IC" molecular structure is no reason toconclude that this structure did not evolve. Most scientists otherthan Behe have the humility to recognize that our ignorance isprofound and that evolution may be "smarter" than we are; Behe seemsto feel that anything he doesn't know can't really exist.

In other words, you need to show how a bacterial flagellum canbe built by small changes in successive generations, each of whichwould survive because it is of selective advantage to thatindividual.

To contradict the notion that a naturalistic evolutionary path tothe flagellum cannot be conceived, I would like to describe such apath, even though it cannot be any more than a speculation, so it isvulnerable to the "just-so" criticism. We start with an initialbacterial species with no flagellum and living in moving water. Itcan extract some nutrients from the mud it contacts, but only if itsticks around long enough to carry out certain biochemical reactions. Some bacteria evolve a surface protein that attaches to molecules ona solid support like rock or sand grains in the mud and prevents thecell from being swept away by currents; and this strain of bacteriaprospers and multiplies. The next development is that after using upall the nutrients within reach, the bacteria run into a metabolicdead end, until some cells evolve hair-like projections fastened tothe cell wall that allow them stick to their sand grains but toforage nutrients over a wider area without being swept away by thewater currents. (These are similar in structure and function tomodern bacterial pili.) The next step is that these hair-likeprojections get longer (allowing a wider area for foraging nutrients)until some bacteria die when water currents spin them around andtwist off their hair-like projections. Then some bacteria evolve amechanism that allows the projections to rotate with respect to thesurface of the bacteria so that the hair-like projections don't gettwisted when the current spins the cells. When these molecularswivels become efficient, bacteria whose growth is prevented bylimiting energy supplies evolve a mechanism for converting themechanical energy of rotational motion at the base of the hairprojections into ATP; they do this by borrowing components of the F1ATPase already evolved to convert rotation into ATP. When thismechanism for converting rotational energy into ATP has evolved, somebacteria that have become detached from their sand grains evolve amechanism for running the conversion mechanism backwards, i.e. sothat ATP is used to generate rotation of the hair projection toprovide motility. Voila, a primitive flagellum, evolved by multiplesequential steps, in which each individual component is dispensablewhen added because the earlier versions of the complex provide afunction different that of the modern homolog, motility. Obviously Idon't claim that this is necessarily the true evolutionary path thatled to the bacterial flagella since we have no way to access thatpath, but I offer this scenario to show the worthlessness of the ideathat no such path is conceivable. (Also, there is some evidence forsequence similarity between archaeal bacterial protein components offlagella and pili [Bayley & Jarrell J Mol Evol 46:370,1998]).

Thus for each of your four "items not brought up," the fact that Ididn't previously address them does not mean that I had conceded thatmy earlier position was invalid.

You have said that I have "vilified" Dr. Gish and used ad hominemarguments against him, and that you reject my invitation to "bashGish"; and you say "a man of science would simply deal with theconcepts without having to constantly snap back to characterassassination and well poisoning." I find these accusations totallyridiculous, as it is YOU who have steadfastly refused to "deal withthe concepts" that I brought up (except for the thermodynamicsissue). I have never vilified Dr. Gish or suggested that everythinghe says is false, but have only pointed out errors in specificarguments he has made, and you have refused to discuss them. I haveagreed to discuss other creationist arguments after we deal with yourclaim that I was unfair in my criticisms of Dr. Gish. I can onlyconclude that you agree that Gish's arguments are erroneous (i.e. toconsider them would be to "bash" Gish); but that you will never bewilling to admit that a creationist argument is flawed, even if youknow that to be the case. Our whole discussion started as a resultof your criticisms of the points I made at the debate against Dr.Gish's arguments. What's the point of continuing our discussion ifyou refuse to consider whether points I have made are valid?

In addition to pointing out erroneous arguments of Dr. Gish, Ihave also challenged his scientific integrity for implicitly claimingexpertise in an area he had no knowledge of, and for repeatingerroneous claims without bothering to check the scientific literatureafter his errors had been pointed out. You persist in fantasizingscenarios that you think would somehow excuse these behaviors. I'mnot that interested in discussing Dr. Gish's integrity, and wouldjust as soon drop that issue. But if we're not going to discuss thevalidity of creationist arguments &endash which I thoughtrepresented the main reason you contacted me after the debate - let'sjust drop the whole correspondence.

Before closing, I will make a few brief comments on some of yourother points.

you are agreeing with the MAIN POINT of creationist challengeto a naturalistic origin of all things

I give no credit to creationists for trumpeting our ignoranceabout the origin of life. They have made no contribution.

evidence against a naturalistic origin of ANYTHING isautomatically evidence for its creation,

Ignorance about the naturalistic mechanisms that may have givenrise to life is not the same thing as "evidence against" anaturalistic origin.

faith in the establishment that is unjustified by a fairreading of the history of science or scholarship

I have no "faith" that the science in professional journals isalways correct. But I believe that is the best source we have forscientific information and that it should serve as the basis for whatis taught in science classrooms.

One conclusive proof of design trumps all the plausiblescenarios of natural origin and one conclusive case for a young earthoverturns all the old age arguments.

There is no conclusive proof of design or of a young earth. Science rarely advances on the basis of conclusive proofs anyway. Apreponderance of evidence is all we should ever expect, and that iswhat we find supporting evolution in the scientific literature.

Although I do not expect you to necessarily review and critiqueall these articles which are obviously outside of your main areas ofinterest and expertise, I hope that you do notice that these arescholarly writings, most of which are published in peer reviewedjournals within the creationist community.

I will continue to look at the creationist journals, and againexpress my thanks for the subscriptions. So far I have beenimpressed with a level of scholarship above that of Dr. Gish, butstill below that expected in the mainstream science literature.

evidence for design does not have point to a designer becauseyou have a hypothesis

If we had evidence of design, it would point to a designer. Whatwe have, however, is evidence for complex adaptations. These couldbe the result of intelligent design, but could alternatively resultfrom evolution.

What I honestly need to know is whether you think ittheoretically possible that "good science" could be done from acreationist perspective or whether the two are mutuallyexclusive.

I believe "good science" rests on the scientific method of usingobservable evidence to choose from competing hypotheses usingunbiased deductions. To the extent that creationist science dependson the bible rather than on observable evidence, it is not, in myview, good science. But I think it is theoretically possible thatcreationists could uncover evidence that would seriously challengeevolution and be "good science." So far, however, nothing that Ihave seen from creation "scientists" falls into this category. Thearguments from Dr. Gish and the ones you mentioned about a youngearth are typical: they rest on flawed data or on flawedreasoning.

I have enjoyed our correspondence, and wish you the best.

Sincerely,

Ed

Home Page |Browse| Search| Feedback| Links
TheFAQ | Must-ReadFiles | Index| Creationism| Evolution| Ageof the Earth | FloodGeology | Catastrophism| Debates