{"id":992,"date":"2009-11-20T18:52:15","date_gmt":"2009-11-21T02:52:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/new.creationbc.org\/?p=992"},"modified":"2021-09-29T09:37:37","modified_gmt":"2021-09-29T16:37:37","slug":"debate-evolution-versus-creation-war-of-the-worldviews","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/creationbc.org\/index.php\/debate-evolution-versus-creation-war-of-the-worldviews\/","title":{"rendered":"Debate: “Evolution versus Creation: War of the Worldviews!”"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Richard Peachey’s opening remarks)<\/span><\/h3>\n

On May 5, 2006, a debate was held at Langara College in Vancouver, BC, under the title “Evolution versus Creation: War of the Worldviews!” Scott Goodman<\/strong> argued the case for evolution on behalf of the BC Skeptics, and Richard Peachey<\/strong>, vice-president of the Creation Science Association of British Columbia, presented the creationist view.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Here are Richard Peachey’s opening remarks:<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

                               \"\"
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for joining us in this forum on a topic that is critically important to us all.<\/span><\/p>\n

Tonight I will argue that Evolution is a dreadful mistake, whereas Creation is obviously true<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n

My first point: Evolution is a dreadful mistake<\/strong>. I support this point with three subpoints: Evolution is not observed in the present; there\u2019s no compelling evidence evolution has occurred in the past; nor could evolution ever happen at all \u2014 it\u2019s simply impossible.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

I define evolution, or the evolutionary worldview, as that belief system which includes the origin of the universe from nothing through a \u201cBig Bang\u201d with the subsequent formation of galaxies, stars, and planets through unsupervised physical processes; the origin of living cells through unguided chemical reactions; and the rise of biodiversity on planet Earth through only naturalistic mechanisms.<\/span><\/p>\n

In other words, we can speak of Cosmic Evolution, or the origin and development of the physical universe; Chemical Evolution, or the origin of the first life; and Biological Evolution, or the rise, over long periods of time, of all Earth\u2019s rich biodiversity. And the evolutionary worldview insists that all of this must arise through undirected, impersonal, mindless processes. In this belief system, either God does not exist or, if God does exist, then God is completely irrelevant to any serious study of the origins of the universe and life.<\/span><\/p>\n

I take as my first point that Evolution is a dreadful mistake<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Subpoint Number One: Evolution is not observed in the present<\/strong>. What I mean is: evolution in any significant sense is not happening now.<\/span><\/p>\n

Of course I know that populations of organisms do change over time. Allelic frequencies go up and down. Peppered moth populations have moved from mostly light-coloured to mostly dark \u2014 and then back again. In the Gal\u00e1pagos Islands, the average length of finch beaks might increase by a millimeter \u2014 or decrease, depending on weather patterns. Bacterial populations may grow more resistant to antibiotics.<\/span><\/p>\n

Creationists deny none of these observed facts of science. But, ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that such changes are not evolution in any important sense.<\/span><\/p>\n

Now, I\u2019m fully aware that Darwinists will apply the term \u201cevolution\u201d to such changes; they will claim that evolution is simply \u201cchange over time.\u201d You will often hear Darwinists using the term \u201cmicroevolution\u201d for these genetic fluctuations within a population \u2014 as if it\u2019s only a hop, skip and a jump from there to proving so-called \u201cmacroevolution,\u201d or large-scale evolution \u2014 \u201cparticles to people\u201d evolution. If you agree finch beaks can increase by a millimeter, they\u2019ll say, then you must also accept that bacteria can evolve into biologists.<\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s interesting that we can move from the word \u201cmicroevolution\u201d to the word \u201cmacroevolution\u201d by a quick change of just one letter \u2014 and for many evolutionists, it seems the transition from the peppered moth story to large-scale evolution can be made just as easily! Evolutionists love extrapolating! They get themselves such an enormous return for their trifling investment of facts!<\/span><\/p>\n

Niles Eldredge is a paleontologist, a fossil expert, at the American Museum of Natural History. In the year 2000 he published a book with the glorious title, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism<\/em>. Eldredge says this: \u201cMicroevolution and macroevolution differ only as a matter of scale. . . . there is utter continuity in evolutionary processes from the smallest scales (microevolution) up through the largest scales (macroevolution).\u201d1<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

But the thing is, many of Eldredge\u2019s fellow evolutionists don\u2019t even agree with that claim! Sean Carroll is a geneticist who has been praised by Skeptical Inquirer<\/em> magazine as \u201cone of the leading biologists of his generation.\u201d2<\/sup> Here\u2019s what Sean Carroll says: \u201cA long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life\u2019s history (macroevolution). Outsiders to this rich literature may be surprised that there is no consensus on this issue, and that strong viewpoints are held at both ends of the spectrum, with many undecided.\u201d3<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

In fact, Niles Eldredge\u2019s old partner, Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, was adamant in his opposition to Eldredge on this point. Gould declared: \u201cOne scale doesn\u2019t translate into another.\u201d4<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

By the way, the references for these quotations, and more quotations like them, are listed in the printed copy of my opening statement, available at the Creation Science information table. [Note: In this online version, references are provided at the conclusion of the speech.]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Now, ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that all these types of minor change within an interbreeding population provide no definitive help to evolutionists. These are mere horizontal changes, whereas what the evolutionist needs is to demonstrate vertical changes, the arrival of brand new structures, new functions, new and significantly different species. It\u2019s easy enough to give examples of change through loss<\/em> of information \u2014 for instance, that\u2019s how some of the antibiotic resistance in bacteria is acquired. But evolutionists have yet to demonstrate significant gain<\/em> of information or advances in complexity, such as the production of brand new organs or the arrival of a fundamentally different species. When I say evolution is not observed in the present, I mean we are not currently seeing the kind of change evolutionists need, to be able to prove what is really in dispute tonight.<\/span><\/p>\n

So Subpoint Number One was: Evolution is not observed in the present<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Subpoint Number Two: There is no compelling evidence evolution has occurred in the past<\/strong>. Here I will treat just one of the arguments that evolutionists typically offer in support of evolution: the fossil record, which is said to document the evolutionary history of life. I argue that the fossil record does not provide compelling evidence for evolution.<\/span><\/p>\n

Consider that the fossil record is a collection of fragmentary, often mangled and squashed remains of dead organisms. And a host of assumptions go into the often difficult work of interpreting any particular fossil. Misinterpretations and reinterpretations are common due to the limitations of the data.<\/span><\/p>\n

A stunning example of this problem has cropped up within the last four years. Did you know that the entire first half of the fossil record is now up for dispute? All the fossils from 3.8 billion years old to 1.9 billion years old \u2014 half of the fossil record, chronologically speaking, according to the evolutionists\u2019 timeframe \u2014 are currently under debate by paleontologists. Many fossils that leading scientists once advertised as \u201cvery convincing\u201d and \u201ccompelling\u201d have now been thrown into grave doubt.5<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

In addition to that very serious issue concerning difficulties of interpretation, the fossil record exhibits widespread gaps in terms of missing transitional intermediate forms, as Niles Eldredge has acknowledged in his recent book.6<\/sup> As well, the fossil record includes the geologically \u201csudden appearance\u201d of new forms, especially in the so-called \u201cCambrian explosion\u201d which, Gould suggested, represented the arrival of virtually all animal phyla within a brief 6 to 10 million years. As Ward and Brownlee acknowledge, the Cambrian explosion is \u201cnot an obviously predictable outcome of evolution.\u201d7<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

Besides those problems, the fossil record also shows long periods of \u201cstasis,\u201d or lack of directional change, as highlighted by Eldredge and Gould\u2019s punctuated equilibrium theory, a theory which they invented to deal with those notorious gaps in the fossil record.8<\/sup> It\u2019s a little amusing because a primary feature of their new evolutionary theory is that: for the most part, real evolution doesn\u2019t happen! That\u2019s what \u201cstasis\u201d implies!<\/span><\/p>\n

In 1981, zoologist Mark Ridley, at Oxford in those days, wrote: \u201c. . . Darwin showed that the [fossil] record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has great gaps in it. . . . no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.\u201d9<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

In recent years evolutionists have talked a lot about such entities as \u201cwalking whales\u201d and \u201cfeathered dinosaurs.\u201d But keep in mind that those \u201cwalking whale\u201d claims are less than five years old, and the \u201cfeathered dinosaur\u201d stories are not yet ten years old. Give them a bit more time and they\u2019ll fizzle out, as other evolutionary fossil claims have done in the past \u2014 such as NASA\u2019s Mars rock,10<\/sup> and National Geographic<\/em>\u2019s \u201cArchaeoraptor<\/em>,\u201d11<\/sup> and Pilbeam\u2019s Ramapithecus<\/em>,12<\/sup> and Schopf\u2019s famous Australian microfossils,13<\/sup> et cetera, et cetera.<\/span><\/p>\n

We\u2019re told that science is a self-correcting discipline, which is true to an extent \u2014 but sometimes it can take a while. Evolutionary biologist Will Provine of Cornell University recently commented: \u201cMost of what I learned of the field in graduate school (1964-68) is either wrong or significantly changed.\u201d14<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

I conclude that the fossil record is not compelling evidence for evolution. We are entitled to remain skeptical.<\/span><\/p>\n

Of course there are other evolutionary arguments, based on homologous structures, or embryology, or vestigial organs, or \u201cjunk DNA\u201d \u2014 but all of these also are questionable. They all provide fertile ground for anyone who will dare to be skeptical of evolution. Several of these arguments are covered in the free articles that you can pick up from our Creation Science information table.<\/span><\/p>\n

Well, so far I have argued that Evolution is not observed in the present<\/strong>, and that there is no compelling evidence it occurred in the past<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Subpoint Number Three is: Evolution could never occur at all \u2014 it is simply impossible<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n

I say that Evolution is impossible because the mechanisms evolutionists propose are anti-scientific. They will not work. Evolutionists propose to build complexity by using either miracles \u2014 which is obviously cheating, since they\u2019re supposed to stick to naturalistic processes \u2014 or else their mechanisms are negative in the sense of being randomizing, destructive, expected to break things down rather than promote evolutionary advances. So, I repeat, their mechanisms are either miraculous, or negative (randomizing, destructive), and therefore unworkable.<\/span><\/p>\n

First of all, ladies and gentlemen, consider the universe itself, with its magnificent array of galaxies, and especially our own solar system, and our planet Earth. All of this, says the evolutionary cosmologist, can be traced back to an uncontrolled explosion \u2014 the so-called \u201cBig Bang,\u201d an unplanned, destructive event \u2014 followed by unguided, materialistic processes which somehow crafted the vast and marvelous beauty we now see in the sky. And where did the \u201cBig Bang\u201d itself come from? For that, evolutionists bring in the word \u201csingularity,\u201d which means an event inexplicable by known laws of physics. In other words, it\u2019s a miracle!<\/span><\/p>\n

Secondly, think about a single living cell \u2014 a marvelously complex and intricate system. The first self-reproducing cell, says the evolutionary \u201corigin of life\u201d chemist, must have arisen simply from accidental motions of atoms plus raw energy from the Sun (or from volcanoes, or lightning) \u2014 that is, uncontrolled atoms plus unchanneled energy. Nobel laureate Francis Crick once wrote: \u201cAn honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.\u201d15<\/sup> Almost a miracle! Biologist Massimo Pigliucci, writing in the Skeptical Inquirer<\/em>, recounted Stanley Miller\u2019s classic origin-of-life chemistry experiments, then he concluded: \u201cUnfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than their original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.\u201d16<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

Thirdly, would you ponder the wonderful diversity of living things that we find in Earth\u2019s biosphere. All of this, says the evolutionary biologist, arose through mutations \u2014 meaning unplanned changes in the DNA; really, a degrading of the cell\u2019s information \u2014 plus natural selection \u2014 meaning the early deaths of lots of creatures, the weeding out of the unfit before they can reproduce. Mutations and natural selection \u2014 both are negative, destructive processes; they are not constructors of complexity.<\/span><\/p>\n

So to sum up, the typical evolutionist claims that the universe and life \u2014 all of this beauty, this majesty, this ordered complexity \u2014 happened by itself through random motions of atoms and other naturalistic processes, by chance and necessity, without any requirement for intelligent guidance \u2014 no need for God.<\/span><\/p>\n

I have argued so far that Evolution is a mistake<\/strong>. But it is more than that: it is a dreadful mistake<\/strong>, because it attempts to eliminate the Creator and rob him of his rightful glory.<\/span><\/p>\n

Evolution is essentially and fundamentally atheistic. Richard Dawkins, currently the most famous atheistic evolutionist in the world, wrote in his best-known book, The Blind Watchmaker<\/em>, \u201cDarwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.\u201d17<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

Will Provine, the noted atheist and evolutionary biologist from Cornell University, has boasted: \u201cEvolution is the greatest engine of atheism.\u201d18<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

In 1998 a survey was taken of the spiritual beliefs of leading scientists: those who are members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. The highest rate of unbelief was found among the biologists: a full 95.5% rejected belief in God, the majority of those being atheists and the rest calling themselves agnostics.19<\/sup> [Please note correction: should have said “94.5%” <\/em>]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

If, as I have argued, evolution is mistaken, then it is not just a trifling academic error \u2014 it is a dreadful<\/em> mistake, because atheists use evolution powerfully in their misguided attempts to dethrone the God of glory, the Creator of the universe, the one who made each one of us and to whom we are accountable.<\/span><\/p>\n

And that brings me to my final point: Creation is obviously true<\/strong>. Richard Dawkins defines \u201cbiology\u201d as \u201cthe study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.\u201d20<\/sup> Dawkins clearly sees design. But he dismisses it as mere \u201cappearance,\u201d and he thinks he can show that all this complexity arose through naturalistic Darwinian processes.<\/span><\/p>\n

Another noted atheist and evolutionist is Francis Crick, who, along with James Watson, elucidated the structure of DNA. In his autobiography What Mad Pursuit<\/em>, Crick gave this urgent advice: \u201cBiologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.\u201d21<\/sup> It seems that Crick found the impression of design in organisms exceedingly strong! So he says, we must always be watchful to remind ourselves: it\u2019s not<\/em> design; it\u2019s evolution!<\/span><\/p>\n

Sounds like a case of denial to me. And it also sounds very much like what the apostle Paul wrote in his letter to the Christians at Rome: \u201cThe wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God\u2019s invisible qualities\u2014his eternal power and divine nature\u2014have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.\u201d22<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

In conclusion, I say to each person here tonight: it\u2019s not enough to acknowledge that, OK, there may be evidence of a Creator, in terms of the beauty and complexity of life and the universe. And it\u2019s not enough to merely agree to a skeptical reconsideration of evolutionary arguments. What each of us really needs is a total worldview makeover. So I urge you, go back to the Bible and read it with an open mind. Study the claims of Jesus Christ. Do the empirical investigation for yourself: \u201cTaste and see that the Lord is good. . . .\u201d23<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

Thank you.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

References<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

1.<\/strong> Niles Eldredge. 2000. The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism<\/em>. New York: W. H. Freeman and Co. pp. 88, 119.<\/span><\/p>\n

2.<\/strong> Sean B. Carroll. 2005 (Nov\/Dec). \u201cEndless Forms Most Beautiful: A New Revolution in Biology.\u201d Skeptical Inquirer<\/em> 29(6):49.<\/span><\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Sean B. Carroll. 2001 (Feb 8). \u201cThe Big Picture.\u201d Nature<\/em> 409:669. Other writers have made similar statements. For example:<\/span><\/p>\n

“. . . large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species. . . . The most conspicuous event in metazoan evolution was the dramatic origin of major new structures and body plans documented by the Cambrian explosion. . . . The extreme speed of anatomical change and adaptive radiation during this brief time period requires explanations that go beyond those proposed for the evolution of species within the modern biota. . . . This explosive evolution of phyla with diverse body plans is certainly not explicable by extrapolation from the processes and rates of evolution observed in modern species. . . .\u201d \u2014 Robert Carroll. 2000 (Jan). \u201cTowards a new evolutionary synthesis.\u201d Trends in Ecology and Evolution<\/em> 15(1):27f.<\/span><\/p>\n

“. . . biologists have documented a veritable glut of cases for rapid and eminently measurable evolution on timescales of years and decades. . . . to be visible at all over so short a span, evolution must be far too rapid (and transient) to serve as the basis for major transformations in geological time. Hence, the \u2018paradox of the visibly irrelevant\u2019\u2014or, if you can see it at all, it\u2019s too fast to matter in the long run. . . . These shortest-term studies are elegant and important, but they cannot represent the general mode for building patterns in the history of life. . . . Thus, if we can measure it at all (in a few years), it is too powerful to be the stuff of life\u2019s history. . . . [Widely publicized cases such as beak size changes in \u201cDarwin\u2019s finches\u201d] represent transient and momentary blips and fillips that \u2018flesh out\u2019 the rich history of lineages in stasis, not the atoms of substantial and steadily accumulated evolutionary trends. . . . One scale doesn\u2019t translate into another.\u201d \u2014 Stephen Jay Gould. 1998 (Jan). \u201cThe Paradox of the Visibly Irrelevant.\u201d Natural History<\/em> 106(11):12, 14, 64.<\/span><\/p>\n

“A wide spectrum of researchers\u2014ranging from geologists and paleontologists, through ecologists and population geneticists, to embryologists and molecular biologists\u2014gathered at Chicago\u2019s Field Museum of Natural History under the simple conference title: Macroevolution. Their task was to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species and the evolutionary relationship between species. . . . The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.\u201d \u2014 Roger Lewin. 1980 (Nov 21). \u201cEvolutionary Theory Under Fire.\u201d Science<\/em> 210:883.<\/span><\/p>\n

4.<\/strong> Stephen Jay Gould. 1998 (Jan). \u201cThe Paradox of the Visibly Irrelevant.\u201d Natural History<\/em> 106(11):64.<\/span><\/p>\n

5.<\/strong> J. William Schopf and Bonnie M. Packer. 1987 (Jul 3). \u201cEarly Archean (3.3-Billion to 3.5-Billion-Year-Old) Microfossils from Warrawoona Group, Australia.\u201d Science<\/em> 237:70-73; J. William Schopf. 1993 (Apr 30). \u201cMicrofossils of the Early Archean Apex Chert: New Evidence of the Antiquity of Life.\u201d Science<\/em> 260:640-646; Antonio Lazcano and Stanley L. Miller. 1996 (Jun 14). \u201cThe Origin and Early Evolution of Life: Prebiotic Chemistry, the Pre-RNA World, and Time.\u201d Cell<\/em> 85:793, 795; Rex Dalton. 2002 (Jun 20). \u201cSquaring up over ancient life.\u201d Nature<\/em> 417:782-784; Martin D. Brasier, Owen R. Green, Andrew P. Jephcoat, Annette K. Kleppe, Martin J. Van Kranendonk, John F. Lindsay, Andrew Steele & Nathalie V. Grassineau. 2002 (Mar 7). \u201cQuestioning the evidence for Earth\u2019s oldest fossils.\u201d Nature<\/em> 416:76-81; John Whitfield. 2004 (Jul 15). \u201cIt\u2019s life . . . isn\u2019t it?\u201d Nature<\/em> 430:288f.; Stephen Moorbath. 2005 (Mar 10). \u201cDating earliest life.\u201d Nature<\/em> 434:155. Moorbath, an Oxford geologist, writes: \u201cTo my regret, the ancient Greenland rocks have not yet produced any compelling evidence for the existence of life by 3.8 billion years ago. The reader is reminded that another debate on early life is currently in progress on 3.5-billion-year-old rocks in Western Australia, where chains of cell-like structures, long identified as genuine fossils, have recently been downgraded by some workers to the status of artefacts produced by entirely non-biological processes. . . . For the time being, the many claims of life in the first 2.0-2.5 billion years of Earth\u2019s history are once again being vigorously debated: true consensus for life\u2019s existence seems to be reached only with the bacterial fossils of the 1.9-billion-year-old Gunflint Formation of Ontario.\u201d See also Andrew Knoll. 2005. Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billion Years of Evolution on Earth<\/em>. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. p. 93.<\/span><\/p>\n

6.<\/strong> Eldredge, The Triumph of Evolution<\/em>, pp. 77f. Eldredge writes, \u201c. . . there are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate transitional forms between species, but also between larger groups. . . . In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be.\u201d Eldredge then suggests Peripatus<\/em> or the velvet worm as an apparent intermediate \u2014 although modern invertebrate biology texts will disagree with him \u2014 and then he says: \u201cBut few other phyla have intermediates with other phyla, and when we scan the fossil record for them we find some, but basically little, help.\u201d Similarly, David Raup of the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, stated: \u201cThe record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin\u2019s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information. . . .\u201d \u2014 David Raup. 1979 (Jan). \u201cConflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology.\u201d Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History<\/em> 50:25.<\/span><\/p>\n

7.<\/strong> Stephen Jay Gould. 1995 (Oct 26). “Of it, not above it.” Nature<\/em> 377:682; Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee. 2000. Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe<\/em>. New York: Copernicus (Springer-Verlag). p. 150. Ward is an evolutionary geologist and Brownlee is an evolutionary astronomer. Both are at the University of Washington.<\/span><\/p>\n

8.<\/strong> Stephen Jay Gould. 1977 (May). \u201cEvolution\u2019s Erratic Pace.\u201d Natural History<\/em> 86(5):14.<\/span><\/p>\n

9.<\/strong> Mark Ridley. 1981 (Jun 25). \u201cWho doubts evolution?\u201d New Scientist<\/em> 90(1259):831.<\/span><\/p>\n

10.<\/strong> Richard A. Kerr. 1998 (Nov 20). \u201cRequiem for Life on Mars? Support for Microbes Fades.\u201d Science<\/em> 282:1398-1400. See also: Charles Seife. 1998 (Aug 8). \u201cMoney for old rock.\u201d New Scientist<\/em> 159(2146):20f.<\/span><\/p>\n

11.<\/strong> Christopher P. Sloan. 1999 (Nov). \u201cFeathers for T. rex?\u201d National Geographic<\/em> 196(5):98-107; Xu Xing. 2000 (Mar). (Letter). National Geographic<\/em> 197(3):xx; Lewis M. Simons. 2000 (Oct). \u201cArchaeoraptor Fossil Trail.\u201d National Geographic<\/em> 198(4):128-132; Storrs L. Olson. 1999 (Nov 1). Open letter to Peter Raven (National Geographic Society). <<\/span>http:\/\/www.answersingenesis.org\/docs\/4159.asp<\/a>><\/span><\/p>\n

12.<\/strong> Roger Lewin. 1997. Bones of Contention<\/em>. 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 86, 123, 126f.<\/span><\/p>\n

13.<\/strong> See footnote 5.<\/span><\/p>\n

14.<\/strong> William B. Provine. \u201cTeaching About Evolution and The Nature of Science<\/em> (National Academy of Sciences): A Review.\u201d <<\/span>http:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20040709130607\/fp.bio.utk.edu\/darwin\/NAS_guidebook\/provine_1.html<\/a>><\/span><\/p>\n

15.<\/strong> Francis Crick. 1981. Life Itself<\/em>. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 88.<\/span><\/p>\n

16.<\/strong> Massimo Pigliucci. 1999 (Sep\/Oct). \u201cWhere Do We Come From? A Humbling Look at the Biology of Life\u2019s Origin.\u201d Skeptical Inquirer<\/em> 23(5):24.<\/span><\/p>\n

17.<\/strong> Richard Dawkins. 1987. The Blind Watchmaker<\/em>. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 6.<\/span><\/p>\n

18.<\/strong> Larry A. Witham. 2002. Where Darwin Meets the Bible<\/em>. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. p. 23.<\/span><\/p>\n

19.<\/strong> Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham. 1998 (Jul 23). \u201cLeading scientists still reject God.\u201d Nature<\/em> 394:313.<\/span><\/p>\n

20.<\/strong> Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker<\/em>, p. 6.<\/span><\/p>\n

21.<\/strong> Francis Crick. 1988. What Mad Pursuit<\/em>. New York: Basic Books. p. 138.<\/span><\/p>\n

22.<\/strong> Romans 1:18-20, New International Version<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

23.<\/strong> Psalm 34:8, New International Version<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(Richard Peachey’s opening remarks) On May 5, 2006, a debate was held at Langara College in Vancouver, BC, under the title “Evolution versus Creation: War of the Worldviews!” Scott Goodman argued the case for evolution on behalf of the BC Skeptics, and Richard Peachey, vice-president of the Creation Science Association of British Columbia, presented the creationist view. Here are Richard Peachey’s opening remarks:                                Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for joining us in this forum on a topic that is critically important to us all. Tonight I will argue that Evolution is a dreadful mistake, whereas Creation is obviously true. My first point: Evolution is a dreadful mistake. I support this point with three subpoints: Evolution is not observed in the present; there\u2019s no compelling evidence evolution has occurred in the past; nor could evolution ever happen at all \u2014 it\u2019s simply impossible. I define evolution, or the evolutionary worldview, as that belief system which includes the origin of the universe from nothing through a \u201cBig Bang\u201d with the subsequent formation of galaxies, stars, and planets through unsupervised physical processes; the origin of living cells through unguided chemical reactions; and the rise of biodiversity on planet Earth through only naturalistic mechanisms. In other words, we can speak of Cosmic Evolution, or the origin and development of the physical universe; Chemical Evolution, or the origin of the first life; and Biological Evolution, or the rise, over long periods of time, of all Earth\u2019s rich biodiversity. And the evolutionary worldview insists that all of this must arise through undirected, impersonal, mindless processes. In this belief system, either God does not exist or, if God does exist, then God is completely irrelevant to any serious study of the origins of the universe and life. I take as my first point that Evolution is a dreadful mistake. Subpoint Number One: Evolution is not observed in the present. What I mean is: evolution in any significant sense is not happening now. Of course I know that populations of organisms do change over time. Allelic frequencies go up and down. Peppered moth populations have moved from mostly light-coloured to mostly dark \u2014 and then back again. In the Gal\u00e1pagos Islands, the average length of finch beaks might increase by a millimeter \u2014 or decrease, depending on weather patterns. Bacterial populations may grow more resistant to antibiotics. Creationists deny none of these observed facts of science. But, ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that such changes are not evolution in any important sense. Now, I\u2019m fully aware that Darwinists will apply the term \u201cevolution\u201d to such changes; they will claim that evolution is simply \u201cchange over time.\u201d You will often hear Darwinists using the term \u201cmicroevolution\u201d for these genetic fluctuations within a population \u2014 as if it\u2019s only a hop, skip and a jump from there to proving so-called \u201cmacroevolution,\u201d or large-scale evolution \u2014 \u201cparticles to people\u201d evolution. If you agree finch beaks can increase by a millimeter, they\u2019ll say, then you must also accept that bacteria can evolve into […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":993,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[113,298,301,6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-992","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles","category-creation","category-creation-vs-evolution","category-general"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/creationbc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/992","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/creationbc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/creationbc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/creationbc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/creationbc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=992"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/creationbc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/992\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8079,"href":"https:\/\/creationbc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/992\/revisions\/8079"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/creationbc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/993"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/creationbc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=992"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/creationbc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=992"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/creationbc.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=992"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}