Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Saturday, November 8 1997 Volume 01 : Number 718
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 97 08:07:55 CDT
From: "Glenn.Morton" <XDEGRM@ORYX.COM>
Subject: methane iceworms
Reality is sometimes stranger than fiction. There is a report on the Minerals
Management service web site of tube worms having been found living on methane
ice (gas hydrates) on the ocean bottom. For those unfamiliar with tube worms
they are chemosynthetic organisms that derive their energy from methane. They
live along the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico along faults which have
hydrocarbons leaking from them. Tube worms are not new. Neither is
gas hydrates. Hydrates form on and under the sediments. They consist of
a molecule of methane surrounded by a cage of water ice. If brought to the
surface hydrate will snap,crackle and pop as the ice melts and the methane
escapes. Hydrate will also burn. It is wierd to see ice burning.
Anyway the worms live on the ice. It is apparently the first
organism to live off of an ice environment.
The site is:
http://161.160.220.24/omm/gomr/homepg/regulate/environ/chemo/iceworms.html
But I have had trouble this morning accessing this page. The report was
stapled to our wall at the coffee bar this morning.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 05:39:53 -0700 (MST)
From: Allen Roy <allen@InfoMagic.com>
Subject: Impact no. 293
This ought to stir up some responses. :-)
Allen Roy
IMPACT No. 293 <http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-293.htm>
SCIENTIFIC NATURALISM AS SCIENCE
by Larry Vardiman *
Institute for Creation Research, PO Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021
Voice: (619) 448-0900 FAX: (619) 448-3469
"Vital Articles on Science/Creation" November 1997
Copyright =A9 1997 All Rights Reserved
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
- -
The Current Attitude
The current attitude in the academic and scientific community is that
science and religion are completely incompatible. It is believed that
science is a system of knowledge based on experimentation, observation, and
logic. Religion, on the other hand, is viewed as a system of faith based on
myth, culture, and self-delusion. A researcher is allowed to have a persona=
l
religion, but he should never permit it to affect his work or he will no
longer be considered a legitimate scientist.
In a recent court case involving the right of the ICR Graduate School to
teach science from a Biblical perspective, a physics professor from
California State University at Long Beach testified that if Isaac Newton
were on the school's faculty today, his position on creation would prevent
the school from being recognized by the State of California. This professor
objected to statements such as the following in Mathematica Principia
where Newton said:
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could
only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and
powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of
the world, but as Lord over all, and on account of His dominion He
is wont to be called Lord God, Universal Ruler.1
When questioned how this professor could make such a statement about one wh=
o
is recognized as possibly the greatest scientist who ever lived, he replied
that if Isaac Newton persisted in maintaining a creationist position as he
did in Mathematica Principia, knowing what we know today, he would not be
recognized as a credible scientist.2
The reason this antagonism has reached such extreme proportions is because
science has been redefined to include only naturalistic explanations. All
observed and hypothesized processes in the universe must be the result of
natural causes. No supernatural explanations are allowed. Phillip Johnson
has described this approach well in his recent book when he said:
Theistic or "guided" evolution has to be excluded as a possibility
because Darwinists identify science with a philosophical doctrine
know as naturalism. Naturalism assumes the entire realm of nature
to be a closed system of material causes and effects, which cannot
be influenced by anything from "outside." Naturalism does not
explicitly deny the mere existence of God, but it does deny that a
supernatural being could in any way influence natural events, such
as evolution, or communicate with natural creatures like
ourselves. Scientific naturalism makes the same point by starting
with the assumption that science, which studies only the natural,
is our only reliable path to knowledge.3
When science is defined in this manner and someone violates the rules of
investigation by incorporating a supernatural cause or referring to the
Bible, he is determined to be unscientific. The rhetoric can become
inflammatory when power structures in the government and societies are
involved. For example, over 20 scientific societies in the United States
have policies in their bylaws denying acceptance of journal articles from
creationists.
Most scientists tend to shy away from such controversies. They prefer not t=
o
become involved in public arguments or major controversies. By their nature=
,
most scientists tend to be withdrawn and prefer to work in a quiet,
noncontroversial environment. They generally eschew political posturing and
public pronouncements. Although many scientists are religious or are
sympathetic to those who are religious, they are unwilling to reveal their
positions for fear of ridicule or reprisals. On the other hand, there are
some scientists who are very aggressive about promoting a naturalistic
worldview and even some who advocate sanctions against those who would
conduct science from a supernatural perspective.
Carl Sagan's Naturalistic Worldview
Carl Sagan was one of the most articulate spokesmen for a naturalistic
worldview. Before he died of cancer in 1997, he had written numerous books
about the Cosmos and man's place in it. He was active in many scientific
organizations and in at least one which was aggressively antagonistic towar=
d
the mixing of the Bible and science. His willingness to express his views o=
n
the origin of life openly in his writings and public speaking was unique, t=
o
the point of alienating many of his more reserved colleagues who thought he
was no longer functioning as a scientist himself. However, his writing
talents were well received by the public and the literary community.
Carl Sagan believed that man was the result of natural processes operating
over billions of years in a vast ocean of space. He could become highly
sentimental over the immensity of time involved in man's evolution and the
incredible improbability that life had occurred by chance. He had one great
hope-to find life existing somewhere else in the universe. I believe his
rejection of God as Creator produced a void in his worldview which drove hi=
m
to this search for life elsewhere in the universe. He searched for almost 3=
0
years for some evidence that we are not alone, but he died with his dream
unfulfilled. He made an intriguing statement about 25 years into this searc=
h
when he said: "We've been looking for life beyond the Earth for 25 years
now, and we haven't found it anywhere. There must be something unique about
the Earth."4 I don't believe he ever realized how incredibly true this
statement was.
I had the distinct privilege of meeting Carl Sagan personally at the
American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco in December, 1994. 1 ha=
d
been drawn to his session by a sincere respect for his writing and speaking
skills over the years, and I believe the Lord led me to speak with him at
that time because he didn't have long to live. He was to be the first
speaker following a 30-minute intermission. I introduced myself and
expressed my appreciation for his ability to articulate science in a way
that could be understood by the public. He knew of the Institute for
Creation Research for whom I work, but had not heard of me personally.
He immediately began asking me a series of leading questions about how a
well trained scientist such as myself could have confidence in a book
written by a bunch of ignorant sheep herders thousands of years before any
real science had been discovered. He was so intent on pursuing our
conversation, that the session chairman had to come down from the podium an=
d
interrupt our conversation to begin the next session. I was puzzled at the
time by his aggressiveness in questioning my reasons for confidence in the
Bible.
I later found out that he was to speak to the Commonwealth Club of San
Franciso later that evening where he introduced his new book, The Pale Blue
Dot. In this book and in an article he later wrote for Parade Magazine in
1995 entitled, "Through the Valley of the Shadow of Death," Carl Sagan was
probably more transparent than he had ever been about his search for God an=
d
eternal life. I am certain that the nearness of death was forcing him to
reexamine some of the presuppositions on which he had based his life.
I exchanged a half dozen letters with Carl Sagan over the next year and a
half. We continued the conversation started there in San Francisco, and I
came to care for him as a friend. Probably the most poignant interchange wa=
s
over a statement he had made in his book, The Pale Blue Dot. After several
leading comments about the unreliability of the Bible, he said in this book=
:
"The evidence so far at least and from the laws of nature aside, does not
require a Designer. Maybe there is one hiding, maddeningly unwilling to be
revealed."5 I responded in one of my letters by saying: "Scientists have th=
e
greatest opportunity of all to see the evidence of God's marvelous provisio=
n
for man in His creation. Yet, by and large, scientists today tend to be
almost totally blinded to the evidences. Because of the kinship I feel
toward you about the things of science, I request that you reconsider your
relationship to God. Ask Him to reveal Himself to you. He is not hiding fro=
m
you. Rather, He is waiting for you to see Him."6
The final letter I received from Carl Sagan before his death contained the
response: "Asking God to reveal himself to me presupposes his existence.
Plainly, this would be an inconsistent approach for someone who sees no
evidence for such a God."7 This response has haunted me ever since. Carl
Sagan's wife, Ann Druyan, asserted in the epilogue to his last book,
Billions and Billions, that: "Contrary to the fantasies of the
fundamentalists, there was no deathbed conversion, no last-minute refuge
taken in a comforting vision of a heaven or an afterlife."8 I still hold ou=
t
hope that he made peace with his Maker, and I will see him again someday.
It was evident from his writings as well as his membership in the National
Center for Science Education (a California group dedicated almost
exclusively to the advocacy of evolution and the removal of scientific
creationism from society) that Carl Sagan believed Scripture was unreliable
and should not be used as a basis for scientific investigation.
Unfortunately, the eloquence of his oratory and that of others like him has
brought disfavor upon the use of Scripture in any meaningful way in the
conduct of science. Funding of research, peer review, publication of
research results, and recognition of scientific accomplishments are strongl=
y
affected by attitudes developed by people like Carl Sagan. It is not too
much to say that scientists in the twentieth century must fear for their
professional lives if they rely upon Scriptural support in any of their
work. Yet, research conducted from a Biblical perspective by those willing
to forego the usual support and recognition is making significant progress
and will eventually be recognized for the contribution it is making.
Conclusions
Recognizing the Bible as a reliable source of information for the conduct o=
f
science is essential for an effective use of resources and for correct
results. Consider Carl Sagan's search for extra-terrestrial intelligence
(SETI). I believe from several lines of argument using the Bible that the
only extra-terrestrial intelligences in the universe are God and the
angels. If this is true, then the entire SETI program and a major portion
of our space program is a complete waste of money.
More importantly, the general acceptance of the theory that elementary
chemicals evolved into complex life forms over billions of years by
naturalistic processes has led to a wholesale rejection of the Creator God
and a generation that is expecting some superior life form suddenly to make
contact with the earth. Our current culture is inundated with books, movies=
,
and videos about people, empires, and monsters on other planets, galaxies,
and universes. The impact of this evolutionary myth is incalculable.
Undoubtedly the most costly aspect to this delusion will be counted in lost
souls at the final judgment.
It is time to reclaim science in the name of God. We need committed
Christians to train themselves as scientists and counteract this culture of
unbelief. Science based on a proper Biblical foundation can help reverse
this slide into apostasy and unbelief. If we don't take action soon, our
world will continue to devolve as described in Romans 1:22: "Professing
themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . ."
References
1. Newton, Isaac, 1686. Mathematical Principles of Natural
Philosophy. Motte's translation from the Latin in 1729, University
of California Press, Berkeley, California, 1934, 680 pp.
2. Lerner, Lawrence, 1990. Statements made in deposition during
preparation for trial of ICR Graduate School vs. Honig and the
State of California.
3. Johnson, Phillip E., 1991. Darwin on Trial. InterVarsity Press,
Downers Grove, IL, 220 pp.
4. Sagan, Carl, 1992. Statement in a television interview
celebrating the 25th anniversary of the SETI program.
5. Sagan, Carl, 1994. Pale Blue Dot. Random House, New York, 429
pp.
6. Vardiman, Larry, 1995. Personal communication to Carl Sagan.
7. Sagan, Carl, 1995. Personal communication to Larry Vardiman,
8. Sagan, Carl, 1997. Billions and Billions. Random House, New
York, 214 pp.
* Dr. Vardiman is Chairman of the Astro/Geophysics Department at
ICR.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 09:50:20 -0800
From: "Hofmann, James" <jhofmann@Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU>
Subject: RE: Impact no. 293
Greetings:
Impact #293 included the following comment:
"For example, over 20 scientific societies in the United States
have policies in their bylaws denying acceptance of journal articles
from
creationists." (p. ii)
Does anyone know what societies make up this list of 20?
Jim Hofmann
California State University Fullerton
jhofmann@fullerton.edu
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 97 12:55:04 CDT
From: "Glenn.Morton" <XDEGRM@ORYX.COM>
Subject: Re: methane ice worms
It has been pointed out to me that I was a little loose in my
terminology about tube worms. So I will correct my error.
The tube worms that have been know about for a few years
are not chemosynthetic, but live in a chemosynthetic
community. The bacteria are usually the chemosynths, not
the worms. The tube worms live off the bacteria who live
in their bodies and in the surrounding waters.
The new worms are a new discovery and there is much unknown at
this time. I had gotten the impression from the report that
these were possibly chemosynthetic worms. That may be
an erroneous assumption on my part. But anyway, this is
the first animal I know of that lives in such a wierd
environment.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 12:40:06 -0500
From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Subject: Re: Impact no. 293
Allen Roy wrote (quoting Larry Vardiman):
> Carl Sagan was one of the most articulate spokesmen for a naturalistic
> worldview. ............ I had the distinct privilege of meeting Carl Sagan personally at the
American Geophysical Union meeting in San
Francisco in December, 1994. 1 had been drawn to his session by a
sincere respect for his writing and speaking skills over the years, and
I believe the Lord led me to speak with him at that time because he
didn't have long to live. ........... I responded in one of my letters
by saying: "Scientists have the greatest opportunity of all to see the
evidence of God's marvelous provision for man in His creation. Yet, by
and large, scientists today tend to be almost totally blinded to the
evidences. Because of the kinship I feel toward you about the things of
science, I request that you reconsider your relationship to God. Ask Him
to reveal Himself to you. He is not hiding from you. Rather, He is
waiting for you to see Him." ........... I still hold out hope that he
made peace with his Maker, and I will see him again someday.
I am glad to see Dr. Vardiman's generosity toward Sagan in the
few snippets I include here, especially because I have seen some awful
counterexamples of Christians virtually gloating over his death. & of
course we don't have here a complete record of their conversations. But
I think it sad that Vardiman's emphasis seems to have been on "design",
"evidences in creation" & "reliability of the Bible" rather than Christ.
Of course starting with Christ is no guarantee that an
unbeliever will be converted. But it's much closer to the heart of
Christianity to say, "Consider the possibility of a God who is willing
to suffer & die for his creation" rather than "consider the possibility
of a Designer". The latter approach, even when it "succeeds", may
simply produce a belief in "theism" connected only loosely, if at all,
with Jesus of Nazareth.
George Murphy
P.S. Yes, Of course the truth of the gospel is connected with
the reliability of the biblical witness. That isn't an unimportant
concern but it isn't the same as "inerrancy" &c as commonly understood.
> It was evident from his writings as well as his membership in the National
> Center for Science Education (a California group dedicated almost
> exclusively to the advocacy of evolution and the removal of scientific
> creationism from society) that Carl Sagan believed Scripture was unreliable
> and should not be used as a basis for scientific investigation.
> Unfortunately, the eloquence of his oratory and that of others like him has
> brought disfavor upon the use of Scripture in any meaningful way in the
> conduct of science. Funding of research, peer review, publication of
> research results, and recognition of scientific accomplishments are strongly
> affected by attitudes developed by people like Carl Sagan. It is not too
> much to say that scientists in the twentieth century must fear for their
> professional lives if they rely upon Scriptural support in any of their
> work. Yet, research conducted from a Biblical perspective by those willing
> to forego the usual support and recognition is making significant progress
> and will eventually be recognized for the contribution it is making.
>
> Conclusions
>
> Recognizing the Bible as a reliable source of information for the conduct of
> science is essential for an effective use of resources and for correct
> results. Consider Carl Sagan's search for extra-terrestrial intelligence
> (SETI). I believe from several lines of argument using the Bible that the
> only extra-terrestrial intelligences in the universe are God and the
> angels. If this is true, then the entire SETI program and a major portion
> of our space program is a complete waste of money.
>
> More importantly, the general acceptance of the theory that elementary
> chemicals evolved into complex life forms over billions of years by
> naturalistic processes has led to a wholesale rejection of the Creator God
> and a generation that is expecting some superior life form suddenly to make
> contact with the earth. Our current culture is inundated with books, movies,
> and videos about people, empires, and monsters on other planets, galaxies,
> and universes. The impact of this evolutionary myth is incalculable.
> Undoubtedly the most costly aspect to this delusion will be counted in lost
> souls at the final judgment.
>
> It is time to reclaim science in the name of God. We need committed
> Christians to train themselves as scientists and counteract this culture of
> unbelief. Science based on a proper Biblical foundation can help reverse
> this slide into apostasy and unbelief. If we don't take action soon, our
> world will continue to devolve as described in Romans 1:22: "Professing
> themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . ."
>
> References
>
> 1. Newton, Isaac, 1686. Mathematical Principles of Natural
> Philosophy. Motte's translation from the Latin in 1729, University
> of California Press, Berkeley, California, 1934, 680 pp.
> 2. Lerner, Lawrence, 1990. Statements made in deposition during
> preparation for trial of ICR Graduate School vs. Honig and the
> State of California.
> 3. Johnson, Phillip E., 1991. Darwin on Trial. InterVarsity Press,
> Downers Grove, IL, 220 pp.
> 4. Sagan, Carl, 1992. Statement in a television interview
> celebrating the 25th anniversary of the SETI program.
> 5. Sagan, Carl, 1994. Pale Blue Dot. Random House, New York, 429
> pp.
> 6. Vardiman, Larry, 1995. Personal communication to Carl Sagan.
> 7. Sagan, Carl, 1995. Personal communication to Larry Vardiman,
> 8. Sagan, Carl, 1997. Billions and Billions. Random House, New
> York, 214 pp.
>
> * Dr. Vardiman is Chairman of the Astro/Geophysics Department at
> ICR.
- --
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@imperium.net
http://www.imperium.net/~gmurphy
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 16:43:20 -0500
From: Brian D Harper <harper.10@osu.edu>
Subject: RE: Impact no. 293
At 09:50 AM 11/7/97 -0800, Jim Hofmann wrote:
> Greetings:
>
>Impact #293 included the following comment:
>
> "For example, over 20 scientific societies in the United States
>have policies in their bylaws denying acceptance of journal articles
>from
>creationists." (p. ii)
>
>Does anyone know what societies make up this list of 20?
>
I was rather amazed by this claim. My bet is that the list
is really short, 0. How would the editor of a journal know
that a submittee is a creationist? Do they keep a list or
something?
I had intended to send an e-mail either to Vardiman or to
the ICR asking for documentation of this claim but I could
find no e-mail addresses on their web page. Anyone know if
they have an e-mail address or if they have provided
documentation for this claim somewhere?
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"I'm gonna sue the ICR for using my name"
Sir Isaac Newton
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 19:54:12 -0600
From: grmorton@waymark.net (Glenn Morton)
Subject: RE: Impact no. 293
At 04:43 PM 11/7/97 -0500, Brian D Harper wrote:
>At 09:50 AM 11/7/97 -0800, Jim Hofmann wrote:
>> Greetings:
>>
>>Impact #293 included the following comment:
>>
>> "For example, over 20 scientific societies in the United States
>>have policies in their bylaws denying acceptance of journal articles
>>from
>>creationists." (p. ii)
>>
>>Does anyone know what societies make up this list of 20?
>>
>
>I was rather amazed by this claim. My bet is that the list
>is really short, 0. How would the editor of a journal know
>that a submittee is a creationist? Do they keep a list or
>something?
I am a former member of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists, and a
member of the American Assoc. of Petroleum Geologists. I know it doesn't
apply the them. I think this is a made up number for the faithful.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 21:19:02 -0600
From: grmorton@waymark.net (Glenn Morton)
Subject: Did Neandertal make baskets?
I just ran across a fascinating study of stone tools from Southwest France.
The tool of most interest came from Combe Grenal and is dated to Wurm I time
(>73,000 years ago-Lawrence Guy Straus, "Southwestern Europe at the Last
Glacial Maximum", Current Anthropology, 32:2, (April 1991), pp 189-199, p. 190)
This time was prior to the occurrence of anatomically modern man in Europe.
The tool had a fragment of either a rush or a sedge in a groove.
Anderson-Gerfaud writes:
"However, we were able to identify at least one plant-
harvesting tool from the Middle Palaeolithic--a convex scraper on
a blade from a Wurm I level (Typical Mousterian) at Combe-Grenal,
described earlier. This particular tool was significant in that
it was clearly used with a curved, 'harvesting' motion, and edge
damage on the edge opposite the one used suggests that it may
have been used in a haft. We then examined the tool with the
scanning electron microscope to search for any minute fragments
of residue material which might clarify its use. A residue
located near the working edge, in a slight depression in the tool
surface was found by comparison with microscopic cellular
fragments (e.g. siliceous phytoliths) we extracted and studied
from living plants) to be from a grass, or possibly a sedge
(Cyperaceae) or a rush (Junicus).
"It is not clear whether this tool was used to procure
edible seeds, although certainly seeds of grass and probably
sedge are edible foodstuffs. It is more likely that this tool,
like other Palaeolithic tools of its nature, was used to gather
or process plant materials for various artisanal or maintenance
purposes (e.g. construction, basketry, fuel, etc.). Indeed,
obtaining the plant stems seems to be the primary goal of
harvesting plants with a stone tool, at least until cereals with
domestic characteristics of ripening evenly and holding their
grain at maturity are documented. This is probably because ripe
seeds of wild grasses (and cerials, if we consider the Near
Eastern Epi-Palaeolithic period) are efficiently gathered by
hand-picking, or by stripping or rubbing of the plant over a
basket, for example."~Patricia Anderson-Gerfaud, "Aspects of
Behaviour in the Middle Palaeolithic: Functional Analysis of
Stone Tools from Southwest France," in Paul Mellars, The
Emergence of Modern Humans, (Ithica: Cornell Univ. Press, 1990),
pp. 389-418, p. 400
Now, those who would reject Neanderthal as human must face the fact that a
non-human was possibly making baskets, not to mention the things I have
discussed over the past two years---the flutes, tents, spears and engaging
in burials with flowers. I must say that this is quite unusual behavior for
an animal; wish we had one for a modern circus.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #718
*******************************