A Review of Answers In Genesis' review of Eugenie Scotts talk on science and faith part 2

Now they begin to discuss how faith affects scientific research, it is true that science owes a significant part of its ideological foundations to a Christian theistic worldview but does this mean that we should force a certain interpretations of the bible on the scientific community? The fact is that while the young earth interpretation was once an adequate interpretation because it did not contradict what science knew at the time evidence of an old earth, evolution, and a very old universe have been uncovered which contradicts it and a better interpretation of the bible is needed.

Anyways the creationist author goes on to state the following paragraph;

What I’ve tried to make clear so far is that one’s belief about God does make a
difference in how one understands science and what one thinks about the origin
of life. Specifically, while creationists do value inferential explanation, we
However, notice that even when we find data that points to design, such as irreducible complexity, Darwinism is not considered falsified or challenged. In fact, we argue that nothing evolutionists find would be considered enough to falsify evolution, because Darwinism isn’t just another falsifiable hypothesis that’s made its way to the core; rather, it is a presupposed, foundational paradigm that is used to interpret the actual facts.value the authority of an infallible, direct observer over inferential
explanations that start out by arbitrarily decreeing that a designer is “less
probable” (ruling out supernatural explanations).

To this, I agree your religious beliefs do have an affect on how you look at science and scientific discoveries. However not to the extent that creationists would suppose, while your religious beliefs or lack thereof give you different philosophical perspectives on different discoveries and the nature of science, it does not and should not cause you to rewrite science and force-fit it into your religious views which is exactly what creationists are doing. While I agree that arbitrarily assuming there is not designer is fallacious, I don't think we should then attribute the origin of everything to direct creation of the deity without good solid evidence, otherwise it is not science.

After describing Eugenie Scotts illustration of core, frontier, and frings ideas of science the creationist author responds;

However, notice that even when we find data that points to design, such as
irreducible complexity, Darwinism is not considered falsified or challenged. In
fact, we argue that nothing evolutionists find would be considered enough to
falsify evolution, because Darwinism isn’t just another falsifiable hypothesis
that’s made its way to the core; rather, it is a presupposed, foundational
paradigm that is used to interpret the actual facts.

That is just the problem, Irreducible Complexity is not evidence of design so by simple logic evolution has not been challenged by IC therefore it has not been falsified, and even if IC did challenge a completely naturalistic outlook on natural history it would not disprove evolution. This doesn't prove that Design has been rejected for philosophical reasons by the scientific community it simply proves the obvious fact that IC has failed to disprove it, evolution is easy to disprove also; just find evidence of human fossils in the Triassic period and evolution is dead. Now it should also be pointed out that in a sense the creationists are right; facts have to be interpreted but there is only one correct interpretation and young earth creationism is not it.

Now onto whether or not evolution (or darwinism as they call it) is a paradigm;

One might suggest that, even if Darwinism is a paradigm rather than a simple
hypothesis, the evidence would still help scientists choose between competing
paradigms (as though they were competing explanatory hypotheses). But facts
don’t speak for themselves; they must be interpreted through a paradigm.
Interpreting facts to prove a paradigm is thus ultimately an exercise in
circular logic. Furthermore, since the only paradigms that challenge Darwinism
are design-based, there is effectively only one paradigm to chose from for those
like Scott who reject that science can discover intentional design.

Although this is true it does not help creationists since evolution is not a paradigm but a testable hypothesis which has passed the test of time. Now on Methodological Naturalism (which is what creationists really mean when they say "Darwinism"), Methodological Naturalism was developed many Christian philosophers (among them being Francis Bacon) who understood that uniformity was the key foundation of science. The supernatural was not to be denied or denigrated but when it came to the natural world the supernatural would be left out since they were dealing with the way God usually upheld his creation (natural forces) rather then the way God upheld his creation only in very special moments (supernatural forces) so the supernatural is left out of the equation when it comes to science. This is wise because capricious supernatural explanations will not give us a better understanding of the natural world. Now it is true that some people will not accept supernatural explanations of any kind (even theists such as Kenneth Miller), if the evidence points toward a deliberate supernatural act (actual evidence not just a God-of-the-gaps argument) I will accept it. I have no philosophical reason to reject design, however the current Intelligent Design movement is disappointingly lacking in evidence for their theory, and that is in a nutshell the reason I am a Christian who believes in Evolution. As a result I am not convinced that anyone, Christians in particular should be so eager to support Intelligent Design for its potential apologetic uses.

In the end it is up the reader to decide which one is true, evolution is a testable hypothesis which has been proven, and if you believe I am wrong don't just sit there, argue with me and tell me why I am wrong, you might even change my mind who knows.

A Review of Answers In Genesis' review of Eugenie Scotts talk on science and faith

Excuse the incredibly long name but there isn't really any other way to phrase it.

Anyway I was just reading a recent article on the AiG website about a talk Eugenie Scott gave back in September (yes it took them that long to get to it, but I can see why, they are probably quite busy). It is basically a discussion about how science and religion mix. Now since I am a theist and Eugenie is not I will probably find myself agreeing with a lot of things the creationists are saying from a philosophical standpoint yet rejecting many of their conclusions (example, I agree that there is a God who created the universe and revealed himself to mankind through a book, however I disagree that this means he couldn't have used natural processes to create the universe).

To begin, she points out that there are three ways of gaining knowledge; personal experience (intuition internal knowledge etc.), Authority (a book such as the bible, an experienced individual in a particular field etc.), and science which she describes as a limited way of knowing the world which through natural processes alone. She also points out that science is limited in the sense that it can only know what can be observed and tested. I agree with most of what she is saying, although if evidence of something outside the natural world (say, God) could be gleaned then it would probably be accepted as scientific.

Next she goes onto the creationist argument that you cannot know anything about something if it happened in the past because there were no witnesses. Eugenie uses a humorous example of finding on a road, cow dung with a road stripe painted over it, and then humorously asks the audience if we would not be able to figure out what happened because it happened in the past. She goes onto state that we could figure out what happened through seeing a logical sequence (cow comes and defecates on a road stripe, the road maintenance crew comes to paint fresh stripes on the road and doesn't clean of the dung but simply paints the line over it).

The creationist argument that we can't figure something out because it happened in the past is indeed a weak argument. And although I agree that an omniscient witness who can't lie is a good witness to have I also believe Creation is a witness from God telling the human race how he created the universe, it is simply logical that God's creation would be just as reliable as his on natural history as his revealed word would be on matters of human history, spirituality and morality.

Now enough babbling, lets get to the creationists' response;

Now, let me make it clear that, unlike Scott’s implication, creationists do
believe inferential explanation is, on the whole, pretty accurate. If you return
home and your dog is out of the cage with trash scattered about, it’s not
unreasonable to conclude, based on past experience and circumstantial evidence
(e.g., teeth marks on garbage, the dog’s dirty snout) that the dog is
responsible. This sort of deduction can be quite reasonable when there are no
observers and can be important even when there are observers—if they’re fallible
(for example, the aforementioned witnesses to a crime).
Likewise, Scott’s
answer to her highway conundrum makes sense based on what we know about the
behavior of cattle, the physics of highway paint striping, and so forth.
But
just as it seems foolish to conclude that inferential explanations are never
right, it also seems foolish to conclude that inferential explanation—especially
about unrepeatable historical events—is just as reliable as directly observing
repeatable, carefully controlled scientific experiments. This is where we get
into the distinction between operational (or observational) science and origins (or
historical) science—a distinction evolutionists fail to recognize, by the
way.
For instance, a dog tearing up garbage isn’t a one-time event; it’s
something that happens more regularly than most people would like, has been
observed many times, and violates no laws of science. We could even set up a
two-way mirror or hidden camera and document Fido’s destruction.

And now for my rebuttal: While it is true that sometimes accurately describing historical events can be difficult it is not impossible. Although we cannot absolutely know how a battle happened we can get a pretty good idea (like from where the enemy attacked, we can tell what era it occured in by the armour of the soldiers, etc.). A dog tearing up garbage isn't a one time event but neither is biological change, and we can actually observe it happening in the same way we can see dogs tearing through garbage. Creationists need to show that these two cases are somehow different; now it is true that we have not actually watched a reptile evolve into a bird but we don't have to. Just like in at a crime scene you look for clues from the site to see what happened, scientists look for any changes of that type in the fossil record which is essentially (not to use a word twice but) a record of earth's history. If we didn't find any evidence of this sort of change whatsoever evolution would have been thrown in the garbage can a long time ago.

Now onto why they think evolution is different;

But as for the differences: first, Darwinian evolution is based on
conjecture about a one-time event that we cannot repeat experimentally; the
“documentation” of the fossil record is actually just an interpretation of unevolving fossils that
presupposes evolution.3 Second, Darwinian evolution violates the law of biogenesis and the second
law of thermodynamics. Third, there are good alternatives to evolution regarding
the origin of life/biodiversity. These differences distinguish the dog-and-trash
and the cattle-and-road-stripe examples from Darwinian evolution.

Well I am sorry to say this creationist is w-r-o-n-g; Darwinian evolution is not based on conjecture and it is based upon an event which we can repeat experimentally, evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics or the law of biogenesis (evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis), and no there are no good alternative explanations. It should also be pointed out that Intelligent Design as a concept is valid, however the current movement which wants to make Intelligent Design a scientific alternative to evolution has failed to make a convincing case. I would like nothing better then for a more theistic framework for biology to appear but until that happens, I will stay with evolution. Next he makes the point that inference is only accurate if the source is accurate. Now this is true, but if data gained through careful examination and experimentation is not a good source of inference then I don't know what is. Creationists deny it but that is indeed how our knowledge of evolution has been gained over the past 150 years.

The last point I am going to address tonight is that God being incapable of lying and omniscient would be a perfectly reliable witness; this is very true but creationists need to remember that creation was also made by God and it was made to give a reliable account of the past, shouldn't we also take the witness of God's creation into account?

I will be making a part two of this tomorrow (I apologize for my laziness in updating this blog, I will attempt to do better next month) but for now, farewell and goodbye.

Ten myths about evolution part 5

The next myth appears to be that just because you find an ape fossil with human like characteristics doesn't mean its a transitional form. So just because it has all of the appearances of being a transitional form its still not a transitional form? Does that make sense to anybody? Now it is true that some characteristics attributed to apelike ancestors of humans are found in apes today, but this does not automatically mean that that early hominids could not have been ancestors to humans anymore then the fact that mid browns being alive today proves that we did not come from Adam and Eve (mainstream creationists believe that Adam and Eve were mid browns therefore having greater variability).

Top 10 so called myths about evolution part 4

Well the real 7th top myth (I accidentally labeled the 8th top myth as the seventh sorry about that) about evolution is that ape-human genetic similarities prove evolution.

Well in this case it depends on how you look at it. Creationists are right in pointing out that ape-human similarities don't necessarily prove evolution. But it is not simply the similarities but the pattern of these similarities which make evolution a better explanation. there is no reason not to assume that since humans and apes have the same retroviruses, Pseudogenes, junk DNA, and one of the human chromosomes is a fusion between two chimp chromosomes; they are therefore related. Creationists can rationalize this all by saying that God designed them with similarities, or that God purposely infected apes and humans with the same retroviruses because of some unknown purpose (yes they actually suggest this), and that pseudogenes have a function which has not been discovered yet (to be fair some pseudogenes have actually been found which do have a function). But that still doesn't refute the genetic similarity argument used by evolutionists.

P.S. Wow, this is the first month in which I've made more then seven posts since July; a new record!

P.P.S. Well anyways, good day.

Created Rationalist

Top ten so called myths about evolution part 3

Now after a rather busy week we get to transitional forms. Then 7th top myth is that there are clear transitional fossils. Well if you creationists could remind paleontologists of that, it would be quite nice. one of the more extraordinary transitional forms is Tiktaalik with phalanges, a neck, and inner ear structures which appear half-way between land animals and fish. Also lets not forget our friends Archaeopterix and Microraptor. Also here are two videos about transitional forms, part 1 and part 2. The guy despite being a professing Christian is an especially rabid anticreationist which some of my creationist associates might find offensive but he does have good information.

Hence transitional forms is another scientific reason to become a theistic evolutionist.

Top 10 so called myths about evolution part 2

forgive me for being a little slow on this series, my next posts on this series will hopefully be more frequent.

Anyway this one is about homologous structures; the "evolutionist" myth is apparently that it proves evolution. Their counter-argument is that physical or genetic similarities does not prove two organisms are related anymore then the fact that two phones are alike means they are related. One person actually denied that the similar characteristics can also prove common design. I don't think the argument is invalid; it also logically follows that organisms without the the same structures would have greater genetic differences then organisms that do have the same structures and vice verca. The problem with this argument is deciding which similarities are due to common design and which are due to common descent. Mainstream creationists (AiG, ICR, and CMI mainly) think that all species come from larger more diverse kinds, so obviously you would have some organisms which are similar also due to common descent, so two different breeds of dogs being genetically similar due to common descent is not a problem for creationists. But what about say, chimpanzees and humans who are about as similar as two breeds of dogs? A theologically consistent special creationist would have to say that humans were of a different kind then chimpanzees, even though his scientific definition of a kind says otherwise. The question is how far can you go back in animals before you the kind level? If

If this aspect of creationist genetics were correct then should be large gaps in genetic similarity between two species from different kinds. For example; chimpanzees should be more like 90% or even 80% similar, not 98% similar.

My point here is while the common design argument is valid as far as logic goes, but it fails in the fact that the genetic similarities are more consistent with a non-creationist interpretation of the data. As far back as we go back largely unrelated organisms (such as dogs and bears) become more and more genetically similar to the point where they would classify as being in the same creationist kind. Following a creationist interpretation we have to make an arbitrary cut off point which has no other then a weak theological justification for it.

A few tips for creationist tract makers

Now I really hate to sound like I am putting down other Christians, I'm not and try hard not to; what I am doing is helping out my fellow Christians who happen to be creationists make tracts so they'll look more credible. And one way is to mend their gospel tracts. The gospel tracts I am referring to are the ones directed at mainly atheistic evolutionists. Often they have things in them which would probably cause the audience these Christians are trying to reach to dismiss them as ingorant bible-thumping bumpkins, and that is rarely a good thing. So this is to help out those evangelical tract-makers who want to send high quality tracts to their client churches.

The one I am reviewing is from A.C.T.S. ministries and interestingly enough it is actually much better written then most creation/evolution tracks put out by Way of the Master or Living Waters ministries (Ray Comfort and Kirk Camoren's ministries) but it still has a lot of the things which I find would not impress the average biology student.

Consider the introduction;

"Please don't put this down until you have read it thoroughly. We've taken
the time to share these truths with you and ask that you keep an open mind just
as you did when embracing darwinism

Please understand that all the scientific theories about the origin of
life, as taught in the public school system, have been proven by science,
history and the fossil record to be wrong. Evolution, Big Bang and others just
don't fit.

Please, read on and we believe you will conclude that Mr. Darwin was not a
bad man, but he was very wrong"

Now whats wrong with this introduction? Two things;
1. It calls evolution "darwinism," I know this is a minor point, but most evolutionary apologists do not like this term. Darwinism is a group of ideas and notions not necessarily connected to evolution so it should not be used when referring to evolution. When a creationist says "darwinism" most evolutionists other then myself take that to mean the creationist thinks evolution is some sort of cult which its not (some evolutionists even go as far to think creationists think that they worship Darwin as their deity which unfortionately some creationists do) and the creationist is dismissed as an idiot (yes as rediculous as it sounds many evolutionary apologists do make that big of a deal about it) and being seen as bigger idiots then they are already stereotyped is the last thing creationists need.
2. Never, ever say the Big Bang talks about the origin of life. It does not, it doesn't even talk about the origin of the universe only what happened afterwards (that the universe expanded and stars and galaxies were formed, etc.). Most creationists speak of evolution as an umbrella term referring to a veriaty of naturalistic explanations concerning origins whether cosmological, biological, or geological. Most educated creationists understand that they are studied in different fields and apply to different topics but they use the word "evolution" to refer collectively to naturalistic origins scenarios. However to the evolutionists' ears this sounds like you can't tell the difference between cosmology and biology. And just from the very first few sentences of your tracts you will be dismissed as a scientific ignoramus.

In then next section they talk about transitional forms between humans and apes. The problem with the next section is that the first part is a bit of an argument from personal incredulity (I can't imagine apes evolving into humans because they're to different) you want to watch out for that one. An argument from personal incredulity is basically stating you lack the of the ability to imagine something happens proves it did not happen; it is not a good argument and simply makes you look illogical and at best, unimaginative. If you want to make anymore then a comedic impression on an evolutionist leave those arguments out.

The next is to actually research your arguments before you use them. The second point of the tract consists of them talking about how radiometric dating is false. They simply give a few examples of radiocarbon dating giving off wild results. All the of the stated examples (a freshly killed seal being dated at 1300 years old, a living mollusk being dated at 2300 years old, and a shell on a living seal being dated at 27,000 years old) even if these count they only disprove radiocarbon dating, which only is used to date thins younger then 60,000 years. It does not disprove the accuracy of Potassium-Argon dating, Rubidium-Strontium dating or other methods used to date rocks that are actually millions of years old. Also all the examples can be explain by natural processes (because of more C14 in certain deep waters sea creatures can get more C 14 then usual thus making them look much older then they actually are). I should also add radiocarbon dating has been used to date the dead sea scrolls to have been written before Jesus' time, this means that we know from comparing the dead sea scrolls to modern day bibles that Christians didn't alter the text to make it appear more consistant with the New Testament.

In their third point about the fossil record the conclude by saying most scientists have abandoned Darwin's theories. This is simply not true, and shouldn't be propogated; yes a small number of scientists do oppose Darwin but they make up less then 1% of the scientific community, thats hardly most of the scientific community. If you say this the evolutionist may think you are lying (creationists have a rather nasty stereotypical trate which is lying) and your tract will be ignored.

Final suggestion, at the end of a tract, don't immediately launch into a discussion on the ten commandments and how your going to hell and need to be saved. The evolutionist reader whether atheistic or not will take this as a scare tactic (which is especially bad if you have a really bad tract going along with it) and dismiss you as religiously motivated scaremongers. Instead I would suggest simply ending it with the suggestion of there being a God and that God possibly being the God of the bible, then directing them to a source for more information. It makes you sound less like a cult and more like an evangelist.

Now to A.C.T.S. ministries I'd like to say keep up the good work but try to do a better job with your creation/evolution tracts.

And to Way of the Master; shape up.

Top 10 so called myths about evolution

This is a response series to the AiG web article series Top 10 myths about evolution. Myth 10 is apparently that computer programs prove evolution.

While it is true that it doesn't necessarily prove anything. Computer simulations however do help to visualize concepts such as natural selection creating new species. What they do prove is that that random mistakes can generate meaningful information. Thus even if it does entail a rigged results thats not the point. The point is that random mistakes can generate order if controlled by natural selection; hence evolution.

It is interesting that the picture they use to illustrate the point depicts the evolutionist program designer as being 100% biased against God. Of course this is not accurate since many evolutionists myself including believe in God and agree with evolution. While I have no philosophical problem with creationism or Intelligent Design I have yet to see evidence of it in nature. As I have said before once I get good evidence I will wholeheartedly become a creationist against all odds.

examining Creation Guys episode 5

Since I responded to their fourth one already I decided to respond to each in order. This episode has to do with faith and logic. The first topics they talk about is news about someone trying to sneak an intentionally poor paper past Answers Research Journal peer review, and then the question, "who created God?" I don't have much of a problem with their answer to that question although I would definitely not go as far to call it an unintelligent question. Also I am dismayed at their dismissive attitude, they don't even really answer the question even though it is a serious question.

However the next statement borders on infuriating;

Jonathan Samson: "Now a lot of people--there's a lot of Christian theologians out
there--who just don't really care about this kind of stuff."

They don't care!? So pro-science theologians who look for ways in how faith and science mix don't care about the relationship between science and religion? This makes absolutely no sense, they may not say earth was created in six days but they definitely care about the relationship between science and religion, its anti-science theologians who think science and religion are incompatible and one has to be suppressed who don't care.

Eric Hovind: "Yeah they really compromise the whole situation of--science and
God--they assume that if they practice science and when they practice their
faith--their religion, they kind of have to take of their science hat and put on
their God hat"

True there are many people who do think that science and religion occupy separate zones in the brain and that one somehow suppresses the other. This is not the view of pro-science theologians but more commonly the view of theologians opposed to science because of their off the wall interpretation of the bible. Most theologians he is talking about see science and theology as equivalent and complementary ways of discovering truth.

They go on to say that many Christians feel that if we simply sacrifice a literal interpretation of the bible evolution and Christianity are compatible, while this is true there are many Christians (progressive creationists including) who do not see their acceptance of modern science as contradictory to a literal interpretation of the bible; Just a young earth one. I am Christian and I do not see any problem with accepting evolution. Then he goes onto mention Hugh Ross as if he were a Christian who didn't take the bible literally and believed in evolution. This is ridiculous Hugh Ross does take the bible literally, however he uses an alternate literal interpretation (the day-age interpretation) that does not lead you to the conclusion that the days of genesis were ordinary days, he is still a staunch anti-evolutionist, he is hardly a poster boy for liberal theology. Eric Hovind Continues;

"Dude that is a question that comes up isn't it! 'why can't you just compromise and give into the Big Bang thing?' 'Why are you so dogmatic on this?'"

That is the question isn't it? To my fellow Christians: Frankly I don't care what position you take on Genesis whether your a young earth creationist or progressive creationist or theistic evolutionist like myself. I'm not going to try to deconvert you. And I will give you a chance to defend your position both scientifically and theologically, and I Will tell you only criticize your beliefs if you bring the subject of creation-vs evolution up and you want to debate. And I will tell you why I think your wrong, and if you are spreading misinformation I know it is my Christian duty to stop you. The purpose of this blog is to defend evolution both from a theological and scientific perspective not to attack yours. Also I'm not hard to convince show me that evolution is wrong and that the Big Bang and the extreme age of the earth are a joke and I will wholeheartedly accept creationism. Until then I will remain with my position. As for young earth creationists they will never be convinced that their beliefs are wrong because their interpretation of the bible will not allow it. Leaving a young earth interpretation for a better one would be compromise to them as Jonathan is about to confirm:

"It doesn't make it right, that's like saying, Eric your married, why won't you cheat on your wife as so many husbands have? Your not supposed too! [that's why]"

Jonathan Samson has made it clear that he is not going to change his interpretation of the bible because he sees it as compromising the authority of the bible. He see's it in the same light as cheating on ones wife. He will never change his mind from a scientific perspective and will continue to spread Hovind-style misinformation. What both pro-science Christians and non-Christians need to realize is that the creation-evolution controversy is theological in nature and should be addressed as such. As for anti-creationists who are also anti-religious it must be remembered that creationists are motivated to oppose evolution because the leading anti-religious crusaders have made evolution an argument against the existence of God. If we disassociated evolution from atheism and theism the debate would be over.

evolution, capitalism, and communism

One interesting accusation of evolution is that it leads to communism and socialism, (national socialism in particular). It is a common claim by creationists to charge evolution with the foundation of Nazism, communism, socialism, fascism, and many other ideologies which are fundamentally socialistic.

Of course knowing that many claim evolution is the foundation of socialism and communism is rather useless if you don't know what any of those are. Now since it is usually Marxist communism which is usually branded as an "evolutionist ideology" I will look at communism and Nazism.

Communism is essentially the idea of a classless egalitarian society where nothing is owned by a single individual but everything is owned by the society at large, also in communism no one is wealthier then another, everyone is part of the working class. In communism you whether you are a plumber or a rocket scientist you get the same amount in return, because of this, you cannot get ahead of anyone else in a communist society, you will either starve or be in the working class but there is no very rich, just the very poor.

Communism sounds wonderful on paper but it is fundamentally flawed in practice due to the fact that it assumes that human nature is basically good and altruistic; when it is clearly not. Socialism a less extreme form, also envisions a society where there is limited private ownership and almost everything is owned by the state. The difference being that most socialist countries were democracies while most communist nations have been ruled by dictators; plus the fact that in communism the wealthy class is overthrown and replaced by the working class while socialism simply has the government taking over every area of life.

Now Capitalism is the virtual antithesis of communism and socialism; in capitalism private ownership is very important, everyone has to work; the means of production (meaning what you need to do your job and the material you are working on) is owned by private investors, and the economy is built on a free market system. Essentially, how well you work to earn money determines which class you will be in (lower, middle, or upper). What you receive depends on how much and how well you work. Capitalism shows our basic biological and psychological need to get ahead and compete with others. All in all, capitalism is superior to communism in that it is more consistent with human nature then communism.

Now in review, which one better fits the evolutionary theory? the basic mechanism of evolution is natural selection. Those who better adapt to their environment are more likely to live to produce offspring to carry on their lineage. Its all about who is the strongest and most productive. Compared to communism, evolution is actually quite different. If evolution really was the foundation of communism. Nothing would ever go extinct, and all organisms would be get the food they need. And the ones to go extinct would be the most successful, the most productive organisms would be eradicated to make way for the more humble creatures. In actuality it is quite obvious that capitalism reflects evolution much more then communism. capitalism like evolution demands that only the best and the most productive reach the top, private owners competing with one and other, very similar to the biological theory of evolution. It is simply libel to blame evolution for communism and fascism and other beliefs, it is shameful for Christians to resort to such tactics.

Eric Hovind's attempt to explain away the fused chromosomes

You all know the argument for evolution from the fused chromosomes, for those who don't; I wrote about it in an earlier post, I'll explain it briefly here for conveniance; apes have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46, and one thing is that if we don't find an explanation for this evolution is in trouble. What would have had to have happened is that two of the chromosomes fused into one large chromosome, and interestingly enough our chromosome number 2 is resembles to ape chromosomes which fused. What a coincidence!

This is a little difficult for creationists to explain away although they have found a way, AiG has written an article in response to the argument by Kenneth Miller. This version of the argument is from a video by Eric Hovind and Jonathan Samson, Samson gives the argument;

So it we strip away the bias and just look at the facts (as everyone should),
the facts are; yes it seems like humans have experienced fusion in the past in
human chromosome number two. But what does that mean? [Hovind cuts in to say
"That's how--there interpreting it--as evidence of evolution"] It means they're
attaching it to their own story.

So essentially he is saying that we are assuming that humans evolved from apes before we look at the evidence and have misinterpreted it as evidence of common descent. Of course is this accurate? Evolution gave a plausible explanation of the missing chromosome and it has turned out to be true. Also since it resembles two ape chromosomes and it predicted by the theory of evolution it doesn't seem too far fetched to say it is evidence of evolution.

This argument is not filled with the usual crass scientific ignorance that usually accompanies Hovind arguments, but it still does not succeed. I think creationists have a point with worldviews affecting how we approach science but they take it to the far flung extant to try to force-fit scientific data into their narrow, flawed interpretation of the bible (which they somewhat arrogantly equate with the biblical position). Christian or non-Christian, one can not accept such an extrapolation.

Key to ending the creation/evolution controversy

The creation-evolution controversy has raged for over a century and a half now. And there seems no end in site, it only appears to be getting more ferocious as the years pass, Why is this?

Well one thing might be confusion about why creationists oppose evolution. It is not because of science or any reason related to that. the leading creationists are not morons who can't think straight either, their thinking is crystal clear, and they do have a very important reason to oppose evolution. Well actually two reasons, which both go together, they can be stated simply; doctrine and morality.

It has been stated all over the AiG website what the debate is really about. It is about a theological dispute within the Christian faith. Essentially how do we approach evolution? There are a great many Christians; both scientists, theologians, and laypeople who believe in both God and evolution. Many do not see evolution and religion in conflict. However the problem is that both sides of the extreme (bible-thumping fundamentalists and bible-burning atheists respectively) do see it as in conflict. The main problem for many is death and suffering. Young Earth Creationists at least hold to the belief that there was no death before Adam's sin, and being that the fossil record shows death and suffering long before sin they see this as an obvious problem for Christianity. Atheists such as Albert Einstein and probably Richard Dawkins who agree with the creationists' interpretation of the bible concur with this point.
This problem is a nagging problem for creationists and theistic evolutionists trying to convince creationists to accept modern science.
Is this true, is evolution truly the death knell of Christianity? Well luckily it is not Creationists have not given any proof that there was no animal death before the fall. In fact Psalm 104 seems to indicate there was death in animals before the fall.

Another biblical problem they have with evolution is the existence of Adam. Evolution teaches that humans share common ancestry with great apes so ultimately humans go back to apes not Adam. Creationists believe this is the death knell of Christianity, atheists agree (this particular quote comes from John Stear host of the site No Answers In Genesis):

“If evolution is fundamentally correct, then there was no Adam; no Adam, no fall; no fall, no atonement; no atonement, no reason for Christ to have died on the cross. If Christ died for no reason then he was not divine and Christianity has no basis in fact. Is there really any need for scientific proof in order to debunk Christianity?”

If Adam doesn't exist then yes we do have a problem, I do believe in a literal Adam who is the genetic common ancestor of all people alive today (although some theistic evolutionists don't think he was the genetic common ancestor). Its possible he may have been Mitochondrial Eve's husband. Genetics has traced every human alive to day to a human common ancestor like the bible says. So their fear seems somewhat unfounded. There are many other scientific, theological, and biblical issues which must addressed though.

The second real reason for their rejection of evolution is morality, on their website in the Q&A Morality and Ethics section they quote G.K. Chesterson a 19th century Christian apologist on morality and evolution:

Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals … That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws.

If you want to treat a tiger reasonably, you must go back to the garden of Eden. For the obstinate reminder continues to recur: only the supernaturalist has taken a sane view of Nature.’

Basically what they are trying to get at is evolution leaves no basis for morality. Once you remove Creation you can do what ever you want. As shown in this illustration they see evolution as the excuse to throw the bible away and commit all sorts of sins which are at the center of social concerns today:

As you can see here Answers In Genesis state that evolution allows for humans to decide moral truth which is a cardinal belief in humanism and therefore gives way to behaviors which they see as immoral.

Is this true, well their problem is that Creationist are confusing evolution with moral relativism, evolution being a natural process doesn't say anything in regards to morality or ethics or God or atheism for that matter any more then the theory of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. Scientific theories are amoral. What creationists don't understand is that evolution is what you make of it; if you say evolution is God's method of creation and that we should obey the God of the bible that's what evolution is, a creation process. If you decide that evolution is a godless mindless process that has no plan or purpose then that's what is, if you add evolution to biblical Christianity you will get Christian morality, if you combine it with atheism you will get relativistic morality and make whatever you want of evolution. Carl Sagan thought evolution was a benevolent process and he had an adequate moral standard. And there have been atheists who have used evolution the opposite way to do evil as seen from the Christian worldview. Creationists cant seem to tell the difference between Atheism, Humanism, and evolution. which is much cause of their moral view towards evolution.

As stated before, Creationists are not stupid ad they are thinking very clearly. However science is not gong to convince them, there is plenty of science to address their complaint but what needs to be done is that Christians who accept evolution need to stand up to creationists and atheists and address the theological issues between Christianity and evolution. If we can show that Creationist theology is flawed then the creation/evolution controversy will end soon afterwords. Once the religious element of creationism is gone the pseudoscience will die soon afterwords.

Theistic Evolutionists and ID proponents go to war!

Just was over at William Dembski's blog after reading his article on theistic evolution. I am afraid I will have to agree with Evolved on this one, Willie doesn't make himself look like the sharpest crayon in the crayon box. He makes the claim that theistic evolutionists think Intelligent Design is dangerous to the moral fabric of society. Well if you mean intellectual honesty and scientific accuracy is threatened by the tactics of ID proponents then I agree. However ID is not as much dangerous to morality as much as it is to the credibility of Christianity as large.

Now let us examine the next claim;

Miller has called himself an Orthodox Christian and an Orthodox Darwinian
(cf. the 2001 PBS Evolution Series). But one has to wonder which of these
masters he serves more faithfully. A year or so ago, when Richard Dawkins’s
website posted a blasphemy challenge (reported at UD here
— the challenge urged people to post a YouTube video of themselves blaspheming
the Holy Spirit), I asked Ken Miller for his reaction. He pooh-poohed it as “a
clumsy attempt to trivialize important issues.” The obvious question this raises
is whether systematic efforts by atheists to trivialize (and indeed denigrate)
important issues is itself an important issue.

Could it be that the evolutionists’ assault on both science (by
perpetuating the fraud that natural selection has unmatched creative powers) and
religion (by using evolution as a club to beat people of faith) is undermining
America’s soul? Not according to Miller. He’s got other fish to fry. For him,
it’s the ID proponents’ assault on evolution that is undermining America’s soul.
Forget about Dawkins and his blasphemy challenge. Let’s shaft the ID community.

Alright first of all it does not matter whether Ken Miller serves evolution or Christ more faithfully, what matters is that he is right on scientific matters, his religious sincerity is between him and God. Evolution is only an ideology if Gravitivism and Plate Tectonism are also ideologies. As for the blasphemy challenge, I thought it was stupid, so I pretty much agree with Miller. Besides the blasphemy challenge was for people who were already atheists to profess their unbelief. Now to the embarrassment of the Rational Response Squad which sponsored it that is not actually the unpardonable sin, of course that is a different subject.

"Evolutionists" are not attacking science anymore the ID is attacking religion, and yes Natural Selection with help of mutation does have near unlimited creative powers, yes proponents of atheism do use evolution to attack religion, of course they also use similar tactics when saying that religion can't be true when religious believers used to believe earth was flat or was geocentric. I think we have gotten over that, eventually we will be over creationism and will be able to give a straight forward defense of our faith. What Miller means by "America's soul" is not a spiritual soul but the fact that to Miller an attack on science is an attack on the American way of life, he is not making a statement on spirituality of any kind, of course ultimately the ID debate is over intensely important philosophical issues. Now for the real whopper;

In this powerfully argued and timely book, Ken Miller takes on the fundamental
core of the Intelligent Design movement, and shows with compelling examples and
devastating logic that ID is not only bad science but is potentially threatening
in other deeper ways to America’s future. But make no mistake, this is not some
atheistic screed — Prof. Miller’s perspective as a devout believer will allow
his case to resonate with believers and non-believers alike.”

The reason I and many other Christians oppose Intelligent Design is because they are missing one crucial component of a scientific theory its called EVIDENCE. IDers have so far failed to come up with any straight forward, reliable, peer-reviewed proof of Intelligent Design. If ID proponents are able to do this single feat then I will wholeheartedly support Intelligent Design, we are not as hard to convince as you might think. The reason we say it is as dangerous as atheism is that until ID can substantiate itself as a legitimate scientific theory it is at best pseudoscience and unreliable, and damaging to ones credibility. If Christian apologists are to align themselves with such questionable ideas such as Intelligent Design then we have basically made it easy for atheists to disprove our position because we have taken a flawed position. No doubt in the future atheists will use the stubbornness of some Christians not to accept the evolutionary theory against future Christians apologists because of our mistakes.

Dembski also goes on to state that one of the foremost critics of the ID position were in fact other Christians (oh I wonder why!?). Will and his colleagues need to understand that they have so much opposition from the religious community for one reason -- lack of, say it with me -- E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, On the other hand evolution has been the mainstream view for the past 150 years and evidence has continued only to increase. Most educated Christians are rightfully suspicious of a view which does not have much respect at all from the mainstream scientific community. Until Intelligent Design can is proven true it is dangerous to the credibility of faith and it should not be taken as an apologetic among Christians. We should instead stick to Thessalonians 5:21 and remain skeptical.

Here comes the war part;

So here’s the deal, everyone. Theistic evolutionists are implacably opposed to
ID (Denis Alexander, head of a Templeton funded science-religion center in
Oxford recently admitted, in these very terms, that this is his view toward ID
when he asked for my consent to use and edit a video of me — and you wonder why
I didn’t give my permission). They are happy to jump in bed with Richard Dawkins
if it means defeating ID. They are on the wrong side of the culture war.* And
they need to be defeated.

To war! I for one even though I agree with Dawkins on the scientific veracity of evolution there is precious little that we agree on otherwise, we are not going to promote the God Delusion simply because Richard Dawkins makes a good case for evolution. Once again theistic evolutionists would stop being implacably opposed if the IDers gave evidence to support their paradigm.

Of course Dembski makes the obvious point that getting the youth is the way to help the Intelligent Design movement. This is of course how theistic evolutionists should follow suit. We cannot save the older generation, but the young people we can, we can influence them also to be theistic evolutionists and to eliminate this weakness in Christian apologetics. Reaching the you is a game that two can play you know.

I am going to have to read the book "Intelligent Design; everything you need to know in plain language" to see if that book is really the gem his claims it is. I will overlook what he says about his book Godless, it seems to contradict the claims that ID has nothing to do with religion but I doubt they are trying to say that anymore, to close so I can go to sleep (its 1:30 in the morning right now) I will discuss his final paragraph;

You know, I would be happy to sit down with theistic evolutionists and discuss our differences. I think they are wrong to baptize Darwin’s theory as God’s mode of creation. But I don’t think they are immoral or un-Christian for holding their views. But ID proponents, for wanting ID to have a place at the table as a scientific alternative to Darwinism, are, according to Miller, Collins, Alexander, etc., immoral, undermining Western civilization, and destroying America’s soul. Well, you want this fight, you’ve got it.

Alright Will, your going to have to explain how theistic evolutionists think you are immoral besides the fact that you don't seem to be the most honest person around. Now I would be more then happy to let you have ID as an alternative to evolution but first you need this little annoying thing called evidence, if you can make it there then you have my attention. Until then consider us mutually disconcordant.

The inquisitors are at it again...

I was on the Evolved and Rational blog, and I commented on one of her articles in a discussion with another supposed Christian (he's probably a joke though). Well, he has this to sat about me after I asked what his real name was since he claimed to be scientist at AiG.

CHRISTIANS BEWARE, Created Rationalist is a Darwinist supporter of the
EXPOSED Shalini Sehkar (Evolved Rationalist LIAR)!!!Beware his heretical,
unGODly lies!!

Ok, lets grind through this comment point by point;

CHRISTIANS BEWARE,

And yes he actually does write almost everything in all capitals, and being that I am a Christian I should probably beware to, but for different reasons. Christians should probably be aware of this guy (whose user name is creationist). because what he says is so amazingly ridiculous Creationist is most likely making fun of Christians who actually are young earth creationists who support Answers In Genesis

Created Rationalist is a Darwinist...

Like anyone who went to my blog doesn't already know that. I let people disagree with me, its fine if they want to have their own views of the creation.

supporter of the EXPOSED Shalini Sekhar (Evolved Rationalist LIAR)!!!

Alright, first of all Evolved Rationalist =/= Shalini Sekhar, and second of all I am not a supporter of evolved rationalist anymore the Kent Hovind (and whats hilarious is that Hovinds last name is not in my computers dictionary) is a supporter of Hugh Ross. I agree with her on certain scientific issues (such as the fact of evolution) but I disagree with almost everything she says in regards to philosophy, God, religion, and even social conduct.

Beware of his heretical unGODLY lies!!

Alright Creationist, stop accusing people of being liars and actually try to discredit what I and ER say about evolution, the age of the earth, and the Big Bang. Or I could just as easily call Creationist a liar since he is either closed to ignoring obvious truth or mocking the Christian faith. Either way I would distance myself from him, and I would suggest other Christians to do the same.

Re-posted: The New Answers Book's attack on Christianity

I posted this earlier then deleted it because I thought it was too harsh towards Young Earth Creationists (the predominant demographic of the people I know). It doesn't have anything that will get me suspended but still my blog is in its infancy and I can't risk having too many people mad at me. I am going to post it again because it needs to be posted (also tell me whether or not it is too harsh);

Yes, as odd as it may sound I have to defend my Christian beliefs from AiG
creationists. Young earth creationists, although they have good intentions, no
one other then atheists have done a better job then them in tearing some
people's faith in the bible to pieces and building up a few others then them.The
entire third chapter of the New Answers book (which I will be critiquing) is
devoted to attacking theistic evolution; the authors of the book start out
talking about the scopes
monkey trial and how William Jennings Brian the defender of creationism was
an old earth creationist, so therefore his attempt to defend creationism was
forfeit. They don't seem to wonder that it might have been because William
Jennings Brian was wrong about evolution that he did such a lousy job defending
creationism.There next move is somewhat unnerving. They say they will be taking
quotes from what atheists said about theistic evolutionists to show theistic
evolution is wrong! Oh good grief! Using that logic we might as well say
Christians were wrong in reinterpreting the bible when scientists said earth
went around the sun. They end the paragraph by saying that reinterpreting the
bible gives you leeway to reinterpret anything you want to in the bible. This
must be addressed, this is only true if you are invalidly reinterpreting the
bible. Reinterpreting the Genesis 1 to mean God created the universe over six
ages is valid; fifteen hundred years before geologists found earth was 4.6
billion years old or biologists found evolution was true many of the church
fathers believed that because of II
Peter 3:8 the days in Genesis were a thousand years long. The next part is
their attack on the scriptural validity of theistic evolution, but unfortunately
they are all operating of at least a few misconceptions.In the next part they
begin quoting the anti-creationist Thomas Huxley;--first of all, why are these
supposed creationists quoting an atheistic evolutionist? He was trying to
destroy belief in the bible in the first place. They surely wouldn't quote an
atheist denouncing the Christian acceptance of heliocentrism as rejecting
scripture would they?--And second of all this is what he said in his quote
(taken from his essay "Lights of the Church and Science");

"I am fairly at a
loss to comprehend how anyone, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology
must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures.
The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with
Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests
upon the interpretation of the passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no
evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them.
If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were
not ordained by Jahveh; if the ‘ten words’ were not written by God’s hand on the
stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the
Story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the
Creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of
apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of
the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which
is so much less clearly enunciated: And what about the authority of the writers
of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted
flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of
Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?"

What he said is absolutely true the
bible is worthless if there is no historical or scientific merit behind it and
thank goodness Huxley is wrong and the bible does have factual merit. Other then
that this quote is meaningless because it presupposes Christians who believe in
an old earth and evolution deny the Bibles historical and scientific merit.In
the next paragraph they say he was out to destroy Christianity and vigorously
attacked the old earth position, so one would wonder why these young earth
creationists would use this to stand for anything. The next statement is perhaps
the weakest point in the entire chapter. They give a verse Matthew
19:4-5 where Jesus is talking about marriage. And says in the beginning God
made them male and female. This is interesting but the verse could be
interpreted to mean the beginning of mankind. Despite upholding the doctrine of
marriage, it means nothing to creation.Over the next few paragraphs they go on
quoting and talking about Thomas Huxley praising his passionate dislike of those
who tried to reinterpret the bible to fit with the current scientific thinking.
If the authors of the New Answers book think this is making them look good I
don't know what to say. Who cares what an atheistic evolutionist thinks about
Christians. How about we do the same thing with the doctrine of geocentrism.The
next section of the chapter doesn't get much better, they start out with a quote
from Charles Hodge
saying that the church has had to reinterpret the bible once before to fit with
modern science. Unfortunately young earth creationists may have to learn the
same lesson the 17th century Catholic church had to learn. I would suggest these
young earth creationists to look at proverbs
3:5 and get some humility.Anyway they move on to the argument that the bible
teaches "no death before sin," unfortunately their scriptural support is rather
weak, Genesis
3:29 which they use to support death being caused by the fall; there is just
one problem Genesis 3 only has 24 verses, the verse doesn't even exist! This is
either a typo or outright deception, (lets assume its a typo). Romans
5:12 and 8:18-22
can be interpreted to imply that the death came to Man by Man; (I'll admit
Romans 5:12 is one of their stronger points but it still does not prove it). Genesis 1:31 does not contradict the mechanisms of natural selection or the natural
processes and if you think about it, creation is "very good" with a stable
ecosystem, inhabitable environment; everything just right for humans. God
sanctions the weekly slaughtering of animals and as any anti-christian animal
rights activist will tell you, God does not consider animal death evil. This
does not at all affect the idea of a loving God.Next they bring up a quote by a
liberal Christian, episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong, Spong makes an
interesting point by saying theistic evolution demands an imperfect creation.
But this is simply not true. We live in very good time to exist. The ice age is
over, all the giant carnivores are extinct, the climate is temperate (if we
lived back in the days of Pangaea over 80% of the planet would be an enormous
desert and the rest an ocean). The creation may not be perfect in the same way
as God himself but it is still very good time for humans to live in. God is no
longer guiding the natural processes even if he is still involved in them one
way or another, God has gotten us here, there is no reason to go further. Now it
is up to us to decide whether or not we will enjoy God's creation and tend to it
as he asked, or squander it and waste because of our greed.They close that part
of the chapter by saying that theistic evolutionists (or evolutionary
creationists) need to come to grips that the God they worship is not the true
God. But I don't think they realize the discrepancies between the God of a young
earth and the God of the bible either. Essentially the God of a young earth
would punish mankind by submitting innocent animals to being killed even though
they were innocent, and this is the loving God that gave his life so I could be
forgiven? We must be living in different universes.They end the chapter by
saying two things;--That once people start doubting the bible, (a.k.a. the young
earth interpretation of the bible) they begin to relegate the bible to a book of
suggestions.--And that we are relying on fallible human opinion when we trust
science only.To the first one, that is up to the person, strong Christians did
not reject the bible when they found geocentrism was false. I think Christians
should do fine as long as they do not extrapolate beyond that to say the entire
bible and Genesis is not true, which is simply not the case. There re lots of
archaeological and other scientific discoveries that point to the bible being
true.

NOTE: I don't know why its making that weird structure, I can't correct it.

Answers In Genesis on the fused chromosomes

A little while back I read an AiG article entitled Tail of Two Chromosomes. It was answering Kenneth Miller's argument for human evolution from earlier primates (that the human chromosome number two was the result of the fusing of two chimpanzee chromosomes). It basically said that it is the result of two human chromosomes fusing. The claimed that in other species it is connected to illnesses. And that it does not lead to speciation. After asking Miller himself I realized that the author of the article was missing the point of the article, this is what he said in his reply;

Thanks very much for your note:

[my email to him]
Hi I'm a high school freshman from
Temecula, I have reviewed your analysis of creationism and it seems reasonable.
I have been looking for a response to a creationist response to your fused
chromosome argument found here http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/tale-of-two-chromosomes,
they appear to do a good job in defending their case against common descent
(which being an evangelical I am rather pleased I'll admit) but I am still
skeptical, since I could not find a good rebuttal to it I have decided to ask
you personally to review it.

[his response]
I read the article, and was
absolutely amazed at how completely its author missed the point. The fact
that one of our chromosomes has a fusion site within it is not what makes us
different from other primates, and it is not what makes us human. Most of
the "rebuttal" is directed against those two points - which I have never
made.
The real issue is simple. Do we or do we
not share common ancestry with the other great apes, all of which have 48
chromosomes. If we do share such ancestry, then evolution makes a
straightforward, testable prediction.... namely, that two primate chromosomes
must have fused together in the line leading to us, and that our genomes should
carry the evidence of that fusion. If we do not find that fusion point,
then evolution in terms of common ancestry for our species would be argued
against.
The fact that the prediction is fulfilled is a powerful
confirmation of the evolutionary ancestry of our species. It does not
answer the question of how our genetic information differs from other primates,
nor was it meant to. It simply is a test of common ancestry, a test that
evolution passes.
Has any creationist ever made such a specific
prediction to put their hypotheses to such a scientific test? I believe
that the answer is no.
Best Wishes,
Ken

Now to explain what this means to those who don't have as much science up their sleeves; as you know we humans have 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent. Now great apes (chimpanzees, gorrillas etc.) have 48 chromosomes. Now what would have to have happened between them nd us is that two of the chromosomes would have had to fuse together. And sure enough our chromosome number 2 is made of two fused chromosomes. How do we know this? Well on the ends of chromosomes are caps called telomeres (which dammage to them is linked to aging). Well on a fused chromosome there would be two talomeres end to end. And sure enough there are. This is evidence of common descent. This does not show very well on the creationist's part. I hate to be the bad guy to my creationist companions and family, but it appears this is good evidence of common descent. This is of course helped out by ERVs (nasty little buggers that invade our cells and can fuse their RNA into our genome) and the fact that we have found many transitional fossils, one such interesting fossil is tiktaalik, a fish which has the rudiments of legs and a neck. If anybody has n objection to the evidence I have put forth please do, I welcome debate and discussion.