E-Mail Correspondence

John's Third Letter

John wrote to us in response to our essay "Is Evolution Scientific?". We responded with a letter directly to him, and an essay on Scientific Honesty. He wrote a second letter to us, before he we published the Scientific Honesty essay. We replied to his second letter, and John sent us this third letter.

Dear David,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, it has taken a while to find
a few minutes here and there to go over this.  I look forward (patiently)
to your response.
>
> We believe your argument is more true of evolutionists than
> creationists.  One could more easily argue that evolution is the creation
> myth of  secular humanism.

That would be irrelevant.  Most evolutionists are not secular humanists
and the study of evolution is not in any way dependent on the tenets of
that particular group.  Evolution is also accepted by most Christian
denominations, however the theory itself is not based on any particular
faith.  That is the fundamental difference that distinguishes it from
creationism.

> Could one not say that evolutionists falsely
> claim that their opposition to creation is based on scientific grounds?

That would be to grossly misunderstand the reason why scientists are
opposed to creationism.  Scientists have nothing against creationism as
a religious faith (especially since many of them believe in God themselves.)
The problem arises when those beliefs are falsely presented as being
scientific, and the opposition to this misrepresentation is obviously
on scientific grounds, the definition of science itself.

> If we presumed to know the mind of evolutionists as your presume to know
> the mind of creationists, we could say the real reason they adhere to
> evolution is their desire to disprove the existence of a creator and the
> consequent necessity of obedience to that creator.

I am not presuming to read anybody's mind.  The religious basis of
creationism is clearly laid out in creationist books and publications.

> The object of
> evolutionists is to destroy Christianity and break free from its moral
> shackles.

This is what it comes down to--you believe in creationism because your
concept of morality requires it, and anybody who doesn't follow the same
line of reasoning must therefore be immoral.  You claim that scientists
choose to accept evolution in order to reject God and have a free license
to sin.  Do you have any evidence at all to support that rather nasty
accusation?  Are scientists more evil than other people?  Do biologists
sin more than physicists?  Do you deny that there are practicing
Christians who accept evolution?  Do you consider them to be immoral?
If I understand correctly, you claim that they are not only sinners by
having accepted evolution, but that they have deliberately done so in
order to freely commit other sins.

> Most creationist organizations are religious organizations who freely
> admit that their goal is evangelism.  Some creationists organizations even
> require an affirmation of basic Christian beliefs as a condition of
> membership.  Call this 'fine print' if you like, but what evolutionist
> organizations admit that their goal is to rid the world of Christianity?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever of any scientific organization whose
goal actually is "to rid the world of Christianity?"  Anything at all?
A scientific organization that excludes Christians as members?  On exactly
what basis are you asserting that that is in fact their goal?  Roving
gangs of lab technicians burning down churches?

> (Do you really think that the National Center for Science Education is
> only interested in advancing science?  Do you consider them 'honest'?)

According to their web site, NSCE is "a nonprofit, tax-exempt membership
organization working to defend the teaching of evolution against sectarian
attack. We are a nationally-recognized clearinghouse for information and
advice to keep evolution in the science classroom and 'scientific
creationism' out."  This seems like a reasonable description of what they
do and I see no reason not to take it at face value.
>
> Evolutionists' emphasis on the "scientific" nature of the theory of
> evolution and the "religious" nature of creationism is an artifact of the
> political battle which is taking place in the U.S. over control of the
> public school system.

Of course, because that is what the issue is.  The claim is made that
creationism is scientific, and scientists must therefore respond by showing
that it isn't.  The important question is why such an absurd claim is even
being made in the first place.

> We disagree that creation scientists have a less honest concept of
> reality than any other scientist.

I did not say less honest, merely different.  To a creationist it is
wrong to exclude moral and theological considerations from their
theory, whereas to a scientist it is wrong to label such criteria as
scientific.  Each is entitled to his own worldview.  The problem is
that the creationist's worldview is explicitly excluded from the
public school science curriculum by the 1st amendment, and he therefore
has to try to redefine science so as to include it.  Scientists object
to that.

> You could just as correctly have said that, to an evolutionist,
> reality makes no allowance for any supernatural aspect.

Science does not allow for any supernatural aspect because it is based
on repeatable observations which presuppose some sort of natural law.
Whether or not that corresponds to all of reality is a philosophical
question which science itself cannot address.  To quote German evolutionist
Werner Heisenberg, "What we observe is not nature itself, but nature
exposed to our method of questioning."  (taken from the April APS News)
If creationists insist that the "method of questioning" (science) is
so wrong, why do they want so desperately to be a part of it?

> Any argument
> they have to make in order to justify that interpretation is acceptable
> because, by definition, there is no such thing as the supernatural.

No argument is necessary because science is, by definition, the study
of natural processes and the word supernatural specifically means beyond
such study.  Science does not claim that the supernatural doesn't exist,
only that it doesn't belong in science class.

Some individual scientists do in fact believe that the supernatural
doesn't exist (as is their right), but that is not a scientific conclusion.

> We don't engage in political activity because we believe it is not
> fruitful.  [...]  But if we
> did want to fight the battle in court, we would argue that the dogmatic
> teaching of the unproven, scientifically unsound, theory of evolution in a
> transparent attempt to use the public school system to advance the secular
> humanist religion is unconstitutional.

And you would lose.  This tactic was tried in Peloza v Capistrano:

   "John E. Peloza is a high school biology teacher. He sued the Capistrano
   Unified School District and various individuals connected with the
   school district under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges in his complaint that
   the school district requires him to teach "evolutionism" and that
   evolutionism is a religious belief system. He alleges this requirement
   violates his rights under the (1) Free Speech Clause of the First
   Amendment; (2) Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; (3) Due
   Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (4) Equal Protection
   Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.(1)

   He also alleges the defendants conspired to violate these constitutional
   rights and attempted by harassment and intimidation to force him to teach
   evolutionism. He alleges they did this because they have a class-based
   animus against practicing Christians, a class of which he is a member,
   in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)."

In a nutshell, the Court ruled that simply claiming that evolution
is a religion does not make it one:

   "We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this
   circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are
   'religions' for Establishment Clause purposes. Indeed, both the
   dictionary definition of religion(4) and the clear weight of the case
   law(5) are to the contrary. The Supreme Court has held unequivocally
   that while the belief in a divine creator of the universe is a religious
   belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from
   lower forms is not. Edwards V. Aguillard. 482 U.S. 578, 107 S.Ct. 2573,
   96 L.Ed.2d 510 (1987) (holding unconstitutional, under Establishment
   Clause, Louisiana's 'Balanced Treatment for Creation-science and
   Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act').

   Peloza would have us accept his definition of 'evolution' and
   'evolutionism' and impose his definition on the school district as its
   own, a definition that cannot be found in the dictionary, in the Supreme
   Court cases, or anywhere in the common understanding of the words. Only
   if we define 'evolution' and 'evolutionism' as does Peloza as a concept
   that embraces the belief that the universe came into existence without a
   Creator might he make out a claim. This we need not do. To say red is
   green or black is white does not make it so. Nor need we for the
   purposes of a 12(b)(6) motion accept a made-up definition of 'evolution.'
   Nowhere does Peloza point to anything that conceivably suggests that the
   school district accepts anything other than the common definition of
   'evolution' and 'evolutionism.' It simply required him as a biology
   teacher in the public schools of California to teach 'evolution.'
   Peloza nowhere says it required more."

> > That the definition you quoted may actually be taught in some schools
> > is certainly more horrifying to scientists than anybody else, and one of
> > the reasons they are so opposed to creationist material entering the
> > school system.
>
> We believe the definition we quoted is an excellent summary of
> evolution as it appears in most textbooks.

Here are the definitions used in the Arkansas law you were quoting:

   (a) ``Creation-science'' means the scientific evidences for creation
   and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science
   includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:
   (1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing;
   (2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing
   about development of all living kinds from a single organism;
   (3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of
   plants and animals; (4) Separate ancestry for man and apes;
   (5) Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the
   occurrence of a worldwide flood; and (6) A relatively recent inception
   of the earth and living kinds.

   (b) ``Evolution-science'' means the scientific evidences for evolution
   and inferences from those scientific evidences. Evolution-science includes
   the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:
   (1) Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered
   matter and emergence of life from nonlife; (2) The sufficiency of
   mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present
   living kinds from simple earlier kinds; (3) Emergence by mutation and
   natural selection of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
   (4) Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes; (5) Explanation
   of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism;
   and (6) An inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat
   later of life.

First of all, this parallel two-model approach could only have come from
a creationist source, and the so-called definition of evolution is clearly
just a point-by-point "opposite" to the Genesis story.  (1) The origin
of the universe has nothing to do with evolutionary biology.  Furthermore,
the universe did not emerge from matter, but rather matter (as we know it)
condensed out of the (highly ordered) early universe.  (2-3) These statements
are redundant, the first simply being a strawman for the creationists
to assert is impossible.  It is well known that mutation and natural
selection are not the only mechanisms of evolution.  Furthermore, there is
no scientific definition of "kinds".  (4) This is silly, because to a
scientist all species are related.  It is no less obvious that man is an
ape than that man is a mammal and a vertebrate.  This statement is simply
an emotional red flag for creationists.  (5) Geology is not biology, so this
is irrelevant.  If "evolutionary sequence" means the layering of strata in
the earth's crust, this was well-established long before Darwin.
"Uniformitarianism" is not a process, it is simply the principle that the
earth was shaped by forces (volcanos, earthquakes, glaciers, floods, etc.)
that can be observed and studied today (as opposed to the supernatural
one-time event claimed in the creationist version.)  (6) The formation and age
of the earth have nothing to do with biology.  "Somewhat later" doesn't mean
anything here other than "more than six days."

> There is
> absolutely no creationist influence in the biology texts we quote,

Then there is no reason for them to use such a lame definition, and
I honestly hope that they don't.

> As you know, we don't debate the Bible.  We do try to debate the facts
> of science, but we have a really hard time of it.

No kidding.

> We challenge people to
> tell us specifically what scientific fact they disagree with, and get no
> response.  It is hard to have a scientific debate when the other side
> won't respond.

True.  Unfortunately creationists refuse to publish their claims in
scientific journals which are the accepted forum for scientific debate.
They prefer to spout vague generalities in front of audiences which are
unlikely to provide an appropriate response.  However, since their cause
is political it is only the response to their legal arguments which is
really relevant.

> For example, in our last letter to you we asked what scientific facts
> we had misstated or misinterpreted.  You didn't tell us any.

That was not the point of my letter.

> Instead, you
> disagreed with what you perceived our understanding of the legal basis for
> the decision in the Arkansas case to be.

You were significantly misrepresenting a court decision of which the text
was freely available.

> We hope you understand now that
> we both agree that the court decision was based on constitutional issues
> rather than scientific ones.

Obviously, that's what the court is there for.  The scientific issues were
settled over a century ago.

> That, however, was peripheral to the point
> in our original essay, which was that the theory of evolution would also
> have failed to meet the criteria the court used to determine if creation
> is 'scientific' or not.

And in that essay you grossly misrepresented the theory of evolution by
using the creationist caricature from the Arkansas law rather than an
accurate scientific definition.

> What specifically are the facts of science
> that are not on our side?

OK, you asked for it.  Let's have a look at your essay which started this
exchange.  Here is a sampling of some of your statements which are either
extremely misleading or patently false:

  "What natural law creates order from disorder?  [...]  There are
   no such natural laws."

Unless you are claiming that evolution violates
the 2nd law of thermodynamics (which would also be false), there are
numerous natural laws, such as gravity and electromagnetism, which produce
order all the time.  There are toys on sale in airports which make use of this.

  "How many spark-in-the-soup experiments have to fail before evolutionists
   will admit that organic chemicals can't form living cells?  If Louis
   Pasteur's experiments didn't falsify life from nonlife, then nothing will."

The fact remains that living cells do consist entirely of ordinary chemicals.
Pasteur disproved the spontaneous generation of existing species, but did
not address the origin of life itself.  To say he did is like claiming
that Newton disproved black holes.  Woehler on the other hand did prove that
there is no difference between chemicals from living and non-living sources.

  "Certainly mutation and natural selection bring about limited variation
   in existing kinds; but there is no evidence that mutation and natural
   selection have ever brought about a new kind from simple earlier kinds."

Whether or not you accept the conclusion, there is ample genetic evidence
that existing "kinds" are related by genetic mutations.  To say that no
evidence exists is an outright lie.

  "There is no natural explanation of how new genetic information required
   to produce complex kinds from simple earlier kinds comes from natural
   mutation and natural selection."

Mutation and natural selection, regardless of whether or not it's correct,
_is_ a natural explanation.  There is ample evidence showing how new genes
are created, even within our own genome.

  "In these experiments the 'gene jockey' plays the role of an intelligent
   designer using a 'supernatural' process."

In what way does gene-splicing make use of supernatural processes that
are different from the usual chemical properties of DNA molecules?
Do Scully and Mulder know about this?

  "Will evolutionists ever accept that new kinds arose through any natural
   process other than mutation and natural selection?  [...]  Now we are
   starting to hear theories about how bacteria can somehow consciously make
   their offspring evolve to resist antibiotics, so maybe Lamarkian evolution
   just lost a battle and will eventually win the war.  Surveys and news
   stories that we have reported upon in the past say that some good
   scientists are rejecting evolution of purely scientific grounds."

It is already well-known that there are other processes besides mutation
and natural selection.  To say that this is "rejecting evolution" is
nonsense.  Saying that bacteria act consciously is also nonsense, as is
saying that this is a revival of Lamarkism.  It is interesting however the
way in which you specify that this does not come from creationist sources.

  "Modern understanding of genetics and information theory shows that new
   kinds can't arise from existing kinds."

This is just out-and-out false.  Would you care to share some of this
"modern understanding" with those of us who work in the field?

  "There are no natural laws that turn apes into men.  [...]  Is 'Emergence
   of man from a common ancestor with apes' correctly explained by natural
   law? No.  How can it be, since there are no such natural laws?"

Men _are_ apes according to natural law.  Mutation and natural selection
provide the natural explanation.

  "Is 'Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes' confirmed by tests
   in the empirical world?  Absolutely not."

In fact, the DNA of humans and chimps has been sequenced and compared.
Chimps are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas.

  "Is 'Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes' falsifiable?  What
   experiment could anyone do that would prove, to the satisfaction of an
   evolutionist, that men and apes did not evolve from a common ancestor.  If
   you know of one, we would love for you to tell us what it is."

Genetic evidence that humans and apes did not share the same genetic
code would do it.  It would be pretty tough to show that humans and apes
(and pigs) are not all vertebrates, but lots of things could in principle
show that humans had closer relatives than chimps (bonobos, actually).
This fixation on apes comes from creationists.  Humans and slime mold also
have a common ancestor, but I guess it was sufficiently long ago that
creationists have forgotten about it.

  "The young-earth interpretations of geological evidence tend to be as good,
   or better, than the old-earth interpretations, so one really can't say that
   the old-earth explanations have been confirmed by laboratory tests."

This is just plain nonsense.  Measuring the isotopic composition of rocks
is a laboratory test, for starters.  So is counting growth rings.

  "Evolutionists are always accepting new dates for the formation of the
   earth [...]"

Such as?  Other than increased precision, when was the last
time the accepted value changed substantially?

  "There is abundant evidence for a young age of the earth."

Let me guess, salt concentrations in the ocean?  Decaying magnetic field?
Exponential population growth?  Moon dust?  Niagara Falls?  Just name one.

  "Those few tests it does pass, it passes more by our generosity than by
   its own merit.  If we felt more argumentative, we could probably prove
   in a court of law that they don't really pass those tests either."

And which court would that be?

Sorry to have to be so blunt, but like I said, that was a particularly
bad month.  Usually you tend to be a little more subtle.

> You have said that the definition of the theory of evolution we quoted
> has its origin in the Institute for Creation Research.  We don't care where
> the definition came from, as long as it is accurate.

You should care.  It wasn't accurate, and doing a little homework could
have saved you some embarrassment.

> We feel it does
> capture, in a few sentences, the gist of what is being taught in U.S.
> public schools.  If you believe something different is (or should be)
> taught, then please accept our invitation to tell us what it is.

What should be taught is the scientific theory of evolution, which goes
more or less as follows:

(1) a) There is diversity within species (interbreeding populations).
    b) This is continually fueled by mutation, crossover, drift, gene
       duplication, horizontal transfer, etc.
(2) More individuals are born than are able to reproduce.
(3) a) Reproductive success is not random, but depends on individual traits.
    b) These traits are (at least partially) inherited.
(4) a) This, along with environmental changes, reproductive isolation,
       founder effect, etc., is the basic mechanism by which the gene
       pool of a population changes over time.
    b) There is no known limit to this process.
(5) a) All current species do in fact share a single common ancestor.
    b) This is shown by the genetic relatedness of all living species,
       as well as their geographical distribution and the fossil evidence
       of now-extinct ancestors.

> Lying may win battles, but it won't win a war.  A lie will fool some
> people for a while.  But when they discover it is a lie, then you lose the
> battle you had won, and forfeit any chance of winning any more battles
> because you have no credibility.  That is the practical reason for not
> lying.  (Of course there is a moral reason, as well.)

This is essentially the advice of St. Augustine, which goes back long before
the modern scientific era.  I would encourage all creationists to think
about it very, very carefully.

   ``If they [the infidel] find a Christian mistaken in a field which
   they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish
   opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in
   matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal
   life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full
   of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from
   experience and the light of reason?''
                                           - St. Augustine

> In essence, you are asking us to prove that creation scientists are
> stupid to exonerate them from dishonesty.

The word "stupid" was taken from the quote (thanks for looking that up
by the way) but is not really appropriate.  The issue is a lack of
knowledge, not a lack of intelligence.  But yes, in essence, that is
what it boils down to.

> We won't do that because we
> believe creation scientists are neither stupid nor dishonest.  They merely
> have a better understanding of reality than evolutionists do.

Again, I'm only claiming that creationists and scientists have different
concepts of reality.  Saying that one or the other is better is a value
judgement that obviously depends on one's own beliefs.  Creationists
are only dishonest (or ignorant) when they claim to speak for scientists
or claim that their beliefs are scientific.

> We believe, for the most part, that evolutionists are neither malicious
> nor stupid.  We believe instead that they have been poorly educated.

By what standard?  Do you not consider a Ph.D. in biology to be the
accepted standard of education in this field?  What do you suggest in
its place, other than a test of religious faith?  Who is actually doing
original research in biology these days?

> We believe that when people are
> presented with the data, and told the evolutionist interpretation of the
> data, and told the creationist interpretation of the data, they will see
> that the creationist interpretation is the more reasonable explanation of
> the data.

If you really believe that, why don't you simply present a stand-alone
creationist interpretation of the data?  Why bother attacking evolution
at all?  If there is a scientific creationist interpretation that can
stand on its own merits (rather than on the bible), that doesn't depend
on what evolutionists may or may not think, and makes useful testable
predictions about future discoveries, please accept my invitation to share
it with the rest of the world.

> We appreciate your desire to understand why people think what they
> think.  [...]  We have
> wondered why it is that our neighbors (engineers and scientists who work
> in the defense industry) tend to be politically conservative and believe
> in creation, while university professors tend to be politically liberal
> and believe in evolution.

> Perhaps the difference is that engineers are brought back to reality
> more often than professors.  [...]

This is known in the talk.origins newsgroup as the Salem hypothesis, namely
the observation that creationists who claim to have academic credentials
generally turn out to be engineers rather than scientists.  There are a
number of theories to explain this tendency, of which yours is one.  One
could also argue that engineers are more inclined to accept black-and-white
rule-based explanations whereas as scientists are more likely to think
abstractly about the underlying mechanisms.  Whatever the reason, it is
an interesting trend.

> Yet, they tend to hold remarkably
> different political and religious beliefs.

This is an important point.  Creationists consider this issue to be part
of a political and religious package, whereas as scientists do not.

> I personally have built infrared seekers for three different guided
> missiles.  [...]  I have a very hard time believing
> Richard Dawkin’s fanciful story about how
> biological eyes could have developed independently (more than 40 different
> times) by chance mutations and natural selection.

This is what is called the argument from personal incredulity, that anything
you don't understand must not be true.  I don't doubt your skill as an
engineer, but if you knew a little more about biology the process would
not seem so mysterious.

> Nearly every
> manufacturing mistake (mutation) we made in our prototype seekers caused
> them not to work at all.  In very rare cases the mistake merely made them
> work very badly.  Eyes could not have evolved over billions of years by
> mutation and natural selection because every part has to work before the
> whole can work.

That may be true of missiles, but it is not an accurate description of
living organisms which are capable of reproducing.  The eyes of currently
living species actually show a very wide range of functionality.

> That is my belief, based on practical experience.

You are entitled to your belief, but it is not shared by biologists.
>
> We must come back to your basic point about honesty.  You say that
> creationists aren't honest about their faith, despite the fact that it is
> in the 'fine print'.

It is not their faith which is dishonest.  They have every right to
believe whatever they like.  It is their claim in court--that their goal
in passing laws such as the one in Arkansas is to present scientific
evidence rather than to promote their religion--which is dishonest.
The whole concept of "scientific" creationism is a deliberate
misrepresentation of the true nature of their faith in creationism,
which they do state in their own publications.

> We counter that evolutionists are the ones who won't
> even admit in fine print that the theory of evolution is the creation myth
> of their secular humanist religious faith.

Such an "admission" would be false.  Most scientists are not secular
humanists (I'm not, for example) and in fact come from a wide variety of
religious backgrounds.  Secular humanists do refer to evolution in their
Humanist Manifesto (as is their right), but that postdates the theory
itself and has no bearing on the rest of us.  Likewise, just because the
Pope accepts evolution it doesn't mean that all evolutionists are Catholic.

> Creationists believe, by faith, that Jesus, Lazarus, Dorcus, and a few
> other people were raised from the dead supernaturally.  Evolutionists tend
> not to believe that.

Some do, some don't.  It depends on their religious beliefs.

> As we understand the evolutionists' position, it is
> as follows:  There are no 'supernatural' processes.  Everything that
> happens must be explainable by natural processes.  There is no natural
> process by which a dead body can come back to life.  Therefore, dead
> people could not have been resurrected.

You are mistaken.  Here is a more accurate description:
Science cannot describe supernatural processes.  Everything that can
be studied using the scientific method must be explainable by natural
processes.  There is no natural process by which a dead body can come
back to life.  Therefore, there is no scientific means to evaluate the
claim that people have been resurrected.  Scientists who choose to
believe in resurrection do so by religious faith, the same as creationists.

> But evolutionists believe, by faith (not experimental proof), that
> chemicals came together by an unknown natural process and formed a dead
> cell.  Then that dead cell came to life by an unknown natural process.

No, scientists generally believe that the first cell was the product
of a system of self-catalyzing chemical reactions which developed the
geometrical pattern of a liposome enclosing a molecular template.  The idea
of some randomly-formed dead cell (Frankencell) suddenly getting the
spark of life is a laughable creationist caricature.

> Then this dead cell evolved into every living thing on this planet through
> the natural processes of mutation and natural selection over a long period
> of time

Every living thing on this planet has a common ancestor, a species of
prokaryote (living at the time, I would imagine) which was itself the
product of a long process of evolution.

> One must accept these articles of faith to be an evolutionist.

No, it suffices to understand them and be capable of discussing them
intelligently.

> One must accept these articles of faith in spite of the overwhelming
> scientific evidence that chemicals don't form cells,

All the cells I know of are made up of chemicals.

> things don't come to life naturally,

Chemical reactions do occur naturally, and no aspect of life has ever been
found that does not consist of chemical reactions.

> and that birds don't hatch from lizard eggs because
> creatures always reproduce 'after their kind'.

No sane person would claim that they did.  That makes as much sense as
claiming that Julius Caesar woke up one morning speaking modern Italian.
Populations evolve, not individuals.

> Yet the evolutionary
> articles of faith are taught in school as 'science'.  Don't you consider
> that dishonest?

Not if it is done correctly.  It is the creationist strawman
description of evolution which is dishonest.

Sincerely,
John

Click here to read our response to this letter.

Click here to see the rest of the correspondence on this subject.

Quick links to
Science Against Evolution
Home page
Back issues of
Disclosure
(our newsletter)
Web Site
of the Month
Topical Index