A Revolution in Evolution Is Underway

Thomas More Lawcenter ^ | Tue, Jan 18, 2005

[Jay777]

ANN ARBOR, MI — The small town of Dover, Pennsylvania today became the first school district in the nation to officially inform students of the theory of Intelligent Design, as an alternative to Darwin’s theory of Evolution. In what has been called a “measured step”, ninth grade biology students in the Dover Area School District were read a four-paragraph statement Tuesday morning explaining that Darwin’s theory is not a fact and continues to be tested. The statement continued, “Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view.” Since the late 1950s advances in biochemistry and microbiology, information that Darwin did not have in the 1850s, have revealed that the machine like complexity of living cells - the fundamental unit of life- possessing the ability to store, edit, and transmit and use information to regulate biological systems, suggests the theory of intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of life and living cells.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm representing the school district against an ACLU lawsuit, commented, “Biology students in this small town received perhaps the most balanced science education regarding Darwin’s theory of evolution than any other public school student in the nation. This is not a case of science versus religion, but science versus science, with credible scientists now determining that based upon scientific data, the theory of evolution cannot explain the complexity of living cells.”

“It is ironic that the ACLU after having worked so hard to prevent the suppression of Darwin’s theory in the Scopes trial, is now doing everything it can to suppress any effort to challenge it,” continued Thompson.

[sevry]

it is outside of religious discussion

Not as long as evolution is evolutionism, as we see from some even here on FR, surprizingly.

If you can't state it - then what is it? If it's just some quasi-religious imperative, some fuzzy 'seamless garment' for a host of general notions supporting a liberal's rebellion - a politics, a philosophy, a creed, in other words - then not only is it not outside talk of religion, but it is rather outside of science and would be properly discussed as nothing but religion.

[JFK_Lib]

That was a very concise overview of the difficulty.

Way to go, Mineralman.

Grats.

[sevry]

can be and have been

Isn't it a bit redundant to say the former if you are going to say the latter?

little tidbit lodged

You'll have to do better than "little tidbits". You pretend to science. You have to speak the language of science. You can begin by telling me about this - evolution, of yours. How do you define it? How is it falsifiable? You know - science stuff.

[discostu]

We can state it, evolution is the gradual change of species, or sections of species, into at least 1 and possibly many other species. It's actually pretty straight forward. The only people I see making evolution "evolutionism" are the creationists, they're the ones that try to brand it as all kinds of things it isn't. It's not a religion, it's not an imperative, it's not a support for any kind of politics philosphy or creed. Evolution is the same thing any other science is: an attempt to explain the known facts of the world around us. Nothing really terribly exciting or threatening about it to anybody or anybody's belief system.

[JFK_Lib]

The fact is that the vast majority of Christians on this planet accept evolution as a scientific theory and Creationism as the 'why' behind it.

The objection to evolution and an insistence on Genesis being literally true is very simplistic.

Genesis is a beautiful moral story that has some literal truth in its core, I do believe, but is written for the spiritual truth within it.

Maybe God did make the world in 6 days. He could ahve. But then why throw us so many decpetions like the fossil record?

You do not need to choose between faith and Reason. You can have both.

[sevry]

evolution is the gradual change of species, or sections of species, into at least 1 and possibly many other species

You 'fact' of evolution, then?

Leaving aside the rather vague pronouncement, however you define it, whatever you mean by it - do you have any theories as to what might have caused this to happen?

[GarySpFc]

So you think Darwinism and Christianity are compatible.

A Reality Check from Oz By Gary Butner, Th.D.

The following is a response to an August 30, 1999 article by syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker berating the Kansas State School Board for its ruling delegating the decision whether to teach evolution to local school boards.

Since I am from Kansas, I read with interest Kathleen Parker’s August 30th editorial regarding the recent evolution ruling by the Kansas State Board of Education. I must admit I have always enjoyed her pro-family views in the past, however, this time she missed the mark. I can appreciate her confusion on this issue since most Christians, Jews, Muslims, Deists, and even many ministers across the country, do not grasp the issues involved. In her first paragraph she states: "These days Oz would offer us a reality check." I hope that reality check will wake Americans to something far more sinister than what appears on the surface. Let me state for the record that I am a conservative Christian with a doctorate in theology, and that my best friend, Rev. Dr. Greg Neal, who's name you will also find endorsing this letter, is a liberal Christian minister from Texas with a doctorate in Systematic Theology. While we disagree on many issues of both theology and public policy, he and I both oppose the teaching of religion in the classroom, which it appears she and others do not.

Firstly, let me clear up a point the national media is still missing. The Kansas Board of Education did not ban the teaching of evolution; rather, wisely delegated that decision to the local school board to keep religion out of the classroom.

Secondly, Rev. Neal subscribes to theistic evolution, whereas I believe in Creationism. Theistic evolution subscribes to the idea God used the process of evolution in creating the cosmos, including animals and man. It appears from Ms. Parker’s article that she agrees with Rev. Neal.

In 1995, the official Position Statement of the American National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) accurately states the general understanding of major science organizations and educators:

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.

Or in the words of the famous evolutionist, George Gaylord Simpson, "Man is the result of a purposeless, and natural process that did not have him in mind."

How do they know the process was unsupervised?

How do they know the process was mindless?

How do they know the process was purposeless?

Their statements are problematic in that they are unscientific. It cannot be proven that evolutionary processes are "purposeless" or that humans were "not in mind." Science cannot demonstrate these assumptions either way ... and that's the problem with their position. They become proponents of a religion of atheism; I say religion because their conclusion is NOT science, it is faith ... just as much as OUR conclusion is faith. Clearly, their definition is diametrically opposed to any concept of a personal creator being involved in the evolutionary process.

To be fair, as was reported by Brendan Sweetman, Ph.D. in a letter to The Kansas City Star August 21, NABT removed the language after it was pointed out by the philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, and the theologian Huston Smith, that their guideline was really an implied atheism and went beyond what the scientific evidence for the theory could show. However, the concept of natural selection (absent a creator) remains the central tenant of evolution as taught in the classrooms. The definition of natural selection includes unsupervised, mindless and purposeless. Clearly, in defining evolution they have left the world of science and entered the world of philosophy and theology, and established atheism (a religion) in our classrooms.

A 1991 Gallup Poll found that 87% of the public believes in God. According to the poll, of the 87% who believe in God, 44% accept the Creation model, and 43% the theistic evolution model. This implies that only one in ten Americans accepts NABT’s purposeless, mindless atheism, which is being taught in our classrooms. Teaching intelligent design differs from literal Biblical creationism in that it is silent regarding who the designer might be, when the designing took place, how it was done or for what purpose. It simply purposes that life was designed.

We can only speculate as to why two young men at Columbine High School gave up all hope and went on a rampage. Do you think that maybe they were taught their world is mindless, purposeless and unsupervised?

Gary Butner, Th.D. Merriam, KS

Greg Neal, Ph.D. Wichita Falls, TX

[DaGman]

"After all, the entirety of ID as a discipline was exhausted after the reading of the four paragraphs..."

The kids aren't dumb either. They were all well aware that they were being compelled against their will to hear this statement. They are all aware of the controversy and likely all saw it as a political fight that they were caught up in. Rest assured that none of the kids had their minds changed either way because of the statement.

[TheGeezer]

Well, from an objectivist point of view, Darwinism requires assumptions regarding the origin(s) of life that are devoid of design. Darwinism implies unconscious origins of life, doesn't it, with complex primordial soup leaping from unliving matter to some semblance of primitive mitosis, right? It may be true that Darwin did not attempt to explain the origins of life, but others certainly have attached origins to Darwin's theory.

[King Prout]

heritable traits are observable facts

The lasting effects of the fall due to Original Sin come to mind.

so... you are now extending the doctrine of original sin to non-human species, such as Mendel's peas?

It is evident you are a dilettante here, spouting half-considered false cleverness in the joy of reading your own posts.

Do better.

And DO try to be polite.

[JFK_Lib]

Whatever Cahsills motive in providing this article, I dont know, but accepting evolution as an explanation of the development of species is not an issue anymore. The Vatican has repeatedly accepted it as long as it is not asserting anything beyond what science can assert.

If Dawkins thinks that the development of life is unguided, that is him giving his philosophical speculation and it is NOT science. And no Christian should confuse it with evolution as a science at all.

It is irritating when materialistic nihilists piggy-back their lies on top of science, but that is something to deal with as a seperate isue.

[atlaw]

"But if it is science, it is a) falsifiable, and b) importantly, it can be stated succinctly, which you've yet to do."

I'll agree that a theory must be falsifiable. But where did you get the notion that "it ain't science if you can't reduce it to a sound-bite"?

[blakep]

Everyone here needs to go buy the book The Hidden Face of God, by Gerald Schroeder.

Unbelievable book.

[\/\/ayne]

I repeat a post from another thread where someone said they would get back to me but they didn't except for one question but then they didn't reply to my reply.

One thing about the origin of species development that is troubling to non evolution believers is all the hoaxes that the supposedly hard core "science" proponents put forth. Jonathan Wells wrote a very good book called "Icons of Evolution" about it, also he has a shorter article called "Survival of the Fakest" in pdf form available. Many disproved evolution examples that turned out to be hoaxes like the pepper moth experiment are still being used in public schools and colleges today.

If evolution is supported by so many facts, why to they have to use so many hoaxes?

How many evolutionists believe dinosaurs were reptiles and how many believe they were birdlike and evolved into birds? Can they both be right?

If one side is right, doesn't that mean the other side is terribly wrong?

How could so many scientists be so wrong about so many fossils?

Why does the earliest fossil period have the most fossils? If evolution is true, would the earliest be the least?

Mutation never adds anything, it only takes away. Like, bacteria mutate and become more resistant and they call it evolution. But nothing was added. The bacterias genetic structure lost some parts. How is that evolution? .

These are some of the questions I have of evolutionists.

------------------------------

His answer to one question was: What parts have the bacteria lost? Hasn't it gained the resistance to the antibiotic? What was added was slight variations in the DNA so that the antibiotics do not have the same effect on it. (He said he would get back to me on the other questions but never did.)

Then I answered:

Perhaps I was thinking more of chromosomes but my understanding is that no mutations make any big changes, for instance a bacteria cannot mutate into a plant. The changes take place within the dna setup. And in most mutation cases part of the genetic structure is removed. Antibodies fit themselves to known germs but if the germ mutates into an unknown structure from having some of it's structure removed the antibody can't connect and destroy the germ.

For instance in a communist country if a man speaks out against the government he is often killed, so if he got throat cancer and could no longer speak he has gained resistance to communist killers.

That doesn't mean the mutation is necessarily the greatest or will help "evolve" him.

My answer guy must have gotten very busy becuase he never replied to that.

Does anyone have any answers besides "I'm science and you're not?"

[JFK_Lib]

Excellent article.

Science cannot assert that their is no purpose to Evolution as that is beyond the realm of science to consider.

Thanks!

[RobRoy]

Don't worry. It's just his opinion. He was speaking for himself.

His is one of many of the different ID "theories."

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Clarifying Christianity (Click a topic)	Heaven    Angels     Church     Cults     Creation/Evolution
	Reading and Understanding the Bible      Bible Search
	The Bible's Subjects     Bibles In Various Languages
	The Source of Life    Search (Netscape)    Search (IE)
	The Trinity     Baptism     FAQ     Dinosaurs     Science
	Proving the Bible     Losing Weight     Statement of Faith

Transitional Fossil Species, Part II
Did Some Dinosaurs Evolve Into Birds?

Is Archaeopteryx a Valid Transitional Fossil?

Archaeopteryx is the name given to an animal about the size of a crow. It is represented by fossil remains that display teeth, three claws on each wing, a flat sternum (breastbone), belly ribs (gastralia), and a long, bony tail. In other words, it had characteristics like those of many small dinosaurs. What made Archaeopteryx an exciting find was the fact that the fossil also exhibited feathers, a lightly-built body with hollow bones, and a wishbone (furcula).[1] As a result, many people who believe in evolution presume this fossil represents a transitional species between reptiles and birds. Along with other evidence (which we will examine later) it led to the theory that the dinosaurs did not become extinct, but rather all turned into birds. The purpose of this page is to clarify the facts about Archaeopteryx and other similar transitional fossil species.

One article [2] reveals that the fossils of normal birds have been found in older rock strata than Archaeopteryx. Therefore, either Archaeopteryx is not a transitional fossil (since birds already existed at the same time and there was nothing to “transition” into) or rock strata can not be accurately dated. If either of these is correct (and one must be) Archaeopteryx loses its value as a transitional species.

Archaeopteryx probably could not fly, since it does not have a keeled sternum (breast bone) which all flying birds (and even bats) need to have. Of course, being a transitional species, Archaeopteryx did not have to fly. Yet, if it did not fly, what was the purpose of its feathers?* Since it either flew or it did not—and there are problems with both cases—one or the other removes the support that Archaeopteryx was a valid transitional species.

*Note: Archaeopteryx feathers are not those of a flightless bird, but rather those of a flying bird, since the shaft (rachis) is not in the center for the feather. Therefore, one more difficulty is added to Archaeopteryx as a transitional species—either “flying” feathers appeared on a bird that could not fly, or the fossils were fakes. (It has been suggested that the fossil of a Compsognathus was modified by adding a tiny layer of material on top of the fossil and imprinting feathers into it.) Although we will not take sides on the “forgery issue,” it is interesting that one site exists where only Compsognathus and Archaeopteryx fossils have been found.[3]

Feathers develop from a different part of the bird’s embryo than scales do from a reptile’s embryo. Therefore, a person who supports the theory of evolution would have to show how one could have replaced the other in an evolutionary manner—without violating the rules of biology. (Good luck! ) That is, the feathers were not an evolutionary modification of scales, but rather had to appear all on their own. This would be like seeing a human baby born with feathers or scales.

Each of the “reptilian characteristics” in Archaeopteryx is either found to exist in true birds, or is absent in many reptiles. For example, one of the characteristics of Archaeopteryx that make it reptilian are hooks on its wings. Today, both the young Hoatzin bird and the young Ostrich have a hook on their wings similar to that of Archaeopteryx.

Did The Dinosaurs Turn Into Birds?

Although Archaeopteryx is the only creature that comes close to being a transitional fossil species, there are several other dinosaurs that have some bird characteristics. Those paleontologists who have given up on Archaeopteryx as an evolutionary path have suggested others. These new evolutionary paths use one of two groups, the “feathered” dinosaurs and dinosaurs with “birdlike” skeletons.

The “Feathered” Dinosaurs

Four examples of these dinosaurs are Sinosauropteryx, Protoarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx and Confuciusornis. The first three are bipedal dinosaurs with short arms—that is, arms incapable of flight.

Four leading American paleontologists examined the Sinosauropteryx fossils, and declared that its “feathers” were actually long parallel arrays of fibers that lack the branching pattern of modern feathers.[4] Sinosauropteryx also had a long tail like a lizard—a tail longer than its body, neck, and head combined. We would not expect this on a dinosaur in the process of “turning into a bird.”

Protoarchaeopteryx feathers are symmetrical, suggesting that it could not fly (as do its short arms). The Caudipteryx resembles the Protoarchaeopteryx, except that its wings are even shorter and it has longer teeth.[5] Not counting the fine teeth, Caudipteryx resembles a miniature emu. Similarly, the feathers of the Caudipteryx resemble those of modern flightless birds (like the emu), which do not smoothly “hook together” like those of birds that fly. They have a “ruffled” and “bushy” appearance, looking more like hair than feathers.

The first three species are less birdlike than Archaeopteryx, yet they come from younger rock layers. (Between 10 and 30 million years, based on the published estimates.) Again, you have a dual problem: you either have to believe that scientists can not date rock layers, or that evolution went backwards for 10-30 million years before going forward again and developing into birds—both arguments that hurt the theory of evolution.

Then there is the Confuciusornis, which had a wishbone, clawed fingers, and a horny, toothless beak.[6] However, they have found fossils of a modern type bird (Liaoningornis) in the same place. Again, it is hard to believe that Confuciusornis could be a transitional species between reptiles and birds if birds already existed at the same time.[7]

The Dinosaurs With “Birdlike” Skeletons

Finally, some scientists suggested that a group of dinosaurs thought to be structurally most like birds (and therefore the most likely species that the birds would have evolved from) evolved into birds. Dinosaurs in this group include Deinonychus, Oviraptor, Utahraptor, Unenlagia, and Velociraptor. Looking at this supposed evolutionary path, please notice that they are all younger than Archaeopteryx by 25-65 million years. If true birds existed before Archaeopteryx, it is obvious that they existed an additional 25-65 million years prior to these dinosaurs. Again, it is tough to be a transitional species if the species being transitioned into exists already. (Either that, or—once again—the geologic dating methods are wrong.) This last group also has two additional problems—they are larger than today’s flying birds, and there is not a feather or wing to be found on any of them.

Note: Page 90 of the July 1998 issue of National Geographic Magazine contains a colorful drawing of a Unenlagia, one of the dinosaurs with a “birdlike” skeleton. What makes this dinosaur interesting is that its shoulder blades allow the forearm to rotate upward and to tuck against the chest (like a bird’s wing). Based on this information, the artist of this picture has seen fit to add feathers—even though the Unenlagia fossils show no evidence of feathers.

Conclusions

Although this page is not intended to be a rigorous scientific treatment of the subject, we believe we provided reasonable proof for the following:

• Archaeopteryx was not a transitional species between reptiles and birds.
• The “feathered” dinosaurs were not transitional species between reptiles and birds.
• Those dinosaurs with “birdlike” skeletons were not transitional species between reptiles and birds.

What is interesting to us is that there are many educated, sincere scientists that are willing to believe that either some reptiles evolved into birds or all dinosaurs actually evolved into birds. Unfortunately for those theories, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever supporting these evolutionary paths. On this page and in Transitional Fossil Species, Part I we examined the best examples of transitional fossil species and they all came up deficient. Ask yourself, if there really was a lot of evidence for evolution, how come a series of transitional forms has never been found? We believe the answer is clear—there are no transitional forms, and all the kinds of animals were created just as the Bible reveals. As we stated on our Creation Versus Evolution page, the only real reasons for a person to believe in evolution has to be one of the following:

• The Bible’s creation account is not “politically acceptable” in the context of their lifestyle.
• They were told something in school (or read something in a book, or saw something on television) that they never questioned, and have not taken the time to verify whether it was true or not.

If you have been led to believe in the theory of evolution, we sincerely hope that the second situation applies to you. Please take the time to investigate the facts thoroughly. For more information at our site, check out the following links:

Click here to see Transitional Fossil Species, Part I.

Click to see Transitional Fossil Species, Part III. What About Ape Men?

Click here to return to the Creation versus Evolution page.

References

[1] “Archaeopteryx” in Dinosaur and Paleontology Dictionary
[2] Tim Beardsley, “Fossil Bird Shakes Evolutionary Hypotheses,” Nature, Vol. 322, 21 August 1986, p. 677.
[3] Solnhofen Formation
[4] Feathered fallacy
[5] Jennifer Ackerman, “Dinosaurs Take Wing,” National Geographic, Vol. 194, No. 1, July 1988, p. 86, 89.
[6] Philip J. Currie, “Caudipteryx Revealed” (side bar within “Dinosaurs Take Wing” article), National Geographic, Vol. 194, No. 1, July 1988, p. 86-89.
[7] Chinese Discovery Shows Famous Fossil Not Ancestor Of Modern Birds

Copyright © 1999 by Clarifying Christianity (SM).
Printed copies of articles from this site may be circulated if those articles are reproduced in their entirety, along with their copyright notices. You may not charge for, request a donation for, or seek reimbursement from anyone for such copies. Links are OK. All rights reserved.

Clarifying Christianity is a RealName. A RealName is an easier way to find web sites using everyday language. Typing Clarifying Christianity in a RealName enabled search engine like MSN Search, LookSmart, or AltaVista will take you to our site.

All information contained in Clarifying Christianity is a resource for questions dealing with Christian issues. It is not to be taken as Christian counseling. Seek a qualified Christian counselor for help with all such issues. If you choose to work with a Christian counselor, it is your responsibility to ask pertinent questions before you begin, to assure yourself of their qualities and abilities. 8199

[atlaw]

Sinful broccoli, maybe. But sinful peas?

[discostu]

I accept as a fact that there has been and continues to be something going on which matches on some levels what we consider to be evolution. I also accept that evolution is a very young science about a very long process and most of our explanations of how it happens are probably wrong, but eventually we'll figure it out. We've gone through the same process with almost every subsection of scientific thought, from our study of gravity to our study of the weather through to our recent advances in aerodynamics and electricity.

It's a vague pronouncement because you can't describe ANY science in under 1000 pages with any but vague pronouncments. Science is prety complicated stuff, and most sciences got a lot more complicated once we started dissecting atoms. What caused evolution to happen is a completely different science, abiogenesis, and until that science has an answer that can enumerate with high confidence exactly what the first life forms were which will then give evolution a starting point to work from they will remain completely seperate sciences. Under the current state of evolutionary though what caused it all to happen is immaterial, could be primoridial ooze, could be the Judeao-Christian God, could be an asteriod, could be aliens, could be Titans, doesn't matter. Evolution is all about figuring what happened to species X which isn't around anymore but there's these other species around that look a lot like it.

[bondserv]

as this tenet of a constant, unchanging, pre-scripted code is the central leg of your proposal, your proposal fails the test of empirically observable fact.

next!

You sound so sure of your self. We are not having this discussion because Creationists are dumb or ignorant. It is because your argument is thoroughly unconvincing.

By your logic I can kick my computer and lessen instances of the "Blue Screen of Death". Then I could load my "new more complex code" onto your hard drive to spread the wealth.

Reality doesn't work the way you think it does.