The Creation Couple (challenging secularists on creation and abortion)

Don Batten and Jonathan Sarfati interview husband and wife Dr Stephen Grocott and Dr Dianne Grocott. Stephen is a leading international research scientist in industrial chemistry, currently with a major firm in Queensland, Australia. Dianne is a qualified medical practitioner and psychiatrist. They have spoken on several occasions for Creation Ministries International. Whether challenging secularists on creation or abortion, this dynamic duo packs a powerful punch...

The article’s discussion of chirality or handedness is an important point. Here is an example of how handedness affects chemical functioning:

“Levorphan and Dextrorphan
The fact that painkilling activity depends greatly upon the exact geometry of the molecule is strikingly illustrated by the drugs levorphan and dextrorphan. They are very similar in structure to morphine, except that they are both mirror images of one another. The left-handed molecule, levorphan, is several times more potent than morphine and is strongly addicting. But the right-handed molecule, dextrorphan, has no analgesic ability and is non-addicting. This is also true for morphine, which is naturally left-handed. There is no naturally occurring right-handed form of morphine, but the Japanese chemist Kakuji Goto has synthesised it and found that it possesses none of morphine’s biological properties.”

Although both chemicals are exactly the same shape except for handedness it is this quality that makes all the difference.

The next time someone buys cough syrup with a “D” in its name look and you’ll the “D” is dextrorphan.

In a randomly formed universe, would we not expect roughly the same percentages of left and right handed molecules?

Just one of the many outmoded and oft-refuted creationist talking points in the article.

I fully believe that the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob created the universe.

However, these young-earth creationists use completely refuted science to fool good people because they claim that anyone who disagrees with their garbage is against God. And who would want to be against God?

Ann Coulter writes about liberals doing the same thing -- fooling otherwise good and well-meaning people -- in her new book.

The quote has to be wrong. Scientists do not extrapolate back in time to a point where radioactive decay can't be measured, they extrapolate back in time to see what the concentration of the original isotope was. Radioactive decay is one of many, many signs that point to an old universe -- and the dates for the decay of each isotope are in excellent agreement with one another.

Of course, the young-earth creationists often argue that God created the universe with isotopes already in a state of decay and light beams from distant galaxies on their way to us. If that were the case, then God is lying to us through his creation.

I believe that God does not lie and that the "heavens declare his glory." If someone believes that God does not lie, then they cannot in good faith be a young-earth creationist. That's why I'm mystified when I get accused of believing in "atheist science" and siding with Satan.

In a randomly formed universe, would we not expect roughly the same percentages of left and right handed molecules?

First, maybe or maybe not. Second, the article is very misleading. This is what I find most disturbing about young-earth creationism. They have to make things

Out of the small number of naturally-occuring compounds that do exhibit chirality, there appears to be a slight preponderance of right-handed molecules. We do not know why but there are a number of reasonable explanations. High-intensity X-rays are one possibility. So are molecules formed in the presence of a catalyst, which often produce an abundance of one enantiomer over another.

I can't say that chirality is an argument for creationism, even though I am a creationist.

First, most molecules do not exhibit chirality. Water is critical for life, but does not exhibit chirality. The universe is approximately 75% hydrogen (which is atomic, not a molecule) and 23% helium (a non-chiral molecule).

I must take exception to your argument. Chirality is not defined for the structure of water, hydrogen, nor for any molecule for which the geometry is insufficient for chirality to exist. Their structure is too simple.

For those molecules where chirality can exist, the vast majority do exhibit chirality.

So if your argument is that there are numerically more achiral molecules than chiral ones, the statement is true.

If your argument is that there are most molecules where chirality is defined present no left and right handed fractions, then the statement is false.

Finally, unless you are referring to hydrogen contained within the plasma of stars, hydrogen is molecular H₂, not atomic H

Although both chemicals are exactly the same shape except for handedness it is this quality that makes all the difference.

Yes, but what does this have to do with creationism? Mind you, I'm a scientist (degrees in chemistry and chemical engineering) and a conservative, Bible-believing, creationist Christian.

"A Handy Argument Against Evolution" is a big lie and I can't believe that someone with a background in chemistry could have made this claim:

When Stephen synthesized optically active compounds, he always had to start with an optically active substance that was ultimately derived from a living source.

First, it is quite easy to synthesize optically active compounds from compounds that (1) are not optically active themselves, like methane and carbon dioxide; and (2) that are not derived from living substances. The atmosphere of Titan is about 5% methane, if I recall correctly, and you can create all sorts of optically active compounds from methane.

Second, we have found complex, optically active compounds in outer space. They definitely did not originate from living sources.

I'm sorry, but postings like this hurt the cause of Christ. If I were a non-Christian with a science education and someone showed me this "handy argument," I would have to conclude that the Christians who wrote this were either lying or scientifically illiterate. Neither alternative would lead me to believe their claims about Christ.

I know that I'll get slammed for saying this, but we don't have to lie to spread the gospel. After a number of arguments, I have come to like GodGunsGuts, but I strongly disagree with him for posting nonsense like this. It's more of "A Handy Argument Against Christians" than anything else.

I would use chirality as arguing against randomness but not too strongly as I really can’t make a good case for it.

But I do think it would be better than this:

“Stephen: ‘As a scientist, I try to think logically—I just couldn’t consider having a Bible where some of it was true and some not—you believe the whole thing. I never tried to believe the days were long periods of time, or anything like that. It was just all or nothing. Some people say that we should leave aside the meaning of the days, that it is a stumbling block, but the true stumbling block is compromising God’s Word. Becoming a Christian, knowing that the whole Bible is true and God is the Creator—suddenly the whole picture made sense. The logic, and the watertight internal consistency of the Bible, and its consistency with what we see in the world, really impressed me. That’s undermined by long-age beliefs.’

I must take exception to your argument. Chirality is not defined for the structure of water, hydrogen, nor for any molecule for which the geometry is insufficient for chirality to exist. Their structure is too simple.

Yes, I know that. It is impossible to make chiral water. I was merely pointing out the inference I got from the article that chiral compounds are common.

So if your argument is that there are numerically more achiral molecules than chiral ones, the statement is true.

If your argument is that there are most molecules where chirality is defined present no left and right handed fractions, then the statement is false.

I was making the first argument. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Finally, unless you are referring to hydrogen contained within the plasma of stars, hydrogen is molecular H2, not atomic H

Doh! Thanks for catching the typo. When I was in college, I had expected to go into the oil business. Unfortunately, the oil business collapsed in 1984 while I was finishing my Chem E degree, so my first job was as chemist/engineer in a plating shop. Big letdown. But I do know firsthand the dangers of generating hydrogen!
You are absolutely correct -- hydrogen is diatomic and helium is monoatomic. That's what I get for posting without proofreading. Sorry about that, and thanks for the catch.

==However, these young-earth creationists use completely refuted science to fool good people because they claim that anyone who disagrees with their garbage is against God.

Tell me DM, is bearing false witness a standard tactic amongst the old earth crowd? How do you know what inside the heart of a man? I am a YEC. I don’t try to fool anyone. I know lots of creationists, to include some YEC scientists. They passionately believe that God intended a straightforward reading of Genesis. And they passionately believe the biblical and scientific case for YEC is stronger than evolution, old earth creation, or ID. Thus, speaking for myself, and the many creationists I have the privilege to personally know, I can categorically state that we are not trying to fool anyone.

==The quote has to be wrong. Scientists do not extrapolate back in time to a point where radioactive decay can’t be measured, they extrapolate back in time to see what the concentration of the original isotope was.

Dr. Grocott’s exact quote is: “Take radioactive dating; you can measure decay rates and isotope ratios today, but you can’t extrapolate back to some time in the past when you couldn’t measure it.”

Are you saying that scientists have discovered a way to travel back in time to measure the original concentration of radioactive isotopes?

==Of course, the young-earth creationists often argue that God created the universe with isotopes already in a state of decay and light beams from distant galaxies on their way to us. If that were the case, then God is lying to us through his creation.

In science, explanations are always in a state of flux. Scientific theories are being modified or overturned all the time. This applies to the Evos, no less than to Creation Scientists. The Evos simply assume that the initial conditions are known, there is no way for them to go back in time and confirm this assumption. They also assume that they understand the history of the rock they are studying. And they also assume that the rate of decay has remained constant throughout all conditions in earth’s history. These are HUGE assumptions, and Creation Scientists are right to point this out.

As for how distant starlight reaches the earth, until recently this has posed major problems for YEC scientists. The notion that God created distant starlight en route was one of many solutions proposed to this problem. However, I don’t know of any Creation Scientists who entertain this view anymore. That is because the Bible does not mention distant starlight being created en route, and several new creationist cosmologies have been proposed that demonstrate that gravitational time dilation could easily account for the distant starlight problem without having to resort to miracles not mentioned in the Bible.

==I believe that God does not lie and that the “heavens declare his glory.” If someone believes that God does not lie, then they cannot in good faith be a young-earth creationist.

I firmly believe that God does not lie, and yet I am a good faith Young Earth Creationist. Are you calling me a liar?

==That’s why I’m mystified when I get accused of believing in “atheist science” and siding with Satan.

You are indeed siding with atheist science. The fact that you feel compelled to hurl insults at Bible-believing scientists, while at the same time feeling compelled to side with atheists and anti-Christians like Coyoteman is proof of that. However, far be it from me to accuse you of consciously siding with Satan. Only you know the answer to that question.

But I do think it would be better than this:

...mostly nonsensenical quote...

I'm sure that you can! Stephen Grocott is no doubt smart and means well, but the idea of a 6,000-year old universe that was created in 6 24-hour days is neither scientific nor Biblical. The Hebrew word that Genesis uses for day, yom, has multiple meanings. I don't know why young-earth creationists insist that it has to mean a literal 24-hour day. Either God is lying to us through the evidence of his creation or yom as used in the creation story does not mean a 24-hour day. I vote for the latter.

By the way, check out this other quote from Grocott:

Life depends on having only pure forms of these (only one ‘hand’). But if life began in a chemical primordial soup, there was no means of supplying the necessary ‘single-handed’ compounds.

I'll wager that it won't take you too long to find the error in that statement!

Here is an interesting article on the chirality of serine and the role that it plays in life.

anti-Christians like Coyoteman

I'm not anti-Christian, I'm against those who are irrational and use that irrationality to attack science.

YEC is irrational as it ignores the immense amount of scientific evidence supporting it. Pretending that the evidence is not there, or manipulating and misrepresenting it does not make it go away.

Nor do all the "what if" stories YECs present in place of evidence. The quote you cite is a classic example:

“Take radioactive dating; you can measure decay rates and isotope ratios today, but you can’t extrapolate back to some time in the past when you couldn’t measure it.”

There is no evidence to support the contention that decay rates change enough to make any difference--its just a typical YEC "what if" story. And it means nothing. It is not evidence of anything by itself.

But it lets YECs feel better, and helps them ignore the mountains of evidence that make their position irrational.

And by the way, the majority of Christians are comfortable both with evolution and an old earth.

==In a randomly formed universe, would we not expect roughly the same percentages of left and right handed molecules?

Who knows? But what we do find is that outside living organisms carbon-based molecules are racemic. That is they are comprised of equal amounts of left and right-handed molecules. Levorphan and Dextrophan are synthetic drugs. This means that the monochirality of these drugs were intelligently designed by man (who is made in God’s image) to break the usual pattern we see in non-living, carbon-based molecules. And speaking of intelligent design, this is precisely what our molecular machinery does to stereo-isomers (right and left handed) in constructing the carbon-based molecules that are necessary for life. To wit:

“...nothing less than 100% purity will work in the molecular machinery of the cell.

One of the most famous examples is homochirality. Many carbon-based molecules have a property called ‘chirality’—they can exist in two forms that are mirror images of each other (like our left and right hands) called ‘enantiomers’. Living organisms generally use only one of these enantiomers (e.g. left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars). In contrast, naturalistic experiments that produce amino acids and sugars always produce an approximately 50:50 mixture (called a ‘racemic’ mixture) of the left-and right-handed forms. The horrors of the thalidomide drug disaster resulted from this problem of chirality. The homochiral form of one kind had therapeutic benefits for pregnant women, but the other form caused shocking fetal abnormalities.

The property of life that allows it to create such perfectly pure chemical components is its ability to manipulate single molecules one at a time. The assembly of proteins in ribosomes illustrates this single-molecule precision. The recipe for the protein structure is coded onto the DNA molecule. This is transcribed onto a messenger-RNA molecule which then takes it to a ribosome where a procession of transfer-RNA molecules each bring a single molecule of the next required amino acid for the ribosome to add on to the growing chain. The protein is built up one molecule at a time, and so the composition can be monitored and corrected if even a single error is made.”

So in this particular example, which theory better predicts the molecular machinery that constructs the homo-chiral molecules necessary for life: Random Mutation + Natural Selection, or intelligent Design?

I was explaining the effects of handedness, chirality, for those of us who can't pronounce handedness, on chemical compounds. Chirality does make all the difference so that in a universe of chance would not chance favor a rather even split between left and right.

As a scientist you know the correct functioning of proteins
depends not just on their chemical composition but upon their shape, which in turn depends on the amino acids having the right chemical composition.

I would say this argues against randomness and chance occurrence of life. That is my point.

The Handy Argument...is someone else’s, not mine.

“... nonsense like this.”?

Have you heard about the water ball two light years in diameter that collapsed to form the universe and how with a little adjustment Genesis says so?

The Handy Argument...is a ninety pound weakling by comparison.

I firmly believe that God does not lie, and yet I am a good faith Young Earth Creationist. Are you calling me a liar?

No, but I do believe that you have been taking advantage of by charlatans or liars. You're a good Christian acting on good principles, but you happen to be wrong.

You are a victim in the same way that medieval Christians were victims who believed that paying money can buy your way out of purgatory.

I have worked with scientists or engineers all of my life, and many are Christian. If the subject of creationism came up, I have not met a single YEC who admitted to the fact. Obviously they exist -- someone has to write this pseudo-scientific babble -- but they are definitely a minority.

And they also assume that the rate of decay has remained constant throughout all conditions in earth’s history. These are HUGE assumptions, and Creation Scientists are right to point this out.

Sorry, my friend, but this is not huge assumption at all. There is zero evidence pointing to the contrary. Yes, I know that there appears to be a correlation between decay rates and distance from the sun, but the difference is very tiny. I am also aware that there are a few instances where beta decay can be affected by powerful electric fields. However, there is no evidence that these minor differences imply a 6,000-year old earth versus a 4.5-billion year old earth.

The fact is that there are numerous decay rates and decay processess that are all in very good agreement with one another as to the age of the earth. There are no huge assumptions made, as you claim.

I take it to mean that "atheist science" is any scientific evidence that does not point to a 6,000-year old earth. That pretty much covers all science.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.