Collegiate Times

The article says: "Young-earth creationism...this theory is critically flawed...according to Genesis, God did not make the sun until the fourth day of creation. Therefore, how does it make any sense to assume 24-hour days before the sun was even created?" In order to have a 24-hour day, with an evening and a morning, what is necessary is a rotating earth and a light source. It makes perfect "sense to assume 24-hour days before the sun was....created" when we have a rotating earth, and created light on day one. Genesis 1 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. .... 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. ...8... And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. ...13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day. ...19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. ...23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day. ... 31... And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. See: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1-11;&version=31; See also: The Necessity for Believing in Six Literal Days http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/sixdays.asp

Agreed. 24 hours exists without the sun. It's not like the authors of the bible were there at the creation with stopwatches anyway, so perhaps god told them, "so when I created all the stuff that came before the sun, I did that in 24 hour chunks so it would be easier to summarize it using the standard day that now exists, thanks to that sweet sun I just gave you on day 4." Sorry for the tongue-in-cheek remarks, but that "critical flaw" has critical flaws that need to be pointed out.

Michael Behe was shown that he doesn't understand evolution when he took the stand and lost at the Dover, PA trial. Punctuated equilibrium is when new species develop relatively rapidly when, for example, amphibians first made it to land (a new ecosystem) or when the dinosaurs suddenly died out (no more predators for mammals). It is not based on ‘unknown reasons’. And when I say ‘relatively rapidly’, I mean over thousands of years. It is sad that someone is trying to tarnish the name of one of the greatest scientists we have ever had when we should be celebrating Darwin’s 200th anniversary. I think my whole sentiment towards creationism can be summed up in one statement that everyone can understand: In the future, the person who discovers a cure for cancer won’t be a creationist.

All forms of creationism fail under the scrutiny of science and logic. Young Earth creationists have correctly interpreted the Bible, one day means one day. To claim that 'one day' actually means several billion years is dishonest and an intentional misinterpretation of scripture. This article is full of creationist buzzwords. No respectable biologist uses the terms 'Microevolution' or 'Macroevolution'. It just begs the question: How many 'micros' equal one 'macro'? If you can walk one step, you can walk a mile. The term 'irreducibly complex' is also invented by creationists. Please provide one example from nature of something that is 'irreducibly complex'. 1% of an eye is better than 0% of an eye; and 2% is better than 1%... The term 'theistic evolution' is better, but I still ask for one example of an evolutionary trait that could not have occurred naturally and required divine intervention. Paleontologists have discovered thousands of fossils in the geological record that support the theory of evolution. Go to talkorigins.org and look up transitional fossils.

"Unfortunately for Darwin, we have since discovered tremendous examples of irreducible complexity..." Actually, no. Pathways for many biological processes and organs have been described, and the ones that haven't been are simply those we don't YET know. We know much more now that we used to, and we will know more in the future.

Jesus Christ...why would you write this article? Why would you even assert that "macroevolution is subject to debate." It's not. Just stop lol. Please. All forms of creationism are not science, they're anti-intellectual, and they should stay the hell out of any curriculum. Stop trying to defend your fantasy sky wizard with creationist buzz words like "macroevolution."

This is a typical, if somewhat more sophisticated, example of demagoguery "scientific" creationists embrace (in that sense, they are all the same). First, macroevolution, as defined in the commentary (the technical definition is somewhat different), is accepted by geoscientists, biologists, and the scientific community in general. Check endorsement statements of the Geological Society of America, Paleontological Society, Linnean Society, the National Academy of Sciences, and other major organizations that represent people who know most about organisms and fossils. Second, multiple major evolutionary changes have been documented by transitional forms in the fossil record. Any college-level textbook on the history of life documents those in detail. Claiming otherwise reflects either ignorance or willful intellectual dishonesty. Third, punctuated equilibrium includes an explicit process-oriented explanation of why speciation may occur relatively abruptly (quoting ID pamphlets usually doesn’t work when writing commentaries). Finally, there are many lines of evidence, in addition to the fossil record, that support macroevolution: homologies, vestigial structures, embryology, biogeography, shared genetic errors, etc. Macroevolution is a scientific theory, and scientific theories and facts are theologically irrelevant: they cannot evaluate if God exists. Creationists who demand scientific affirmation of their belief systems not only reveal scientific illiteracy but also their profound lack of faith.

Wow. Just wow. The authors, Mr. Hiser and Mr. May, were simply trying to make this discussion intellectual instead of the intolerant bashing that it is now. They have actually provided sources, quotations, and their analysis on the facts. This isn't a science inquisition, they are just academically providing a different theory. To Eric: try asking a Physicist if there is a difference between quantum physics and Newtonian physics; is the physics that governs electrons ('micro') the same physics that governs 'macro' bodies like you. To Anonymous: Evolution itself is still a theory, go look up the definition of a theory (endorsement statements do not make a theory reality). To JosephU: the point is that the 24-hour day creation is still a matter of perspective, the bible doesn't state day and evening are periodical on a 24 hour cycle.

Well written rebuttal, however, there are several HUGE flaws. First of all, their definition of macroevolution calls for "drastic" genetic change. The fact that humans share 98% of the same genetic code as apes disproves that definition easily. The genes humans have for gender control are nearly identical to the genes whales have for gender control. Far from drastic differences. Also, they failed to cite any examples of "irreducibly complex" organs or biopathways. Not one example has ever been found irreducibly complex in any biological organism. The human eye is a prime example of reducible complexity. We see based on 3 different cones of vision that absorb different wavelengths of light, and if one malfunctions, we are simply colorblind, not blind.

Couple things: first, the very fact that we have a discussion on here as to whether a biblical day constitutes a 24 hour period is patently ludicrous - God is explicitly said to transcend time, and so a Biblical day is really (if one believes in such things) of unfixed, arbitrary length. Secondly, I'm having a bit of trouble why people like Eric Wood seem so intellectually affronted by the fact that people here believe in things other than what he observes as patently true. Look, I'm no biologist, and I really have no interest whatsoever in evolutionary theory. From my standpoint, all anyone can do is infer from the limited information we have what MIGHT have been the cause of things - but any conclusion as to the ultimate cause is nothing more than speculation. That having been said, Mr. Wood seems to treat people who view science in general (and evolutionary theory specifically) with this sort of skepticism as somehow worse than evil - you're going to have to explain to me where the overwhelming threat to your self or your intellect exists from people who remain skeptical about your most cherished scientific facts.

@Eric Wood - yes, 1% of an eye is better than 0% of an eye...but how do you get from nothing to something? What is the evolutionary, survival benefit? Maybe in one random chance animal, but in enough at the same time to be able to propagate that one chance mutation that provided 1% of an eye in a bunch of creatures of the same species able to mate at the same time? What is the driving force behind that initiation?

@Kyle-I do feel threatened by creationism. Creationists want to tear down the wall of separation between church and state while corrupting the education of our children. In order to ensure a stronger country in the future, Americans need to have a better appreciation for the scientific method. Everyone is free to believe what they want, but when creationists start demanding that their religion be taught in public schools, I feel the need to defend reason. It is officially called the Theory of Evolution, but for all intensive purposes it is the fact of evolution. It is just as much a fact as the the fact that the Earth goes around the sun or that our world is made up of atoms. There is a greater proportion of historians who deny the Holocaust than biologists who deny evolution. Would you not expect a strong response against someone who wrote a Holocaust denial article?

@Jochebed - Good question. I'm not an expert, but here is how the eye may have began to evolve. Imagine a population of flatworms swimming about the early ocean floor. One flatworm randomly mutates such that a small patch of skin cells becomes sensitive to light. This is small, incremental step. This small patch of light sensitive cells can be said to be 1% of an eye. This flatworm quickly learns that when it is light, there is more algae to eat. This gives this individual an advantage over the other flatworms in the population, who have 0% of an eye. The one mutated flatworm is able to eat more and have more energy for reproduction. He is more successful at breeding and passing on his genes (including the gene for light sensitive cells). As a result, the next generation of flatworms have several individuals with 1% of an eye. Natural selection continues its course until all the flatworms have the gene for 1% of an eye. After a while, another flatworm mutates so it has 2% of an eye (maybe greater light sensitivity). All of these small incremental steps add up over millions of years until we have complex organs like we see today.

I have one issue I'd like the bring up... The "lack of 'intermediate links'" in the fossil record does not mean they did not exist, even if we never find them. Fossilization is actually a very rare occurrence that requires very specific conditions. To assume that at least one example of every single organism would lay down and die in a perfect patch of mud, peat bog, or tar pit is really unrealistic. And then to assume that we'll find every one of those fossils before they get destroyed by geologic processes or erosion is even more far fetched. There are organisms that we will never know about, and there are intermediate links that we will probably never find. That makes evolution harder to "prove" but it certainly doesn't disprove it in any way.

@Eric Wood - so that completely random one-in-a-million mutation that must include not just cells to detect light but the simultaneous ability to understand what that means along with the simultaneous ability to then coordinate movements in the direction of that light - assuming all those things so happen at once in one animal...that random mutation (or collection of mutations, i.e. polygenic) is going to be dominant enough to persist when that flatworm then mates with multiple other flatworms that lack that mutation and persist enough in the population to literally change the entire population? That seems, for lack of a better word, miraculous. And don't worry, as a creationist I have no plans of "corrupting the education of your children". Education is corrupt enough already, that's why I plan to homeschool my son.

Eh, unless you are living in a religious compound good luck keeping out the internet, cable tv and cellphones. Good luck with that though...

@ Bristol Palin (nice name BTW) - well my husband and I already do not have internet at home and we haven't watched TV in more than a year. We don't own one. So 2 down. Not sure how just owning a cellphone corrupts, but we have a cheap pay-as-you-go phone. What it comes down to is this - I am responsible for the things my child is exposed to and I gladly accept that as a parent.

To Bradford S: Did you even read my comment? I explicitly stated that evolution is a theory and I explicitly separated scientific theories from scientific facts (read the second but last sentence of my previous posting). The widespread scientific endorsements of evolution was pointed out because the authors claimed otherwise. These endorsements are what makes evolution an established theory. Unfortunately, and this was my point, there was nothing intellectual about the commentary. Sure, they had every right to write a commentary. But the same right allows me to point out numerous misrepresentation of scientific literature and facts they committed. Read any widely used college textbooks (by Stanley, Benton, Cohen, Prothero, etc.) to learn about numerous examples of well documented major evolutionary transitions provided by the fossil record and other facts that were misrepresented or omitted in the commentary. The fact that these data have been well documented and publicized for years disqualifies the intellectual merit of the commentary. And please follow your own advice and read how scientists define the term "theory". What those commentators endorse is not even a scientific hypothesis, which needs to be a scientifically testable statement.

Sorry for errors. It should be: "were pointed out" and "misrepresentations".