Re: Duane Gish in Peru

Hi ASAers

I have been following your discussions with great interest for three
years.

Today I met the famous creationist speaker Duane Gish. I know him by his
publication "Creacion, evolucion y el registro fosil" since pregraduate.
When I became a christian, this was the first book that I bought on the
topic "Science and christianity" (Up to now, there is nothing written
here in spanish in this topic that is not creationist).

He gave two speeches, one in the auditorium of the Faculty of Chemistry
of the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos where I studied for my
M.S. in Zoology and the other in the Christian and Missionary Alliance,
my church.

Here are some ideas that I recorded from him in both places:

(1) There is no evidence of any kind of transicional forms. There is not
any fossil that shows the transcicion of invertebrate to vertebrate. The
first bat for example, had its sonar system complete.
(2) When he was asked on the Archaeopterix, he replied that it was a true
bird. It had wings with normal feathers, perching feet and good flight.
The teeth and claws don't give any evidence of antiquity. Quoted Feduccia
telling that he believes that Archaeopterix was like a modern bird. A
feather is very different from a reptilian scale. The claim of an issue
of National Geographic magazine that the missing link between birds and
dinosaurs was discovered in China was later confirmed to be a faked
specimen.
(3) Due to the fall of man, animals began to kill each others and changed
from vegetarian to meat eaters.

Here I made him the question "How the meat eaters were designed after the
fall?" He explained again the consequences of the fall and said that God
could have created animals with sharp teeth to be vegetarian and then
changed to meat eaters.

(4) Dinosaurs are extint because they failed to repopulate the earth
after the flood. The new weather has less water vapor that pre-flood
athmosphere.
(5) He recognized that no human bones were found in the same place as
dinosaur bones, but quotes that footprints of humans and dinosaurs have
been found together
(6) The radiometric methods to date the earth are based in assumptions
and can not give us any evidence for dating any rock.
(7) Genetics give us by exploring mithocondrial DNA to a 6000 year of the
first human. The 200000 years data is an assumption of evolutionists.
(8) Evolution violates everything about physical and chemical laws.
(9) Evolutionist dominates all the educational system in USA, for
creation scientists is almost impossible to publish in technical
journals. Creation is as religious as evolution, so both should be taught
in public schools.

After the last talk, my wife insisted to get closer and greet him, and
discuss with him. (She knows that I believe in evolution and wanted to
confront him with my deep questions on the topic). I didn't do that. Gish
is an old man and he looked very tired at that moment. I just told him
that I am a christian biologist whose interest is in the conservation of
creation; not creationsim. And that his book was the first one about
science and christianity that I bought. Then said goodby with a "God
bless you".

I will appreciate comments or guidance to web pages for critics to Gish's
points here recorded.

Sincerely,

Oscar Gonzalez

Estimado Sr. Gonzales:
Me alegro de oir de Vd. otra vez. Me acuerdo de su visita al conjunto de
ASA hace ya algunos anos. Lo demas en ingles para todo el grupo.
Many years ago I heard Gish speak at the AAAS Southwestern Section
meeting at Santa Barbara, CA. He was asked what evidence could make him
change his mind. He responded, "There is none." There was a gasp from the
audience. I understand this position to require that any evidence, no
matter how solid, which conflicts with 6-day creationism has to be denied
and rejected, no matter the cost. Michael Roberts has given you some
relevant information. I cannot agree with Paul Reese's claim for ID
(intelligent design). To make their point, Phillip Johnson has to lie
that methodological naturalism is metaphysical naturalism, that is,
materialism. The rest of their claim comes down to "I can't imagine how
this happened, therefore it could only happen through divine
intervention." Already some of the series of steps which produce their
"impossible" results have been elucidated. Further, from the
philosophical, I consider God's continual providential support of all
creation to be correct, rather than occasional intervention.
Your question about all animals being vegetarian is a good one, and the
answer given is stupid. It is not just that animals with sharp teeth
might chew on vegetation (though not efficiently), but that obligate
carnivores, like the Felidae, do not have enough gut to process
vegetation. I think the cat (Felis domesticus) gut is about 3 m long. As
omnivores, our gut is about three times as long. Herbivores have almost
incredibly long guts, and many involve bacterial processing so that they
can extract nutrients. I recall a person who got the idea that he should
only eat raw vegetable foods because cooking damages necessary nutrients
and, of course, animal foods are poison. He came close to starving before
he was persuaded that he was being foolish. Our teeth are far more
efficient grinders than cat teeth, and we've a lot more gut. It had to
take a miracle for cats to survive until man fell. Do you suppose there
was a special amino acid paste miraculously provided so they wouldn't
quickly starve?
As to Gish's claims, there are more and more transitional forms being
found. Not long ago there were no "whales" on the way to becoming whales.
Now there are a number of creatures with legs transitional to the current
whale skeleton. These are matters that have been noted in the technical
journals and the more popular press.
As to archeopteryx, there have been a number of recent discoveries of
feathered dinosaurs. There have also been a number of other birds with
reptilian characteristics or reptiles with avian characteristics
discovered in China. As to a total absence of mammalian precursors, there
are living chordates that don't have vertebrae that suggest intermediate
forms. From what I recall of a course taken long ago, it would be
difficult to fossilize amphioxus or tunicates. But there is other
evidence now that we are sequencing genomes. We are finding a continuity
from archaebacteria through fungi to all fauna. It sure looks like
sequential development.
Poor maladapted dinosaurs! It's easy to come up with a "reason" for their
demise if no other question is asked. But I'd like to know where there
was room on the Ark for apatosaurs, tyranosaurs, and other big guys.
Further, the creationist display in the San Diego area pulled their claim
that human footprints were found in strata with dinosaur prints. I will
say dogmatically that the supposed human prints have been shown to be
partial prints from reptiles.
If radiometric dating is in error, then there are no nuclear reactors, no
nuclear bombs, for the physics that produced the latter supports the
empirical data that originally established the half-lives of the series
used for dating. On the other hand, I recall an article I read in the CRI
journal on radio-carbon dating. The technique was corrected by scientists
using annual ring counts of bristlecone pines. The article claimed that
the trees sometimes produced more than one ring per year, necessary to
keep the years down to 6000 with something like 8000 rings. Since the
article was published, the ring count has been extended, so that there
would have to be nearly three rings every year to have creation 6000
years ago. On the other hand, maybe evolution so blinds scientists that
they can't even count.
I skip 7. 8 is based on their nonsensical view of entropy. If they were
right, cleaning a room would be impossible, for disorder must inevitably
increase. It's true that entropy increases in closed systems. But the
earth is not a closed system, since there is a constant input of energy
from the sun. Neither is any living thing a closed system.
I think of another of their points. They take the measurements of the
earth's magnetic field (as I recall they began about a century and a half
ago) and extrapolate linearly backward. There has been a measured
decrease, so they claim that the field would have been unbelievably high
20,000 years ago. They will not recognize that the spreading of the
oceanic rift zones preserves an accurate record of the earth's magnetic
field over time. Modern techniques allow accurate measurement of the
annual movement. Distance from the rift, along with the thickness of
precipitated material over the basement, gives at least a crude measure
of time, which is consistent with radio-dates. I haven't seen the
original papers, but some of the folks on line have noted that there are
"creationists" who recognize continental drift. But since it has to be
post-Flood, movement had to be something like 30 mph or 50 km/h.
Why does evolution dominate the scientific establishment? Is it perhaps
because creationists talk nonsense about entropy? That they repeat such
things as human and dinosaur simultaneity when they admit it's false?
That they answer question A with information that is incompatible with
facts surrounding B, and questions about B with what their answer to A
proves false? I reported Gish's talk to the AAAS group. They listened
respecfully while he spouted nonsense. Further, if evolution is as
religious as his creationism, then it would be impossible for a lot of us
to be theistic evolutionists, that is, to believe that God created over
vast reaches of time.
I was originally taught creationism, told that there was scientific
evidence that the universe was young. I discovered that I was lied to
when I began to read the original scientific papers. I also learned that
"creationists" could not be consistent in what they claimed were proofs.
Michael has further noted that, when checked, the quotations from honest
scientists in "creationist" works are twisted, misquoted, misinterpreted
and give no support to the YEC views. However, they have persuaded the
majority of US evangelicals that they are standing for scripture against
the attacks of atheisticevolution (one word, making TE impossible). Since
most missionaries come from this group of evangelicals, I don't wonder
that the only Bible-science works you find in Spanish represent YEC. They
are the majority in Christian bookstores in this country.
I am persuaded that YEC are doing the devil's work. They claim to have a
lock on what the Bible teaches. Consequently young people bright enough
to study science believe that the Bible is a collection of lies. So they
reject it. You've seen through the nonsense, so you can give a study in
Spanish that will counter the falsehoods. I hope you'll tackle the job.
Que Dios le bendiga en su servicio,
Dave
Received on Sat Oct 16 19:06:36 2004