Volume 5, Number 1 January / February 2000 Distinctions Exist between Fact and by George Aldhizer, Ph.D., Gary Johnston, Ph.D., and Douglas Krull, Ph.D.

Reprinted with permission. proven scientific theory (see Johnson, French zoologists, the editor of First published in The Kentucky Post, Jan.4, 2000 1993 for a review). the 28 volumes of Traité de Zoo- [Editor’s note: The references have been added from the authors’ original manuscript.] logie, author of numerous origi- Scientific debate nal investigations, and ex- e, the undersigned, oppose the president of the Academie des Statement on Evolution passed Debate exists within the scientific com- Sciences. His knowledge of the by the Professional Concerns munity about evolution. Some evolution- W living world is encyclopedic.” Committee of the Faculty Senate at North- ists suggest that this latter type of evolu- (1975, p. 376) ern Kentucky University. Use of the term tion is not a matter of dispute among se- “evolution,” without clarifying that it re- rious scientists, and is questioned only by In truth, it does not matter if most fers to different processes, one fact and one those who are ignorant. But consider the scientists accept or dispute the theory of theory, hinders both science and education example of Pierre Paul Grassé, author of evolution. In science, facts are not decided and promotes confusion and misunder- Evolution of Living Organisms (1977). by vote, but by evidence. Consider two standing. Theodosius Grigorievich Dobzhansky, a areas of evidence that pertain to the theory giant of the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, The term “evolution” is used to refer of evolution. wrote of Grassé’s book: to two different things. “Evolution” is used to refer to relatively minor variations or “[Its] purpose is to ‘destroy the The fossil record adaptations (e.g., changes in the size of myth of evolution, as a simple, Even Charles Darwin recognized that the finch beaks or the coloration of peppered understood, and explained phe- fossil record was a problem, but he moths). This is a proven scientific fact. nomenon,’ and to show that evo- thought gaps would be filled in to display “Evolution” also is used to refer to the lution is a mystery about which the gradual sequence that his theory pre- conjecture that, given sufficient time, these little is, and perhaps can be, dicts. This has not occurred. adaptive changes could be extended such known. Now one can disagree The prominent evolutionist Stephen that all creatures could have developed with Grassé but not ignore him. He is the most distinguished of from a common ancestor. This is an un- ...continued on p. 7

Editor’s note: In the previous issue Karl reported the activities surrounding a grassroots effort in Contents Kanawha County, West Virginia. Before the School Board was a resolution supporting teachers who Distinctions Exist between Evolution Fact and Kanawha wish to teach controversial subjects and so Theory ...... 1 long as they are “relevant” and “are presented in an appropriate, factual, and unbiased manner ... Kanawha Co. WV Grassroots Update ...... 1 County WV which promotes the understanding of all points of view...” We left the story in the midst of the battle. Homology Continued: Morphogenetic and Hox Genes ...... 3 Grassroots he School Board had attempted to gar- ner support for rejecting the Resolution Probabilities, Monkeys & Natural Selection ...... 5 Update T (see Table 1 in previous issue) by sending a comment request to Faculty Senates A Probably Fraudulent Dinobird: What Shall We and Local School Improvement Counsels. The Make of It? ...... 8 by memo was an obvious ploy to generate a What Are Creationists Thinking About ...? ...... 9 Karl Priest, M.A. backlash against creation science, which was Creation Calendar ...... 10 ...continued on page 2 Fezer debated for over two hours, and Dr. Grassroots Update Fezer was so overwhelmed that the atheist ...continued from page 1 Kanawha newspaper editor later said that evolution not even the issue at hand. On December 6 seemed silly, but he could not accept any- County’s the media revealed, without fanfare, that thing else due to the suffering which exists the comments received were highly in fa- in the world. Anti-Creation vor of teaching creation science. This During the week that Dr. Mastropaolo caused the board member who had insisted was here, and even after he left, the Uni- Science Policy on the comment period to spin the results tarian minister and the Gazette tried to by saying, “I don’t think any of them really slander him by claiming he was only a oes this policy comply with the understood the intent of the resolution.” physical education teacher. (His Ph. D. is D 1987 Supreme Court decision in In the meantime, Dr. Joseph Mastro- in Biomechanics/Physiology, and he is Edwards vs Aguillard? The Court’s de- paolo, of Huntington Beach, CA, had Prof. Emeritus, Calif. State Univ., Long cision is commonly understood to have heard of our battle. Without knowing that Beach, and Adjunct Prof. of Physiology, prohibited the teaching of creation sci- the Charleston Gazette editor was a bitter ICR Graduate School.) They did not see ence. However, the decision banned enemy of local creationists, he had con- the irony in this because, even if true, they only the religiously motivated, com- tacted the editor and offered to come here were admitting that they were afraid to pulsory teaching of creation science. to speak as a scientist. After being re- debate a P.E. teacher. Dr. Mastropaolo, a The majority decision in fact opined that, buffed, Dr. Mastropaolo mailed a letter to gentleman’s gentleman, calmly went about with respect to theories about man’s ori- the only other person whose name he knew his business during his visit to our com- gin, teachers are “free to teach any and from news reports — board member Betty munity. He impressed a skeptical talk all facets of this subject” (p. 9). Fur- Jarvis. I was awed when Betty called me show host so much that, in separate pro- thermore, the court stated: about the letter, for I had just ordered 100 grams, the talk show host criticized the Teaching a variety of scientific copies of a current ICR Impact article Unitarian’s ethics and ridiculed the evolu- theories about the origins of written by Dr. Mastropaolo. tionists for failing to academically defend humankind to school children their sacred cow. might be validly done with the Challenging evolutionists clear secular intent of enhanc- Dr. Mastropaolo then began an email ex- Banned from high school ing the effectiveness of science change with local evolutionists, challeng- Space does not allow a detailed report of education (p. 14). ing them to debate. This sent them into a all that transpired between Thanksgiving panic because they had never heard of him. Here is Kanawha County’s policy. You and the Board’s vote on December 16. be the judge. The details of their attempts to avoid de- There were statewide and local radio talk bate would make an interesting article in shows, one-sided television reporting, and KANAWHA COUNTY SCHOOLS itself. Dr. Mastropaolo had a knack for front-page newspaper coverage (including ADMINISTRATIVE revealing their religious prejudice and an onslaught of Gazette articles seeking to REGULATION academic cowardice. As a result of a cast the debate as being between science Creation Science challenge I made to the local Unitarian and fanatical Christianity). Dr. Mastro- minister, Dr. Mastropaolo was allowed to paolo, at age 72, had a grueling speaking Issued: 10.19.1987 speak at the Unitarian church. schedule. He was even banned from one 5.01 Status. Neither State That was an experience. The place high school, and was forced to march learning outcomes, nor any was standing room only, and attendees down the street with interested junior high current program of studies included most of the “big time” evolu- kids to meet at a local church. includes a creation compo- tionists of the area. After listening to a By the time the board meeting date nent. The teachers of science witch lead part of the opening service, and had arrived, the Charleston Daily Mail had and all other curricular ar- avoiding a trap laid by the Unitarian min- “lost” an article I submitted, the ACLU and eas are expected to provide ister (intended to ridicule Dr. Mastro- Americans United for Separation of instruction toward mastery of paolo’s credentials), Dr. Mastropaolo pre- Church and State had threatened to sue, the State learning outcomes sented his case that evolution is biologi- and the board attorney had circulated a as interpreted by the current cally impossible and is, in reality, an occult secret memo requesting that board mem- program of studies. Thus, religion. bers vote against the very resolution he had creation science is not to be A lunch worth remembering prepared! We personally contacted two taught. board members who earlier had expressed 5.02 Creation Science Mate- Afterwards, I invited to lunch Dr. Karl open-mindedness, citing legal and scien- rials. Any materials per- Fezer, the West Virginia liaison for the tific facts to counter every argument they taining to Creation Science, National Center for Science Education (an presented. However, it was obvious that if retained, shall be housed anit-creation group). The Gazette editor the vote was going to be 4-1 against the in the school library. tagged along, and what transpired was resolution. truly amazing. Dr. Mastropaolo and Dr.

2 A publication of the Creation Research Society January / February 2000 The showdown who came to support the teaching of Stay tuned creation science which, as noted previ- The night of the meeting the Unitarians The battle is worth fighting, because those ously, was not the subject of the Resolu- were there in force, with their minister or- who fight it will find friends and sup- tion. The opposition had its usual quota of chestrating their offense. As soon as Dr. porters they never knew were there. De- college professors and liberal ministers. Mastropaolo sat down, the Unitarian min- spite the difficulties, there will be many ister got right in Dr. Mastropaolo’s face, The vote went as expected, but I am inspiring moments that will be forever angrily accusing him of being from ICR. I tremendously encouraged. The strategy cherished. Every battle puts a small hole had to actually place my body between employed here can easily be refined and below the waterline of the ship of evolu- them and force the minister away. Later, used elsewhere. It just takes a small group tionism. Eventually it will sink. As for us the minister was caught reading my notes of dedicated people. First, present to your locally, to quote Dr. Mastropaolo: “The and writing something as he read them. local board of education something like events prior to the board meeting were just the Buckna-Laidlaw “Origin of Life” pol- a warm-up period, the meeting was the The meeting lasted over four hours. icy (see endnote in previous article). In starter’s pistol, now the race has begun.” There was an overwhelming majority of order to reject such a policy, board mem- Stay tuned. attendees in favor of the resolution. I had bers will have to reveal their philosophical only requested six speakers besides my- position on the subject of origins. If pos- self, but many others came to speak. Some sible, find a well-qualified scientist to of the others were a great asset to our side, challenge evolutionists to debate. but many were well-intentioned people

Homology Continued: Morphogenetic and Hox Genes by George F. Howe, Ph.D. am indebted to geneticist Matthew Jenkins3 pointed to a lethal are also very deleterious to the fruit fly. Rainbow (who does not share my which knocks out the dorsal gene. The gap genes thereafter regulate I view of origins) for having brought The product of another Drosophila pair-rule genes which are expressed in the burgeoning field of fruitfly (Droso- nurse cell gene called nanos accumulates seven bands, dividing the embryo into 14 phila melanogaster) morphogenesis to my at the posterior end of the egg. The nanos zones. Snustad, Simmons, and Jenkens attention. These morphogenetic genes transcription product prevents the reported that “ in each of the demonstrate a complexity and integration mRNA’s of another gene, called hunch- several pair-rule genes produce embryos that stagger the imagination. This subject back, from accumulating in the posterior with only half as many parasegments as the can be studied further by consulting any end of the egg. The end result is that the wild type.”3 As a result of such mutated modem textbook in or embryol- posterior end of the egg is readied to de- pair-rule genes, every other parasegment is ogy. In a search of library sources, one will velop into the embryonic posterior. Muta- missing — some mutations delete odd also find that literally hundreds of entries tions that affect the nanos gene are also numbered segments, some delete the even on this topic exist, most of them having harmful. Gilbert4 noted that such muta- ones. been produced in the last ten years. Both tions “... result in embryos that have dele- Next, the segment polarity genes be- the design features of Hox genes that tions or duplications of heads, tails, dorsal come active because they are regulated by workers have understood, and also some structures or ventral structures.” These transcription products of the other genes unexplained mysteries surrounding them, mutations lead to imbalance and death, not previously activated. Segment polarity fit with the creationist views expressed in to beneficial evolutionary adaptations. my earlier articles.1,2 genes define an anterior and posterior As fly development continues, gradi- compartment for each segment. Mutations Morphogenetic genes — a ents of gene products from maternal effect of segment polarity genes likewise hold “cascade” genes regulate the expression of another little promise for evolution. For example, It is impressive to learn that products of the group of genes called gap genes through- mutations in the segment polarity gene maternal effect genes formed by nurse out the embryo. In a mutation of one of gooseberry cause the posterior half of each cells surrounding the egg actually confer these gap genes called kruppel, “... whole embryonic segment to be replaced by a on that egg a front-to-back and a regions of embryonic segments are mirror image copy of the adjacent anterior dorsal-to-ventral polarity, even before the eliminated.”4 Snustad, Simmons, and half segment.”3 This, too, is not an ad- egg begins its division. The transcription Jenkins indicated that “Mutations in the vantage. gap genes cause an entire set of contiguous product of the dorsal gene, for example, Herein, then, is an amazing hierarchy body segments to be missing; that is, they paves the way for the dorsal parts of the of embryonic controls in which nurse cell create an anatomical gap along the embryo to develop later and in a different gene products control gap genes, the gap anterior-posterior axis.”3 Like mutations in manner than the ventral parts. Reviewing genes later control the pair-rule genes, and maternal effect genes, gap gene mutations this topic, Snustad, Simmons, and finally pair-rule genes regulate the tran-

January / February 2000 A publication of the Creation Research Society 3 scription of segment polarity genes. “The find that their evolutionist colleagues are those genes aren’t really deter- genetic control of segmentation shows completely excluding this intelligent de- mining structure at all. Instead, how sets of genes work in a regulatory sign option from their textbooks and re- they appear to be functioning as cascade to determine the identities of search reports. This exclusion stems from binary switches between alternate groups of cells in different regions of the religion and , not science. developmental fates, with the embryo.”3 Surely these interlaced devel- information for resulting struc- opmental control patterns leave plenty of Switching on another cascade tures residing elsewhere.” room for a well-founded belief that a wise A particular Hox gene switches on a cas- designer planned this system. Some years ago Willem Ouweneel, cade of other genes (target genes). These who was a specialist in homeotic genes at target genes then govern the manufacture Homeobox (Hox) genes the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sci- of a particular body organ, such as a leg or ences, published a summary article on the A group of homeotic or Hox genes has an eye in a fruit fly. In Drosophila or mice, origins implications of homeotic mutants been discovered which initiate organ de- a very similar Hox gene triggers eye pro- in the Creation Research Society Quar- velopment. They each encode homeodo- duction. But the transcription products of terly.6 Such mutations, in which certain main transcription factors that have been many other genes actually proceed to make organs are replaced by entirely different shown to turn on developmental pathways a multifaceted compound eye in the fruit organs, have been frequently observed in involving several thousands of other fly, or a mammalian eye in a mouse. Al- Drosophila. An example of such a muta- 3 genes. The 60 amino acids in a typical though the Hox genes are homologous, the tion is the transformation of a wing into a homeodomain protein (corresponding to two eyes eventuating from them are very leg-like structure. Ouweneel made a num- 5 180 base pairs of DNA) have been found different. Wells and Nelson make this ber of important points in his article, to be quite similar in Drosophila, mice, same point quite clearly: among which are these, which I’ve para- men, and other organisms. “The very universality of homeo- phrased below: Concerning this similarity (i.e., ho- tic genes, however, raises a seri- (1) Homeotic mutant organs mology) of homeodomain chemis- yield large disadvantages to the try, extending from invertebrates organism. No single homeotic throughout all the vertebrates, mac- That this universal presence of mutant organ is known that is roevolutionists state that the se- very useful switching genes functional and therefore useful quence has been conserved to the organism. The organ may throughout evolutionary history. could have been the product of in fact be destructive. The ani- But the very use of the word “con- common design rather than mal is sometimes left without served” (a term that has become common ancestry is unfortu- the original organs which were heavily ensconced in the literature) replaced by the mutant organs is premature, prejudicial, and non- nately never mentioned ... such that pod flies, for exam- scientific. Homeodomain homolo- ple, cannot fly. gies likely resulted instead from a wise creator who used them repeatedly ous problem for this view. Al- (2) What is needed in macroevo- while creating many different animals. though mice have a gene very lution is the origin of essentially Since these genes and gene products serve similar to the one that can trans- new organs. Homeotic mutant as regulatory “switches” that activate net- form a fly’s antenna into a leg organs are not new, however, but works of other genes, perhaps the creator (antennapedia), mice do not have are copies of organs found else- incorporated various numbers of these antennae, and their corresponding where in the animal. critical switching genes into different gene affects the hindbrain; and kinds of animals for reasons which we, as although mice and flies share a (3) Homeotic mutations do not scientists, must discover. similar gene which affects eye result in the appearance of higher development (eyeless), the fly’s levels of organization. Most such Although first seen in Drosophila, multifaceted eye is profoundly mutants should be classed as Hox genes have been found in multicellu- different from a mouse’s backward steps. lar animals in general, from nematodes camera-like eye. In both cases (parasitic worms) to mammals. The num- (4) Hox gene mutations simply (antennapedia and eyeless), ber of Hox genes present in a particular show that one mutation can dis- similar homeotic genes affect the animal kind varies: sponges have one Hox turb not just one small morpho- development of structures which gene, arthropods eight, and mammals 38. logical feature, but the expression are non-homologous by either the That this universal presence of very useful of dozens of other genes. classical morphological defini- switching genes could have been the tion or the post-Darwinian phy- If macroevolution occurs easily, product of common design rather than logenetic definition. If similar quickly, and on a worldwide basis (as common ancestry is unfortunately never genes can ‘determine’ such radi- some workers maintain), then why are mentioned in the technical reports on this cally different structures, then macroevolutionary events not being rou- phenomenon. Creationists are saddened to

4 A publication of the Creation Research Society January / February 2000 tinely reported in journals like Science and macroevolutionists regarding all homolo- rate kinds, and that variation occurs only Nature? If all that is required for major gies (whether between organs, biochemis- within fixed limits. changes to occur by chance in nature is the try, or Hox genes) still comes in answering right burst of transposon activity to pro- this key question: does resemblance nec- References duce the right mix-and-match of enhancer essarily mean kinship (common ances- 1. Howe, G.F. 1999. Origins and education: a segments shunted onto new chromosomal try), or can it in many (or most) instances primer. Creation Matters 4(4):1. locations, why did it take the ancestors of indicate common design? Creationists 2. Howe, G.F. 1999. Homology and origins. Crea- the fly and the mouse 500 million years to adopt the second approach, that “similarity tion Matters 4(5):1. evolve their separate ways? If Acan- shows common design.” They believe this 3. Snustad, D. P., Michael J. Simmons, and J. B. thostega arose once from a lobe-finned fits with the known data of science con- Jenkins. 1997. Principles of Genetics. John Wiley and Sons. NY. pp. 625-629. fish by mutation of a few Hox genes, why cerning homology and analogy. 4. Gilbert, Scott F. 1988. Developmental Biology, don’t the lobe-finned fish repeat this per- If I could see a human arise in nature Second edition. Sinauer Associates. Sunderl- formance now? If this is “asking too land, MA. p. 636. now, from homeotic mutations in a pygmy much,” then macroevolutionism is not 5. Wells, Jonathan, and Paul Nelson. 1997. Homol- chimpanzee population, or if I could read science, but is just one among several other ogy: a concept in crisis. Origins and Design that the change from lobe fins to tetrapod 18:1219. competing origins models. limbs has been observed off the coast of 6. Ouweneel, Willem J. 1975. Homoeotic mutants Madagascar, I would immediately become and evolution. Creation Research Society Nothing new a macroevolutionist, and at that point mac- Quarterly 12:141-154. Hox gene studies actually bring nothing roevolution would have become a scien- new to the creationist versus evolutionist tific fact. Until then, however, in the name standoff. The crux of the difference be- of real science, I see no reason to change tween scientific creationists and scientific from the view that made many sepa-

Probabilities, Monkeys & Natural Selection by David Woetzel

ne of the biggest challenges for hand, declared that given enough time all creationists has been to clearly the possible combinations of matter, in- O illustrate the absurdity that passes cluding those necessary to produce a man, off as probability arguments in the will eventually occur by chance mo- naturalistic/evolutionary model of origins. lecular movement. The old adage keeps popping up anew: “Given so much time the ‘impossible’ be- comes possible, the possible probable, and Typing monkeys the probable virtually certain. One has To prove his point, Hux- only to wait: time itself performs ley asked Wilberforce to .”1 The reality is that the impos- allow him the service of sible is still impossible, even with the six monkeys that would magic elixir of huge spans of time (though live forever, six type- with punctuated equilibrium in vogue, writers that would never these time spans are themselves in doubt). wear out, and an unlim- On June 30, 1860, at the Oxford Un- ited supply of paper and ion in England, Anglican Archbishop of ink. He then argued that, Oxford University, Samuel Wilberforce, given an infinite amount and evolutionist and agnostic Thomas of time, these monkeys would eventually A good example of the evolutionists’ re- Huxley were engaged in the “Great De- type up all of the works of Shakespeare. sponse is given by Hawking. After citing bate.” Bishop Wilberforce, a Professor of Unfortunately for Huxley, the availability the monkey illustration he comments, and Mathematics at Oxford Uni- of the proposed infinite amount of time is “very occasionally by pure chance they versity, argued that the design we see in just the first problem in his argument. will type out one of Shakespeare’s nature required a Designer. Therefore, the Since then, creationists have often sonnets.”2 This is absurd. The assertion information found in living systems (an employed this classic monkey myth to il- that the monkeys will not in fact perform evidence for design) could not arise by lustrate the probability problems inherent this feat is as close as we can get to a sci- random chance. Huxley, on the other to the naturalistic/evolutionary scenarios. entific fact. ReMine drives this point home:

January / February 2000 A publication of the Creation Research Society 5 “The monkeys could not ran- genes and pick among them directly. It domly type merely the first 100 must use bodies as an intermediary… characters of Hamlet. If we count How Small is Small? Hundreds of genes contribute to the only lowercase letters and spaces Tossing around numbers with large ex- building of most body parts and their ac- (27 characters in all), then the ponents may not immediately impress tion is channeled through a kaleidoscopic probability of typing the 100 us. But how large do the exponents have series of environmental influences… characters is one chance in 27100 Parts are not translated genes, and selec- 143 to be before the event becomes impos- (one chance in 1.4x10 ). If sible? Here is what one author has stated: tion doesn’t even work directly on parts. It each proton in the observable accepts or rejects entire organisms because -50 universe were a typing monkey “We may be led to set at 10 suites of parts, interacting in complex 50 (roughly 1080 in all), and they [i.e., 1 chance in 10 ; editor] ways, confer advantages.”5 typed 500 characters per minute the value of negligible prob- (faster than the fastest secretary), abilities on the cosmic scale. A generous selection around the clock for 20 billion When the probability of an mechanism years, then all the monkeys to- event is below this limit, the I would propose another variation on the gether could make 5x1096 at- opposite event may be expected monkey story in order to more realistically tempts at the 100 characters. It to occur with certainty, what- take into account the play of natural se- would require an additional ever the number of occasions lection. Suppose that the monkeys were 3x1046 such universes to have an presenting themselves in the randomly typing at computer workstations even chance at success. We sci- entire universe.” — Borel, E. equipped with advanced word processing entifically conclude that the mon- 1962. Probabilities and Life, p. 28. instead of typewriters. The word process- ing application is not only capable of key scenario cannot succeed. For “Events whose probability is spell-checking and punctuation-checking, the scientist it would be perverse extremely small never occur.” 3 it automatically eliminates the mistakes in to insist otherwise.” — Borel, E. 1965. Elements of the Theory of Probability, p. 57. spelling and punctuation! Thus, the pri- Creationists generally employ this il- mates would slowly produce words and, if lustration in three of the most unlikely — Editor they were lucky enough to type a sentence, naturalistic/evolutionary scenarios: a fine- the punctuation would be perfect. tuned universe, abiogenesis, and biological capable of being produced by a typewriter. This modification (a generous selec- complexity arising by random mutations. On the relative top of the incline is the Their opponents may grumblingly take the tion mechanism) would improve their sublime prose of Shakespeare. Ruse’s odds tremendously. However, they are first two scenarios sitting down. However, suggestion of a cosmic teacher with the evolutionists will rise to their feet to cry still left with the “fitness hill” problem. Shakespeare’s text and a bottle of white- That is, they might produce words that foul in the third instance. Here the mecha- out implies that natural selection inexora- nism of natural selection is proposed to satisfied the system yet did not make sen- bly, step by step marches only in the di- tences (no grammar check). Moreover, save the day, supposedly extricating natu- rection of the optimal design. ralism from the probability mire. computer crashes and viruses could wipe But the more realistic picture is that of out promising attempts or even the entire Hence an important modification to a “fitness terrain,” where words are system! the monkey-and-Shakespeare story is sug- mounds, sentences are hills, and prose is a gested by Ruse. “Suppose, however, that Some have countered that my sce- mountaintop. In between are valleys of nario is unrealistic since prose poorly every time the monkey strikes the ‘right’ misspelled words, canyons of improperly letter, it records; but, suppose also that models genetic encoding. For example, punctuated sentences, and ridges of non- one can change a single letter in a word ‘wrong’ letters get rubbed out (literally or sense sentences. The cosmic teacher only metaphorically!). And suppose the elimi- and you usually destroy its meaning, whites-out the worst efforts of the mon- whereas a change in an amino acid usually nation of the wrong letter is the full con- keys, letting some get “stuck” with a word sequence of a ‘mistake’: one does not lose does not prevent the protein from per- 4 or two, even though it does not yet even forming its function. Also the gene order, what has already been typed.” The idea is make a sentence. that natural selection acts as an invisible it is argued, is unimportant in the genome. cosmic teacher, allowing successes, while No guarantees Three probability problems rubbing out failures. Secondly, there is no guarantee that “one A bottle of white-out does not lose what has already been typed.” There are three probability problems that While the monkeys are busy typing away, should be modeled here. First, the whop- There are at least three problems with there are multiple forces working against ping unlikelihood of a truly beneficial mu- Ruse’s scenario. First, Ruse takes a very them, like a bad accident (mutation) jam- tation that adds new information which naïve view of natural selection. If one ming a typewriter, or random natural de- then becomes the basis for an evolutionary follows the analogy, the poetic sensibility struction extinguishing the whole project. novelty. Secondly, assuming that suffi- and grammatical complexity become “fit- cient of these mutations can be observed ness.” On the bottom of the proverbial hill Thirdly, Ruse ignores the challenge of over the course of time so that we can ac- is a random jumble of the various marks polygeny. “Selection simply cannot see curately determine the odds, we move on

6 A publication of the Creation Research Society January / February 2000 to Haldane’s Dilemma and the cost-of- fully dealing with the cost-of-mutation is- of correctly spelled words, we can assume mutation problem. sue could be analogous to producing an a “spellchecker” with 75,000 words. Then intelligent sentence; and obtaining a rea- the probability of typing, in order, all the That is, since by anyone’s calculation soned paragraph could then model the sonnet’s words is just one chance in the great majority of mutations are delete- evolution of an irreducibly complex sys- 75,000114 or 5.77x10555. This would re- rious, can the population reasonably bear tem. The “poetic sensibility and gram- quire 4.1x10412 universes more than the the cost of removing these through differ- matical complexity” that I mentioned ear- ReMine illustration above to have an even ential survival? And what is the impact of lier would finally be analogous to the chance at succeeding! harmful mutations on the reproductive ca- beautifully complex, highly adapted crea- pacity along the way? To simultaneously tures we observe, in which many of these References substitute numerous genes in a generation, systems ultimately work together in ex- 1. Wald, G., 1955. “The Origin of Life,” Physics evolution requires a very fortuitous set of quisite symmetry. and Chemistry of Life, p.12. reproductive circumstances. 2. Hawking, S.W., 1988. A Brief History of Time: Does this scenario solve the monkeys’ From the Big Bang to Black Holes, p. 123. Thirdly, assuming the positive muta- probability challenge with the sonnet? 3. ReMine, W.J., 1993. The Biotic Message: Evolu- tions keep occurring and the population Let’s rework the calculation using Re- tion Versus Message Theory, p.80. can continually produce the enormous host Mine’s assumption that we have as many 4. Ruse, M., 1982. Darwinism Defended: A Guide of specimens that must march off to ge- to the Evolution Controversies, p. 308. monkeys as protons in the observable uni- netic death, then we can finally get to 5. Gould, S.J., 1980. The Panda's Thumb, pp. verse. Furthermore, let’s upgrade the Gould’s polygeny and Behe’s “Irreducible 89-90. monkeys’ skills to typing a miraculous 500 Complexity.” What then are the odds that random words per minute (while gener- a whole system can simultaneously be put ously having the “nonwords” removed, and into place so that it can actually be selected mercifully being spared system crashes) (e.g., an immune system, metamorphosis, around the clock for 20 billion years. sexual reproduction, altruism, etc.)? There are 114 words in Shakespeare’s fa- Say the odds of getting a "word" mod- mous sonnet When in Disgrace with For- els the mutation problem. Then success- tune and Men’s Eyes. To provide a source

the fossil record is far more Dar- that these criticisms only apply to neo- Distinctions ... winian than it is. This probably Darwinism (Darwinism as modified by the ...continued from page 1 comes from the over- findings of modern genetics), not to the Jay Gould has been particularly candid, simplification inevitable in sec- fact of evolution. On this point Johnson pointing out that the primary characteris- ondary sources: low-level text- writes: tics of the fossil record are sudden ap- books, semi-popular articles, and “We can point to a mystery and pearance (creatures appearing fully so on. Also, there is probably call it evolution, but this is only a formed) and stasis (creatures typically ex- some wishful thinking involved. label. The important question is hibiting little or no change), and that the In the years after Darwin, his ad- not whether scientists have idea that actual creatures bridged the gaps vocates hoped to find predictable agreed on a label, but how much is inference. Gould’s colleague, Niles El- progressions. In general, these they know about how complex dredge, writes: have not been found — yet the living beings like ourselves came optimism has died hard, and “No wonder paleontologists into existence.” (1993, p. 10) some pure fantasy has crept into shied away from evolution for so textbooks.” (1981, p. 289) long. It never seems to happen ... The biochemical level Evolution cannot forever be go- Orr and Coyne write: “We conclude A second problem is that it seems quite ing on somewhere else. Yet that’s — unexpectedly — that there is little evi- unclear how evolution could have oc- how the fossil record has struck dence for the neo-Darwinian view: its curred at the biochemical level (see Behe, many a forlorn paleontologist theoretical foundations and the experi- 1996). James Shapiro (1996) writes: looking to learn something about mental evidence supporting it are weak.” evolution.” (1995, p. 95) (1992, p. 726) In sum, the successes of the “There are no detailed Darwinian Neo-Darwinian synthesis “are limited to accounts for the evolution of any David Raup, one of the world’s most the minutiae of evolution, such as the fundamental biochemical or cel- respected paleontologists, provides addi- adaptive change in coloration of moths; lular system, only a variety of tional insight: while it has remarkably little to say on the wishful speculations. It is re- “A large number of well-trained questions which interest us most, such as markable that Darwinism is ac- scientists outside of evolutionary how there came to be moths in the first cepted as a satisfactory explana- biology and paleontology have place.” (Ho and Sanders, 1979, p. 589) tion for such a vast subject — unfortunately gotten the idea that evolution — with so little rigor- Of course, evolutionists might argue

January / February 2000 A publication of the Creation Research Society 7 ous examination of how well its available evidence so that they can distin- Eldredge, N. (1995). Reinventing Darwin: The basic theses work in illuminating guish between the proven fact that crea- Great Debate at the High Table of Evolution- ary Theory. New York: John Wiley & Sons. specific instances of biological tures change and the theory that all crea- Endler, J. A., & McLellan, T. (1988). The process adaptation or diversity.” tures could have evolved from a common of evolution: toward a newer synthesis. An- ancestor. Neither science nor education is nual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 19. Research suggests that only about 9 advanced by the current lack of distinction Grasse, P. (1977). Evolution of Living Organisms. percent of people in the U.S. accept the between these ideas. New York: Academic Press. [Editor’s note: “central finding of modern biology” that This book was first published (1973) in French.] evolution from microbes to humans oc- We recommend that NKU’s Faculty Senate reject the evolution statement ap- Ho, M. W., & Saunders, P. T. (1979). Beyond Neo- curred, and through a random, purposeless, Darwinism — an epigenetic approach to evo- impersonal process (see Sagan, 1996, p. proved by the PCC, rather than endorse use lution. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 78. 327). Some evolutionists will continue to of a term that promulgates continued mis- Johnson, P. E. (1993). Darwin on Trial (2nd ed.). insist that the remaining 91 percent are understanding. Further, it is our recom- Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press. mendation that, as an educational and re- Orr, H.A., and Coyne, J.A. (1992). The genetics of ignorant (ignorant, stupid, insane, or adaptation: a reassessment. American Natural- wicked, according to R. Dawkins, 1995); search institution, NKU should be a leader ist, 140. others will continue to acknowledge the in clarifying the controversy. In doing so, it Raup, D. (1981). Evolution and the fossil record. distinctions between the scientific fact of should provide definitions to the educa- Science, 213. evolution and the scientific theory of evo- tional community for: 1) the scientifically Sagan, C. (1996). The Demon-Haunted World: Sci- proven adaptive evolution and 2) the the- ence as a Candle in the Dark. Random lution. House: New York. ory of evolution. Further, it should en- Shapiro, J. A. (1996). In the details...what? Na- Distinguishing fact from courage public educators to teach students tional Review, Sept. 19, 62-65. theory how to think critically about this and other important issues, and to develop an appre- Professors George Aldhizer, Gary Johnston In summary, the term “evolution” is am- ciation of scientific inquiry. and Douglas Krull are members of the NKU biguous in that it is used to refer to both (Northern Kentucky University) Professional scientific fact and scientific theory (a the- References Concerns Committee of the Faculty Senate. ory that enjoys less than compelling em- Behe, M. J. (1996). Darwin's Black Box: the Bio- This is an adaptation of a minority opinion they pirical support). Evolution is a central idea chemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: wrote taking exception to the senate’s position that cuts across many scientific disciplines, Free Press. urging use of the word “evolution” in state Dawkins, R. (1995). River Out of Eden. New York: curriculum guidelines. and it is important that students be familiar Basic Books. with the term. However, students should Dobzhansky, T. (1975). Darwinian or 'oriented' evo- also learn to think critically about the lution? Evolution, 29.

A Probably Fraudulent Dinobird: What Shall We Make of It? by David Bump

or those of you who haven’t al- imagine the evolutionary scenario by pic- I must say that my personal reaction at ready heard, the title refers to the turing a creature that’s a chicken in front the time was rather ho-hum. Although F case of a fossil named Archae- and a lizard in back, you’ve got a lot of some primitive features were claimed for oraptor liaoningensis, and the fraud has updating to do. the forepart of the fossil, it was clearly the lead to the embarrassment of no less an dinosaurian tail that was the most exciting institution than the National Geographic Best illustration yet feature. However, judging from the pic- Society. And yet that is relatively close to what tures of the fossil in natural and UV light,4 fooled the National Geographic Society, If you would like further background the tail bones did not seem especially and the respected scientists Stephen on the current state of evolutionary think- heavy or developed for attachment of Czerkas, Philip J. Currie, and Xing Xu. As ing about the evolution of birds from di- heavy muscles. Of course, it was difficult told in Science News,2 it began with the nosaurs, and why the data do not actually to judge by pictures of the size and quality announcement at a press conference in support this view, I recommend a visit to available to me, yet the picture of their October 1999. Archaeoraptor liaonin- the online document “On the Alleged Di- own “sculptor’s depiction” of the creature gensis was presented as the best illustra- nosaurian Ancestry of Birds.”1 For now, I in life appeared to me as indistinguishable tion yet of a dinosaur evolving into a bird; can only say that there are a number of from Archaeopteryx, the first-discovered not able to fly well but probably getting off fossils that evolutionists claim are transi- primitive bird. the ground a bit. The society’s magazine tional, or at least show the transitional also had a related story in November, A dubious background steps required. For most of them, the ar- “Feathers for T. rex?”3 Apparently, the At any rate, it apparently was worth a good gument is over; birds are dinosaurs. society hoped this fossil would truly end deal of fanfare to the researchers who They’re wrong, of course, but if you still the debate once and for all. discovered it. Ah, but therein lies the

8 A publication of the Creation Research Society January / February 2000 trouble. It was not discovered by scientists became Archaeoraptor, the fossil which phasized and others ignored in order to in situ, but rather it was smuggled out of three respected scientists and the National classify strange creatures as dinosaurs China and bought by a researcher (techni- Geographic Society had presented as a rather than flightless birds, or even as an cally, by the museum where Czerkas shining example of a dinobird. entirely different kind of animal? Many works) in Utah. This sort of background similar challenges may be raised. alone would be enough for evolutionists to Don’t gloat The supporters of the dinobird sce- dismiss it if it were something presented So that’s the story. What are we to make nario may feel that nothing has changed by a creationary scientist. In this case, of it? I think we should avoid gloating after this fiasco, but creationists and evo- there was yet another problem, for as over this too much. First, there are several lutionists supporting an alternate theory Monastersky notes, the researchers “had other fossils which are claimed to illustrate may well be encouraged in telling them concerns about the tail because the bones this transition. Secondly, the evolutionists that they are far from proving their case. connecting it to the body are missing and can always say, once again, that it shows 2 the self-correcting nature of science. the slab shows signs of reworking.” These References concerns were hardly mentioned, if at all, Thirdly, there may still be something sal- until after the bad news broke. vaged from this, such as claiming the di- 1. Camp, A.L. 1998. On the alleged dinosaurian nosaur from which the tail came had ancestry of birds. The True.Origin Archive. It’s not as if the National Geographic So- (http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevo.htm). feathers, or that the bird part of the fossil is ciety and the researchers involved weren’t 2. Monastersky, R. 2000. All mixed up over birds given any warning. The curator of birds at especially primitive. And finally, the tail and dinosaurs. Science News 157 (15 Jan): 38. the Smithsonian wrote an open letter5 cri- has not yet been proven to belong to an- 3. Sloan, C.P. 1999. Feathers for T. rex? National tiquing the way the contraband fossil had other fossil. Certainly this case will not Geographic Magazine (November). [It should cast any doubt into the minds of the true be noted that it was only claimed that it was been presented, the name put in print be- probable that hatchling and juvenile tyranno- fore a proper research paper was pub- believers in the evolution of birds from saurs had downy feathers.] lished, and the way the dinobird scenario dinosaurs. 4. See http://www.nationalgeographic.com/events/ was being pushed. On the other hand, this clearly shows 99/feather/index.html and also Monastersky, Ref. 2. Neither the Society nor the research- the zeal with which the dinobird scenario 5. Olson, S.L. Open letter to Dr. Peter Raven, Sec- ers seem to have voiced any doubts or is being supported. We might well ask, if retary, Committee for Research and Explora- concerns until recently when, as Monaster- a smuggled fossil can be used this way and tion National Geographic Society, 1 Nov. 2 the possibility of fraud so easily over- 1999. http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevoletter. sky reports, one of the researchers was htm [Editor’s note: The letter states in part, examining a fossil dinosaur and decided its looked or dismissed, what other errors “National Geographic has reached an all-time tail looked exactly like the one on Ar- have been made? How much considera- low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsub- chaeoraptor. Apparently, it had split upon tion has been given to the possibility that stantiated, tabloid journalism.”]. excavation, and the other half had been “feathers” on dinosaurs were some other attached to a fossil of a primitive bird to sort of covering or effect of the fossiliza- boost the price. That “specimen” then tion process? Were certain factors em-

What Are Creationists Thinking about ...?

As new scientific discoveries make the headlines, have you ever wondered how your fellow creationists are reacting? Have you ever thought of a “crazy” new idea about origins and wanted to bounce it off another creationist?

Now you can keep in contact daily with creationists from all around the world. The Creation Research Society sponsors CRSnet, an online community of CRS members who have e-mail access to the Internet. Not only do participants discuss the latest scientific findings related to origins, but they also receive news about the CRS — its research, publications, and activities — and other creation-related news.

For more information, send an e-mail message to Glen Wolfrom at [email protected]. Participation is limited to CRS members in good standing.

January / February 2000 A publication of the Creation Research Society 9 Creation Calendar

Note: Items in “Creation Calendar” are for information only; the listing of an event does not necessarily imply endorsement by the Creation Research Society.

March 4-5 April 18 Creation Talks by Dr. Don DeYoung Living Things as Evidence for Creation by Dennis Wert Bethel Brethren Church, Berne, IN Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA Contact: Pastor Joseph Nass (219)589-3381 7:30 pm, Mars CM&A Church, Mars, PA March 18 Contact: (412)341-4908; [email protected] Science Ridicules Evolution & Confirms Genesis by Dr. J. Mastropaolo April 28-30 Bible Science Assoc’n, San Fernando Valley Chapter Creation Talks by Dr. Don DeYoung 7:00 pm, Our Saviour’s Lutheran Church, Granada Hills, CA Grace Brethren Church, Martinsburg, PA Contact: Mark Armitage (626)815-6000 x5519, marmitage @apunet.apu.edu Contact: Pastor Jim Laird (814)793-2513 March 21 April 28-30 Cosmic Evidence for Creation (Design) & Catastrophism by W. Stillman Karst, Castle, and Cave Crawl Weekend Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA CSA for Mid-America (Kansas City area) 7:30 pm, Mars CM&A Church, Mars, PA Contact: Tom Willis (816)618-3610; [email protected] Contact: (412)341-4908; [email protected] May 16 March 31 and April 1 Geological Evidences for Creation and the Flood by Chuck Danley Creation vs Evolution by Dr. Kent Hovind Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA Albert Lea Sr. High Auditorium, Albert Lea, MN 7:30 pm, Mars CM&A Church, Mars, PA Southern Minn. Association for Creation Contact: (412)341-4908; [email protected] Contact: Bryce Gaudian (507)256-7211, [email protected] May 18 April 15 Workshop: Winning Debates Against Evolutionists with Dr. Duane Gish An Evolutionist Corrects a Creationist — Debate Attendance limited to members of the Creation Research Society Bible Science Assoc’n, San Fernando Valley Chapter Registration fee — $40 ($10 discount if paid before May 1); mail fee to: 7:00 pm, Our Saviour’s Lutheran Church, Granada Hills, CA Dr. David Kaufmann, 3745 NW 7th Ave., Gainesville, FL 32607 Contact: Mark Armitage (626)815-6000 x5519, marmitage @apunet.apu.edu Contact: Dr. David Kaufmann (352)378-9112, [email protected] May 19-20 Creation Research Society Annual Board Meeting Atlanta, Georgia Creation Matters May 20 ISSN 1094-6632 Field trip and presentation Azusa Pacific Electron Microscopy Facility A publication of the Creation Research Society Bible Science Assoc’n, San Fernando Valley Chapter Volume 5, Number 1 January / February 2000 1:00 pm, APU Graduate Campus, Mary Hill Center, Azusa, CA Contact: Mark Armitage (626)815-6000 x5519, marmitage @apunet.apu.edu Copyright © 2000, Creation Research Society May 27-29 All rights reserved. Kansas Chalk Monuments, Museums, and Fossil Beds General Editor: Glen W. Wolfrom CSA for Mid-America (Kansas City area) Contact: Tom Willis (816)618-3610; [email protected] For membership / subscription information, advertising rates, June 20 and information for authors: Evidence for a Young Earth by Jeff Lawther Glen W. Wolfrom Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA P.O. Box 8263 St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263 7:30 pm, Mars CM&A Church, Mars, PA Contact: (412)341-4908; [email protected] Email: [email protected] June 22-24 Phone/fax: 816.279.2312 Design and Its Critics — speakers include: Drs. Michael Behe, William Dembski, Paul Nelson, et al. Creation Research Society Website: http://www.creationresearch.org Concordia Univ. Of Wisconsin, Mequon, WI Contact: Dr. Angus Menuge (262)243-4249; [email protected] Articles published in Creation Matters represent the opinions and beliefs of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Creation Research Society.

Creation Research Society Nonprofit Org. P.O. Box 8263 US Postage St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263 PAID USA Creation Research Society Return Service Requested

Creation Matters January / February 2000 Vol. 5 No. 1