Fact, Fable, and Darwin (If you haven't read this already, you should!!!)

I write as neither a creationist nor a Darwinist, but as one who knows what is probably the most disreputable scientific secret of the past century: There is no plausible scientific theory of the origin of species! Darwin himself was not sure he had produced one, and for many decades every competent evolutionary biologist has known that he did not. Although the experts have kept quiet when true believers have sworn in court and before legislative bodies that Darwin's theory is proven beyond any possible doubt, that's not what reputable biologists, including committed Darwinians, have been saying to one another.

Without question, Charles Darwin would be among the most prominent biologists in history even if he hadn't written The Origin of Species in 1859. But he would not have been deified in the campaign to "enlighten" humanity. The battle over evolution is not an example of how heroic scientists have withstood the relentless persecution of religious fanatics. Rather, from the very start it primarily has been an attack on religion by militant atheists who wrap themselves in the mantle of science.

When a thoroughly ideological Darwinist like Richard Dawkins claims, "The theory is about as much in doubt as that the earth goes round the sun," he does not state a fact, but merely aims to discredit a priori anyone who dares to express reservations about evolution. Indeed, Dawkins has written, "It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane...."

That is precisely how "Darwin's Bulldog," Thomas Huxley, hoped intellectuals would react when he first adopted the tactic of claiming that the only choice is between Darwin and Bible literalism. However, just as one can doubt Max Weber's Protestant Ethic thesis without thereby declaring for Marxism, so too one may note the serious shortcomings of neo-Darwinism without opting for any rival theory. Modern physics provides a model of how science benefits from being willing to live with open questions rather than embracing obviously flawed conjectures.

What is most clear to me is that the Darwinian Crusade does not prove some basic incompatibility between religion and science. But the even more immediate reality is that Darwin's theory falls noticeably short of explaining the origin of species. Dawkins knows the many serious problems that beset a purely materialistic evolutionary theory, but asserts that no one except true believers in evolution can be allowed into the discussion, which also must be held in secret. Thus he chastises Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould, two distinguished fellow Darwinians, for giving "spurious aid and comfort to modern creationists."

Dawkins believes that, regardless of his or her good intentions, "if a reputable scholar breathes so much as a hint of criticism of some detail of Darwinian theory, that fact is seized upon and blown up out of proportion." While acknowledging that "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record" is a major embarrassment for Darwinism, Stephen Jay Gould confided that this has been held as a "trade secret of paleontology" and acknowledged that the evolutionary diagrams "that adorn our textbooks" are based on "inference...not the evidence of fossils."

According to Steven Stanley, another distinguished evolutionist, doubts raised by the fossil record were "suppressed" for years. Stanley noted that this too was a tactic begun by Huxley, always careful not to reveal his own serious misgivings in public. Paleontologist Niles Eldridge and his colleagues have said that the history of life demonstrates gradual transformations of species, "all the while really knowing that it does not." This is not how science is conducted; it is how ideological crusades are run.

By Darwin's day it had long been recognized that the fossil evidence showed that there had been a progression in the biological complexity of organisms over an immense period of time. In the oldest strata, only simple organisms are observed. In more recent strata, more complex organisms appear. The biological world is now classified into a set of nested categories. Within each genus (mammals, reptiles, etc.) are species (dogs, horses, elephants, etc.) and within each species are many specific varieties, or breeds (Great Dane, Poodle, Beagle, etc.).

It was well-known that selective breeding can create variations within species. But the boundaries between species are distinct and firm--one species does not simply trail off into another by degrees. As Darwin acknowledged, breeding experiments reveal clear limits to selective breeding beyond which no additional changes can be produced. For example, dogs can be bred to be only so big and no bigger, let alone be selectively bred until they are cats. Hence, the question of where species come from was the real challenge and, despite the title of his famous book and more than a century of hoopla and celebration, Darwin essentially left it unanswered.

After many years spent searching for an adequate explanation of the origin of species, in the end Darwin fell back on natural selection, claiming that it could create new creatures too, if given im-mense periods of time. That is, organisms respond to their environmental circumstances by slowly changing (evolving) in the direction of traits beneficial to survival until, eventually, they are sufficiently changed to constitute a new species. Hence, new species originate very slowly, one tiny change after another, and eventually this can result in lemurs changing to humans via many intervening species.

Darwin fully recognized that a major weakness of this account of the origin of species involved what he and others referred to as the principle of "gradualism in nature." The fossil record was utterly inconsistent with gradualism. As Darwin acknowledged: "...why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"

Darwin offered two solutions. Transitional types are quickly replaced and hence would mainly only be observable in the fossil record. As for the lack of transitional types among the fossils, that was, Darwin admitted, "the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."

Darwin dealt with this problem by blaming "the extreme imperfection of the geological record." "Only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored, and no part with sufficient care." But, just wait, Darwin promised, the missing transitions will be found in the expected proportion when more research has been done. Thus began an intensive search for what the popular press soon called the "missing links."

Today, the fossil record is enormous compared to what it was in Darwin's day, but the facts are unchanged. The links are still missing; species appear suddenly and then remain relatively unchanged. As Steven Stanley reported: "The known fossil record...offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."

Indeed, the evidence has grown even more contrary since Darwin's day. "Many of the discontinuities [in the fossil record] tend to be more and more emphasized with increased collecting," noted the former curator of historical geology at the American Museum of Natural History. The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism, Stephen Jay Gould has acknowledged. The first problem is stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear. The second problem is sudden appearance. Species do not arise gradually by the steady transformation of ancestors, they appear "fully formed."

These are precisely the objections raised by many biologists and geologists in Darwin's time--it was not merely that Darwin's claim that species arise through eons of natural selection was offered without supporting evidence, but that the available evidence was overwhelmingly contrary. Unfortunately, rather than concluding that a theory of the origin of species was yet to be accomplished, many scientists urged that Darwin's claims must be embraced, no matter what.

In keeping with Darwin's views, evolutionists have often explained new species as the result of the accumulation of tiny, favorable random mutations over an immense span of time. But this answer is inconsistent with the fossil record wherein creatures appear "full-blown and raring to go." Consequently, for most of the past century, biologists and geneticists have tried to discover how a huge number of favorable mutations can occur at one time so that a new species would appear without intermediate types.

However, as the eminent and committed Darwinist Ernst Mayr explained,The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation...is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can only be designated as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through selection. Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flyer....To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles.

The word miracle crops up again and again in mathematical assessments of the possibility that even very simple biochemical chains, let alone living organisms, can mutate into being by a process of random trial and error. For generations, Darwinians have regaled their students with the story of the monkey and the typewriter, noting that given an infinite period of time, the monkey sooner or later is bound to produce Macbeth purely by chance, the moral being that infinite time can perform miracles.

However, the monkey of random evolution does not have infinite time. The progression from simple to complex life forms on earth took place within a quite limited time. Moreover, when competent mathematicians considered the matter, they quickly calculated that even if the monkey's task were reduced to coming up with only a few lines of Macbeth, let alone Shakespeare's entire play, the probability is far, far beyond mathematical possibility. The odds of creating even the simplest organism at random are even more remote--Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, celebrated cosmologists, calculated the odds as one in ten to the 40,000th power. (Consider that all atoms in the known universe are estimated to number no more than ten to the 80th power.) In this sense, then, Darwinian theory does rest on truly miraculous assumptions.

Perhaps the most amazing aspect of the current situation is that while Darwin is treated as a secular saint in the popular media and the theory of evolution is regarded as the invincible challenge to all religious claims, it is taken for granted among the leading biological scientists that the origin of species has yet to be explained. Writing in Nature in 1999, Eörs Szathmay summarizes that, "The origin of species has long fascinated biologists. Although Darwin's major work bears it as a title, it does not provide a solution to the problem." When Julian Huxley claimed that "Darwin's theory is...no longer a theory but a fact," he surely knew better. But, just like his grandfather, Thomas Huxley, he knew that his lie served the greater good of "enlightenment."

When The Origin of Species was published it aroused immense interest, but initially it did not provoke antagonism on religious grounds. Although many criticized Darwin's lack of evidence, none raised religious objections. Instead, the initial response from theologians was favorable. The distinguished Harvard botanist Asa Gray hailed Darwin for having solved the most difficult problem confronting the Design argument--the many imperfections and failures revealed in the fossil record. Acknowledging that Darwin himself "rejects the idea of design," Gray congratulated him for "bringing out the neatest illustrations of it." Gray interpreted Darwin's work as showing that God has created a few original forms and then let evolution proceed within the framework of divine laws.

When religious antagonism finally came it was in response to aggressive claims, like Huxley's, that Newton and Darwin together had evicted God from the cosmos. For the heirs of the Enlightenment, evolution seemed finally to supply the weapon needed to destroy religion. As Richard Dawkins confided, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

Atheism was central to the agenda of the Darwinians. Darwin himself once wrote that he could not understand how anyone could even wish that Christianity were true, noting that the doctrine of damnation was itself damnable. Huxley expressed his hostility toward religion often and clearly, writing in 1859: "My screed was meant as a protest against Theology & Parsondom...both of which are in my mind the natural & irreconcilable enemies of Science. Few see it but I believe we are on the Eve of a new Reformation and if I have a wish to live 30 years, it is to see the foot of Science on the necks of her Enemies." According to Oxford historian J. R. Lucas, Huxley was "remarkably resistant to the idea that there were clergymen who accepted evolution, even when actually faced with them." Quite simply, there could be no compromises with faith.

Writing at the same time as Huxley, the leading Darwinian in Germany, Ernst Haeckel, drew this picture:

On one side spiritual freedom and truth, reason and culture, evolution and progress stand under the bright banner of science; on the other side, under the black flag of hierarchy, stand spiritual slavery and falsehood, irrationality and barbarism, superstition and retrogression.... Evolution is the heavy artillery in the struggle for truth. Whole ranks of...sophistries fall together under the chain shot of this...artillery, and the proud and mighty structure of the Roman hierarchy, that powerful stronghold of infallible dogmatism, falls like a house of cards.

These were not the natterings of radical circles and peripheral publications. The author of the huge review of The Origin in the Times of London was none other than Thomas Huxley. He built his lectures on evolution into a popular touring stage show wherein he challenged various potential religious opponents by name. Is it surprising that religious people, scientists as well as clerics, began to respond in the face of unrelenting challenges like these issued in the name of evolution? It was not as if they merely were asked to accept that life had evolved--many theologians had long taken that for granted. What the Darwinians demanded was that religionists agree to the untrue and unscientific claim that Darwin had proved that God played no role in the process.

Among those drawn to respond was the Bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce, who is widely said to have made an ass of himself in a debate with Huxley during the 1860 meeting of the British Association at Oxford. The relevant account of this confrontation reported: "I was happy enough to be present on the memorable occasion at Oxford when Mr. Huxley bearded Bishop Wilberforce. The bishop arose and in a light scoffing tone, florid and fluent, he assured us that there was nothing in the idea of evolution. Then turning to his antagonist with a smiling insolence, he begged to know, was it through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed descent from a monkey? On this Mr. Huxley...arose...and spoke these tremendous words. He was not ashamed to have a monkey for an ancestor; but he would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used his great gifts to obscure the truth. No one doubted his meaning and the effect was tremendous."

This marvelous anecdote has appeared in every distinguished biography of Darwin and of Huxley, as well as in every popular history of the theory of evolution. In his celebrated Apes, Angels and Victorians, William Irvine used this tale to disparage the bishop's snobbery. In his prize-winning study, James Brix went much farther, describing Wilberforce as "naive and pompous," a man whose "faulty opinions" were those of a "fundamentalist creationist" and who provided Huxley with the opportunity to give evolution "its first major victory over dogmatism and duplicity." Every writer tells how the audience gave Huxley an ovation.

Trouble is, it never happened. The quotation above was the only such report of this story and it appeared in an article titled "A Grandmother's Tales" written by a non-scholar in a popular magazine 38 years after the alleged encounter. No other account of these meetings, and there were many written at the time, made any mention of remarks concerning Huxley's monkey ancestors, or claimed that he made a fool of the bishop. To the contrary, many thought the bishop had the better of it, and even many of the committed Darwinians thought it at most a draw.

Moreover, as all of the scholars present at Oxford knew, prior to the meeting, Bishop Wilberforce had penned a review of The Origin in which he fully acknowledged the principle of natural selection as the source of variations within species. He rejected Darwin's claims concerning the origin of species, however, and some of these criticisms were sufficiently compelling that Darwin immediately wrote his friend the botanist J. D. Hooker that the article "is uncommonly clever; it picks out with skill all the most conjectural parts, and brings forward well all the difficulties. It quizzes me quite splendidly." In a subsequent letter to geologist Charles Lyell, Darwin acknowledges that "the bishop makes a very telling case against me." Indeed, several of Wilberforce's comments caused Darwin to make modifications in a later revision of the book.

The tale of the foolish and narrow-minded bishop seems to have thrived as a revealing "truth" about the incompatibility of religion and science simply because many of its tellers wanted to believe that a bishop is wrong by nature. J. R. Lucas, who debunked the bishop myth, has suggested that the "most important reason why the legend grew" is, first, because academics generally "know nothing outside their own special subject" and therefore easily believe that outsiders are necessarily ignorant, and, second, because Huxley encouraged that conclusion. "The quarrel between religion and science was what Huxley wanted; and as Darwin's theory gained supporters, they took over his view of the incident."

Since then the Darwinian Crusade has tried to focus all attention on the most unqualified and most vulnerable opponents, and when no easy targets present themselves it has invented them. Huxley "made straw men of the 'creationists,'" as his biographer Desmond admitted. Even today it is a rare textbook or any popular treatment of evolution and religion that does not reduce "creationism" to the simplest caricatures.

This tradition remains so potent that whenever it is asked that evolution be presented as "only a theory," the requester is ridiculed as a buffoon. Even when the great philosopher of science Karl Popper suggested that the standard version of evolution even falls short of being a scientific theory, being instead an untestable tautology, he was subjected to public condemnations and much personal abuse.

Popper's tribulations illustrate an important basis for the victory of Darwinism: A successful appeal for a united front on the part of scientists to oppose religious opposition has had the consequence of silencing dissent within the scientific community. The eminent observer Everett Olson notes that there is "a generally silent group" of biological scientists "who tend to disagree with much of the current thought" about evolution, but who remain silent for fear of censure.

I believe that one day there will be a plausible theory of the origin of species. But, if and when that occurs, there will be nothing in any such theory that makes it impossible to propose that the principles involved were not part of God's great design any more than such a theory will demonstrate the existence of God. But, while we wait, why not lift the requirement that high school texts enshrine Darwin's failed attempt as an eternal truth?

Rodney Stark was professor of sociology at the University of Washington for many years and is now university professor of the social sciences at Baylor University. He is author of For the Glory of God (Princeton University Press) and other acclaimed books on science and religion.

Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, is a preeminent mathematical physicist, and one of the most wide-ranging thinkers and writers in modern science. These observations are drawn from interviews with Monte Davis and Stewart Brand.

QUESTION: How do we understand the universe at all? Do you agree with Carl Sagan that humans find the mathematics of gravitation so simple and elegant because natural selection eliminated the apes who couldn’t understand?

DYSON: Not at all. For apes to come out of the trees, and change in the direction of being able to write down Maxwell’s equations, I don’t think you can explain that by natural selection at all. It’s just a miracle.

QUESTION: You have written that “as we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.” Is that a playful suggestion?

QUESTION: Then we seem to be talking about sentiments that most people would consider religious. Are they religious for you?

QUESTION: The dominant tendency in modern science has been to assert that we occupy no privileged place, that the universe does not care, that science and religion don’t mix. Where do you fit into those ideas?

DYSON: The tendency you’re talking about is a modern one, not old. I think it became almost a dogma only with the fight for acceptance of Darwinism, Huxley versus Bishop Wilberforce, and so on. Before the nineteenth century, scientists were not ashamed of being religious, but since Darwin, it’s been taboo.

The biologists are still fighting Wilberforce. If you look now, the view that everything is due to chance and to little bits of molecular clockwork is mostly propounded by biologists, particularly people like Jacques Monod—whereas the physicists have become far more skeptical about that. If you actually look at the way modern physics is going, it’s very far from that. Yes, it’s the biologists who’ve made it so hard to talk about these things.

I was reading recently a magnificent book by Thomas Wright, written about 1750, when these inhibitions didn’t exist at all. Wright was the discoverer of galaxies, you know, and he writes:

“I can never look upon the stars without wondering that the whole world does not become astronomers; and that men, endowed with sense and reason, should neglect a science that must convince them of their immortality.”

QUESTION: There’s a provocative sentence in your book Imagined Worlds: “The laws of nature are constructed in such a way as to make the universe as interesting as possible.” What do you mean by that?

DYSON: It’s the numerical accidents that make life possible. I define an interesting universe as one that is friendly to life, and especially one that produces lots of variety.

DYSON: If you look at just the physical building blocks, there’s a famous problem with producing carbon in stars. All the carbon necessary for life has to be produced in stars, and it’s difficult to do. To make carbon, you’ve got to have three helium atoms collide in a triple collision. Helium has an atomic weight of 4, and carbon is 12. Beryllium, at 8, is unstable, therefore you can’t go from helium to beryllium to carbon; you have to make helium into carbon in one jump. This means three atoms colliding together.

DYSON: No. But Fred Hoyle, who discovered this process, came up with one of the most brilliant ideas in the whole of science. He said that in order to make carbon abundant as it should be, there must be an accidental, coincidental resonance. This means that there’s a nuclear state in the carbon nucleus at precisely the right energy level for these three atoms to combine smoothly. The chance of having that resonance in the right place is maybe 1 in 1,000. Hoyle believed it must be there in order to produce the carbon. Of course, the nuclear physicists then looked for this resonance, and found it!

There are other famous cases: The fact that the nuclear force is just strong enough to bind a proton and a neutron to make the heavy isotope hydrogen, but not strong enough to bind two protons to make helium with an atomic weight of 2. Just two protons stuck together is a rather narrow range of strength. So the nuclear force is fine-tuned so that hydrogen doesn’t burn to helium right away. If the two hydrogen nuclei did bind, all the hydrogen would burn to helium in the first five minutes. The universe would then be pure helium and a rather boring place. Whereas, if the force were a little bit weaker, so that the neutron and the proton didn’t bind, you wouldn’t get any heavy elements at all. You’d have nothing but hydrogen. Again, this would make for a boring universe.

Havoc writes:

Ah, I see. I went out and chased down the claim sheets and see that the guy does have a PhD from an unaccredited university. Which essentially means he did the work for a PhD; but, since it was done at a Christian school he doesn't get the credit for the work...

Many Christian schools are accredited in the US. Christian schools are not excluded from applying for accreditation. It's a schools option - but don't be surprised if people question the bona fides of someone who has a degree from one a higher ed institutions that is unaccredited. Accedication teams make sure that a PhD program meets standards for work accomplished, etc. The PhD could be for basketweaving or military history, but it will still have to meet the same standards for credit hours of work required, etc., etc., etc.

But by your own standard, you cannot prove that Elvis didn't fake his own death and is now hiding out somewhere. So then, why would you use a perjorative term to refer to people who believe that this is the case. Furthermore, you, in an earlier post, refer to the fact that JFK was assassinated as an immutable fact. Can you prove that this is true? By your standard, if you can't prove it, you have no reason to regard it as a fact. It is possible that the person who was shot in Dallas that day was a double who looked like JFK. It is possible that it was all special effects and bogus news reports put out by the White House. I defy you to prove beyond the shadow of any doubt that JFK really was assassinated. (BTW, before the flames start, I do not seriously believe any of the above. I certainly do believe that JFK was assassinated; I just presented this to prove the point that we really don't know anything about the real world with complete certainty.)

I think the problem you are having is that you have a preconceived notion that evolution and creationism are necessarily contradictory. Evolution does not speak to where life came from, no matter how much you want to believe that is does or that it has to. Evolution simply states that the frequency of alleles in a population of organisms changes over time. Evolution only applies at times after the first living cells have formed. Evolution does not care whether that happened via abiogenesis, creation or any other mechanism. You may be confused because there are many proponents of evolution who believe in a form of prebiotic chemical evolution that led to the formation of life without the need for a Creator. This is NOT the theory of evolution, however. This hypothesis is certainly on much shakier ground than the TOE. (note, I don't refer to this as a theory; there simply isn't evidence enough to call this hypothesis a theory). The question of the origin of life and the diversification of life, once formed, are logically separate.

I just presented this to prove the point that we really don't know anything about the real world with complete certainty.

Do you exist. Yes, a rhetorical. And yes we most certainly can know things with complete certainty. There are more ways than one to do this. And unfortunately, many of the cults take the stand you do as a defense for their beliefs. They think if they can get you to agree to such a broad general statement, you will give them a pass. Oddly enough, among certain circles, this bunk works. It doesn't with me because I know better. There is plenty we can prove with absolute certainty. I don't particularly find excuses that 'we can't prove x, so you'll just have to take our word for it.' How about if we accuse you of murder and use that justification in court. Better yet, how about if we make sure to get a jury that thinks like that - and then use that reasoning with the jury. Methinks you'd become an instant believer in what can be proven with certainty.

You might check your information. Dinos and man coexisting jerks a pretty major knot in the timeline issues. The timelines are already shown to be untrustworthy IMO. It would just aid in sticking a fork in the system of dating so to speak. It may or may not also call into question the credibility of other related and unrelated claims maintained on the same basis. And that would tend to cause evolution some severe problems. Carbon and strata dating are essentially a Normandy for evolution. And evolution isn't defending the beach with much more success than the Germans had.

The objection is that the organism had to exist before it evolved a means to protect its RNA.

There is strong evidence RNA predeced DNA; there's no evidence (and I think much reason to doubt) RNA was the first carrier of information.

And of your examples, the longest is 46(23) residues, not much of a life precursor.

If you search the database for DNA crystal structures, I doubt you'll find anything a whole lot longer. The small size is a result of the experimental difficulties of crystallizing and solving the structure of big bits of nucleic acid.

re: "Dr" Dino Kent Hovind...

1) Dinosaurs and man did not coexist. The evidence for this is so vast, so encompassing, and so clear that to build one's career upon this issue is mind boggling.

2) His supposed PhD is from Patriot University. There is no such thing. It was a diploma mill from some guy's garage. He has no CV, did no work for it. It's fake, it's a lie. It's not real. This is indefensible. And widely documented on the internet.

3) A simple google search, something you must be firewalled against, provided this as the first hit. It seems to be written by a creationist (though I'm not sure) and one who was taken in by Hovind's charisma.

http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/hovind.htm

Let me know if you actually read it... maybe I need to post it's full text here.

Summary: Kent Hovind is neither a PhD and he is a liar and a tax cheat.

I think the bigger problem here is not a matter of the bacteria or the blue whale. It is the matter of going from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction - the core issue both of you are chasing. This then requires the independant spontaneous generation of two entirely seperate and distinct sets of organs geared to opposite sides of a single purpose and yet 100% compatible with each other and functional to the end that neither process knows it's heading toward as this is essentially happening in a vacuum with no purpose in mind. IT would be a random, uncontrolled and unguided happenstance governed by only chaos for it's outcome. This is why it is often waved as a huge red flag for evolution. It is not an issue evolution can really overcome though the attempt is interesting. This, to me isn't much different than the idea of a space shuttle engine assembly falling out of the sky one moment, and the fuel system the next - just random chance, and both matching up to work to perfection. I wouldn't want to calculate the odds myself. But engineers who worked on the things would probably bust you upside the head for saying that random chance could replace them.. rofl.

Dinosaurs and man did not coexist. The evidence for this is so vast, so encompassing, and so clear that to build one's career upon this issue is mind boggling.

No, it isn't clear. It might be clear in light of the theory of evolution; but, it isn't otherwise clear that such is the case. And I don't believe that Hovind built his career on this notion. His career appears to have been built mainly on his background as a teacher.

2) His supposed PhD is from Patriot University. There is no such thing. It was a diploma mill from some guy's garage. He has no CV, did no work for it. It's fake, it's a lie. It's not real. This is indefensible. And widely documented on the internet.

I know people who got degrees in computer sciences from NCR and similar outfits who know just about as much about computers as I do now. I don't find that this invalidates what they know. I'd have to investigate further; but, I'm not terribly interested beyond the appearance that this is being used to sidestep his arguments rather than deal with them. He could be Bill Clinton, that doesn't persay invalidate his case anymore than I would argue Being a Catholic Pope would invalidate anything he said. I would argue that both reputations would require a careful critique of what they are saying - not who they are. People screw up in life. That doesn't mean we invalidate them for being screw ups at some point in their life. The information they present is what we have to look at. And not liking the information is not the same as it being wrong.

3) A simple google search, something you must be firewalled against, provided this as the first hit. It seems to be written by a creationist (though I'm not sure) and one who was taken in by Hovind's charisma.

I don't think that's particularly necessary unless we're going to change topic to Kent Hovind, I'm happy to read it. And at this point, I have. So you've discredited the man; but, not what he said. Or are we to assume this guy may have been a plant setup specifically in hopes that discrediting him would discredit what he says.. lol. What he actually says comes from another source for which he gives credit. So, I guess we're at this point left with the material he presents.. right.

Space Shuttle engines and fuel systems, to my knowlege, are not living, reproducing organisms. I know you know this, and I know you've been told this, but for some reason you don't seem to understand the difference.

That was specifically the point of using their complexity as an example. They aren't living reproducing organisms. They merely are being compared to a portion of the organism specifically geared to reproducing. It would be a miracle enough that the two independant systems would mate up if created at random and blindly and show up on the same universe much less on the same planet. If they mate up and actually worked together, it would be even more incredible.

Engineers would laugh at you for suggesting that their work is somehow some way related to biological processes.

No, they actually would not. They have some level of sense as well and understand that complexity is mirrored all over. Many will admit that their designs are less complex than what is found in biological systems, some will note that they think their designs at least as complex. I know, I've had similar discussions with Engineers in my own family and in facilities I've both worked in and visited. Aircraft engineers love to talk, btw. As do, I assume, most engineers in general. Circuit board designers can teach you a thing or two as well.

As you're fond of saying, "rofl." You laugh too much and learn too little

The latter does not follow from the former. I just happen to find some things funny and don't mind expressing it. I am curious and spend much of my off time trudging through one topic or another - learning new things. Your opinion on a subject you are unfamiliar with doesn't much sway me. You are trying to buy believability of HighSchool students with your pile of theories. They ain't buying it. There are guys out there with degrees out the wazoo that not only disagree with evolution; but, are disagreeing because of what they have observed in science. This tells us that it's not a matter of a level of learning that is involved. It the learning level didn't solve it for guys with Phds who got them legitimately. So your argument fails. Which puts you back in the position of dealing with the central argument - not tangents intended to distract.

I think the bigger problem here is not a matter of the bacteria or the blue whale. It is the matter of going from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction - the core issue both of you are chasing.

I suspect you know absolutely nothing about biology or about the living organisms that bridge this "divide" quite handily. There are many variations on sex, and there are organisms that reproduce both sexually and asexually. Then there is the dandelion, a flowering plant that has abandoned most aspects of sexuality.

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.