This Day In History

Rate This
Article
[click here]

Publish
YOUR
Article
[click here]

Lessons Learned When I Attended a Series of Intelligent Design/Creation Videos

copyright 2005 epicidiot

I was sent the following by a friend who was concerned for my health.  See my reply below.

Dear Reader,

Imagine 16,000 tons of powder. The weight of 10,600 cars approximately equals 16,000 tons, so we're talking about a LOT of powder.

But not just any powder. About 16,000 tons of aspartame is produced for worldwide consumption each year. In other words, people are consuming enormous quantities of this artificial sweetener, which is better known by its commercial names, such as NutraSweet and Equal.

The day may come when our grandchildren, or perhaps their grandchildren, look back on the decades around the turn of the century and wonder how so many people, year after year, could ingest such huge quantities of something that appeared to be such an obvious enemy of good health.

And what may be most baffling to our heirs: The warning signs are numerous. And they just keep coming.

--------------------------------------------
Daily intake...acceptable?
--------------------------------------------

The most recent aspartame findings come from a large animal study conducted by Italian researchers at the Ramazzini Foundation, which specializes in oncology and environmental sciences.

For more than three decades, researchers simulated daily human intake of aspartame on 1800 rats (equal amounts of males and females). Each rat was assigned to one of eight dosage levels: zero mg per kilogram of body weight, 4 mg/Kg, 20 mg/Kg, 100 mg/Kg, 500 mg/Kg, 2,500 mg/Kg, or 5,000 mg/Kg. Rats began receiving aspartame at eight weeks of age, continuing throughout their lives.

The results (reported in a recent issue of the European Journal of Oncology) showed a "statistically significant" increase in leukemias and lymphomas among female rats who received as little as 20 mg/Kg per day. Current European regulations place an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of aspartame at 40 to 50 mg/Kg of body weight. That ADI is for humans, of course, not rats.

But the research doesn't end there. The Ramazzini data, with full pathology reports, have been submitted to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the European Union's counterpart to our FDA. A panel of experts (oh brother!) will then evaluate the findings "in the context of the previous extensive safety data available on aspartame."

In other words: Expect absolutely nothing to happen. Because the EFSA so far has done exactly what the FDA has done with the current available safety data: Nothing. But that's fine. You and I and other concerned citizens will take it from here with a little Water Cooler Regulation.

--------------------------------------------

61 revisited

In the world of harmful food additives, aspartame may turn out to be the most notoriously harmful of them all. Research shows that aspartame may mimic or worsen diseases such as Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's, arthritis, lupus, fibromyalgia, and depression.

In 1994 the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a list of 61 reported adverse reactions to aspartame, including: chest pains, asthma, arthritis, migraine headaches, insomnia, seizures, tremors, vertigo, and weight gain. The surprising item on that list is "weight gain," given the fact that aspartame is the sweetener used in most diet sodas. In fact, according to one study, aspartame may actually STIMULATE appetite, prompting cravings for calorie-rich carbohydrates.

But weight gain is nothing compared to some of the horror stories out there.

Aspartame is made by combining two amino acids with methanol. According to an article by Dr. Joseph Mercola, methanol is the probable trigger for most of the adverse reactions associated with aspartame. When aspartame is combined with the enzyme chymotrypsin in the small intestine, methanol is released and breaks down into formaldehyde, a potent neurotoxin. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers methanol to be a "cumulative poison" and recommends a safe consumption of no more than 7.8 mg per day. If you drink a one-liter beverage containing aspartame, you body creates seven times that amount - about 56 mg of methanol.

But it gets even worse. Because if the product containing aspartame is heated to a temperature above 86 degrees Fahrenheit, "free methanol" is created, speeding up the absorption of methanol, and magnifying the effects of the neurotoxins. Nevertheless, in 1993 the FDA approved the use of aspartame in food items such as gelatin desserts that require heating well over the 86-degree range.

The result? People are hurting. According to the FDA's Adverse Reaction Monitoring System, approximately 75 percent of all complaints received about food additives are aspartame-related: 3 out of every 4! And yet the FDA still refuses to acknowledge the evidence that aspartame could be endangering public health.

-------------------------------------------- 
Hold the toxin 
-------------------------------------------- 

In spite of the clear dangers of aspartame, FDA officials have ignored calls for a ban and have resisted efforts to establish a warning label for aspartame, stating (completely contrary to all the evidence) that complaints against the sweetener aren't sufficient to warrant such a warning.

But really, what good would a warning label do? Does the average consumer actually read the fine print on his can of diet Mountain Dew?

What's needed here is not an FDA regulation, but rather some Water Cooler Regulation. Tell your friends and family about the potential dangers of aspartame. Spread the word. And as always, feel free to share this e-Alert with them.

To start receiving your own copy of the HSI e-Alert, visit: <http://www.hsiealert.com/freecopy.html> Or forward this e-mail to a friend so they can sign-up to receive their own copy of the HSI e-Alert.

*****************************************************
My reply to this letter
**************************************************** 

Thanks for the info.

While Aspartame may be a problem, there are bigger problems that need to be addressed.

Petition to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide
Copyright 2005 epicidiot.com

Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHM) is a compound being used in products across the globe.  It is one of the most common causes of death or other accidents worldwide.

It is used as an industrial solvent and coolant, in spray-on oven cleaners, as a fire retardant, and in the production of Styrofoam.  It is a highly reactive chemical and produces strong chemical reactions when it comes in contact with sodium, potassium, and other alkali metals such as fluorine.  It forms explosive gases when combined with calcium carbide.

DHM is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year.  Most of  these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHM.  Even small amounts when inhaled can cause severe bodily harm, even death.  Symptoms of DHM ingestion can include nausea and vomiting.  Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage.

Its basis is the unstable radical Hydroxide, the components of which are found in a number of caustic, explosive, and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine, and Ethyl Alcohol.

It is also used as a dispersant in the distribution of pesticides.  Varying amounts of DHM end up in food products.  It is estimated that over 75% of U.S. agricultural products that reach the consumer contain DHM.

Use by American dairy farmers is prevalent and DHM can now be found in most U.S. milk products.

It has been found in the biopsies of excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.  What is known about these cancers is that DHM is found in detectable and biologically significant levels in virtually all tumors and other cancerous and pre-cancerous growths.  Cancer research has made significant advances in the detection and treatment of many forms of cancers.  With each new advancement, the role DHM plays in the cause of cancer is likely to be better understood.

DHM contributes to global warming and the "Greenhouse Effect," and is one of the so-called "greenhouse gasses."

Companies dump waste DHM into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal!  The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer.  Quantities of DHM have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today.  But the pollution is global, and measurable levels of DHM have been verified in ice samples taken from both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps.

Meanwhile, federal (EPA) regulations are in place to make it illegal to dispose of DHM in landfills, including those licensed for hazardous waste.  Regulations also stipulate that any DHM appearing in a landfills must be removed.  Judging from these laws it appears that the U.S. government recognizes the inherent danger DHM poses to the environment, yet the government has refused to ban the use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health of this nation," and is ignoring the tremendous risks associated with DHM.  In addition, it is our opinion that all products carrying DHM should bear a label warning consumers of the presence of DHM in that product.  Significant steps should be made to encourage farmers and manufacturers to avoid DHM, including some kind of incentive program for those who make their products DHM free.

Why haven't I heard about Dihydrogen Monoxide before?  Good question.  Historically, the dangers of DHM, for the most part, have been considered minor and manageable.  While the more significant dangers of DHM are currently addressed by a number of agencies including FDA, FEMA, and CDC, public awareness of the real and daily dangers of DHM is lower than some think it should be.

Critics of the government often cite the fact that many politicians and others in public office do not consider DHM to be a "politically beneficial" cause to get behind, and so the public suffers from a lack of reliable information on just what DHM is and why they should be concerned

DHM is dangerous, and should be eliminated.

If you haven't guessed by now, DHM is . . .WATER!!

That’s right, WATER – The stuff you drink every day.

Dihydrogen Monoxide = H2O.

Get it, Dihydrogen = H2, Monoxide = O.

This entire report was about WATER !!!!!!

**** The above statements about DHM (i.e. water) are TRUE **** yet they present a very distorted view of water (otherwise known as DHM or H2O).

The point of this is to illustrate how easy it is to use TRUE statements to create MISLEADING information to support a point of view.

See http://www.snopes.com/toxins/dhmo.htm about the teenager who used DHMO (aka DHM) as the basis for his science project

But back to Aspartame . . .

I don't claim to know whether or not Aspartame is bad for you, I'll let you be the judge of that.  However, here is some information and a different perspective that I hope is enlightening as well as entertaining and thought provoking.

----- Original Message ----- 

Subject: Aspartame

> Imagine 16,000 tons of powder. The weight of 10,600 cars approximately equals 
> 16,000 tons, so we're talking about a LOT of powder.
> But not just any powder. About 16,000 tons of aspartame is produced for 
> worldwide consumption each year. In other words, people are consuming 
> enormous quantities of this artificial sweetener, which is better known by its
> commercial names, such as NutraSweet and Equal.

Americans consume 17 billion quarts of popcorn every year.  What's your point?
Beware of scary sounding statistics.
Note: 16,000 tons averages to 0.08 ounces per person.  That's less than 1/10th of an ounce per year.  Your usage may vary.

> The most recent aspartame findings come from a large animal study
> conducted by Italian researchers at the Ramazzini Foundation, which specializes 
> in oncology and environmental sciences.
> For more than three decades, researchers simulated daily human intake of
> aspartame on 1800 rats (equal amounts of males and females). Each rat was
> assigned to one of eight dosage levels: zero mg per kilogram of body
> weight, 4 mg/Kg, 20 mg/Kg, 100 mg/Kg, 500 mg/Kg, 2,500 mg/Kg, or 5,000
> mg/Kg.  Rats began receiving aspartame at eight weeks of age, continuing 
> throughout their lives.
> The results (reported in a recent issue of the European Journal of Oncology)

See notes below on what this journal really is, or more importantly, what it is not.

> showed a "statistically significant" increase in leukemias and lymphomas
> among female rats who received as little as 20 mg/Kg per day. Current
> European regulations place an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of aspartame
> at 40 to 50 mg/Kg of body weight. That ADI is for humans, of course, not
> rats.

Have you ever heard the saying, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics?"

THIS very study also showed almost a 30% DECREASE in leukemias and lymphomas for rats that consumed 500 mg/Kg per day.

Maybe we're just not consuming enough Aspartame?  I wonder why the report didn't mention that finding?

But let's take a moment to discuss the Ramazzini study.

Granted the following information was provided by an institute with a vested interest in aspartame and should be viewed with a skeptical eye, however, this doesn't change the basic facts.

Findings by researchers at the Ramazzini Foundation from work using a similar protocol have been reviewed by the United States Food and Drug Administration's Cancer Assessment Committee which concluded that the data reported were "unreliable" due to "a lack of critical detail, questionable histopathological conclusions, and the use of unusual nomenclature to describe the tumors."

Furthermore, it is universally accepted that scientific research should be reviewed by independent pathologists. The United States National Toxicology Program (NTP) has established guidelines for pathology peer review in order to provide scientific consensus that study conclusions are valid. The Italian researchers were asked several months ago to subject their findings to the NTP peer review process but have not responded to the request. Work conducted previously at the Ramazzini Foundation has not been peer-reviewed.

The "European Journal of Oncology" in which the study will be published is not an independent scientific journal, but is produced by the Ramazzini Institute itself.
http://www.aspartame.info/aspartame_news.html 

Single studies are important, but until they have been peer reviewed they should be considered suspect.  And if the authors of a study avoid peer review and the standard protocols for research, it should be DOUBLY suspect.

Remember cold fusion?  See www.epicidiot.com/cold_fusion.htm

Here is some info from the Ramazzini Aspartame study itself, right from the horse's mouth so to speak.
http://presidiotex.com/aspartame/Soffritti.pdf

From the Ramazzini Aspartame study itself:

In our experimental conditions, it has been demonstrated, for the first time, that APM causes a dose-related statistically significant increase in lymphomas and leukaemias in females at dose levels very near those to which humans can be exposed.

So according to Ramazzini, of the hundreds of studies performed, this is the FIRST study, to demonstrate this health risk.

Whew, that's a relief!

From the Ramazzini Aspartame study itself:

When compared to the concurrent control group, an increase in the incidence of these neoplasias was also observed in males exposed to the HIGHEST dose; even though not statistically significant.

So even at the HIGHEST doses, which were 100 times the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI), which is equivalent to consuming about 2,000 cans of soda daily (and I thought I had a drinking problem), there was no statistically significant increase.

This is THEIR STUDY and THEIR CONCLUSIONS; the people claiming aspartame is harmful.

To summarize THEIR data: Of the rats given aspartame, some of the groups had higher cancer rates than the ones given none, others had lower.  Most of the differences, be they higher or lower, were NOT statistically significant, and the others were borderline.  The rats with 10 times the ADI of aspartame had lower cancer rates.

> But the research doesn't end there. The Ramazzini data, with full
> pathology reports, have been submitted to the European Food Safety
> Authority (EFSA), the European Union's counterpart to our FDA. A panel
> of experts (oh brother!) will then evaluate the findings "in the context
> of the previous extensive safety data available on aspartame."
> In other words: Expect absolutely nothing to happen. Because the EFSA so
> far has done exactly what the FDA has done with the current available
> safety data: Nothing. But that's fine. You and I and other concerned 
> citizens will take it from here with a little Water Cooler Regulation.

It may be a conspiracy, or it may be that hundreds of other credible peer-reviewed, repeatable studies show no significant health risks.  I'll lay odds that this unconfirmed, un-peer-reviewed study is not going to cause them to overturn the existing body of work.

> In 1994 the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a list
> of 61 reported adverse reactions to aspartame, including: chest pains,
> asthma, arthritis, migraine headaches, insomnia, seizures, tremors, vertigo,
> and weight gain.

Hmmm, these are also the same general symptoms reported by placebo recipients in thousands of other studies.  Hey, not to plug one of my favorite rags, but "Skeptic" magazine recently did an interesting article on the history of double blind studies (they help reduce the placebo effect) and has done numerous articles on the effects of placebos.

> Aspartame is made by combining two amino acids with methanol. According to
> an article by Dr. Joseph Mercola, methanol is the probable trigger for
> most of the adverse reactions associated with aspartame. When aspartame is
> combined with the enzyme chymotrypsin in the small intestine, methanol is
> released and breaks down into formaldehyde, a potent neurotoxin. The U.S.
> Environmental Protection Agency considers methanol to be a "cumulative
> poison" and recommends a safe consumption of no more than 7.8 mg per day/
> If you drink a one-liter beverage containing aspartame, you body creates
> seven times that amount - about 56 mg of methanol.

A glass of tomato juice provides about six times as much methanol as an equal amount of a beverage sweetened with aspartame.  THROW AWAY those cans of TOMATO POISON.  The plain truth is that many fruits and vegetables break down into methanol in the digestive system.
http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_myths_vision.html

> To start receiving your own copy of the HSI e-Alert, visit:
> <<http://www.hsiealert.com/freecopy.html>>
> <http://www.hsiealert.com/freecopy.html> Or forward this e-mail to a friend
> so they can sign-up to receive their own copy of the HSI e-Alert.

With any luck, the author has scared enough people into subscribing to his newsletter to keep his revenue stream flowing.  The newsletters are only $49 a year (Cha-Ching!)

As I said before, I don't know whether or not Aspartame is harmful, but I do believe that this report was misleading and misrepresented the facts, much like the DHM report.

Here’s the actual study

• http://www.ramazzini.it/fondazione/docs/AspartameGEO2005.pdf

Other links

• http://www.caloriecontrol.org/aspartame.html
• http://www.ameribev.org/pressroom/063004purdue.asp
• http://www.dancewithshadows.com/business/pharma/low-calorie-sweetener-aspartame.asp

Now for what you've been waiting for.  My notes on the Intelligent Design/Creation videos

I am thankful for the opportunity to view these videos.  I know it took considerable effort by those involved to put this program together.  The Seventh Day Adventist Church should be commended for providing this valuable community service.

This article is not about whether evolution or intelligent design is true.  It is simply a discussion of how the information was presented in the videos.  I don't believe this article will change anyone’s views on the origins of life, nor is it intended to.  It is only intended to illustrate the methods used to present a one-sided view of a topic, which I believe several of these videos did.  Being one sided does not make it wrong, just one sided.  In fact, much of the information was technically correct and very interesting, but somewhat misleading.  But remember the lessons from the DHM and Aspartame reports.

Some of the videos make use of the difference between the layman and scientific use of the word “theory.”  This is misleading and the authors should know better.

There’s an important difference between the layman’s use of the word “theory” and the scientific use.  To the layman a theory indicates something closer to a hypothesis or guess.  To a scientist facts and theories are not different levels of certainty, but are two completely different things.  Facts are data, such as a bone fossil.  Theories are the ideas that explain and interpret facts.  When a scientist labels something a theory, it doesn’t imply that it is a guess (that would actually be a postulate).

After all, we have Newton’s Theory of Gravitation and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.  Scientists do not believe that these are just guesses.  Implying that the theory of evolution is just a guess because scientists call it a theory is misleading.

Evolution and the Theory of  Evolution are two different things.  Most biologists consider evolution a fact.  The Theory of Evolution is simply an explanation of how evolution (the fact) works.  See Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Obviously there is some debate about both of these ideas.  Some believe that evolution is not a fact, and others believe that while evolution is a fact, the current theory of evolution does not properly explain evolution.  It is good that people question evolution.  It should not be taken for granted and should be questioned thoroughly.  These videos are good in that they question some of these ideas.

The videos make frequent use of Darwin and his own doubts and lack of understanding of evolution as proof against evolution.  While Darwin is important to evolution in a historical sense, his views and knowledge are dated compared to modern views.  This is like using the works and beliefs of the Wright Brothers to represent the current knowledge of aeronautics.  While the Wright brothers were pioneers and laid much of the groundwork, modern aviation has advanced well beyond their knowledge and ideas (and probably well beyond what even they believed could be done with flying machines).  I'm sure they had many doubts about aviation themselves.

Many of the pioneers in nuclear physics also had doubts about the A-bomb.  There are always doubts in the beginning.  If there weren't, then why conduct experiments.  That's the purpose of science.  To explore and find answers for some of these doubts.

This is one form of the “straw man” debate.  Create an easy opponent and then blow it away.

One of the videos stated that Michael J. Behe believed that bacterial flagellum (the bacteria with a propeller) was Irreducibly Complex (IC) and could not have evolved.  While it is true that Behe once held this position, he has since changed his view and now states that it could have evolved.  To be fair, he doubts that it evolved, but concedes that it is possible.  It has been shown that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex and Behe now agrees with this.  If someone claimed that I believe in Santa Clause just because at one time I did, most would consider that a lie.

To state that Behe holds a belief that he has since publicly retracted is misleading.

The video conveniently omitted a 2000 article in which Behe states he believes in evolution and does not believe in creation.  Behe states, “I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent.  In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think evolution occurred, but was guided by God."

Clearly Behe believes in evolution and doesn’t believe in creation, but the video might lead you to believe otherwise.

Behe also has said that he hadn’t meant to imply that irreducibly complex systems “by definition” cannot evolve gradually.  He also says, “I quite agree that my argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof.”  If the video producer’s goal was to present an accurate portrayal of Behe’s ideas, then wouldn’t this information be important?

William A. Dembski touts his Complex Specified Information (CSI) theory to show that biological systems are too complex to have evolved in the necessary time frame.  He states that if the total probability for a sequence of events, such as a presumed evolutionary pathway, is less than 10^-150, then there would not have been enough time for it to have evolved in the 4.5 billion years of Earth history.  For example, Dembski calculates the probability of the 30 proteins needed for the flagellum as 10^-1170,  a much smaller probability than the 10^-150 threshold, therefore making it impossible via evolution.  Dembski bases these probabilities on the No Free Lunch (NFL) math theorems and even called his book “No Free Lunch.”  But there is no mention of the fact that David Wolpert says that they do not apply to the types of systems Dembski uses them for and therefore are “fatally informal and imprecise.”  Since Wolpert was one of the mathematicians who created the NFL theorems that Dembski bases his work on his opinion is significant.  A presentation dedicated to the truth would have mentioned this.

But Wolpert could be wrong.  However, take the Kreb’s cycle for example.  Using Dembski’s calculations its probability of occurring is 10^-400, which according to Dembski is too small a chance to have occurred via evolution.  But biologists have been able to show how the Kreb’s cycle could have evolved and this has since been validated by genomic DNA sequences.  Had the biologists listened to Dembski they would have had no choice but to throw their hands up in the air and say it was impossible and nothing new would have been learned.  But instead, they did the hard work and therefore contributed valuable information to field of biology.  This is one of the biggest drawbacks of ID.  You learn nothing new by saying something was created by supernatural powers.

Dembski himself has since retreated from his position.  Although he clearly once said otherwise, he now states “I certainly never argued that the NFL theorems provide a direct refutation of Darwinism.”  Again, a presentation dedicated to the truth might have mentioned this.

The “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” (UML) video lists Dembski as a mathematician at Baylor.  Although he did head Baylor’s Institute for Faith and Learning, he has never had any affiliation with Baylor’s mathematics department.  To list him as a mathematician at Baylor is misleading.  It also listed Jed Macosko as "Molecular Biologist, UC Berkeley," and although a Berkeley graduate and former postdoctoral trainee, he has never been on the Berkeley faculty.  It spends much time refuting theories that were disproved by biologists in the 70s, yet ignores the “RNA World” theory which has been around for about ten years and answers many of the questions raised by this video.  Are these the actions of someone dedicated to presenting accurate information? 

The lecture by Duane Gish was particularly interesting.  Gish stated that neither evolution nor creationism is scientific since neither is falsifiable.  Gish then spent the remainder of his lecture attempting to falsify evolution, which he just stated couldn’t be done.  He also calls his belief Scientific Creationism, even though he himself says creationism is not scientific.  Just thought that was interesting.

Gish declared that the reptile-bird transition Archaeopteryx was not a transition because it had feathers and flew and was, therefore, a bird.  To make the assertion that Archaeopteryx did not show features of a reptile, Gish simply ignores facts about Archaeopteryx such as it possessed a pubic peduncle and a long bony tail.  Both of these features are found in reptiles and are NOT found in birds.  Archaeopteryx is clearly a mix between reptile and bird.  You may claim that it is not a transition, however, to claim that it is simply a bird either shows a complete lack of zoological understanding of birds or is intentionally misleading.

Many times the videos present problems for evolutionists and falsely implies that evolutionists do not have answers. 

One often repeated claim is that the fossil record is an embarrassment and evolutionists can’t explain the gaps in the fossil records.  This is simply not true.  The truth is that 95% of the fossils consists of shallow marine organisms such as corals and shellfish.  Of  the remaining 5%, 95% are algae and plant/tree fossils, and other invertebrate fossils including the insects.  Thus the vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) together make up only 1/4^th of 1% of the entire fossil record and most of those are only fossil fragments.  Why did the videos ignore this important information?  The reality is there are relatively few amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammal fossils.  For example, the number of dinosaur skeletons in all the world's museums (both public and university) totals only about 2,100.  “Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.  Most things die and don’t leave a fossil for the rest of us.”  We simply haven’t yet found enough fossils to fill in all the gaps.  The fossil record may be an embarrassment, but that is because we have so few, not because they don’t support change across time.  Many species lived, died, and became extinct without leaving behind any fossils.  As the video pointed out, the coelacanth was believed extinct because the newest fossil was over 70 million years old.  Yet it was still alive.  Did the coelacanth go extinct and then reappear?  No, it has been around all this time.  The area it lived in quit producing fossils and we simply have a 70 million year gap in its fossil record.  This is the case for most species.  It takes a special set of circumstances such as a sediment deposit or lava flow to create fossils and this just doesn’t happen everywhere all the time.  The conditions will exist for a while in a geographic area, create a large group of fossils for that time period, and then conditions change and nothing for thousands, even millions, of years.  All the intermediate species of that geographic area simply don’t get fossilized and therefore will never be found.  To further illustrate this point, we don’t have ANY fossils for many currently living species.  There are currently living about 2,000,000 species and it is estimated that there are at least 200,000,000 extinct species.  The are only about 250,000 species represented by the entire fossil record and many of these are of extinct species.  Does the absence of fossils for a currently living species mean that they didn’t exist in the past?  Of course not.  The Bible says that lions were in Biblical Israel, yet no lion fossils have ever been found in Israel.  Does this mean that the Bible is wrong?

Note: When Dmitri Mendeleev organized the elements into a periodic table, people laughed at him for the gaps in it.  Mendeleev used the known elements to predict the properties and fill in the gaps for the missing elements.  People don't laugh at the Periodic Table now.

The evolutionists clearly have answers.  They may be wrong.  The producers of the video may not agree with their answers.  But to imply evolutionists don’t have answers is misleading.

Another claim was that evolutionists don’t have any intermediate states for bird evolution.

Alan Gishlick in the book “Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism” sets out the special parts of the working wing and all its auxiliaries, from wrist bones to special, airfoil-producing flight feathers.  He then shows that all those parts appeared during the long course of Avian evolution over geologic time, and that for most of that long stretch, those parts functioned usefully (therefore selectably as needed for evolution) for something other than flight.  Gishlick lists the known fossil species that had those intermediate states as it evolved.

Alan Brush shows that bird scutes, scuttelae, claw sheathes, beak sheathes, and scales around the eyes are of the same chemical composition as feathers, and are controlled by the same genes.  The reticulae have been shown to be identical to crocodilian scales both in composition and their location on the DNA strand.  When bird fetuses were injected with a virus that blocked development of a specific set of proteins, the scutes (thick scales on top of a bird’s foot) developed into feathers.  This shows the close genetic relationship between scutes and feathers.  Crocodiles and some dinosaurs have similar scutes.

Generally, when a new characteristic develops from another in evolution, certain proteins, chemicals, or genetic signals are required to express this new character and suppress the old one.  When these are blocked, the old characteristic of the evolutionary ancestor will often show itself.  This has been demonstrated in birds.  The blocking of these factors has created bird fetuses with reptilian tails and teeth just like those of early bird ancestors such as Archaeopteryx. 

Here’s a list of some recently published articles on the subject:

• New Fossil Fills Gap in Bird Evolution. by Erik Stokstad. Science 2001 Jan. 12; 291: 225.
• Primitive Enantiornithine Bird & Origin of Feathers. by F. Zhang & Z. Zhou. Science 2000 Dec. 8; 290: 1955-1959.
• New Feathered Dino Firms Up Bird Links. by Dennis Normile. Science 2000 Jun. 9; 288: 1721.
• The Theropod Ancestry of Birds: New Evidence from Madagascar. by C. A. Forster etal., Science 1998 Mar. 20; 279: 1915-1919.
• Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds by J. Ruben etal., Science 1997 Nov. 14; 278: 1267-1270.
• Developmental Patterns & Identification of Homologies in Avian Hand by A. Burke & A. Feduccia. Science 1997 Oct. 24; 278: 666-668.
• Fossilized Hatchling & Bird-Dinosaur Debate. by Virginia Morell. Science 1997 Jun. 6; 276: 1501.
• Bird Evolution. Science 1997 Jun. 6; 276: 1473.
• Early Birds Rise From China Fossil Beds. by Ann Gibbons. Science 1996 Nov. 15; 274: 1083-0.
• Feathered Fossil Brings Dinosaurs & Birds Closer. byAnn Gibbons. Science 1996 Nov. 1; 274: 720-721.
• The Distribution of Integumentary Structures in a Feathered Dinosaur. by Q. Ji, etal., Nature 410: 1084-1088, 2001.
• Branched Integumental Structures in Sinornithosaurus and the Origin of Feathers. by X. Xu, etal., Nature 410: 200-204, 2001.
• Fossil Fills Critical Gap in Avian Evolution. by M. Norell & J. Clarke, Nature 409: 181-184, 11 Jan. 2001.
• Cretaceous Age for the Feathered Dinosaurs of Liaoning, China. by C. Swisher etal., Nature 400: 58-61, 01 Jul. 1999.
• Two Feathered Dinosaurs from Northeastern China by Q. Ji, etal., Nature 393: 753-761, 25 Jun. 1998.
• Theropod Bird Link Reconsidered by A. Feduccia & L. Martin, Nature 391: 754, 1998.
• Archaeopteryx-like Skull in an Enantiornithine Bird. by L. Martin & Z. Zhou, Nature 389: 556, 09 Oct. 1997.
• The Fossil Record of Feather Evolution in the Mesozoic. by L. Martin & S. Czerkas, American Zoologist 40: 687-694, 2000.
• Origin of Birds: The Final Solution? by P. Dodson, American Zoologist 40: 505-512, 2000.
• Phylogenetic Context for Origin of Feathers by S. Sumida & C. Brochu, Amer. Zoologist 40:486-503, 2000.
• The Origin and Early Evolution of Birds by K. Padian & L. Chiappe, Biological Reviews 73: 1-42, 1998.
• Development & Evolutionary Origin of Feathers by R. Prum, J. Experimental Zoology 285: 291-306, 1999

Fossils have recently been found in China that show transitional species between dinosaurs and birds.

Again, clearly the evolutionists have answers.  They may be wrong.  The producers of the video may not agree with their answers.  But to claim evolutionists don’t have answers is misleading.

This videos presented many quotes by scientists denouncing evolution.  This might lead one to believe that many scientists are opposed to evolution.  But most of the scientists quoted were not biologists and scientists are well known to be notoriously misinformed about fields outside their own area of study.  An understanding of quantum theory is of little value when speaking about evolutionary biology.  Where were the quotes from leading biologists?  This might be classified as misleading by omission because by not including the thoughts of mainstream biologists it gives the impression that many scientists disagree with evolution, when in fact greater than 99% of modern biologists believe evolution to be a fact.

None of the above proves much of anything about the validity of either creation or evolution.  It just demonstrates that the information being presented is biased and misleading.  I must admit, if I had seen these videos without the additional background information that I have, I probably would have been compelled to believe that evolution is impossible and silly.  However, it is easy to make a convincing presentation when using one-sided and misleading information.  Remember the Dihydrogen Monoxide Report.

If you are truly interested in forming an educated opinion on these topics then you must also examine the information put forth by evolutionists. 

Fair Warning: Some of their information is just as biased and misleading.

Many claim that evolutionists are out to destroy religion and faith.  Given that 99% of modern biologists accept evolution, this would have to be a vast and well-organized conspiracy to have virtually all biologists involved.  Especially when you consider that many of these are people of faith including Christians. 

Of the five founding fathers of twentieth-century evolutionary biology-Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane, Ernst Mayr, and Theodosius Dobzhansky-one was a devout Anglican who preached sermons and published articles in church magazines, one a practicing Unitarian, one a dabbler in Eastern mysticism, one an apparent atheist, and one a member of the Russian Orthodox Church and the author of a book on religion and science.

There is no inconsistency in believing in God the Creator of the universe and in evolution.  Evolution could have been designed and directed by God.  Although evolution is at odds with some interpretations of the Biblical Genesis creation, not everyone sees this as a problem.  They believe that God never intended for Genesis to be taken literally as a science lesson, but as a parable for how people should relate to God, each other, and the rest of creation.  How could men of biblical times have even understood evolution?  We’re only beginning to understand it now.

Remember the old saying, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

In much the same way the Church once taught the Earth-centered universe, some Christian groups are drawing a similar line in the sand: Either you believe that the Earth is very young as told in the Genesis account, or you don't believe the Bible.  With this firmly ingrained in their minds, how many will be driven away from the Bible as the evidence overwhelmingly mounts that the Earth is very old?  I believe that at best there is one more generation that will be willing to ignore the evidence and believe in a young Earth.  Just as Galileo's time marked the end of belief in the Earth-centered universe, the days of believing in a young Earth are numbered.

When Galileo was being persecuted by the Church for his heretical belief that the Earth rotated around the Sun, he quoted Cardinal Baronius’ statement that the purpose of the Bible was to “teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

Other videos that were viewed after this.

• Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth
• Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe
• Wonders - Planet Earth

Viewer Feedback

2006-02-02 Ty, Young Earth Creationist, wrote
Biased to Evolution
I agree that there are some problems in certain Creation/ID video presentations, but there are also some very strong arguments. It would have been less biased to list the good along with the bad.
You may have some good points, but it must be said that only so much can be fit into a presentation. A person can look at just about any presentation on any subject and find something to say, "A presentation dedicated to the truth would have mentioned this..."
It definitely is misleading to say that there are no answers on the side of the evolutionists when there are. Could it be, though, that the evolutionists didn't have any answers at the production of the video or that the producers just didn't have access to them?
I don't like your statement: "...to claim that it is simply a bird either shows a complete lack of zoological understanding of birds or is intentionally misleading." Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds and an evolutionist, claims that Archaeopteryx is simply a perching bird. And I certainly don't think "archaeopteryx is CLEARLY a mix between reptile and bird [emp. added]" no matter what The Defender's Guide To Science and Creationism says. Check out: www.apologeticspress.org/articles/473
www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter4.asp
I would like to know who the quoted scientists were who are "well known to be notoriously misinformed about fields outside their own area of study."
I totally agree with your statement: "If you are truly interested in forming an educated opinion on these topics then you must also examine the information put forth by evolutionists." The problem is, most people are not informed in the other direction. Most people have never looked at websites like: www.apologeticspress.org
www.answersingenesis.org
www.trueorigin.org
I totally disagree with your statement: "There is no inconsistency in believing in God the Creator of the universe and in evolution." I see complete inconsistency and have to agree with Richard Dawkins on this point. Evolution is the explanation of life without any outside help.
Another problem is your section on Galileo; the Bible doesn't teach an earth-centered universe, but it does teach a young earth. Answers In Genesis has many articles on this.
I know you said that some are "much better," but this article gives me the impression that all Creation/ID videos are crammed full of very weak and/or misleading straw man arguments. In that regard, and the fact that you didn't list any of their strong arguments, I actually find this article to be a little bit "biased and misleading." At least you gave your small "Fair Warning" toward the end.

epicidiot reply: While the archaeopteryx is classified as a bird (it had to be classified as something and it's closer to a bird than a reptile), it has features that are found ONLY in other reptiles and not in other birds.  Just to summarize a few: See Archaeopteryx

• Its trunk region vertebra are free, while in birds the trunk vertebrae are always fused.
• It has pubic shafts with a plate-like, and slightly angled transverse cross-section, a trait shared with dromaeosaurs, but not with birds.
• Its cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated behind the mid-brain and doesn't overlap it from behind or press down on it.  This is a reptilian feature. In birds the cerebral hemispheres are stout, cerebellum is so much enlarged that it spreads forwards over the mid-brain and compresses it downwards. Thus the shape of the brain is not like that of modern birds, but rather an intermediate stage between dinosaurs and birds.
• Neck attaches to skull from the rear as in dinosaurs, not from below as in modern birds.
• Center of cervical vertebrae have simple concave articular facets.  In birds the vertebrae are different, they have a saddle-shaped surface.
• Long bony tail with many free vertebrae up to tip (no pygostyle).  Birds have a short tail and the caudal vertebrae are fused to give the pygostyle.
• Ribs slender, without joints or uncinate processes and do not articulate with the sternum.  Birds have stout ribs with uncinate processes (braces between them) and articulate with the sternum.
• Pelvic girdle and femur joint is archosaurian rather than avian (except for the backward pointing pubis as mentioned above). Here Archae really shows its transitional nature.
• The Sacrum (the vertebrae developed for the attachment of pelvic girdle) occupies 6 vertebra.  This is the same as in reptiles and especially ornithipod dinosaurs. The bird sacrum covers between 11-23 vertebrae! So, while the variation seen in modern birds is large, it is nowhere near the number found in Archaeopteryx.
• Deltoid ridge of the humerus faces anteriorly as do the radial and ulnar condyles.  Again, typical of reptiles but NOT FOUND in birds.
• Metatarsals (foot bones) free.  In birds these are fused to form the tarsometatarsus. However, in modern bird embryos, the foot bones are initially separate as in the adult Archaeopteryx and is another character supporting a reptilian ancestry for birds. After all, why bother producing separate bones in the embryo and then fuse them? Why not produce a fused mass to start with? No adult modern bird has separate metatarsals, but they are separated, initially, in the embryo. This can be explained in terms of evolution - birds evolved from a group which had unfused metatarsals.

Archaeopteryx is clearly something other than "just a perching bird."
On the other hand, I'll agree that whether it is a missing link or not is a valid debate, especially depending on how one defines missing link.  But to dismiss it offhand as simply a bird is misleading.

The quote you reference from Alan Feduccia is not complete and does not accurately present his views on archaeopteryx.  It is one that is often used to misrepresent Feduccia.  You may want to also consider his other writings that more accurately represent his views,

The creature thus memorialized was Archaeopteryx lithographica, and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian¼ The Archaeopteryx fossil is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms--what has come to be called a "missing link," a Rosetta stone of evolution.
from The Origin and Evolution of Birds,  p.1

Be careful, it's easy to find quotes that when presented in isolation do no represent the true views of their author.  Someone who wanted to accurately represent Feduccia wouldn't use him to dismiss archaeopteryx as simply a bird.

I work with research scientists on a regular basis, some of whom are world authorities in their field of research.  Trust me when I tell you that their knowledge outside of their respective field is generally similar to well-educated members of the general population.  Ask yourself, if you needed heart surgery, would you go the world's authority on nuclear physics?  Being knowledgeable about one field does not automatically make you knowledgeable in another.

You are not alone in disagreeing with the statement: "There is no inconsistency in believing in God the Creator of the universe and in evolution."  Many people feel as you do.  But many others within the Christian community agree with the statement.  See the Clergy Letter Project.  I simply present it as a commonly-held belief.  I welcome you to write and submit an article presenting your side of why evolution and God the Creator of the universe are inconsistent.  See Submit Article.

You're right, I am harsh on the videos presented, but I didn't select them.  It just happened that the videos being presented were some of the more egregious of origins videos in that they regularly presented false and misleading information.  I have seen others since that are much better.  The Moody Bible Institute videos, such as Wonders of God's Creation - Planet Earth, tend to be factually accurate and present the data fairly.  I also have notes for reviews of several other creation videos that I found fair and accurate.  I will be adding their reviews as time permits.

This article was not intended so much as a review of the videos (the videos are reviewed in detail elsewhere), but more as a warning about how easy it to present misleading information.  And that goes for both evolutionists and creationists.

Thanks for your comments.  It's good comments like yours that keep me on my toes.

2006-02-15 Ty, Young Earth Creationist, replies
Biased to Evolution
It is good to give "a warning about how easy it is to present misleading information," but I certainly don't believe that is your main purpose. You make statements like: "And that goes for both evolutionists and creationists," but you have to agree that your website is dedicated to showing, almost exclusively, what you believe is incorrect or misleading information on the side of Creation/ID. There is nothing wrong with that, but you can't say it's not biased and one-sided. I just find it interesting that the Dihydrogen Monoxide example has been around for quite a while and has even been used by Christians.

I wasn't trying to give a "complete" presentation of Feduccia's views. My only point was to show that an educated person could simply call archaeopteryx a bird. He has said: "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that." I did say that he was an evolutionist; Feduccia believes that birds evolved from crocodilomorphs, not dinosaurs.

Many animals share characteristics similar to other animals. Homologous bones, organs, etc. can just as easily point to a common designer. I think archaeopteryx simply exhibits a mosaic like a bat or platypus. What they need to find is an animal with a halfway transition from scales to feathers.

Here is another article on archaeopteryx that is worth considering: www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i4/birds.asp

I do not want to "reinvent the wheel." AnswersInGenesis.org and ApologeticsPress.org have a plethora of articles (that I agree with) on why the Creator of the Bible doesn't fit with evolution. You may argue that an unbiblical creator might fit with evolution, but I still have to side with Richard Dawkins on that point. If "molecules to mathematicians" evolution is true, then "god" is just something man made up for whatever reasons. The hypothesis of "particles to people" evolution is the explanation of life without any outside help.

epicidiot reply: I only claim that I attempt to be unbiased in that the site will present the views from various sides, not just my views and that I try to present the information in a factual non-misleading way.

• Almost all articles have links to opposing view points.
• I encourage people who disagree with me, such as yourself, to add comments expressing their opposing views and criticisms, and encourage them to submit articles with opposing view points.
• When I add an article, I contact people that I know who have opposing views and invite them to provide rebuttals.
• I try to ensure that quotes are not taken out of context, and truly represent the views of their author.  The Feduccia quote does not accurately represent his views nor his published works.  In that sense, it is out of context and using it to represent Feduccia is misleading.  With a little effort, one can find plenty of quotes that when given in isolation don't accurately represent the speaker, especially offhand quotes from interviews, such as the Feduccia quote.  To present them as representing the speaker's views is misleading.

I appreciate your view, and certainly sites like Answers in Genesis agree with your belief that the Creator of the Bible doesn't fit with evolution, but other Christian organizations, such as Answers In Creation do believe that evolution can be compatible with the Creator of the Bible.  From their home page, "¼a creation science ministry believing in an inerrant Word of God and a literal interpretation of Genesis."  Their article Evolution and Creation Science states, "¼there is no reason why a theistic evolutionist cannot be very conservative, believing in an inerrant Bible.  It is possible to be a fundamentalist and an evolutionist."  Whether or not evolution and the inerrancy of the Bible are compatible is an important issue within the Christian community.  But this is not a religious site, and I try to limit that discussion to merely pointing out that the controversy exists and providing links to others who discuss it.  I will, however, post articles submitted by others providing these views.  See Religion and physical truth, a biologist's perspective, Age of the Earth - A Christian Perspective, Theories of Origins, and Their Strengths and Weaknesses.

Note: My "biased site" currently has over 60 links to Answers in Genesis articles, because even though I disagree with much of what the say, I agree with you that they provide some of the best opposing views.  I am also working on a "Missing Links" page that links to and discusses some of the same AiG articles you cite.

The site is still less than a year old and has plenty of growing to do.  I hope that its growth will include many more opposing views, but I need the help of people like yourself to provide them (See What do I Think).

Add your Comments
Submit a Rebuttal
Submit an Article on another topic