-Bill Hamilton
>
>Let me look for what I have, then I'll get back to you. Thanks.
>
Well, you perked my interest a little so I went over to the
t.o archives and found what you're looking for (I think) in
the creationist dishonesty FAQ, here it is:
===========================================================================
Gish's Proteins
Duane Gish, a protein biochemist with a Ph.D. from Berkeley, is
vice-president of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and
creationism's most well-known spokesperson. A veteran of perhaps
150 public debates and thousands of lectures and sermons on
creationism, Gish is revered among creationists as a great
scientist and a tireless fighter for the truth. Among
noncreationists, however, Gish has a reputation for making
erroneous statements and then pugnaciously refusing to
acknowledge them. One example is an unfinished epic which might
be called the tale of two proteins.
In July 1983, the Public Broadcasting System televised an
hour-long program on creationism. One of the scientists
interviewed, biochemist Russell Doolittle, discussed the
similarities between human proteins and chimpanzee proteins. In
many cases, corresponding human and chimpanzee proteins are
identical, and, in others, they differ by only a few amino acids.
This strongly suggests a common ancestry for humans and apes.
Gish was asked to comment. He replied:
"If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be
assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than
other things. But on the other hand, if you look at certain other
proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a
bullforg than he is to a chimapanzee. If you focus your attention
on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related
to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee."
I had never heard of such proteins, so I asked a few biochemists.
They hadn't either. I wrote to Gish for supporting documentation.
He ignored my first letter. In reply to my second, he referred me
to Berkeley geochronologist Garniss Curtis. I wrote to Curtis,
who replied immediately.
Some years ago, Curtis attended a conference in Austria where he
heard that someone had found bullfrog blood proteins very similar
to human blood proteins. Curtis offered an explanatory
hypothesis: the "frog" which yielded the proteins was, he
suggested, an enchanted prince. He then predicted that the
research would never be confirmed. He was apparently correct, for
nothing has been heard of the proteins since. But Duane Gish once
heard Curtis tell his little story.
This bullfrog "documentation" (as Gish now calls it) struck me as
a joke, even by creationist standards, and Gish simply ignored
his alleged chicken proteins. In contrast, Doolittle backed his
televised claims with published protein sequence data. I wrote to
Gish again suggesting that he should be able to do the same. He
didn't reply. Indeed, he has never since replied to any of my
letters.
John W. Patterson and I attended the 1983 National Creation
Conference in Roseville, Minnesota. We had several conversations
there with Kevin Wirth, research director of Students for Origins
Research (SOR). At some point, we told him the protein story and
suggested that Gish might have lied on national television. Wirth
was confident that Gish could document his claims. He told us
that, if we put our charges in the form of a letter, he would do
his best to get it published in Origins Research, the SOR
tabloid.
Gish also attended the conference, and I asked him about the
proteins in the presence of several creationists. Gish tried
mightily to evade and to obfuscate, but I was firm. Doolittle
provided sequence data for human and chimpanzee proteins; Gish
could do the same - if his alleged chicken and bullfrog proteins
really exist. Gish insisted that they exist and promised to send
me the sequences. Skeptically, I asked him pointblank: "Will that
be before hell freezes over?" He assured me that it would. After
two-and- one-half years, I still have neither sequence data nor a
report of frost in Hades.
Shortly after the conference, Patterson and I submitted a joint
letter to Origins Research, briefly recounting the protein story
and concluding, "We think Gish lied on national television." We
sent Gish a copy of the letter in the same mail. During the next
few months, Wirth (and probably others at SOR) practically begged
Gish to submit a reply for publication. According to Wirth,
someone at ICR, perhaps Gish himself, responded by pressuring SOR
not to publish our letter. Unlike Gish, however, Kevin Wirth was
as good as his word. The letter appeared in the spring 1984 issue
of Origins Research -- with no reply from Gish.
The 1984 National Bible-Science Conference was held in Cleveland,
and again Patterson and I attended. Again, I asked Gish for
sequence data for his chicken and bullfrog proteins. This time,
Gish told me that any further documentation for his proteins is
up to Garniss Curtis and me.
I next saw Gish on February, 18, 1985, when he debated
philosopher of science Philip Kitcher at the University of
Minnesota. Several days earlier, I had heralded Gish's coming
(and his mythical proteins) in a guest editorial in the student
newspaper, The Minnesota Daily. Kitcher alluded to the proteins
early in the debate, and, in his final remarks, he demanded that
Gish either produce references or admit that they do not exist.
Gish, of course, did neither. His closing remarks were punctuated
with sporadic cries of "Bullfrog!" from the audience.
That evening, Duane Gish addressed about two hundred people
assembled in a hall at the student union. During the question
period, Stan Weinberg, a founder of the Committees of
Correspondence on Evolution, stood up. Scientists sometimes make
mistakes, said Weinberg, and, when they do, they own up to them.
Had Gish ever made a mistake in his writings and presentations?
If so, could his chicken and bullfrog proteins have been a
mistake? Gish made a remarkable reply.
He has, indeed, made mistakes.....
[example deleted]
Regarding the bullfrog proteins, Gish said that he relied on
Garniss Curtis for them. Perhaps Curtis was wrong. As for the
chicken proteins, Gish made a convoluted and (to a nonbiochemist)
confusing argument about chicken lysozyme. It was essentially the
same answer he had given me immediately after his debate with
Kitcher, when I went onstage and asked him once again for
references. It was also the same answer he gave two nights
later......
[bombardier beetle stuff deleted]
About the chicken lysozyme: three times in three days Gish was
challenged to produce references for chicken proteins closer to
human proteins than the corresponding chimpanzee proteins. Three
times he responded with an argument which essentially reduces to
this: if human lysozyme and lactalbumin evolved from the same
precursor, as scientists claim, then human lysozyme should be
closer to human lactalbumin than to chicken lysozyme, but it is
not.
Well, although it is true that human lysozyme is not closer to
human lactalbumin than to chicken lysozyme, this comes as no
shock and does not make a case for creationism. Furthermore, it
doesn't at all address the issue that we raised. We were talking
about Gish's earlier comparison of human, chimp, and chicken
proteins, and Gish changed the subject and started comparing
human lysozyme to human lactalbulmin!
Few of his creationist listeners know what lysozyme is, and
perhaps none of them knew that human and chimpanzee lysozyme are
identical and that chicken lysozyme differs from both by
fifty-one out of the 130 amino acids [1]. To one unfamiliar with
biochemistry and, especially, Gish's apologetic method's, it
sounded like he responded to the question. Whether by design or
by some random process, Gish's chicken lysozyme apologetic was
admirably suited to deceive listeners.
One who was taken in by it was Crockett Grabbe, a physicist with
the University of Iowa. As a result, Grabbe wrongly accused Gish
of claiming that chicken lysozyme is closer to human lysozyme
than is chimpanzee lysozyme. Gish then counterattacked, playing
"blame the victim" and pretending it was Grabbe's own fault that
he was deceived [2]. But if the chicken lysozyme apologetic
fooled a professional scientist, it is unlikely that many of the
creationist listeners saw through it.
Gish's refusal to acknowledge the nonexistence of his chicken
protein is characteristic of ICR. Gish's boss, Henry Morris, gave
Gish's handling of the matter his tacit approval by what he said
(and didn't say) about it in his History of Modern Creationism.
Morris refferred to the protein incident and took a swipe at
Russell Doolittle (whom he identified as "Richard Doolittle"),
but he offered no criticism of Gish's conduct. Instead, he
accused PBS of misrepresenting Gish [3]!
Meanwhile, Gish had been obfuscating behind the scenes. The only
creationist publication to directly address the protein affair
has been Origins Research, which first covered the matter in its
spring 1984 issue. Then, in the fall 1985 issue, editor Dennis
Wagner revisited the controversy. However, in his article, he (1)
wrongly identified Glyn Isaac as the source of Gish's bullfrog
and (2) wrongly stated that Gish had sent me a tape of the
lecture in which Isaac supposedly made the satement. Wagner's
source, it turns out, is a February 27, 1984, letter Gish wrote
to Kevin Wirth, in which Gish apparently confused the late Glyn
Isaac (an archaeologist and authority on early stone tools) with
Garniss Curtis. He also claimed to have a tape and a transcript
of the 'Isaac' (presumably Curtis) lecture, and he claimed that
he had reviewed them. In the same paragraph, Gish claimed that he
had sent me his 'documentation,' and Wagner quite naturally
assumed that that meant at least the tape. But Gish sent me
neither, nor has he sent copies of said tape or transcript to
others who have requested them. As with his chicken proteins, we
have only Gish's word for their existence.
For the record, it is no longer important whether Gish's original
statements about chicken and bullfrog proteins were deceptions or
incredible blunders. It is now going on four years since the PBS
broadcast, and Gish has neither retracted his chicken statement
nor attempted to justify it. (Obviously, the lysozyme apologetic
doesn't count, but it took Gish two-and- one-half years to come
up with that!) And if the Curtis story is all he knows about his
chimpanzee protein, on what basis did he promise to send me its
sequence at the 1983 National Bible-Science Conference? Gish has
woven himself into an incredible web of contradictions, and even
some creationists now suspect that he has been less than candid.
[rest of article deleted]
References
[1] Awbrey, Frank T., and Thwaites, William M. Winter 1982. "A Closer Look
at Some Biochemical Data That 'Support' Creation," Creation/Evolution,
issue VII, p. 15.
[2] Gish, Duane T. August 14, 1985. "Creationism Misassailed." Cedar Rapids
Gazette.
[3] Morris, Henry M. 1984. History of Modern Creationism (San Diego: Master
Book Publishers), p. 316.
========================
Brian Harper |
Associate Professor | "It is not certain that all is uncertain,
Applied Mechanics | to the glory of skepticism" -- Pascal
Ohio State University |
========================