" As a matter of clarification, in my contribution of Mar 1, 2008 3:49 PM, I gave the impression that Rob had misspelled “attracted” as “attracked.” He did not. I apologize for confusing his response with that of another creationist with whom I was dealing at the time. "

" As a matter of clarification, in my contribution of Mar 1, 2008 3:49 PM, I gave the impression that Rob had misspelled “attracted” as “attracked.” He did not. I apologize for confusing his response with that of another creationist with who I was dealing at the time. "

" Excellent letter Jack.

Is evolution a scientific fact? Yes. It is supported by tons of valid,
objective evidence from comparative anatomy, embryology, and genomics; the
fossil record; biogeography; and lab experiments. In fact it is so well
supported that the scientific community considers rejection of evolution to be tantamount to rejection of reason.

Is evolution atheistic? No. A 2004 poll of the general U.S. public found that of the 40% of Americans who accept evolution, 67.5% believe in God. So how can evolution possibly be atheistic?

What about the "scientific" "alternative" to evolution, Creation “Science”: Is it science?

No. That pseudoscience is refuted not only by evolution, but also by
cosmology, astronomy, geology, paleontology, and physics. The only thing actually supporting Young Earth Creationism is the Bible.

We can even ask the experts. While a 1997 poll of prominent U.S. scientists
found that 40% believe in a personal God who answers prayers, a 1991 poll of 480,000 earth and life scientists found that only 700 (just 0.15%!) accept Creationism. Science and God are not incompatible, but science and Young Earth Creationism are.

Another clear sign that Creation “Science” is religious and not science is what its founders and leaders – such as Henry Morris, Duane Gish, and Kurt Wise - have said. In short, they've stated that they start and end with the Bible; any and all scientific findings that contradict ‘The Good Book’ are simply rejected. In Creation "Science", science takes a back seat to the Bible, and that’s simply not how real science works.

Evolution is valid, well-supported science: Creation "Science" is refuted, religious pseudoscience. Only the first belongs in public school science classes.
"

" Aaron C. wrote:

“I choose not to delve this subject [evolution] further only due to the waste of time this topic brings.”

My response:

Then you must think all of science is a waste of time. Science involves observing how nature operates and formulating hypotheses and theories to explain how things behave as they do. One of the prime attributes of a scientific theory is that it is predictive of how things would be expected to behave under a variety of circumstances. Therefore, it can be used to anticipate behaviors, avoid mistakes, and save time and energy reinventing the wheel, so to speak, when confronted with situations dealt with by the theory. For example, if several people fall sick after eating from a common food source, one does not normally waste time consulting Ouija boards for cures, testing magic curative crystals, probing for demons, or checking for injections by space aliens. Germ theory has already established that such illnesses are most likely caused by an infectious agent, which once identified, can be eliminated by administering the proper medication.

Like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is also explanatory and predictive. For example, it explains why human embryos are, at some point in their development, equipped with gill arches and tail buds. It explains why chickens retain the ability to grow teeth. It explains why whales are sometimes born with legs. It explains why organisms are organized in a nested hierarchy and why the fossil record is structured the way it is. In fact, it adequately explains every aspect of biological diversification and development that has been investigated.

As mentioned, it is predictive as well. For example, it predicts rabbit fossils should never be found in undisturbed Cambrian rocks. It predicts human fossils and human artifacts should never be found buried in the same strata with dinosaurs. It predicts fossils of such organisms as horses with wings and bats with feathers should not exist. It predicts humans and chimpanzees should share very closely related genetics. And it even predicts the location where certain types of transitional fossils should be found. (See Tiktaalik roseae on the Internet.)

The practical benefits derived from an understanding and application of the theory of evolution are many and varied: ranging from methods to deal with drug and insecticide resistance and an increase in the abundance and nutritional value of food crops to the treatment and prevention of genetic diseases and the use of genetic algorithms to solve computational problems. Without the theory of evolution, biology would lack a unifying explanatory paradigm from which one can make sense of all the various observations that are made within this field of study.

You may think it is a waste of time to delve into this subject. Fortunately, the scientific establishment does not share your antipathy in this regard. (In my experience, the reason most creationists rather quickly lose interest in delving into the subject stems from the harsh realization that the evidence is not stacked in their favor.)
"

" Aaron C. wrote:

“Jack, I have been very educated in multiple understandings of how the earth and its inhabitants came to be.”

My response:

If that is the case, Aaron, then you should know that the theory of evolution is the only scientific theory that successfully accounts for the diversity of life on Earth. (Notice that I specified that it is a scientific theory.) There are a multitude of diverse and contradictory myths and legends from all over the world that make claims about the creation of the Earth and its inhabitants. Virtually every culture has its own spin on the subject. Nonetheless, the theory of evolution is the only unifying explanation that meets the criteria of being scientifically valid. It is because Mr. Hohf claimed in his article that evolution was not an authentic scientific theory that I responded with my letter of clarification. Creationists can believe whatever they want, as far as I am concerned. It is only when they misrepresent the true nature of the theory of evolution and falsely asserts that it is unsupported by scientific evidence and is nothing but a faith-based ideology, like creationism, that I take issue.

“Unfortunately you have blinded yourself to any outside theories so as to protect your own interests, such as not believing in God.”

My response:

Where do you get the notion that an acceptance of evolution precludes belief in God or Christianity? Some of the most outspoken proponents of evolution are God-fearing Christians. (See the “Clergy Letter Project,” “Voices for Evolution,” “Essay V: Evolution for Christians,” and “Theistic Evolution-One Christian’s Perspective” on the Internet for some examples.) More than 11,000 U.S. clergymen have signed a document endorsing the theory of evolution as part of the Clergy Letter Project. It was this resounding support for evolution in the Clergy Letter Project that got Hohf’s knickers in a twist and moved him to write his fallacious characterization of the theory in his article. Just because Hohf does not like other religionists supporting the theory of evolution, that does not mean he can make erroneous public statements about its scientific merits and expect them to be immune from critical comment.

Who Cares? Wrote:

" Who cares which belief system you choose to support? We are here, now, and life is good. Enjoy yourself and be kind to others. "

My response:

See my response to Boo Hoo below.

Rob wrote:

" Mr. DeBaun is obviously attracted to the theory of evolution. Websters dictionary defines evolution as, "one of a set of prescribed movements". "A process of change in a certain direction".

My response:

I am not “attracked” to the theory of evolution any more than I am “attracked” to gravitational theory. I accept and have confidence in the reliability of the theory of evolution because it is supported by an abundance of verifiable evidence and because it offers the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. Your definitions are not specific enough with regard to the theory of evolution. A better definition of biological evolution is as follows:

“Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
-- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

“It's evident Mr. DeBaun has gone through a process of change in one direction as he feels the need to ramble on about his beliefs that their is no God. Mr. DeBaun believe what you want backed up by your scientific data. In the meantime I will believe in the all mighty God. It is called "faith".

My response:

Faith – “Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.” If you are comfortable basing your beliefs on things that lack logical proof or material evidential support, so be it. Fortunately science abandoned that approach long ago in its infancy. If it had not, we would still be living in the Dark Ages where people were lucky to live to the ripe old age of 40, innocent victims were routinely tortured and murdered by religious authorities for being “witches” and “wizards”, people believed the Earth was only a few thousand years old and was located at the center of the universe, and demons were thought to cause disease. See also my response to Aaron C. above.

“You suggest faith believers have limited or no pleasures while serving our maker here on earth. You are so, so mistaken. I feel sorry for you Mr. DeBaun.”

My response:

Where did I suggest faith believers have limited or no pleasure acting on their beliefs? Hardly a day goes by that we are not reminded of Islamic terrorists deriving great pleasure from their acts of religious devotion. I simply indicated that I hope that I will be fortunate enough to enjoy some of the pleasures life has to offer. I was responding to BlueKat who insinuated that those who accept evolution have no hope. And I feel sorry for you because you are so blinded by your religious biases that you cannot see the explanatory power of one of the best-corroborated theories in all of science.

“Against what you say, I have hope for you in the "here and now" that by the time you take your last breath here on earth, you will have "evolved" and changed direction.”
My response:

I will “change direction” with regard to my acceptance of the theory of evolution only if the evidence changes to indicate that I should do so. That is how the scientific method operates. Unlike creationists, real scientists do not accept comforting concepts simply because they make them feel all warm and fuzzy and they want them to be true. In science, they have to have hard evidence to back them up.

Speaking of evidence, where are the critical analyses of the observations delineated in the “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” website and my “Take the Creationist Challenge” from you gung ho creationists. If you truly think that the creation model is compatible with the observed facts (and evolution is not), then you should have no trouble making your case. To coin a Texan phrase, as things now stand, one gets the impression that you are all hat and no cattle.

“Have a nice day and God bless! "

My response:

Thank you. And may any supernatural deity who is currently in the business of dispensing blessings not forget to send a few your way as well!
"

" Mr. DeBaun is obviously attracted to the theory of evolution. Websters dictionary defines evolution as, "one of a set of prescribed movements". "A process of change in a certain direction". It's evident Mr. DeBaun has gone through a process of change in one direction as he feels the need to ramble on about his beliefs that their is no God. Mr. DeBaun believe what you want backed up by your scientific data. In the meantime I will believe in the all mighty God. It is called "faith". In the end by your standards you will have enoyed "what pleasures it has to offer and make a contribution to the current and future well-being of my fellow human travelers". You suggest faith believers have limited or no pleasures while serving our maker here on earth. You are so, so mistaken. I feel sorry for you Mr. DeBaun. Against what you say, I have hope for you in the "here and now" that by the time you take your last breath here on earth, you will have "evolved" and changed direction. Have a nice day and God bless! "

" Who cares which belief system you choose to support? We are here, now, and life is good. Enjoy yourself and be kind to others. "

" Native Son: Your lack of intellect is outstanding. Great way to add to the discussion.

Mr DeBaun...well said.... "

" Jack, I have been very educated in multiple understandings of how the earth and its inhabitants came to be. Unfortunately you have blinded yourself to any outside theories so as to protect your own interests, such as not believing in God. Therefore evolution becomes a dogma of its own. I choose not to delve this subject further only due to the waste of time this topic brings. If any of the theories are anywhere close to being true, then time will tell. And if evolution be the answer than both of us will be dead long before we or the rest of the earth will really evolve. "

" Jack, you nailed it. Very fine responses to these folklore believers. I should also add that one should not confuse morality with religious beliefs, as many often do. "

" Who came first wrote:

“The human or the ovum?"

My response:

The ovum is simply a specialized version of a germ cell. The ovum and sperm (another specialized germ cell) became central to reproduction in multi-celled organisms when sexual reproduction (which has known evolutionary advantages) replaced asexual reproduction. The ovum served as a means of reproduction in other species far in advance of the emergence of modern humans.

Native Son wrote:

"Mr. DeBaun, Me thinks you are full of yourself as well as something many use as fertilizer.

But keep thinking the way you do and you'll have a warm place to reside for all eternity. "

My response:

How typical of those who are unable to deal with the factual evidence and are forced to resort to ad hominem attacks and empty threats. Be that as it may, I concede that creationists should be somewhat knowledgeable about the use of fertilizer since they spend so much time slinging it around.

As we near the conclusion of this winter season, the idea of residing in a “warm place” for eternity doesn’t sound half bad. Especially if there aren’t going to be any creationists hanging around to stifle intellectual discussion.
"

" Mr. DeBaun, Me thinks you are full of yourself as well as something many use as fertilizer.

But keep thinking the way you do and you'll have a warm place to reside for all eternity. "

" Boo Hoo wrote:

" This issue has been around so many times it does not know where it begins or ends. Not worth my time, and what differnece does it make. "

My response:

In order to embrace the young-earth creationist worldview, one must reject salient findings from all the major branches of science. Creationism is not just anti-evolution, it is grossly anti-science. It not only rejects the theory that is the foundation of the modern biological sciences, it rejects the core findings of all the sciences that show the Earth is billions of years old and has not been subjected to a worldwide flood, and most certainly, not in the last 5,000 years or so.

The economic wellbeing, environmental viability, and security of our country are now more dependent than ever upon the maintenance of a first-class science establishment. The world is becoming increasingly more scientifically and technologically oriented and, if we do not remain competitive in these areas, our standard of living will suffer the consequences. As reported in the National Academy of Science’s “Rising Above the Gathering Storm,” science literacy among laypersons in this country is sadly lacking, our science students do not fare well in competition with students from many other countries, and funding for science has not kept pace with demands. Other countries such as India and China recognize the pivotal role that the science plays in their future prosperity and have thus placed an increased emphasis on science education and technological development.

Anything that hampers scientific advancement in our country (as a flourishing of the Dark Ages worldview of the creationists surely would) puts us at a distinct disadvantage. Creationism has an anti-science agenda. Understanding the vacuity of its arguments and the deleterious effects it would have on science education can make a profound difference. For the sake of our future competitiveness in the global market place, It is worth everyone’s time to become acquainted with the facts of the matter.

Aaron C. wrote:

" I think we should stick a bunch of gears and numbers in a blender for several hundred billions of years and see if out pops a Rolex. After the bent gears and numbers fall out (no watch) we will put in again and see if it comes out any better the next time. Thats called evolution. "

My response:

Your analogy to evolution is seriously flawed. Biological evolution pertains to living, self-replicating organisms that are subject to variation and natural selection. None of these factors are operative in your watch analogy. Next time before you attack the theory, I suggest you educate yourself about what it actually entails.

blueKat wrote:

" I think the saddest aspect about evolution is that it snatches hope. You are born, make one spin through life and then your gone. The funny thing is that there is verified evidence that Jesus… [at this point blueKat shifts unabashedly into the typical creationist preaching mode.]”

My response:

Where do you get the mistaken notion that those who accept evolution do not have hope. I accept evolution, and I have hope. All those that I know of who accept evolution have hope. I have hope that, during my limited engagement on this mortal coil I can enjoy what pleasures it has to offer and make a contribution to the current and future well-being of my fellow human travelers. As opposed to most creationists I know, I have hope for mankind in the here and now, not in some hoped-for postmortem paradise in the sky.

I think it is sad that creationists fail to experience the awe and sense of grandeur that derives from an understanding that all life is interconnected in a great chain of being that begins with the basic elements produced by the stars. Even more sad is the creationist’s rejection of the elegant evolutionary explanation for this interconnectedness and their knee-jerk condemnation of any and all evidence that supports it.

In typical creationist fashion, you have ignored the evidence for evolution that I have provided for you. It is obvious that you believe in the creationism solely because you want it to be true, the hard facts be damned. As you are demonstrating, it is virtually impossible to logically argue a person out of a position which they have not used sound logic and verifiable evidence to arrive at in the first place.

On a more conciliatory note, let me just say that I think that everyone is entitled to whatever beliefs they choose to embrace. If creationism floats your boat and makes life tolerable for you, then be happy with your beliefs. My primary concern is with the concerted effort some creationists are making to infiltrate the public school science curriculum with their pseudoscientific tomfoolery. That is why I think it is important to respond whenever I see the theory of evolution (and mainstream science in general) misrepresented to the public (as occurred in Hohf’s initial article). I have hope that our country will continue to be a leader in scientific innovation and discovery. But that hope is tempered by the threat posed by the possible implementation of the creationist agenda in our public schools.
"

" Evolution does not "snatch" hope, it gives hope that we may someday evolve into a better humankind.

"

" The human or the ovum? "

" I think the saddest aspect about evolution is that it snatches hope. You are born, make one spin through life and then your gone. The funny thing is that there is verified evidence that Jesus was born and lived on this earth, there is evidence that those who testified to His existence did exist as well. There is evidence that what the bible says is true both in history and in the present. It is hard to put into words, but a part of my decision to follow Christ was because I believe what He said in His word and the alternative, if the bible is real, is not something I want to face for eternity. Granted, I have experienced Gods power in my life and that is all the evidence I need, but you have to wonder if you are willing to dedicate yourself to rejecting God, are you willing to face eternity apart from Him? "

" Mr. DeBaun is obviously a critical and intelligent thinker who doesn't rely on folklore(religion) to explain our existance. It's not the stone-age anymore people. The earth is not flat! "

" I figured this letter would get some action. Who's to say that God didn't choose evolution as the process to create? Not for us to say. Can you prove that Love exists? Do you believe in it? As Goes Love Goes God. "

" I think we should stick a bunch of gears and numbers in a blender for several hundred billions of years and see if out pops a Rolex. After the bent gears and numbers fall out (no watch) we will put in again and see if it comes out any better the next time. Thats called evolution. "

" This issue has been around so many times it does not know where it begins or ends. Not worth my time, and what differnece does it make. "

" Voice of reason wrote:

" I don't know where Jack DeBaun gets his information.”

I get my information from reputable scientific sources such as the National Academy of Science, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Center for Science Education, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and talkorigin.org. Where do you get yours?

“Creationism has not consistently flunked every scientific test to which it has been subjected.”

Assuming that is the case, you should have no trouble explaining how the creation model accounts for the relevant observations discussed in “Take the Creationist Challenge” at my website, “Evolution/Creation Dialogues.” If you are aware of an instance in which a basic tenet (dealing with the age of the Earth and the origin of species) of so-called “creationary theory” is compatible with mainstream science, then I would like to hear about it.

“In fact, evolution has flunked a few and that is why it keeps changing. Let's keep an open mind Jack. "

Descent with modification is the basic tenet of the theory of evolution. It has not “flunked” any scientific tests for the last century and a half. As with all viable scientific theories, there is active discussion regarding the precise mechanisms involved. And, as the evidence accumulates, the mechanisms are refined in keeping with the requirements of the scientific method. Science is not static. It changes as the evidence becomes more definitive. If you want dogmatism, then stick with religion.

Yes, let’s keep an open mind. But not so open that we risk having our brains infected with every pseudoscientific virus of the mind that comes along.

"

" So, bluecat, you know what's going on on every planet in every solar system ??? Just might be a few out there where the ooze is indeed perculating. The earth is dying because it can't keep repairing the damage done to it by man fast enough. There are creatures that are right at this moment in transitionary stages, man and ape included.

You should check with god more often about this. The way you pontificate about him/her I'm sure you have conversations over coffee. "

" Bluekat wrote:

" Isn't it amazing that there is always someone who really wants to believe that they came from the primordial ooze.”

The amazing thing to me is that, in the 21st century, there are still people who seriously believe in a story concocted by Bronze Age, pre-scientific desert nomads, i.e., that humans were magically poofed into existence when a supernatural being breathed into a pile of dust. (See Gen. 2:7).

“Why is the earth dying and not regenerating itself into a newer more modified structure?”

Have you never heard of the growth of geological formations such as volcanoes, canyons, mountain ranges, etc.?

“Why are there not are there not creatures in transitionary stages between ape and man, or fish and lizard?”

Because most environmental niches are now filled with a multitude of well-adapted organisms, it is difficult for any new competing individuals to gain a foothold. Nonetheless, speciation is occurring all the time. It has been observed in both field and laboratory environments.

“Evolution is a far fetched worldly attempt to deflect from the reality that God created the earth, He created man and all the creatures living there in.”

In reality, evolution is a well-authenticated scientific theory (based on an abundance of verifiable evidence) which explains the diversity of life on Earth. Just because creationists choose to ignore the supporting evidence does not make it any less convincing to knowledgeable scientists.

Did you carefully study the evidence from the link that I provided in my letter? I didn’t think so.

Since you appear confident that the creation model can account for the observed evidence, I invite you to visit my website, “Evolution/Creation Dialogues,” and click on “Take the Creationist Challenge.”

“Even Darwin himself questioned his theories later in his final years."

It looks like you have been taken in by yet another tall tale. Please see “The Lady Hope Story: A Widespread Falsehood” on the Internet.

NativeSon wrote:

"So who came first the chicken or the egg???”

Neither one. According to current scientific thinking on the subject, a primitive self-replicating structure, formed through a process known as abiogenesis, came first. The chicken (and chicken producing eggs) did not arrive on the scene until after billions of years of evolutionary modification of that first replicator.
"

" I don't know where Jack DeBaun gets his information. Creationism has not consistently flunked every scientific test to which it has been subjected. In fact, evolution has flunked a few and that is why it keeps changing. Let's keep an open mind Jack. "

" Isn't it amazing that there is always someone who really wants to believe that they came from the primordial ooze. I am amazed that on no other planet there isn't evolutionary type processes occurring, why earth? Why is the earth dying and not regenerating itself into a newer more modified structure? Why are there not are there not creatures in transitionary stages between ape and man, or fish and lizard? Evolution is a far fetched worldly attempt to deflect from the reality that God created the earth, He created man and all the creatures living there in. Even Darwin himself questioned his theories later in his final years. "

" So who came first the chicken or the egg???

"