by Lenny Flank
(c) 2008
In July 2008, the state of Louisiana passed a law requiring that whenever "controversial topics" are discussed in science classrooms (such as evolution, global warming or genetic engineering), then the "strengths and weaknesses" of each theory must be discussed, and "supplemental materials" would be allowed to illustrate the "debates". The Discovery Institute had been pushing for such a law ever since it lost its bid to have "intelligent design theory" taught as an "alternative scientific theory".
In July 2007, several Discovery Institute members released a book entitled "Explore Evolution", which they intended to serve as a "supplemental textbook" for their "teach the controversy" strategy. The Discovery Institute is now heavily promoting "Explore Evolution", and it is very likely that it will show up in Louisiana as a "supplemental material". It seems very likely that the future court case over the Louisiana law will revolve around "Explore Evolution", just as the Dover court case revolved heavily around "Of Pandas and People".
Shortly after "Explore Evolution" became available in July 2007, I obtained a review copy and went through it line by line. As I did, I posted my findings on the "After the Bar Closes" forum at Antievolution.Org , where one of the book's authors, Paul Nelson, had appeared to puff the book. I directed my posts to Paul, who never responded to any of them.
What follows is the record of my findings as they were then posted. I begin with some posts describing what exactly it was that I intended to do:.
*****************************
Hey Paul, I've not read your, uh, wonderful new science textbook yet. But, given the extensive past history of
creationism/ID, I feel pretty confident that I can make a testable prediction about its contents:
*ahem*
I predict that of all the various anti-evolution arguments that appear therein, (1) not a single one -- none, zip, zero, zilch,
nada -- has ever appeared in any peer-reviewed science journal published anywhere in the world in the past 50 years,
and (2) every single one of them -- absolutely all of them, without exception -- can be found in previously published
creationist/ID religious tracts (and indeed, can be found ONLY in previously published creationist/ID religious tracts, and
can be found **nowhere else**).
Am I correct in that hypothesis, Paul? Can you point to any peer-reviewed science journal articles wherein any of these,
uh, "scientific criticisms of evolution" have appeared?
Well, I think the most important thing is to tie everything in the book directly to previous creationist and/or ID
propaganda pieces. After all, the ONLY way this book can survive in court is if the authors (half of whom are, uh, from
the Discovery Institute, and at least one of which is a young-earth creationist - snicker, giggle) can demonstrate that
the book has nothing at all whatsoever to do with either ID or creation 'science', no sirree Bob.
It's an argument they simply cannot win.
Legally, it's not against the law to publish inaccurate science "textbooks".
It IS, however, against the law to publish creationist religious objections to evolution, and pretend they are "science".
Well, let me clear about what I'll be doing: if this book is to survive in court, it MUST, absolutely MUST, differentiate
itself from creation "science" AND from intelligent design "theory" (both of which have already been ruled illegal by the
courts).
So my task, as I see it, is to trace the geneology and history of every argument the book presents, to demonstrate
where it is just a re-hashed version of previous creationist and/or ID "scientific arguments".
So far, I've not even seen the book, and I already know that the whole crapola about therapsid diaphragms and bones is
just a re-hashed version of the same arguments presented decades ago in Duane Gish's "Evolution? The Fossils Say
No!".
Add that to the fact that two of the book's authors are IDers, and one is a YECer, and it certainly doesn't look like this
book will stand a snowball's chance in hell, once it gets to court.
***********************
At that point, I received my review copy:
********************************
Just got my first look at the tome today. I can sum up my feelings in one word:
BWA HA HA HA HA HA AH AH A !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If these retards think they can fool any Federal Judge anywhere in the United States of America with this, then they are
even MORE deluded and desperate than I thought they were --- and I already thought they were pretty damn deluded and
desperate.
Yes, folks, every typical creationist/ID argument you've heard in the past 40 years, is in here. "Cambrian Explosion".
"Abrupt Appearence (yes, they were indeed stupid enough to use ***that very phrase***, repeatedly)". "Fossil Gaps".
"Created Kinds". "Microevolution and Macroevolution". "Bats have no fossil ancestors". "Flowering plants appear
suddenly". "Common structures are the result of common function". "Common structures are just convergence".
"Haeckel's drawings show that darwinists are liars". "Mutation and natural selection can't produce new structures".
"Peppered moths were faked". "DNA can only change within fixed limits". "Evolution is just an assumption". "Biological
information cannot increase". "No new genetic information". "No beneficial mutations". "Goldschmidt's monster".
"Behe and the flagellum". "Irreducible complexity". "Evolution is a tautology". "The big bad scientific establishment
crushes dissent".
Indeed, the entire fossil discussion is straight out of Gish's "Evolution? The Fossils Say No!". The whole Introduction is
one big long AiG "were you there?" discussion. The "A New Challenge" section is all about "Intelligent Design Theory",
without ever mentioning the name (I expect that Dover had something to do with that, right Paul?).
Give me the weekend, and I'll link all of these to their previously published creationist/ID ancestors. While ALL of these
are standard ICR/AiG/DI boilerplate, some of them I literally haven't heard in 20 years, so it'll take some digging to find
them again in print.
Taking the quickest method, I've begun cross-checking the statements in the tome with the standard creationist/ICR
boilerplate enumerated in the Index of Creationist Claims.
So far, just in the three-page Preface, we get:
“The theory of evolution remains the focus of intense public controversy. So what’s all the controversy about?”
CA041 “Teach the Controversy”, CA201 “Evolution is only a theory”
“We hope this book will help you understand what contemporary Darwinian theory is, why many scientific find it
persuasive, and why other scientists question key aspects of it.”
CA041 “Teach the Controversy”, CA111 “Many current scientists reject evolution”, CA112 “Many scientists find
problems with evolution”, CI001 “Intelligent Design theory is scientific”
“It allows you to evaluate answers to scientific questions on your own and form your own conclusions”.
CA041 “teach the controversy”, CI001 “Intelligent Design theory is scientific”
“Teaching scientific ideas openly and critically not only helps prepare you for possible careers in science, but it helps
you learn to make informed decisions about such issues.”
CA041, “teach the controversy”, CI001 “Intelligent Design theory is scientific”
“This allows you to do what scientists do – think and argue about how best to interpret evidence.”
CA230 “Interpreting evidence is not the same as observation”, CA230.1 “Evolutionists interpret evidence on the basis of
their preconceptions”
“United States federal education policy, for example, calls for teaching students about competing views of controversial
scientific issues. As the US Congress has stated, “[W]here topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as
biological evolution) the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of views that exist”. FOOTNOTE:
This statement occurs in the authoritative conference report language of the No Child Left Behind federal education
act.”
CA041.1 “Federal law (Santorum Amendment) supports teaching alternatives”
(Note also that this statement is a flat-out deceptive lie ---- not only is the conference report NOT "authoritative", in fact
it has no legal authority whatsoever, but teaching creationism and ID is illegal under Federal law. Period.)
“Throughout this book, you will discover that there are, indeed, important scientific controversies about the key claims
of evolutionary theory and about the arguments used to support them.”
CA111 “Many current scientists reject evolution”, CA112 “Many scientists find problems with evolution”, CI001
“Intelligent Design theory is scientific”
“We have written this book, in part, so that you could learn about the controversial aspects of evolutionary theory that
are discussed openly in scientific books and journals but which are not widely reported in textbooks.
CA041 “teach the controversy”, CA320 “Scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma”, CI001
“Intelligent Design theory is scientific”
“For each argument in Darwin’s case, we will begin by explaining the argument, and examining the evidence in support
of it. (We call this the Case For.) Then, we will spend some time examining the claims and evidence that lead some
scientists to question the argument. (We call this the Reply.) We then look at the current state of the discussion in a
section called “Further Debate”.
CA510 “Creationism and evolution are the only 2 models”, CA510.1 “Problems with evolution are evidence for creation”
“The Reply section has not yet been presented in most school textbooks.”
CA230 “scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma”.
“As you will find throughout this book, there are qualified, respected scientists on both sides of each argument.”
CA041 “teach the controversy”, CA111 “Many current scientists reject evolution”, CA112 “Many scientists find problems
with evolution”, CI001 “Intelligent Design theory is scientific”
“We don’t want you to simply accept this book as the last word on this subject any more than we’d want you to
uncritically accept the word of other textbooks that present only the case for Darwinian evolution.”
CA041 “teach the controversy”, CA320 “Scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma”
The one phrase in the Preface that leaped right out at me, though, was this one:
“This makes for exciting viewing, but is not always helpful in finding answers to the real questions in the origins
debate”.
That word "origins" is significant. It ties, I believe, this book directly to not only creationism and ID, but specifically to
their previous legal attempts to introduce creationism and ID into public school science classrooms, since the phrases
"origins science" and "origins debate" is not used in any scientific sense and does not appear in any scientific papers or
textbooks --- but it appears EVERYWHERE in creationist/ID tracts and in their legal arguments, where it has a very
specific meaning for the anti-evolutionists (a meaning held by no other political, religious or educational group).
I am in the process of tracking down a couple references that I recall, and will post more when I'm done.
Wherever possible, when tying EE's claims to creationist claims, I am trying to tie it to pre-Aguillard sources, and when
tying EE to ID claims, I'm trying to tie it to pre-Dover sources. The reason -- I want to demonstrate that despite all the
cosmetic changes that the anti-evolution movement has made in response to various losses in court, the very same
"scientific arguments" continued, unchanged, right from the very beginning, whether they are being used to present
"the alternative scientific theory of creation science" or "the alternative scientific theory of intelligent design" or "the
scientific controversy over evolution" or "the scientific arguments against evolution". It's all the same crap. And EE is
just more of the same.
OK. On the first page of the preface of "Explore Evolution", in the second paragraph, we find the sentence " “This
makes for exciting viewing, but is not always helpful in finding answers to the real questions in the origins debate”.
That phrase "origins debate" is significant -- it (along with its companion phrase "origins science") ties this book
directly not only to the creationist/ID movement, but specifically to previous legal attempts to push
religiously-motivated criticisms of evolution into classrooms.
The phrase "origins science" or "origins debate" or "origins model" does not occur in scientific papers, or in scientific
textbooks. But it appears extensively in creation "science" and intelligent design "theory" literature, a history that
goes back over 30 years -- in ICR Impact June 1, 1973, Duane Gish writes, “To restrict the teaching concerning origins
to a single theory, that of organic evolution, and to teach it as an established scientific fact, constitutes indoctrination
in a humanistic religious philosophy. Such a procedure violates the Constitutional prohibition against the teaching of
sectarian religious views just as clearly as if the teaching concerning origins were restricted to the Book of Genesis.”
The phrase has a very specific meanign to creationists -- a meaning that is used by them alone, and by no other
education or sciecne group. That meaning is explained by creationsit Jonathan Sarfati at the Answers In Genesis
website:
Quote
“This fails to note the distinction between normal (operational) science, and origins or historical science. Normal
(operational) science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present, while origins science helps us to
make educated guesses about origins in the past.”
“In contrast, evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past. Thus it comes under origins
science. Rather than observation, origins science uses the principles of causality (everything that has a beginning has a
cause) and analogy (e.g. we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present,
so we can reasonably assume the same for the past). And because there was no material intelligent designer for life, it
is legitimate to invoke a non-material designer for life. Creationists invoke the miraculous only for origins science, and
as shown, this does not mean they will invoke it for operational science.” (Jonathan Sarfati, “Who’s Really Pushing ‘Bad
Science’?”)
As used by creationists, "origins science" ties directly to the standard creationist "were you there?" argument, as well
as to the "evolution and creation are just different interpretations of the same evidence" argument. And, as Sarfati
notes, the concept ties directly to their religious beliefs ("Creationists invoke the miraculous only for origins science").
For creationists, "origins science" and the "origins debate" mean far more than just explanations of previous earth
history -- it ties directly to their religious and moral worldview, and their religious and moral rejection of evolutionary
biology:
Quote
“Does what one believes about creation and evolution affect his or her worldview? Do origin assumptions provide a
foundation upon which important moral questions are answered? Creationists have advanced the idea that what one
believes about creation and evolution affects his or her worldview. For example, Morris [24] stated in the "When Two
Worldviews Collide" videotape, "wrong thinking always begets wrong behavior and evolution is wrong thinking." Ham
[14, p. 41] said, "there is a connection between origins and issues affecting society such as marriage, clothing, abortion,
sexual deviancy, parental authority, etc." More directly, Barnes [5, p. 21] claims, "not only have many given away
institutions of higher learning to the evolutionary establishment, but they are also giving away their own children to be
trained in an evolutionary mind set. This is causing our children to abandon the traditional Judeo-Christian values upon
which our society is founded." Morris and Morris [22, p. 12] state, "a person's philosophy of origins will inevitably
determine sooner or later what he believes concerning his destiny, and even what he believes about the meaning and
purpose of his life and actions right now in the present world" (emphasis added).” (COMPARING ORIGINS BELIEF AND
MORAL VIEWS , RICHARD L. OVERMAN, M.S., Presented at the Fourth International Conference on Creationism,
Pittsburgh, PA, August 3-8, 1998)
ICR still declares today that consideration of "origins" is vital to its religious message: “The creation record is factual,
historical and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development which involve evolution in any form are false.”
(http://www.icr.org/home/faq/)
Given the religious importance of the idea of "origins", and the religious implications of the "origins debate", it's no
surprise that this terminology is found in ICR's earliest attempts to legislate the inclusion of "origins science" in public
school classrooms as creation "science":
Quote
"Evolution is science, creation is religion, we cannot have religion in the classroom." All too often this is the rule when
it comes to the manner in which teachers perceive their role in the instruction of origins in the classroom. Fortunately,
this type of thinking does not prevail in the majority of cases.”
“A Two-Model Approach to Origins should not include sectarian religion for the public schools; the approach should base
its emphasis on the interpretation of scientific data presently available. It is conceivable, even, desirable, that sectarian
schools will embellish the scientific limits of the model by making open reference to biblical history. A Two-Model
Approach, in essence, is significant only when students have had an opportunity to hear, see, or read, all pertinent data
on topics relating to origins.” A Two-Model Approach to Origins: A Curriculum Imperative, by Richard Bliss, Ph.D., ICR
Impact June 1, 1976)
Quote
“Proposal To Anderson School District #5
Board Of Trustees
by Paul Ellwanger
03/14/78
Whereas, the Constitution prohibits government from infringing upon free exercise of an individual's religion, and
Whereas, an infringement occurs when a state program has content contrary to religious precepts, and
Whereas, exclusive instruction by public secondary and elementary schools in the general theory of evolution infringes
upon the free exercise of creationist students and parents, and
Whereas, many citizens of this community believe in the special creation concept of origins and are convinced that
exclusive indoctrination of their children in the evolutionary concept is inimical to their religious faith and to their moral
and civic teachings, as well as to scientific objectivity, academic freedom, and civil rights, and
Whereas, even most citizens who are not opposed to the evolution concept at least favor a balanced treatment of these
two alternative views of origins in their schools, so as to allow students to consider all of the evidences favoring each
concept before deciding which to believe, and
Whereas, instruction in creation in a scientific context without use of the Bible would not violate the establishment
clause of the Constitution, and
Whereas, there are now available, though quite limited in options, instructional material which do not expound the Bible
in presenting creation science, but instead, employ scientific discussion by authors highly trained in science,
I hereby propose that the Board of Trustees of Anderson School District #5 take whatever steps necessary to have
objectively presented in the public classrooms of District #5 a balanced treatment of evolution and creation in all
courses and library materials dealing in any way with the subject of origins, such treatment to be limited to the
scientific, rather than the religious aspects of the two concepts.
In the event this Board goes on record in favor of this proposal, I respectfully suggest ...
1. That only those instructional materials be considered which would supplement current State-adopted texts in
providing unbiased information about these two explanations for origins.
2. That only instructional materials be considered for selection which give an objective and nondogmatic treatment of
the creation model, so as not to violate the establishment clause of our Constitution.
The following resource/reference items are immediately available, upon request, and offered as a courtesy/convenience,
from Paul Ellwanger, 2820 LeConte Road, Anderson, either as a complimentary copy or loan-item (as indicated): [This
section is summarized as follows]
- article by Bird6
- an unpublished article by Gish, "Creatioon, Evolution and Public Education" (available from ICR)
- a news article about Dr. John N. Moore aand one of his Impact articles (No. 52, published October, 1977).
- Impact article No. 51, September, 1977, by Henry Morris.
- Impact article No. 36, June, 1976, by Riichard Bliss.
- the student's book, teacher’s guide, andd transparencies entitled Origins: Two Models, Creation/Evolution by Richard
Bliss.
- Scientific Creationism, Public School Eddition, by Henry Morris.” (ICR Impact, January 1, 1979, "Creation Science and
the Local School District")
Quote
“[T]hose of creationist persuasion could maintain church-state separation in the same manner as an evolutionist
teacher might, so long as they teach both views of origins and limit their approach to empirical evidence?” (ICR Impact,
March 1, 1981, Establishing Scientific Guidelines for Origins-Instruction in the Public Education, by Judith Tarr Harding)
Given the pervasive presence of "origins" language in ICR's effort to introduce creation 'science', it is no surprise that
Act 590, the Arkansas law that introduced "balanced treatment" for "evolution science" and "creation science", was
permeated by the same "origins" language:
Quote
Act 590 of 1981
"AN ACT TO REQUIRE BALANCED TREATMENT OF CREATION-SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION- SCIENCE IN PUBLIC
SCHOOLS; TO PROTECT ACADEMIC FREEDOM BY PROVIDING STUDENT CHOICE; TO ENSURE FREEDOM OF
RELIGIOUS EXERCISE; TO GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF BELIEF AND SPEECH; TO PREVENT ESTABLISHMENT OF
RELIGION; TO PROHIBIT RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION CONCERNING ORIGINS
This Act does not require or permit instruction in any religious doctrine or materials. This Act does not require any
instruction in the subject of origins, but simply requires instruction in both scientific models (of evolution-science and
creation-science) if public schools choose to teach either.
Only evolution-science is presented to students in virtually all of those courses that discuss the subject of origins.
Public schools generally censor creation-science and evidence contrary to evolution.
Public school presentation of only evolution-science without any alternative model of origins abridges the United States
Constitution's protections of freedom of religious exercise and of freedom of belief and speech for students and parents,
because it undermines their religious convictions and moral or philosophical values, compels their unconscionable
professions of belief, and hinders religious training and moral training by parents.
Presentation of only one model rather than alternative scientific models of origins is not required by any compelling
interest of the State
Creation-science is an alternative scientific model of origins and can be presented from a strictly scientific standpoint
without any religious doctrine just as evolution-science can, because there are scientists who conclude that scientific
data best support creation-science and because scientific evidences and inferences have been presented for
creation-science.
Most citizens, whatever their religious beliefs about origins, favor balanced treatment in public schools of alternative
scientific models of origins for better guiding students in their search for knowledge, and they favor a neutral approach
toward subjects affecting the religious and moral and philosophical convictions of students."
And indeed ICR still uses this same "origins science" language to refer to bills requiring that the "controversy over
evolution" be taught:
Quote
“Earlier this year House Bill 481 was submitted to the Ohio State Assembly. The bill addresses the issue of teaching
"origins science" in the Ohio public schools. The carefully crafted bill scrupulously follows the intent of recent Supreme
Court decisions and attempts to implement the 2002 U.S. Education Bill, specifically its Santorum Amendment.
Quoting directly from HB 481:
It is the intent of the general assembly that to enhance the effectiveness of science education and to promote
academic freedom and the neutrality of state government with respect to teachings that touch religious and
non-religious beliefs, it is necessary and desirable that "origins science," which seeks to explain the origins of life and
its diversity, be conducted and taught objectively and without religious, naturalistic, or philosophic bias or assumption.
To further this intent, the instructional program provided by any school district or educational service center shall do all
of the following:
(A) Encourage the presentation of scientific evidence regarding the origins of life and its diversity objectively and
without religious, naturalistic, or philosophic bias or assumption;
(B) Require that whenever explanations regarding the origins of life are presented, appropriate explanation and
disclosure shall be provided regarding the historical nature of origins science and the use of any material assumption
which may have provided a basis for the explanation being presented;
© Encourage the development of curriculum that will help students think critically, understand the full range of
scientific views that exist regarding the origins of life, and understand why origins science may generate controversy. “
(ICR Impact, Oct 1, 2002, Who Could Argue with Teaching Good Science? by John Morris, Ph.D.)
This same "origins debate" language was also quickly adopted by the Intelligent Design movement. It is found on many
existing ID websites:
Quote
Welcome to Origins. This site features scholarly and popular
resources concerning intelligent design and philosophical theism.
http://www.origins.org/
Quote
“The TrueOrigin Archive comprises an intellectually honest response to what in fairness can only be described as
evolutionism—the doctrine of strict philosophical naturalism as a necessary presupposition in matters of science history
(i.e., origins). This doctrine is abundantly evident in much material advocating the Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution
origins model, including—but not limited to—the “Talk.Origins” newsgroup and the “Talk.Origins Archive” website. “
“The question of origins is plainly a matter of science history—not the domain of applied science. Contrary to the
unilateral denials of many evolutionists, one’s worldview does indeed play heavily on one’s interpretation of scientific
data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor
measurement—the three immutable elements of the scientific method—may be employed. “
http://www.trueorigin.org/
Quote
“This graphic shows the ideal way to practice origins science, where only the scientific method--not religion or
naturalistic philosophy--is guiding the research.”
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/964
Quote
Intelligent Design Network: “Seeking Objectivity in Origins Science”
Intelligent Design Network, Inc. is a nonprofit organization that seeks institutional objectivity in origins science.
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
And finally, the very same "origins" language is found in legal arguments for the teaching of Intelligent Design 'theory' in
schools:
Quote
Utah Law Review, 2000 39:1
“Teaching the Origins Controversy:
Science, Or Religion, Or Speech?”
David K. DeWolf
Stephen C. Meyer
Mark Edward DeForrest
www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/utah.pdf
Quote
Teaching Origins Science In Public Schools
John H. Calvert, J.D.
William S. Harris, Ph.D.
Published by Intelligent Design network, inc
Copyright © 2001 by Intelligent Design network, inc..
Subject: Legal Opinion Regarding the Teaching of Origins Science in Public Schools
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/legalopinion.htm
John H. Calvert, Esq.
Attorney at Law
460 Lake Shore Drive West 913-268-3778
Lake Quivira, Kansas 66217
Fax: 913-268-0852
jcalvert@att.net
March 21, 2001
Intelligent Design network, inc.
P.O. Box 14702,
Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66285-4702
Ladies and Gentlemen,
You have requested my opinion as to how public schools may develop science curriculum regarding the teaching of
biological origins (the origin of life and the origin of the diversity of life) in a way that is consistent with the Constitution
of the United States. I will refer to this area of science as "origins science."
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/legalopinion.htm
So it's no surprise at all to see the same "origins" language re-appearing in EE. It's the same meaning as before. And, in
the case of Meyer, it's the very same guy making the arguments.
OK, moving on to EE's Introduction, we find that it's just one big long discussion of "where you there?" (creationist
claim CA221):
"All theories of origins confront us with the challenge of explaining the unobservable past. These theories try to explain
unseen events, such as the origin of plants and animals -- or the origin of our own species, Homo sapiens. This task can
be difficult because, for nearly all of the history of life on earth, there was no one there to observe these events."
"Experimental scientists can observe phenomena under controlled conditions. However, historical scientists, like
archaeologists and paleontologists, must try to figure out what happened in the past without the benefit of observing
the past directly."
CA220 "Evolution cannot be replicated"
"Sometimes, we find that the same evidence can be explained in more than one way. When there are competing
theories, reasonable people can (and do) disagree about which theory best explains the evidence. Furthermore, in the
historical sciences, neither side can directly verify its claims about past events."
CA230 "Interpreting evidence is not the same as observation"
"Some people use 'evolution' to refer to something as simple as small changes in bird beaks. Others use the same word
to mean something much more far-reaching. Used one way, the term 'evolution' isn't controversial at all; used another
way, it's hotly debated."
CB901 "macroevolution has never been observed", CB902 "Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution"
"Evolution as 'change over time' can also refer to minor changes in features of individual species -- changes which take
place over a short amount of time. Many biologists think this kind of evolution (sometimes called 'microevolution')
results from a change in the proportion of different variants of a gene within a population."
CB110 "Microevolution selects only existing variations"
"Evolution #1: 'Change over time'
Evolution #2: 'Universal Common Descent'
Evolution #3: 'The creative power of natural selection' "
"The discussion also gets confusing when someone takes evidence for Evolution #1 and tries to make it look like it
supports Evolution #2."
CB901 "Macroevolution has never been observed", CB 902 "Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution", CB902.2
"Small changes do not imply large changes"
"Many of these scientists have begun to doubt whether natural selection can produce fundamentally new forms of life,
or major innovations in the anatomical structure of animals (their 'body plans'). They see natural selection acting as an
editor, weeding out harmful variations in body design, while conserving (keeping) helpful variations."
CB 904 "No entirely new features have evolved"
"Neo-Darwinists contend that 'a single tree of lfie containing multiple branches' is the most accurate picture of the
history of life. Other scientists doubt that all organisms have descended from one -- and only one -- common ancestor.
They say the evidence does indeed show some branching taking place within larger groups of organisms, but not
between the larger groups. According to these scientists, the history of life should not be represented as a single tree,
but as a series of parallel lines representing an orchard of distinct trees. In the orchard view, each of the trees has a
separate beginning."
CB822 "Evolution's tree-like pattern is discredited", CB 901.1 "Range of variation is limited within kinds"
"When we use the term common descent (no capitals), we're referring to limited common descent -- the view that
separate groups of organisms have common ancestors."
CB901.1 "Range of variation is limited within kinds"
According to several sources, the "turtle shell" crapola appears in Duane Gish, "Evolution; The Fossils STILL Say No!",
which is apparently a newer version of his, uh, magnum opus, published in 1995, on pages 112-115.
Anyone have a copy handy who can confirm this for me, please?
The turtle thingie is not in any ICR Impact articles that I can find, but Kofahl talks about it in Chapter Three of his
"Creation Explanation" (online edition March 1995), and AiG has a piece about it in its "Creation" magazine, March 1999.
I couldn't find any online version of the Creation/Evolution article from 1982 . . . but it certainly appears to be the same
argument.
Chapter heading "Universal Common Descent -- Arguments for and Against"
"The purpose of this book is to introduce you to both the case for and the case against major aspects of neo-Darwinian
evolutionary theory.
CA510 "creation and evolution are the only 2 models", CA510.1 "Problems with evolution are evidence for creation"
"About 530 million years ago, more than half of the major animal groups (called phyla) appear suddenly in the fossil
record. . . Many evolutionary biologists doubt that this is enough time for the slow, gradual Darwinian processes to
produce the amount of change that arises in the Cambrian explosion. For this reason, many scientists think this
geologically sudden appearance of many new life forms contradicts Darwin's prediction that new forms would emerge
gradually over vast spans of geological time."
CC301 "Cambrian explosion contradicts evolutionary tree pattern"
"Turtles are another fascinating example of a group of animals that appears abruptly in the fossil record. The order
Chelonia, to which turtles and tortoises belong, appears suddenly in the late Triassic, around 200 million years ago. The
very first time turtles appear, their body plan is already fully developed, and they appear in the fossil record without
intermediates."
(This argument isn't specifically listed in the Index of Creationist Claims, but it appears in several creationist sources,
and apparently has at least 25 years of history behind it:
Quote
"The oldest fossil turtles (along with the earliest dinosaurs) appear abruptly in the Triassic rocks, fully developed and
without any obvious precursors. ...Proganocheles retained many features inherited from its pareiasaurian forebears.
...Nevertheless, a forty-million-year gap, spanning almost the entire Triassic still exists between the last pareiasaurs
and the earliest-known turtles. When turtles first appear in the fossil record, in the late Triassic, they are represented
by at least four distinct lineages, suggesting that the group evolved and radiated slightly earlier." The Creation
Explanation, Robert Kofahl, Chapter 3b, March 1995)
Quote
Evolutionists claim turtles first appeared during the Triassic Period (supposedly 200 million years ago), when they were
‘numerous and in possession of basic turtle characteristics.’ Turtles allegedly sprang from the ‘primitive’ reptiles called
cotylosaurs, yet intermediates are ‘completely lacking.’
Paula Weston, "Turtles; ", Creation Magazine, Answers in Genesis, March 1999
"The first fossil bat appears suddenly in the fossil record. When it does, it is unquestionably a bat, capable of true flight.
Yet, we find nothing resembling a bat in the earlier rocks."
(This one, too, is not specifically in the Index of Creationist claims, but appears to have a long creationist history behind
it:
Quote
"Bats, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record with no evidence of "pre-bat"
ancestors. Fossil bats have all the same distinctive features we see in bats today, including extraordinarily long
webbed fingers on their fore limbs and "backward" facing hind limbs. (Bat knees and toes face to the rear!) Even the
distinctive shape of the bat skull, which serves to
channel sound to their ears for navigation by sonar (echo location), is found in fossil bats just as it is in all modern bats."
David Menton, "The Hopeful Monsters of Evolution", June 1994)
Quote
Bats (of the order Chiroptera), the only flying mammal, are especially interesting. Evolutionists assume, of course, that
bats must have evolved from a non-flying mammal. There is not one shred of evidence in the fossil record, however, to
support such speculations, for, as Romer says, "Bats appear full fledged in both hemispheres in the Middle Eocene …"
On the cover page of Science of December 9, 1966 (Vol. 154) appears a picture of what the author (Glenn L. Jepsen) of
the accompanying article (pp. 1333-1339) describes as the oldest known bat. He reports that it was found in Early
Eocene deposits, which are dated by evolutionists at about 50 million years. While stating that this bat possessed a few
"primitive" characteristics, Jepsen states that it was fully developed, an "anatomically precocious" contemporary of
Eohippus. Thus, bats appear fully-formed, with no trace of ancestors or intermediate forms, as a contemporary of
Eohippus, supposedly the ancestor of horses. According to Jepsen this leaves many questions unanswered, including
when, from what, where, and how did bats originate?
ICR Impact, Sept 1, 1980, "The Origin of Mammals", by Duane Gish)
"For example, flowering plants appear suddenly in the early Cretaceous period, 145-125 million years ago."
CC250 "THere are no fossil ancestors of plants"
"As a result, critics say the pattern of fossil appearance does not support Darwin's picture of a gradually branching
tree."
CC201 "We should see smooth change through the fossil record, not gaps."
"The fossil record provides many examples of living organisms that have remained stable in their form and structure
over many millions of years -- sometimes over hundreds of millions of years."
CB930 "Some fossils pecies are still living"
In a discussion of punctuated equlibrium:
"The sudden appearance of major new forms of life, and the stability of these forms over time, have led some scientists
to doubt that the fossil record supports the case for Common Descent".
CC201.1 "Punctuated equlibrium was ad hoc to justify gaps." (I'm not really sure this shouldn't be a new entry in the
Index, since this whole "sudden appearance and stasis supports creation" has been a creationist staple ever since
Gould and Eldredge wrote their paper in 1972.)
"Even advocates of the Darwinian account acknowledge that the fossil record displays far fewer transitionals than
predicted by the theory of Common Descent."
CC201 "There should be billions of transitional fossils"
"[B]iologist Malcolm Gordon and paleontologist Everett Olson point out that land-dwelling amphibians, themselves,
appear suddenly in the fossil record. They first show up in the late Devonian period, with no apparent connection to
earlier life forms. Gordon and Olson point out that the earliest amphibian fossils unmistakably show them as four-footed
creatures."
CC212 "There are gaps between fish and amphibians".
(It should also be pointed out that the reference from Gordon and Olson givena bove is from *1995*, and that no mention
is amde in EE of more recent fossil finds such as Tiktaalik. I'm quite sure this is just an innocent oversite on the part of
the authors, and not an attempt to be dishonest -------- oh, who am I kidding. Nelson, Meyer and their ilk are just being
dishonest deceptive liars, deliberately and deceitfully.)
"Where were the multitudes of transitional forms connecting different groups, as predicted (and expected) by his
theory?"
CC200.1 "There should be billions of transitional fossils"
Several pages of "punctuated eqilibrium says there is stasis and sudden appearance and thus disproves Darwinism"
crapola. Again, that is not specifically listed in the Index of Creationist Claims, but has been standard ICR fare for thirty
years or more.
Another phrase that appears several times in the "Common Descent" chapter of EE is "abrupt appearance", along with
"sudden appearance".
Both phrases are extremely significant --- as with "origins science", these terms are not used in any scientific texts, but
they both have long and glorious creationist histories. As I recall, both of them were suggested by the YECs as
alternative labels for creation 'science' after the 1987 Supreme Court decision, before ID 'theory' stepped in to fill their
shoes.
And if I recall correctly, there was some talk during the Dover trial about "sudden appearance", which prompted the
lawyer to wonder if everyone would be back in a few years for the "sudden appearance theory trial", and the judge to
retort "Not in MY courtroom" . . .
Prescient.
I therefore am surprised beyond comprehension that even Paul Nelson was stupid enough to use these particularly
loaded phrases in this book. (I am assuming that it was Nelson who wrote that particular section, since the entire
"fossil" discussion is nothing but regurgitated thirty-year-old ICR boilerplate, and Nelson is the only YEC hack amongst
the book's authors).
In the Anatomical Homology section, we have:
"Many biologists before Darwin thought that these similarities (called "homologies") were due to a common plan or
"archetype".
This one doesn't seem to be specifically covered in the Index to Creationist Claims, but the whole "common plan" or
"common design" argument is a long-lived creationist argument:
Quote
"This idea that a fundamental similarity in structures is due to common descent is called homology. But this
still-common idea is not in the slightest a proof of evolution. It is simply an assumption by those who reject creation.
Darwin revealed this was his position when he said some believe ‘that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the
animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan’. He finished that sentence by saying, ‘but this is not a
scientific explanation.’3 He was therefore ruling out the possibility of creation based on a common plan by implying it
was not scientific, so he wouldn’t believe it whether it was true or not."
Quote
"So-called homologous structures are no proof of common descent, so are no proof of evolution. Darwin’s approach—to
reject the creation explanation as unscientific because you don’t want to believe it—is not rational. This is particularly
so when the facts are readily explained as the product of a Designer who created each unique structure to fulfill a
different purpose."
Answers in Genesis, Creation Magazine, "Similarities Don't Prove Evolution", March 1992
Quote
My argument is that the “common ancestry” explanation for homology has not been empirically demonstrated, so the
“common design” explanation cannot be ruled out.
(Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution -- A Response to Critics Pt 7"
[URL=http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/12/icons_of_evolution_a_response_5.html
Quote
"The existence of similarities between organisms--whether in external morphology or internal biochemistry--is easily
explained as the Creator's design of similar systems for similar functions, but such similarities are not explicable by
common evolutionary descent."
Henry Morris, "The Vanishing Case for Evolution", ICR Impact, June 1, 1986)
"Some modern biologists explain homology in another way. Brian Goodwin of the Open university says homology does
not reflect a process of historical change, but instead reflects contraints imposed upon the structure of organisms by
the laws of nature. Goodwin contends that the laws of nature dictate that a liquid, for example, has only a limited
number of shapes it can take -- a spiralling funnel when going down the drain, a droplet when it falls, and so on. In the
same way, says Goodwin, the laws of nature ensure that only a certain number of anatomical patterns are possible.
Therefore, we should expect to see similarities in the anatomical structure of even different types of organisms."
This isn't addressed in the Index of Creationist Claims. I cite it here just to point out that Nelson and his ilk are either
too stupid or too dishonest to differentiate between "homology" and "analogy".
"Contrary to these predictions, biologists are learning that homologous structures can be produced by different genes
and may follow different developmental pathways."
CB811 "Homologous structures are not produced by homologous genes"
"In another surprising twist, biologists have also discovered many cases in which the same genes help to produce
different adult structures. Consider, for instance, the eyes of the squid, the fruit fly and the mouse (see figure 2:2). The
fruit fly has a compound eye, with dozens of separate lenses. The squid and the mouse both have single-lens camera
eyes, but they develop along very different pathways, and are wired differently from each other. Yet the same gene is
involved in the development of all three of these eyes."
This one isn't addressed in the Creationist Claims Index either, though it is a subspecies of CB811. Nelson and his ilk,
of course, are simply being dishonest by not mentioning that the common gene involved is a HOX gene, which doesn't
regulate the detailed structure of the eye.
"Some scientists are skeptical that an undirected process like natural selection and mutation would have stumbled
upon the same complex structure many different times."
This isn't specifically covered in the Index to Creationist Claims -- it's sort of a conflation of CB100 "mutations are
rare", and CB 150 "Functional genetic sequences are too rare to evolve from one to another". I cite this sentence
primarily to contrast it with the earlier sentence: " In the same way, says Goodwin, the laws of nature ensure that only a
certain number of anatomical patterns are possible. Therefore, we should expect to see similarities in the anatomical
structure of even different types of organisms." On page 43, we are told that body structures are tightly restricted by
natural law to just a few possible SIMILAR STRUCTURES. Then, just five pages later, we are told that evolution faces a
problem because mutations KEEP PRODUCING SIMILAR STRUCTURES. (sigh)
"This made the concept of homology circular, say many critics. If homology is defined as 'similarity due to common
ancestry', then to say that homology provides evidence for common descent is to reason in a circle."
CB810 "Homology cannot be evidence of ancestry if it is defined thus."
Molecular Homology
"Critics of the argument from molecular homology agree that the molecules in living things exhibit many remarkable
similarities in sequence. They interpret this evidence differently, however. Critics argue that similarities may reflect
common functional requirements, rather than a common evolutionary past. And they point out that some molecular
evidence challenges common descent."
The same "common design" argument as in the previous chapter. Long a creationist staple.
"A 'family tree' based on anatomy may show one pattern of relationships, while a tree based on DNA or RNA may show
quite another. . . . In fact, a family tree based on one protein may differ from a family tree based on a different protein."
CB821 "Phylogenetic analyses are inconsistent."
"Based on his study of the different domains of life, Woese says life probably had multiple, independent starting points."
This one isn't specifically addressed in the Index of Creationist Claims. It's a variant of the standard creationist
"created kinds" argument, CB901 and CB902.
This whole section appears to be the basis of Paul Nelson's always-forthcoming magnum opus disproving common
descent. It seems to consist largely of "lateral gene transfer disproves common descent". It's not addressed
specifically in the Index of Creationist Claims, and the stuff it is based on -- Woese's molecular studies, mostly -- are new
enough that they don't have a long creationist history. However, it has appeared in recent creationist and ID tracts:
Quote
In particular, Woese recommends abandoning the idea that the universal common ancestor is a living organism. "The
universal ancestor is not an entity, not a thing," wrote Woese in 1998, "it is a process." As Woese conceives it, that
process did not involve organisms "in any conventional sense," but an interchange of genetic material in a complex
primordial soup. He concludes: "The universal phylogenetic tree, therefore, is not an organismal tree at its base."
(Jonathan Wells, Comments on the Majority's "Response to the Changes to the Science Curriculum Standards", August
1, 2005
Quote
In 1998, Woese wrote: “No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies
so far produced.” He concluded that primitive organisms acquired many of their genes and proteins, not by Darwinian
descent with modification, but by “lateral gene transfer” from other organisms. “The universal ancestor,”
he wrote,” is not an entity, a thing,” but a community of complex molecules—a sort of primordial soup—from which
different kinds of cells emerged independently.
- from Jonathan Wells' The Politically Incoorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design , p. 44
Embryology
"[Haeckel] formulated and popularized his famous 'Biogenetic Law', which states 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'."
CB701.1 "Recapitulation theory is not supported"
"It turns out that Haeckel's drawings misrepresented the features of the embryos, exaggerating their apparent
similaritites to support the argument for Common Descent."
CB701 "Haeckel falsified his embryo pictures"
Biogeography
"These scientists accept that plants and animals of the Galapagos were transported or migrated to the islands and then
adapted in some ways to their new environment. They point out, however, that migration and adaptation does not equal
macroevolutionary change."
CB902 "Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution"
"If Universal Common Descent is true, it must have a mechanism that can produce macroevolutionary change -- that can
transform one type of animal into a fundamentally different type of animal. Yet critics note that the examples of
mockingbirds in the Galapagos and fruit flies in the Hawaiian Islands show only small-scale variations in existing traits."
CB901 "Macroevolution has never been observed", CB901.1 "Range of variation is limited within kinds", CB901.3
"Darwin's finches show only microevolution", CB110 "Microevolution selects only existing variation"
"Further, some geneticists think that these changes have occurred because the populations of these birds and fruit flies
became isolated, and lost genetic information over time."
CB932 "Some modern species are apparently degenerate, not higher forms"
"Large-scale macroevolutionary change requires the addition of new genetic information, not the loss of genetic
information."
CB102 "Mutations do not add new genetic information"
"For their part, dissenters will continue to point out that the evidence is completely consistent with other views of the
history of life, in which small-scale changes in form and features do occur within separate but disconnected groups of
organisms."
CB901.1 "Range of variation is limited within kinds", CB902.1 "There are barriers to large changes".
(Note too that the "other views", of small changes within separate kinds, consist of creationism and intelligent design --
which the authors are too dishonest to point out.)
Natural Selection
Most critics of Darwin's argument would agree that nature can 'select' for successful variations or adaptations. Moust
would also agree that natural selection can produce small-scale changes (Evolution #1). Nevertheless, critics contend
that natural selection's power to change a species is limited; it does not have the almost boundless power the theory
requires."
CB901.1 "Range of variation is limited within kinds", CB902 "Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution"
"For the critic, the question is not whether sheep can become woollier sheep; the question is whether sheep can
eventually become sheepdogs . . . or horses . . . or camels. In other words, can natural selection transform one form of
life into a fundamentally different form of life?"
CB901.1 "Range of variation is limited within kinds"
"No new traits arose. The only thing that changed was the proportion of big beaks to small beaks."
CB110 "Microevolution selects only existing variation"
"Nowhere in the finch beak story does a new family, genus, or even species emerge."
CB901.3 "Darwin's finches show only microevolution", CB901.2 "No new phyla, classes, or orders have appeared"
"Critics question whether the peppered moth story shows that microevolution can eventually produce large-scale
change. They point out that nothing new emerged."
CB601 "The traditional peppered moth story is no longer supportable", CB110 "Microevolution selects only existing
variation", CB904 "No entirely new features have evolved".
"So what about all those amazing pictures of camouflaged moths on tree trunks? Most of these moths were placed on
the tree trunks by the researchers themselves. Some are actually pictures of dead moths that have been pinned or
glued to the trunk!"
CB601.1 "Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks, and pictures of them were faked"
"Just like a computer program, DNA contains the biological equivilent of lines of computer code."
CB180 "The genetic code is a language"
"So, biological information is stored in DNA. But where does new biological information come from? Critics of
neo-Darwinism contend that contemporary evolutionary theory doesn't have an adequate answer for this question. They
say that the examples of artificial selection and microevolution in particular do not demonstrate the ability to add new
biological ifnormation into a population."
CI010 "There is a law of conservation of information:, CB102 "Mutations do not add information"
"But these traits -- whether darw wings in moths or longer beaks in finches -- are not new. The capacity to produce
these traits was present all along in the gene pool of the original (large) population."
CB110 "Microevolution selects only existing variation", CB904 "No entirely new features have evolved", CB102
"Mutations do not add information"
"Here's the rub; producing new organs or new body plans requires new lines of genetic code -- more information, not
less. Not surprisingly, many scientists argue that small-scale microevolutionary change cannot be extrapolated to
explain large-scale macroevolutionary innovation."
CB902 "Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution", CB 102 "Mutations do not add information"
"These critics would say that natural selection works well as an editor, but not an author. It has a demonstrated
capacity to weed out the failures from among what already exists, but it has not been shown to generate new biological
informaiton or structures."
CB110 "Microevolution selects only existing variations"
Natural Selection and Mutation
"But critics point out that bacterial cells either have a penicillinase gene, or they don't. They do not develop such a
gene when penicillin is introduced. Consequently, critics say that the enzyme defense system tells us nothing about
whether mutations can produce novel forms of life."
CB110 "Microevolution selects only existing variation"
"Critics of neo-Darwinism acknowledge that point mutations can give bacterial cells resistance to some antibiotics.
They agree that when natural selection acts upon such mutations, it can produce small-scale (microevolutionary)
change. However, they do not think that mutations like those that cause antiobiotic resistance can go on to produce
major (macroevolutionary) changes in organisms."
CB102 "Mutations do not add information", CB902.1 "There are barriers to large change"
"The cell cannot endure an unlimited number of mutation-induced changes at these critical active sites. At some point,
the cell's information processing system will be damaged so badly that it stops functioning altogether. For this reason,
multiple mutations at active sites inevitably do more harm than good."
CB120 "Genetic load from mutations would make populations unviable"
"And because mutations at these critical active sites coem witha fitness cost, critics of neo-Darwinism argue that
additional mutations of the same kind are more likely to destroy essential functions than to produce fundamentally new
forms of life. This strongly suggests that there are limits to the amount of change that such mutations can produce."
CB120 "Genetic load from mutations would make populations unviable", CB902.1 "There are barriers to large change",
CB102 "Mutations do not add information"
"They claim that mutations to many separate proteins are necessary to produce major biological change. Yet critics
insist that mutation-induced antiobiotic resistance provides no support for this claim either. They note that mutations
that cause antibiotic resistance only change a small site on the surface of a relatively large protein molecule and that
these mutations do not alter the overall structure of the protein. Since the kind of mutations that produce antibiotic
resistance do not change the structure of the protein components of the organism, they will not fundamentally change
the organization of the organism or the organism as a whole."
CA350 "No gradual biochemical models have been published", CB150 "Functional genetic sequences are too rare to
evolve from one to another"
"Small, limited mutations (like those that produce antibiotic resistance) can eb beneficial in certain environments, but
they don't produce enough change to produce fundamentally new forms of life. Major mutations can fundamentally alter
an animal's anatomy and structure, but these mutations are always harmful or outright elthal."
CB101 "Most mutations are harmful", CB101.2 "Mutations do not produce new features"
(There is also a discussion of Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster", which no serious evolutionary biologist today either
supports or asserts. As with in the extensive list of previous creationist tracts which drag Goldschmidt into the
discussion, Nelson and his ilk have only mentioned it to dishonestly and deceptively erect an irrelevant strawman which
they can happily set fire to.)
Here's one that I missed previously -- it's buried in an Endnote to the Introduction:
"Scientists define 'species' in many different ways. (There are 25 different definitions at last count.)"
CB801 "Science cannot define 'species' "
A New Challenge
"As it turns out, some scientific critics of neo-Darwinism have recently gone on the offensive. They are making a new
argument based upon some new discoveries about the complexity of life -- structures in the cell that have many
intricate and interconencted parts. Some scientists say that these structures cast doubt on the creative power of
Natural Selection, because they canot be explained by numerous, small, successive changes."
(This one isn't listed in the Index of Creationist Claims. I cite it here only to note that this "new argument" is nothing
more than the same old "intelligent design theory" that IDers have been crowing about for ten years now -- which the
authors of EE are, naturally, too dishonest and evasive to point out.)
This entire chapter centers soley on Behe and his flagellum. The entire chapter, then, falls under:
CB200.1 "Bacterial flagella are irreducibly complex"
And as a further addition, we have:
"Research has shown that the motor only functions after all 30 of the motor's protein parts are in place."
CB200.1.1 "The flagellum has 30 or so unique (non-homologous) proteins"
Special Studies
Natural Selection as Survival of the Fittest
"All we can say now is that some finches leave more offspring (our definition of 'survival') because they produce and
sustain more eggs (our definition of 'fittest'). Cause and effect have flowed into each other, which makes the reasoning
circular."
CA500 " 'Survival of the fittest' is a tautology"
(I have to note here that I was very very happy to see this old chestnut in EE --- I haven't seen this "argument" in literally
20 years, and am happy to see Paul dig it out and dust it off. I am assuming this nugget came from Nelson because the
younger IDers have probbaly forgotten all about it by now. Snicker, giggle.)
What Fossils Can't Tell You
This entire chapter is a rehash of Gish's "Evolution? The Fossils Say NO!".
It deals with two topics, both covered in the Index of Creationist claims -- the reptile to mammal transition (CC215
"There are gaps between reptiles and mammals"), and the reptile to bird transition (CC214 "There are gaps between
reptiles and birds")
EE concludes with a section titled "The Nature of Dissent in Science", which is a whine about how nobody ever presents
"their side", and therefore falls under:
CA325 "Creationists are prevented from publishing in science journals"
Thus endeth my look at "Explore Evolution".
To sum up, it consists of nothing but the same old crap that creationist/IDers have been putting out for forty years now,
and it won't survive ten minutes in court. If this book ever goes to trial, I want a front rwo seat --- I want to see, with my
own eyes, Paul Nelson attempt to testify, with a straight face, that this book has nothing at all whatseover to do with
either creation "science" or intelligent design "theory".